Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
-23
#2 - snakefire has deleted their comment [-]
#37 to #2 - bakajack (06/01/2013) [-]
you'd be correct if it were a dinosaur, however I believe we can safely recover anything below 75,000 years (source is national geographic a few months ago)
#36 to #2 - hellfiazz (06/01/2013) [-]
The half-life of frozen DNA is up to 50,000 years.

So shut the **** up.
User avatar #24 to #2 - qazsa (06/01/2013) [-]
I think you accidentally chemistry your biology.
#10 to #2 - anonymous (06/01/2013) [-]
but what about the picture of the blood.
User avatar #12 to #10 - snakefire (06/01/2013) [-]
I didn't say the blood would be gone. I just said it would be useless
0
#25 to #12 - swiftykidd **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#8 to #2 - themongoose (06/01/2013) [-]
What?    
   
Half-Life refers to the amount of time that it takes half of the radioactive atoms to decay into a stable element (the same one or a transmuted one). It means they are throwing off alpha, beta, or gamma particles because of the instability. If blood is insanely radioactive, sure it would have  a half life. But that's not a thing. And even if it did, the blood and flesh wouldn't evaporate into nothing (a banana might be a different story because the potassium 40 turns into argon 40 which is a gas. But even then, there is not enough potassium in a banana to completely vanish because of radioactive decay).
What?

Half-Life refers to the amount of time that it takes half of the radioactive atoms to decay into a stable element (the same one or a transmuted one). It means they are throwing off alpha, beta, or gamma particles because of the instability. If blood is insanely radioactive, sure it would have a half life. But that's not a thing. And even if it did, the blood and flesh wouldn't evaporate into nothing (a banana might be a different story because the potassium 40 turns into argon 40 which is a gas. But even then, there is not enough potassium in a banana to completely vanish because of radioactive decay).
#33 to #8 - wiredguy (06/01/2013) [-]
Actually, he just has his words and terminology mixed up.   
   
While "half-life" does usually refer to radioactive decay, it just generally means the time in which it takes the count of a certain type of particles in a system to half, through any means.   
For example - we often hear about the "half-life" of toxins in the body, even though they aren't radioactive, and are simply being metabolised into smaller, harmless molecules.   
   
Lots of biological substances, especially DNA, do have relatively short half-lives within their own, enclosed systems. I was reading a while ago about some ants that had been preserved in amber, but which couldn't be cloned, because their DNA had degraded somewhat.   
   
Though I couldn't say this exactly for the mammoth, since the actual experts seem to have hope they will be able to find cloneable material, I'm just saying that you aren't entirely accurate in your correction.   
   
Have a source, too.   
www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
Actually, he just has his words and terminology mixed up.

While "half-life" does usually refer to radioactive decay, it just generally means the time in which it takes the count of a certain type of particles in a system to half, through any means.
For example - we often hear about the "half-life" of toxins in the body, even though they aren't radioactive, and are simply being metabolised into smaller, harmless molecules.

Lots of biological substances, especially DNA, do have relatively short half-lives within their own, enclosed systems. I was reading a while ago about some ants that had been preserved in amber, but which couldn't be cloned, because their DNA had degraded somewhat.

Though I couldn't say this exactly for the mammoth, since the actual experts seem to have hope they will be able to find cloneable material, I'm just saying that you aren't entirely accurate in your correction.

Have a source, too.
www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
#38 to #33 - themongoose (06/01/2013) [-]
He said the blood would be unrecoverable, i.e., implying that you couldn't get that amount in a test tube. Then specifically used radioactive decay. For his comment, the correction was perfect.   
   
"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."   
   
This is taken from the link you posted. Our mammoth friend was probably frozen in ideal preservation temperature (or below) only 10,000 years ago. So his DNA has about 1.49 million years to go before it's unreadable. When you freeze something, the things that cause decay (enzymatic activity, microbes, temperature, and oxygenation) almost come to a halt.    
   
I think his double might be walking around again soon.
He said the blood would be unrecoverable, i.e., implying that you couldn't get that amount in a test tube. Then specifically used radioactive decay. For his comment, the correction was perfect.

"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

This is taken from the link you posted. Our mammoth friend was probably frozen in ideal preservation temperature (or below) only 10,000 years ago. So his DNA has about 1.49 million years to go before it's unreadable. When you freeze something, the things that cause decay (enzymatic activity, microbes, temperature, and oxygenation) almost come to a halt.

I think his double might be walking around again soon.
User avatar #40 to #38 - wiredguy (06/01/2013) [-]
One, this
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4616480/Mammoths+Link+in+Description/12#12

Two, I never said myself it would be unusable. In fact, I said exactly the opposite, so I don't know exactly why you're trying to push your opinion onto me when I already agree with it.

And it would almost definitely have died longer than 10000 years ago.
Mammoths went extinct around 4.5 thousand years ago, but first became a recognisable species around 5 million years ago. To assume that this individual specimen was one of the last mammoths ever is pretty unlikely.
Though, in fairness, that is indeed what the article says, ten thousand years, and that is why we're so lucky to have found her.

Only time will tell. The cloning itself will probably be one of the harder elements of the operation anyway.
#14 to #8 - asasqw (06/01/2013) [-]
And since we know the Half-Life of most elements we can put a date on near anything we find by examining the carbon in it. The only Half-Life we don't know is 3.
User avatar #9 to #8 - decay ONLINE (06/01/2013) [-]
You mentioned my name!
User avatar #17 to #9 - LolYourAjew (06/01/2013) [-]
Lucky you, I never seem to get it
 Friends (0)