I'm telling you again biology is the next 1000x (dire wolf de-extinct)

[SecularIslamist]

Still under the radar. You should just slowly accumulate over the next five years. It's going to pop off. No doubt there will be some company which will probably be a winners take all - like Nvidia. What's the industry itself will take off. There are so many applications, there will be many winners. The focus is now on medical improvements but you will see applications to other areas. It will have its chatGPT moment for sure.

The next bitcoin is BIOLOGY (10,0000x guaranteed)

No I'm not talking about blackpill. Bitcoin is in discovery mode and looking for a boundary. It will be over for bitcoiners - it will always exist and grow in value but it will finally rest just like gold did after the rush. Anyone chasing it now is digging for gold during a gold rush and not...

looksmax.org

 

[rrm_ss2]

Still under the radar. You should just slowly accumulate over the next five years. It's going to pop off. No doubt there will be some company which will probably be a winners take all - like Nvidia. What's the industry itself will take off. There are so many applications, there will be many winners. The focus is now on medical improvements but you will see applications to other areas. It will have its chatGPT moment for sure.

The next bitcoin is BIOLOGY (10,0000x guaranteed)

No I'm not talking about blackpill. Bitcoin is in discovery mode and looking for a boundary. It will be over for bitcoiners - it will always exist and grow in value but it will finally rest just like gold did after the rush. Anyone chasing it now is digging for gold during a gold rush and not...

looksmax.org

what if it doesnt go up

 

[SecularIslamist]

what if it doesnt go up

 

[rrm_ss2]

you cant just expect people to invest their money in it without anything that proves it will go up either

 

[SecularIslamist]

you cant just expect people to invest their money in it without anything that proves it will go up either

You can't prove anything will go up. Yeah this is speculative but a sure winner because the developments and applications are coming. There are no longer just research laboratories. They are producing real life tangible results. I'm talking about the entire synbio industry. It's been a terrible failure for the last 15 years, but the tide is slowly turning.

Yes I may be wrong. It might be 20 or 30 years rather than 5 or 10. But it's coming. Dyor

 

[Fiivion]

Software is still king as it can scale faster but biology company is mostly a drug patent and you try to milk it for all it's worth and try to extend it

 

[Part-Time Chad]

Did they actually "bring back" that extinct wolf, or is it just a wolf that is similar to the extinct species? I'm skeptical.

 

[SecularIslamist]

Did they actually "bring back" that extinct wolf, or is it just a wolf that is similar to the extinct species? I'm skeptical.

Honestly that's a philosophical question. To their functionalist philosophy would state it looks like a dog, barks like a god, shits like a dog they call it a dog.

Software is still king as it can scale faster but biology company is mostly a drug patent and you try to milk it for all it's worth and try to extend it

Yes at the moment it is. The applications can be applied to many other things. Things like this capture public imagination just like chat GPT. When people see that it can do cool on awesome things - which in theory it can. Then it will apply to materials, energy, food etc. The possibilities are really endless. But just a word of caution - the question is is it like the internet in the 1970s or the internet in the 1980s.

I'm hoping it's the 80s. Otherwise I'll be waiting until I'm a granddad until this shit pops off.

 

[widdi]

Did they actually "bring back" that extinct wolf, or is it just a wolf that is similar to the extinct species? I'm skeptical.

from what I've read online, they compared dire wolf and grey wolf genomes and made 20 edits to grey wolf genes to give them the same appearance as dire wolves.

 

[Part-Time Chad]

from what I've read online, they compared dire wolf and grey wolf genomes and made 20 edits to grey wolf genes to give them the same appearance as dire wolves.

So, in other words, it's a mutant.

 

[Tallooksmaxxer]

maybe this is the mythological turkish she wolf

 

[Snicket]

from what I've read online, they compared dire wolf and grey wolf genomes and made 20 edits to grey wolf genes to give them the same appearance as dire wolves.

Exactly. I didn't get this news item at all. It's just a genetically altered variant of the grey wolf.
This whole story is bullshit.

 

[User28823]

the 1000x was already made yesterday my nigga

 

[whitesubhuman]

the 1000x was already made yesterday my nigga

MORE animals

 

[SecularIslamist]

Exactly. I didn't get this news item at all. It's just a genetically altered variant of the grey wolf.
This whole story is bullshit.

Whether it is the real dire wolf is a philosophical question. If you have something that is genetically like for like, to me that is the same thing. Irrespective of if it came about by natural or genetically modified means.

 

[Snicket]

Whether it is the real dire wolf is a philosophical question. If you have something that is genetically like for like, to me that is the same thing. Irrespective of if it came about by natural or genetically modified means.

It's not a philosophical question though. They're objectively not direwolves.
Even the Biosciences company behind this admitted the genetic modifications were essentially cosmetic.
You're looking at white "grey wolves".

 

[SecularIslamist]

It's not a philosophical question though. It's objectively not a direwolf.

What is a human?
It doesn't have the same ancestral lineage as the original. They've modified it by retrieving genetics from dire wolf fossil fuels.

If it's not objectively a dire wolf then what is it? I guess you could say it's a synthetic proxy of the dire wolf.

 

[Snicket]

What is a human?
It doesn't have the same ancestral lineage as the original. They've modified it by retrieving genetics from dire wolf fossil fuels.

If it's not objectively a dire wolf then what is it? I guess you could say it's a synthetic proxy of the dire wolf.

Colossal targeted genes that affected phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism—in this case, largely its appearance. The company’s scientists edited genes that affect fur color and thickness and body size, as well as ear, skull and facial shape. “We’re using a morphological species concept,” Shapiro says.

 

[SecularIslamist]

Colossal targeted genes that affected phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism—in this case, largely its appearance. The company’s scientists edited genes that affect fur color and thickness and body size, as well as ear, skull and facial shape. “We’re using a morphological species concept,” Shapiro says.

Is it a dire wolf or is it not a dire wolf? If the answer is no, then what is it? An ordinary wolf? That doesn't sound right either.

Once you get humans with genetically modified traits - would you still consider it human?

 

[Snicket]

Is it a dire wolf or is it not a dire wolf? If the answer is no, then what is it? An ordinary wolf? That doesn't sound right either.

Once you get humans with genetically modified traits - would you still consider it human?

No. It's not a direwolf. It's just a glorified grey wolf with white fur.

To make something that is genetically identical to an ancient dire wolf through gene editing “is not really possible. We can’t create that many edits at once,” she says. “But it’s also not the goal.”

 

[Ogionth]

Is it a dire wolf or is it not a dire wolf? If the answer is no, then what is it? An ordinary wolf? That doesn't sound right either.

Once you get humans with genetically modified traits - would you still consider it human?

Well, the analogy isn't correct.

The exact analogy would be, if chimpanzees are made to look like humans physically, but yet they do not have many genes that humans contain and are different in many other traits, would you call them a human or chimpanzee? well it doesn't belong to either completely, it is a mutant.

It's not a dire wolf, it's a mutant of grey wolf that resembles a dire wolf in 20 of its traits and does not resemble it in other minor thousands of traits (which is why it isn't the exact species).

 

[Snicket]

Once you get humans with genetically modified traits - would you still consider it human?

The human equivalent of the "direwolf" fake news story here would be genetically altering a human to have naturally pink hair.
And then pretending it's a separate species.

 

[Snicket]

Well, the analogy isn't correct.

The exact analogy would be, if chimpanzees are made to look like humans physically, but yet they do not have many genes that humans contain and are different in many other traits, would you call them a human or chimpanzee? well it doesn't belong to either completely, it is a mutant.

It's not a dire wolf, it's a mutant of grey wolf that resembles a dire wolf in 20 of its traits and does not resemble it in other minor thousands of traits (which is why it isn't the exact species).

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[SecularIslamist]

No. It's not a direwolf. It's just a glorified grey wolf with white fur.

To make something that is genetically identical to an ancient dire wolf through gene editing “is not really possible. We can’t create that many edits at once,” she says. “But it’s also not the goal.”

There's no such thing as a glorified grey wolf. You're just making up your own definition of what they are.

Well, the analogy isn't correct.

The exact analogy would be, if chimpanzees are made to look like humans physically, but yet they do not have many genes that humans contain and are different in many other traits, would you call them a human or chimpanzee? well it doesn't belong to either completely, it is a mutant.

It's not a dire wolf, it's a mutant of grey wolf that resembles a dire wolf in 20 of its traits and does not resemble it in other minor thousands of traits (which is why it isn't the exact species).

It's contested but saying it's a mutant of a grey wolf is a stretch. Saying it's a synthetic dire wolf is more accurate.

Humans share 96% of DNA with each other but they are all humans. The other 4% distinguish us.

 

[Snicket]

There's no such thing as a glorified grey wolf. You're just making up your own definition of what they are.




It's contested but saying it's a mutant of a grey wolf is a stretch. Saying it's a synthetic dire wolf is more accurate.

Humans share 96% of DNA with each other but they are all humans. The other 4% distinguish us.

Can we at least agree it's not a direwolf like they are claiming?
I never said it was strictly speaking a grey wolf.
I just siad that for all intents and purposes, it's a grey wolf with some cosmetic alterations made to it.
Colossal Biosciences have themselves stated that they primarily targeted genes affectecting phenotype.

They're not Direwolves.

 

[Ogionth]

There's no such thing as a glorified grey wolf. You're just making up your own definition of what they are.




It's contested but saying it's a mutant of a grey wolf is a stretch. Saying it's a synthetic dire wolf is more accurate.

Humans share 96% of DNA with each other but they are all humans. The other 4% distinguish us.

Again, you've said something without proper knowledge.

Synthetic is used for more gene edits which clearly isn't the case here, mutant is actually the correct word as the number of gene edits were low (since they only replicated 20 traits).

Followed with more false knowledge, "Humans share 96% of DNA with each other", actually no, they share 99.9% of DNA with each other and that 96% is for Human-Chimpanzees.

 

[Snicket]

Again, you've said something without proper knowledge.

Synthetic is used for more gene edits which clearly isn't the case here, mutant is actually the correct word as the number of gene edits were low (since they only replicated 20 traits).

Followed with more false knowledge, "Humans share 96% of DNA with each other", actually no, they share 99.9% of DNA with each other and that 96% is for Human-Chimpanzees.

Exactly. Even chimpanzees and humans share around 99% DNA, technically 98.8%.

 

[looks>books]

Still under the radar. You should just slowly accumulate over the next five years. It's going to pop off. No doubt there will be some company which will probably be a winners take all - like Nvidia. What's the industry itself will take off. There are so many applications, there will be many winners. The focus is now on medical improvements but you will see applications to other areas. It will have its chatGPT moment for sure.

The next bitcoin is BIOLOGY (10,0000x guaranteed)

No I'm not talking about blackpill. Bitcoin is in discovery mode and looking for a boundary. It will be over for bitcoiners - it will always exist and grow in value but it will finally rest just like gold did after the rush. Anyone chasing it now is digging for gold during a gold rush and not...

looksmax.org

Not to mention designer babies using crispr

We may just have like build a Chad in the next ten years

 

[SecularIslamist]

Again, you've said something without proper knowledge.

Synthetic is used for more gene edits which clearly isn't the case here, mutant is actually the correct word as the number of gene edits were low (since they only replicated 20 traits).

Can we at least agree it's not a direwolf like they are claiming?
I never said it was strictly speaking a grey wolf.
I just siad that for all intents and purposes, it's a grey wolf with some cosmetic alterations made to it.
Colossal Biosciences have themselves stated that they primarily targeted genes affectecting phenotype.

They're not Direwolves.

And dire wolf share 99% DNA with grey wolf. What's the point? Is a human with genetic edits still a human or a mutant?

It's a slippery slope. Like I this raises ethical and philosophical question. But yes I can agree that it is neither 100% adire wolf nor a grey wolf. If you're functionalist philosopher then you would probably say it is a dire wolf.

Followed with more false knowledge, "Humans share 96% of DNA with each other", actually no, they share 99.9% of DNA with each other and that 96% is for Human-Chimpanzees.

All right what's supposed to say 99% I didn't have this figure memorized unlike you

 

[Snicket]

And dire wolf share 99% DNA with grey wolf. What's the point? Is a human with genetic edits still a human or a mutant?

It's a slippery slope. Like I this raises ethical and philosophical question. But yes I can agree that it is neither 100% adire wolf nor a grey wolf. If you're functionalist philosopher then you would probably say it is a dire wolf.

All right what's supposed to say 99% I didn't have this figure memorized unlike you

There is no complex philosophical question here. It's a mutant grey wolf.

 

[SecularIslamist]

Not to mention designer babies using crispr

We may just have like build a Chad in the next ten years

If gene edits were made to the embryo only I got green eyes and 6 foot and 12 incher

There was a Chinese scientists claimed to do this I think he was jailed lmao.

 

[SecularIslamist]

There is no complex philosophical question here. It's a mutant grey wolf.

Functionalism (philosophy of mind) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[looks>books]

If gene edits were made to the embryo only I got green eyes and 6 foot and 12 incher

There was a Chinese scientists claimed to do this I think he was jailed lmao.

Over when sea and india gets hold of these

 

[Ogionth]

And dire wolf share 99% DNA with grey wolf. What's the point? Is a human with genetic edits still a human or a mutant?

I never derived my argument from "How much of DNA do they share?".

If you've spent even a minute on trying to comprehend what I had said, you'd know that my argument was from the fact that they're not exact species of dire wolves thus calling them dire wolves is not appropriate.

A human with genetic edits (unless every single gene is made similar to another species, which is impossible as of now), is a mutant human ofcourse, that's the whole argument.

It's a slippery slope. Like I this raises ethical and philosophical question. But yes I can agree that it is neither 100% adire wolf nor a grey wolf. If you're functionalist philosopher then you would probably say it is a dire wolf.

I don't think you get what the argument even was in the first place, there is no philosophy here, Mister.

All right what's supposed to say 99% I didn't have this figure memorized unlike you

I mean, I don't really care abt memorizing the figure but you used it as an argument and it wasn't an appropriate one, that's why I even mentioned it in the first place.

 

[Snicket]

Functionalism (philosophy of mind) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Scientifically anyway, they just altered genes affecting phenotype. It's a cosmetic genetic modification - that's it.
Would a human genetically altered to have naturally green hair be considered a different species?
It would be a mutation sure but not a different species in this instance.

 

[SecularIslamist]

I never derived my argument from "How much of DNA do they share?".

If you've spent even a minute on trying to comprehend what I had said, you'd know that my argument was from the fact that they're not exact species of dire wolves thus calling them dire wolves is not appropriate.

A human with genetic edits (unless every single gene is made similar to another species, which is impossible as of now), is a mutant human ofcourse, that's the whole argument.


I don't think you get what the argument even was in the first place, there is no philosophy here, Mister.

I mean, I don't really care abt memorizing the figure but you used it as an argument and it wasn't an appropriate one, that's why I even mentioned it in the first place.

No this is 100% a philosophical question. You're arguing on the basis of biological essentialism. And from your perspective yes it's absolutely not a dire wolf. But I'm saying those functionalist (of which colossal bioscience subscribe to) will say it is a dire wolf.

At the end of the day this just opens up a can of worms. This isn't the end of the argument. Ship of Theseus paradox.

Scientifically anyway, they just altered genes affecting phenotype. It's a cosmetic genetic modification - that's it.
Would a human genetically altered to have naturally green hair be considered a different species?
It would be a mutation sure but not a different species in this instance.

If someone was genetically modified to have a tail or horn would it still be human or mutant? Their offsprings too would have it.

 

[Snicket]

If someone was genetically modified to have a tail or horn would it still be human or mutant? Their offsprings too would have it.

It would depend on the extent of the mutation.
In this case, all they did was change some very surface level pheontypes of the grey wolves.

 

[Ogionth]

No this is 100% a philosophical question. You're arguing on the basis of biological essentialism. And from your perspective yes it's absolutely not a dire wolf. But I'm saying those functionalist (of which colossal bioscience subscribe to) will say it is a dire wolf.

This is not from my perspective, this is objective reality.

The philosohical question isn't relevant to us discussing objective reality pertinent to a topic of BIOLOGY.

How is it more appropriate to consider a Biological invention, more pertinent to philosophical terms than Biology itself?

At the end of the day this just opens up a can of worms. This isn't the end of the argument. Ship of Theseus paradox.

You've made it one, the philosophical aspect wasn't needed in this discussion.

If someone was genetically modified to have a tail or horn would it still be human or mutant? Their offsprings too would have it.

I don't think you know what the term mutant means lol.

Google is free, mister.

 

[SecularIslamist]

It would depend on the extent of the mutation.
In this case, all they did was change some very surface level pheontypes of the grey wolves.

That's a very grey line. Hence why people class it on the basis of function.

Not that I agree. Both you and @Ogionth seem to imply I do. I'm just saying some people would absolutely say so.

 

[Ogionth]

It would depend on the extent of the mutation.
In this case, all they did was change some very surface level pheontypes of the grey wolves.

The definition of the term "Mutant" itself would clarify the point but he is not willing to accept anything.

 

[SecularIslamist]

This is not from my perspective, this is objective reality.

The philosohical question isn't relevant to us discussing objective reality pertinent to a topic of BIOLOGY.

How is it more appropriate to consider a Biological invention, more pertinent to philosophical terms than Biology itself?

You've made it one, the philosophical aspect wasn't needed in this discussion.

I don't think you know what the term mutant means lol.

Google is free, mister.

Yes this biological invention has a philosophical implications about what it means to be something. That's exactly

If you call something a mutant it has a mutation. Every single special has a mutation!! Even h If it's a synthetically engineered mutation does an automatically make it a "mutant" lmao? No. You're just watching too much X-Men

 

[SecularIslamist]

The definition of the term "Mutant" itself would clarify the point but he is not willing to accept anything.

This is not from my perspective, this is objective reality.

The philosohical question isn't relevant to us discussing objective reality pertinent to a topic of BIOLOGY.

How is it more appropriate to consider a Biological invention, more pertinent to philosophical terms than Biology itself?



You've made it one, the philosophical aspect wasn't needed in this discussion.

I don't think you know what the term mutant means lol.

Google is free, mister.

This could be the start of an entirely new system of species. So yes it raises philosophical questions. This isn't my opinion, "mister".

People are having this discussion right now and they are repeating what you are saying - unlike you I'm not denying what you're saying. I'm just saying it's a perspective.

 

[Snicket]

That's a very grey line. Hence why people class it on the basis of function.

Not that I agree. Both you and @Ogionth seem to imply I do. I'm just saying some people would absolutely say so.

This is just a very poor effort at being an intellectual.

All I ever said was that the so called direwolves are a genetically altered variant of the grey wolf.

That's it. I didn't want to have a philosophical debate and shouldn't have been drawn into it because it's pointless.

 

[SecularIslamist]

This is just a very poor effort at being an intellectual.

All I ever said was that the so called direwolves are a genetically altered variant of the grey wolf.

That's it. I didn't want to have a philosophical debate and shouldn't have been drawn into it because it's pointless.

I'm not being intellectual. Nor do I understand the technology behind this even though I've been following synthetic biology for five years.

I'm just saying this raises philosophical and ethical questions about what it means to be something.

 

[Snicket]

I'm not being intellectual. Nor do I understand the technology behind this even though I've been following synthetic biology for five years.

I'm just saying this raises philosophical and ethical questions about what it means to be something.

Okay. Fair enough. I was just saying that they have no brought back the direwolf.
It's objectively a genetic variant of a grey wolf.

 

[Ogionth]

This could be the start of an entirely new system of species.

That's irrelevant to our discussion
Infact, it reinforces the point that since they are different species, they aren't exactly the dire wolves you've been calling them.

So yes it raises philosophical questions. This isn't my opinion, "mister".

They do raise them but in this matter, they are not needed and in our discussion, they were not pertinent.

I've already explained this, why do you keep repeating things?

People are having this discussion right now and they are repeating what you are saying - unlike you I'm not denying what you're saying. I'm just saying it's a perspective.

 

[LLcel]

dnr @Ogionth @SecularIslamist @Snicket

 

[Snicket]

dnr @Ogionth @SecularIslamist @Snicket

Robin red balls, why are you tagging me?

 

[LLcel]

Robin red balls, why are you tagging me?

just to remind u that i read absolutely nothing any of u three wrote, thought it would b nice to mention

 

[SecularIslamist]

That's irrelevant to our discussion
Infact, it reinforces the point that since they are different species, they aren't exactly the dire wolves you've been calling them.

They do raise them but in this matter, they are not needed and in our discussion, they were not pertinent.

I've already explained this, why do you keep repeating things?

You seem not to like people with a different view "mister". Unlike yourself all you seem to want to do is belittle others who don't agree with you as dumb and uneducated. You said it's a mutant version of a dire wolf. I simply responded (for people at colossal bioscience) if it looks, acts, and displays characteristics of a dire wolf (distinct from a grey wolf) it is a dire wolf - something which I don't actually subscribe to myself. I actually take the position that it's a completely new category of a genetically engineered species.