... 
How about a dating service where your male partners are chosen for their fitness from the Siberian permafrost? Creating long extinct life through harvested genetic remains is closer than you think. After successful experiments at the Institute for Reproductive Studies in Scottsdale, Arizona, with frozen mice sperm, scientists are now experimenting with sperm from mammoths preserved in Siberian ice.
We may one day have wooly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), extinct since the Pleistocene, roaming around zoos and colder climes. At least it looks that way. Because of their massive size and icy cold environment, many mammoths have been preserved as frozen carcasses instead of being turned to stone, thus they are prime candidates for genetic reproduction. We really can bring them back. When originally touted in the news as a possibility, most audiences took the science to be too farfetched.
Researchers harvesting DNA and deciphering their genome feel they are on the edge of doing just that. Science as we know it is sliding down the double helix to science fiction. DNA, long bits of genetic code that form the roadmap of how we are built, is relatively easy to harvest and remarkably hardy. Even with the abuse of time, small amounts can be extracted and with that the genetic wizards are able to put the puzzle pieces back together. Frozen sperm is used in fertility clinics around the globe, the difference here is that the entire mammal is frozen before harvesting the sperm. Once harvested, the frozen sperm from long extinct male mammoths is injected into eggs from females of closely related species. While positive results have been made and papers published (see the National Academy of Sciences) a baby mammoth has yet to be conceived.
A return debut? Yes, it seems it is true. Geneticists have mastered the craft, mapping out the genetic code on species ranging from mice to men.
So, start planning their "Welcome back" parties. Wooly's time has arrived!
Comments
Heidi Henderson | 05/25/08 | 11:28 AM
I could ask the wife but I bet I won't like her response to the whole concept.
Hank Campbell | 05/25/08 | 11:45 AM
Age_female = Age_male/2 + 7 years
Or the inverse: Age_male = 2 * Age_female -14 years
Here's some examples:
F17/M20 makes a lot of sense -boys are less mature than girls;
F22/M30 also does pretty well;
F27/M40 is quite ok;
F32/M50 works well for most couples;
F37/M60 starts breaking down;
F42/M70 is rather awkward - but the whole idea of aging is;
F47/M80 is indeed creepy.
I'd say the formula works well for men in the age range 16-60...
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 07:09 AM
Heidi Henderson | 02/20/09 | 17:56 PM
Zeea Hasan | 04/29/09 | 04:10 AM
I much prefer my model of optimal coupling, which is a revision of the Master Formula:
Age_male = Age_female/5 + 12 years
It has worked well for me, although I've become more flexible the past few years.
H2
Age_male = Age_female/5 + 12 years
It has worked well for me, although I've become more flexible the past few years.
H2
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 12:01 PM
Male 43 = Female 30/5 + 12, which is 18. I have kids older than that.
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 12:55 PM
It's the division by 5 that's the killer in that formula ...
Male age = (Female age) / 5 + 12
If the male is 43 then the equation is rearranged as:
(Male age - 12) * 5 ===> (43 - 12) * 5 = 31 * 5 = 155 year old female (a little outside the scope I would think)
Gerhard Adam | 04/29/09 | 14:17 PM
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 14:27 PM
Josh Witten | 04/29/09 | 23:50 PM
So basically there's no male 30+ years allowed ....
Gerhard Adam | 04/30/09 | 10:19 AM
Heidi Henderson | 04/30/09 | 10:25 AM
Gerhard Adam | 04/30/09 | 10:47 AM
F22/M30 also does pretty well;
F27/M40 is quite ok;
If we exchange the positioning of F and M ; )
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 13:26 PM
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 14:29 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 14:35 PM
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 15:09 PM
Tommaso, e voi anche. La bellezza ed i cervelli sono sexy a tutta l'età (in modo da siete buono là) ma l'italiano e 22 lo avrebbero reso irresistibile.
Hank, can we have a 2.0 meeting in Florence to test out a hypothesis?
H2
Hank, can we have a 2.0 meeting in Florence to test out a hypothesis?
H2
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 14:54 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 15:00 PM
Let's meet in Florence or in London or wherever. The world is small and beautiful, there's more than monuments around.
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 15:15 PM
But can they bring back Rita Hayworth? Because this is some science worth thinking about.