Maybe it cures cancer.

The one thing I want to see before I die, is a live mammoth. Read about the possibility when I was a kid, and now 35 year later I'm just as eager.

Intelligent humanoid? You assume that they will be human like?

Be sure to include a disclaimer so they can choose whether they really want to clone our species.

Homo Sapiens Recreation Disclaimer
"The creature you are about to clone is prone to fits of self-destructive illogical behaviour including but not limited to creation of massively destructive weapons, blind violence inducing adherence to fact less self created religious mythology, and short-sighted all encompassing environmental destruction"

Wait, how did this discussion turn out to be about Rick Santorum? Ancient fruit tissue?

OP = Good stuff. Later in the thread, not so good stuff.

Self hating bleeding heart comment noted.

What is now permafrost used to be a much warmer ecosystem back then (30,000 years ago) - what caused that ancient global warming? Certainly not people burning fossil fuels.
And a big round of applause for Russian scientists!

StMiller, don't forget to add: a propensity to imbibe mild altering drugs, sit around doing nothing while watching others be productive, and refusal to accept personal responsibility for anything that happens. Don't want those intelligent creatures to unwittingly create a whole new welfare state on their planet.

@Max: global climate change is part of the earth's natural cycle. There have been numerous ice ages and warm ages that alternate. Some scientists have even proposed that this represents a "battle" between the interests of land and ocean ecosystems (i.e. ocean ecosystems overall do better during cold conditions, and these ecosystems tend to drive the temperatures down; vice-versa for terrestrial ecosystems) but this idea is definitely controversial. Also, the sun has been getting warmer for millions of years, and will continue.

No reputable climate scientist would disagree that the earth undergoes periodic changes in climate, but neither would any reputable scientist disagree that humans have the potential to meddle in these cycles. When people talk about global warming, they are usually using shorthand for the human-caused aspects of it, not denying that it can happen any other way.

Hope that helps.

Literally. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Gingrich is going to the moon? Missed that story.

I'd have to agree, it's absolutely fascinating. What a small delicate little plant it is!

Yes, unfortunately, tundra is more prevalent during ice ages, so geologists expect it to continue shrinking, but to recover in about 10,000 years. However, if the worst case proposals of warmerbation are correct, it may be as long as 30,000 years. Be patient, you'll get back your precious tundra soon enough. Of course, then there won't be any Canadian or Ukrainian wheat.

It's a shame those massive ice caps are gone, too. Think of all the neat things that lived there. Then there were those carboniferous forests.

Boy, that global warming (and cooling) stuff sure is inconvenient. I blame the dinosaurs.

And that's also why we won't have bananas in a couple of decades.

Starts what ?? A fictional island that a Disney like company decided to grow dinosaurs on, yet lacked the expertise to keep one man, Newman from shutting off the power which lead to a dinosaur revolt. Is that what you are worried about starting ?

And not to point out the obvious, but this was 30,000 year old material and dinosaurs died out around 65,000,000 years ago. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Scott the only one losing sleep is you over this JOKING comment.

No, actually the dinosaurs were alive roughly 2,000 years ago, the bible proves that Jesus rode on the backs of brontosauruses to get from one place to another...

Yaba Daba Dooooo!!!

Kal - it is a periodic cycle that occurs over longer periods of time. The concerns are this;

1. We are forcing the change to occur much faster [accelerated change] than normal which does not give us time to adapt.

2. There was never 5 billion + people on earth before.

So the question is what will happen to 5 + billion people [and rapidly rising] in 30 or so years when we hit the tipping point?

Kal won't be here so he doesn't care. Besides, he has his ideology to defend.

Problem is the research is absolutely not backing up the "We are forcing" part. It's why so many scientists are stepping back from their previous unequivical stance that humas are causing it. Other than that I agree and good point.

and you have your ideology Jamie. Oh wait for your it's fact and all who disagree are unreasonable heretics. Think that's called intolerance but that too only applies to those you disagree with. See the pattern?

Kal, it's not very hard to figure out. You take something which took over 200 million years to create (oil, coal) and release it artificially into the environment in just a tad over 200. That changes the chemical makeup of the atmosphere in a not so positive way. This along with other things humans have done to change the environment to meet their desires is having a negative impact and we are now begining to see that impact today.

Kal - I see no evidence in general that research is backing away from any of their claims at all, quite the contrary. Where do you see this to be the case?

That is what happened to the Neanderthals, Global Warming.

There are other examples of old seeds being viable. This is just the oldest. The big problem is that few seeds survive long enough, then are discovered, for this to be more common.

It's all perfectly reasonable, Carbon dating is very reliable within its dating range, and your rethinking needs to be rethought, or perhaps, thought in the first place.

They didn't use the seeds, they used the fruit tissue.

If I need to learn to think, you certainly need to learn to read as well.

Actually, doubtful is correct: the original tissue may have been dated to that old, but the newly grown tissue could not have been dated to those dates. I'm guessing it is simply due to the journalist either not know what he's writing about, or more likely getting messed up in his syntax. Any currently growing tissue would incorporate C14 at the ratio currently present in the atmosphere.

I noticed the same thing myself- just got here later than doubtful.

You're right. We should stop being so damned inquisitive. We should all go back to our mud huts and read the bible.

plaque that kills us all!

Just be sure to brush AND floss, it could save your life

Not sure if you are being sarcastic but I'm gonna assume you aren't.

See, half life means that half of the amount of carbon 14 will disappear every 5700 years. The amount of C14 in organic matter is expected to be roughly equal to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at death and can be accurately calculated (within a given range) to up to 60,000 years.

So no, the earth is not 6000 years old as you seem to be tryig to imply.

JM- Please stop trying to introduce facts and intelligence into this thread. You'll frighten all the fundamentalists and cultists.

My bad :)

You ever see the movie "ICEMAN" ??lol

Don't scare the Christians

All it took was some goop

To help it recoup

The stem cells rebuilt it

The frost hadn't kilt it

Walt Disney is waiting

For re-animating

Roses are red,

violets are blue,

that plant looks ancient,

and Steven Tyler does too

The old testament existed as word of mouth for hundreds of years. The age the preacher put to it is based on the lifespands of decendants. Can you imagine a full lineage lasting only 6000 years lasting by word of mouth? That would be like trying to remember the name of every person killed in vietnam, then telling that to your children and all your relatives, and then having them retell it. I don't think using the bible to judge how christians view the age of the planet is very unreliable. Besides, the bible never tells how old the earth was when the first person came about.

And it seems to me that the bible hints around the idea that a persons soul wasn't actually meant to be in this reality but was place here as a pawn of war. Well actually I got some of that from Gnostic writtings. Not Agnostic, completely different things.

I don't think using the bible to judge how christians view the age of the planet is very unreliable.

Whatever that means, there's no Golly.. and no Gee Whillikers either

Answer, Al Core in a former life.

Max, normal processes. The quest is not is there global warming at all, it is are we causing perfectly normal processes to accelerate by putting 200,000,000 years worth of carbon back into the atmosphere in 212 years.

No one ever said that global warming was never a legitimate process of our planet and if they did then they have been proven false and were wrong when they stated it. That does not make the question any less legitimate.

Watch for the republicans to start crying about money wasted on science projects like this. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN LIBERAL SCIENCE PAID FOR WITH OUR TAX MONIES!!!

Now don't go being rational. The warming alarmists won't like it.