/qa/ - Question & Answer

>>832281 (OP)
nigga fuck you these are cute don't say no

>>832281 (OP)
>bring back long extinct species for no reason
Why

>>832283
Because science

>>832282
They are cute yes, but the "close-related" thing are kinda funny and nonsense at the same time, for an example some birds are "close-related" to dinosaurs

>>832281 (OP)
i really don't like this
they look cute but they shouldn't exist

what if they're uncomfortably hot their entire lives? what if they're not capable of grooming themselves? what if they're self-hating?
genetically modifying animals for aesthetics like this is awful
the original species evolved to look the way they do for a reason, doing shit like this risks introducing design flaws that would never occur in nature

this is just a proof of concept with a handful of mice so it's not too bad
but what they're working towards will definitely be used at a mass scale by places like zoos once it's ready which will suck when they do it to some species that has a long lifespan and only realise the genetically modified animals have been in agony since birth 40 years later

>shut up retard we've already been doing this for centuries via selective breeding
i hate that too, pugs shouldn't exist

>>832287
There's nothing wrong with using paraphyletic groups when discussing animal groups and they're completely scientifically valid, for example: fish is a paraphyletic group, reptile is a paraphyletic group, and even within reptiles lizard is a paraphyletic group, but no no no, to these "i hecking love science" pseudo-intellectual spergs every group must be monophyletic which leads to them parroting nonsense like "hey bro did you know humans are fish" even if humans have evolved well beyond that point and have lost all definining characteristics of fishes.

>>832302
Okay pucker up faggot we’re injecting you next you stupid fuck

I disnt read the rest of it so this >>832318
Is partly projection
But in all seriousness, how else are we gna test shit like this? You just expect us not to do anything at all and refuse to test on animals?

>>832318
>>832319
i have no qualms with using animals to test useful applications of gene editing
i'm against messing with animals' genetics for purely selfish purposes like aesthetics

selectively bred dogs like pugs for example have tons of health issues like not being able to breathe properly
i imagine gene editing to make animals more appealing to pet owners and zoo visitors will result in health issues much worse than selective breeding ever did

>>832353
Gene editing zoo animals goes against the whole fucking point honestly, like, i visit the zoo because i wanna see one of nature's animals without exposing myself to the mortal danger of actually being near them in the wild, so to visit the zoo to see an artificial lifeform instead of something that lives in nature makes no sense.

>>832357
there is no usecase for recreating woolly mammoths aside from sticking them in a zoo so i assume that's the goal

>>832359
I've heard they have a plan of introducing de-extincted mammoths into russia in order to recreate the ancient mammoth steppe biome and that will stop climate change