>>16643081
>which means they accounted for a whopping .00016% of the potential differences in DNA
That's honestly not even the main problem, we don't have a full genome (plus the polymorphisms), and identifying the molecularly cheapest way to get all the essential phenotypic changes in silico hasn't been developed.
The end goal, really, isn't to make a new species from scratch and genomics; restructuring a chromosome to reverse millions of years of evolution won't happen. It will, to some extent, always be the same species as the egg surrogate (not necessarily whatever gives birth), modified to match a predicted phenotype of the extinct animal.

Does sound a lot like a scam when stated plainly.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

So is it a dire wolf or not