2 ms·
The point is not how much they weigh, but that we can't survive without them. It's not just the digestive tract. Our eyes, out lungs, even our skin rely on a h
by timoth3y 2y ago
The point is not how much they weigh, but that we can't survive without them.
It's not just the digestive tract. Our eyes, out lungs, even our skin rely on a huge diversity of specialized and symbiotic organisms to function correctly. This ecosystem evolved in parallel with our DNA, and it's been lost for the mammoth.
Yes, it seems we have the technology to create something with this DNA, but it won't be a mammoth as the organism existed in the past. It may not be viable, and it may suffer horribly.
- cma 2y agoPart of the point though was for some reason the number of them. If we didn't need the large amount in the digestive system but still needed it for lungs and eyes, looking at the number and saying it's only 1% wouldn't have any real implication for whether the offspring would be viable if it would have messed up lungs and not be. Aside from that though, it may be important, but there are also lots of cross-species animals (ligers, mules, etc.) that don't get the full bacterial dose from the father of which half of their genetics come from and that doesn't seem to be a main cause of any of their problems that I've heard of.
- pvaldes 2y agoWould borrow all this flora from their mothers without "suffering horribly".