What are your basics of facts that they had such tumors, next we could do it with animals that are here right now and have immunity to tumors or cancer, which a prime example would be the shark.
But we could have a broader view on how, the genetic mak-up of the dinosaurs is different allowing us to look for similarities in what causes the tumors to form.
then why bring all of them back to life, we should only bring back ones that are plant eaters, make sure there small and inject them with tumors in order to test this. of course we need to realise that the backlash will be great so it must be done top secectly in government locations.
Thats disgusting You would bring back an EXTINCT species just so you can cut them open Test them GIVE THEM CANCER THE MOST PAINFUL DISEASE AS OF NOW, Just so we can learn a few tidbits of information?
Because its impossible to train and domesticate mean eaters unless they have a pack mentality. of cource the only dinosaurs that where meat eaters and had a pack mentality where the rapotors and it wouldn't be like makeing a dog out of a wolf, no raptors would fuck you up. the best bet is small plant eating dinosaurs.
With what we know of now the recreation of a dinosaur would have deterioration of the brain and lessen the understanding, response and notice of pain to the animal, also, would not the scattered pain of a few animals for the relief of pain of those that can pronounce their pain and have family that also share the pain of cancer be worth it?
The recreated dinosaur wouldn't have a family and it also wouldn't be able to feel the pain like we do. They still know its there but instead of feeling remorse and such they just ignore it, an example is like those squirrels that have tumors, they dont sit around and do nothing, they keep living because they dont see the illness as anything but a lump on their back.
He makes some points here, however with or without a family your still going to fell some sort of pain. Pain requires a nervess system and since im going with the assumption that dinosaurs are still alive then it of my own believe that they do infact fell pain, however i don't believe there going to be argued against and the resarch on them could lead to a cure for cancer which begs the question of "is the sacrifice of one thing to save many species" justified to which i say ________________ i honestly don't know. However i say it would be easier to just do the research on known species that have cancer immunity like sharks.
Then explain to me why we should have organisations "protect" endangered species who obviously can't adapt.
Because people feel we should waste our money on charity, and they can't wait to spend it on the most pointless organisation or cause they can find.
I don't believe we should. I'm all for animal care and all, but were apart of nature, therefore the animals must learn to adapt to this new mammal in nature. Do i think whaling should be stopped, yes, do I think deforestation should be stopped, yes should we stop nature from taking its course, Hell no.
What's wrong with whaling? I really don't get it. We, and every single carni/omnivore has hunted before us, I see no reason to change that. As for deforesting, we can probably stop doing that once we can genetically modify trees to grow in a week. Oh, and kill off all environmentalists who'll undoubtedly hate it.
Indeed, whaling doesn't seem so bad to me, if you consider we do eat fish and pigs, why not eat whales? Exactly the same.
Yeah the Boom of krill will really help the local fish populations, also there is no longer any need to hunt whales, we used to do it for Oil, now we do it for perfume...
