@BicycleRepairMan

That scientist gave his reason for the impossibility this way: "Paabo said because the Neanderthal DNA was scattered in imperfect fossils, the notion of cloning a Neanderthal was far-fetched." (Source.)


It sounds like he's talking about cloning one individual Neanderthal, rather than synthesizing a Neanderthal genome from many incomplete fossils.

Genomes are just a series of 4 letters... so future tech will only need the complete sequence of those 4 letters. Degradation like a video recorded in low quality doesn't apply... you either can determine which of the 4 letters is in that spot, or you have to get another fossil sample that has that location intact.


Yeah, Naku's value seems to be that he's a nice guy that the public can relate to.

>> ^Velocity5:

@BicycleRepairMan
Science isn't 100% or nothing. Creating someone who is 95% neanderthal would still be scientifically useful.


Well, thats not really how genes, genomes and sequencing works. You can sequence a genome 100% , but the accuracy might not be perfect, then you can sequence bits and peices to determine familiarity etc and that might be close to 100% in accuracy. The point is that just because someone says "we have sequenced the Neanderthal genome" that doesnt have to mean that that sequencing is even remotely useable as a cloning template or whatever.

And you cant just make a "95% neanderthal" and expect it to be "almost neanderthal".

The devil, or neanderthal in this case, is in the details, and what we have to work with, regardless of future technology is degraded bits of DNA thats tens of thousands of years old. Again, think about it like a video in recorded in low quality, its not going to be HD just because you have a fancy computer.

I googled this stuff to see if my skepticism was warranted: Here is a quote from one of the people who actually did the sequencing (taken from Wikipedia):

In February 2009, the Max Planck Institute's team, led by geneticist Svante Pääbo, announced that they had completed the first draft of the Neanderthal genome[3] An early analysis of the data suggested in "the genome of Neanderthals, a human species driven to extinction" "no significant trace of Neanderthal genes in modern humans".[17] New results suggested that some adult Neanderthals were lactose intolerant.[14] On the question of potentially cloning a Neanderthal, Pääbo commented, "Starting from the DNA extracted from a fossil, it is and will remain impossible."

So there you have it. Naku is, once again, talking shit, and should stick to his own field of study.

Storm troopers are not clones, no. One of a few bad presumptions in Red Letter Media's reviews.

Not to be too picky, but I thought that Storm Troopers were all clones.

who cares?
as long as it's not an actual ripoff or clone, like unfortunately has happened a few times with games being sold by assholes who steal, and do very little except maybe change the name of the game, i think it's ok.

If you add something new (be it gameplay mechanics, art style, narrative, etc) it's already worth it.

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me?

Alright, Ill answer your "refutations" then:

"Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change?"

If you read my post, I explained why : Because there is no evidence that suggest it is changing, and no known physical mechanisms that can produce such change. The moon could suddenly start orbiting the other direction relative to earth tomorrow, but there is no signs, no evidence, that suggests or implies that it will, and also physics dont allow it unless it is pushed or pulled by some very large force etc.
Bottom line, change in the decay rate is an assumption of something for which there is no evidence. Thats why scientists dont waste their time suspecting this.

As for the line "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". Well thats a poetic thing and all, but its not really true when you think about it for a little bit: for the most part, this is how we exclude things from our reality, and separate what is real or not. It is perfectly consistent to say "I really dont think this thing exist" while remaining, in principle, open minded. There might be green hairy monsters hiding under my bed, I can never know for absolute certain, but I dont THINK so, the absense of evidence convinces me there are none.

The same is true in say, particle physics, there may be thousands of different "higgs-bosons" of different kinds doing all sorts of crazy shit in physics, but again, in the absense of evidence... you cant just build your ideas around fantasies.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality?
Are you alking about illustrations of the geologic column? Then yeah, I'm aware that it doesnt look like that in real-life, but the term is definately real, and yes, erosion and things like that can expose old layers to fresh air, this is of course well know in biology and geology. When I say fossils are layed down in order, I dont mean that they are all physically on top of eachother, but that the dating of the layers match with the kind of animals found in that era. IE: there are no "fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as one biologist replied when asked what would truly disprove evolution.


Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Hahaha, if that was said by an actual molecular biologist capable of finding his own ass, I'll eat my hat. This is so obviously Creo-speak from here on to hell. The first thing an actual biologist would do would be to question the use of the word "information" (I'm assuming he's asking about the information contained in DNA) in this context. Because we refer to DNA as a language and "it contains all the information needed to assemble a human" and so on, Creationists think of DNA as some sort of literary masterpiece, it seems. The truth is of course that its 4 acids spelling 95% repetetive gibberish intersped with some interesting bits that code for proteins and do actual useful stuff.

They also seems to think that (perhaps because they believe it themselves) humans existed from the get-go, and that DNA somehow evolved inside us or some shit like that. (Like one creationist who asked Richard Dawkins how we humans peed before our penises and vaginas evolved..) Anyway, like our penises, our DNA is of course much older than humans themselves, We are simply the latest iterations of a nearly endless line of attemps by nucleic acids to clone themselves by way of making an animal that does the reproduction.

I highly suspect that interview was faked by creationists , but even if it wasnt, it'd just mean that there's a molecular biologist out there who doesnt know fuck all about molecular biology and hold some strange beliefs, and he's wrong. Simple as that.


You then have the obligatory list of quotations, and what can I say?.. I can see how you think these are somehow indicating a plot or something against creationist, but honestly this is just plain quotemining.

>> ^MrFisk:

I want one.


Me too. Actually, I would like many clones. ~

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?

I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences. Blue people stuck in red states are upset that some people can't afford the treatment they need, while red people stuck in blue states mostly are just bellyaching because they think someone got helped by a doctor, and that maybe some of their precious dollars were used to commit that horrifying act of decency.

Hence the video.

I'd be fine with a federalist approach if what we were talking about was differing ideas of how to achieve universal coverage at a basic quality level (and incidentally, the ACA allows for states to do their own thing as long as it covers as many people as well as ACA's system would). Instead we seem to have differing ideas about what our moral obligations to our fellow citizens are: keeping taxes low, or making sure everyone can afford the healthcare they need?

As someone who skews libertarian overall, I have to say I'm glad Obamacare is a go. It's one of the times I totally break with the Libertarian line.

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

My main concern with Obamacare is that it won't do enough. I wish we had gotten the public option as well. I'd have more confidence in prices coming down with the extra competition.

>> ^shuac:

Very true. And while all technology products are derivative of earlier products to some degree, I think Microsoft does more bandwagon-jumping than most. Let's look at the evidence.
Java, made by Sun. "Reimagined" by Microsoft.
Console gaming, made by Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Sony, et al. Microsoft gives us Xbox.
Online Music, pioneered by Napster, made legitimate by Apple. Microsoft gives us MSN Music.
MP3 player, pioneered by Rio, made super popular by Apple. Microsoft gives us Zune.
Internet search, pioneered by Archie in 1990, made insanely profitable by Google. Microsoft gives us MSN. And Live Search. And Bing.
Far as tablet computing goes, Microsoft actually has a much bigger history than Apple. I remember MS peddling tablets back in 2001 with XP. Trouble is, XP was never designed as a touch interface. Even as recent as 2008, Microsoft tried this strategy with the Origami.
The innovation Apple made is to take its smartphone OS (whose design is based on touch) and pull it up to the tablet rather than take a full-blown desktop OS and push it down. This is the idea Microsoft is copying with Surface and Windows 8.
Other than Kinect, which is an innovative product since it is more than merely a response to the Wii, I'm not sure Microsoft invented anything. Even its flagship Office suite is based on earlier software (WordStar, WordPerfect, dBase, Lotus 1-2-3). In fact, when Microsoft first licensed MS-DOS to IBM for a huge profit back in 1981, it was essentially QDOS, which they purchased outright from some guy for $50,000. Deal of the century.
You may say, "Well Apple didn't invent the MP3 player. Why aren't they guilty of copying too?"
They are. But Microsoft's history is rife with this sort of "me-too" thing in a way no other company's is. Let me distil my point into one sentence: How many companies are copying Microsoft's products?
To sum up: Microsoft is slim on innovation, fat on looking over the shoulders of the smart kids in class...>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^mtadd:
Microsoft never fails to innovate their name on someone else's product.

Yes, because the iPad was, of course, the first tablet ever.



Cool story bro.

No, seriously though, you do raise some interesting arguments. The only point I was trying to make is that it seems a bit reductionist to dismiss the Surface as merely an iPad clone, when it seems like Microsoft is legitimately trying to do some interesting things with it and Windows 8, rather than just jumping on the iPad bandwagon.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.


How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods

This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

>> ^Sagemind:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Darth-Maul-returns-Star-Wars-Clone-Wars


*isdupe