I came across article and i wanted to share it with you guys. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/ Do you think it is a good idea to bring back extinct creatures like the Mammoth, Tasmanian Tiger, Wooly Rhinoceros, Pyrenean Ibex, Moa, Dodo, Giant Ground Sloth, Irish Elk and my favorite the Passenger Pigeon. Many of the creatures became extinct due to human actions like the Dodo and Moa. Some became extinct due to climate change or too overspecialization like the Marsupial Lion and the Cave Bear. A few interesting examples The Quagga is an extinct relative of the Zebra. The Great Auk was the North Pole version of the South Pole Penguin. Gigantopithecus, the larger Asian cousin of the gorilla Many of the creatures became extinct recently or in the last 100 000 years which means their DNA could still be recovered. Should we bring all the extinct creatures back or only those creatures that became extinct due to human actions ? How about creatures that became extinct due to a combination of human hunting and climate change like in the case of the Mammoth for example?
I understand your opinion on this matter but i am talking about extinct mammals and other animals that became extinct recently as 100 000 years and many of them became extinct due to human actions. We are not responsible for the dinosaurs extinction and i don't think we have enough recoverable DNA to bring them back due to the 65 millions years gap between us and them. I am thinking about the much more recent extinctions on the fossil calendar like in the last 100 000 years.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnod-W5L9Z4[/yt] [yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbKtBLDRfwU[/yt] More funds into preserving existing species, not try to play mad scientist with extinct ones.
Even if we were able to clone extinct animals, how long would it last? Could we successfully create enough fertile creatures to rebuild a species population, or would they just die off again after the first generation reached old age?
I get the impression that humans have a really big problem with accepting changes. Why should we bring back extinct species? They had their time, and they are gone, for natural causes. Yes, the extinction of a species by supersession is a natural cause. Extinction by climate change is a natural cause. It happened millions of years ago, it happened thousands of years ago, it's happening now and it will happen again. Nature has adapted to all those changes. If you introduce a new old cloned species, you change the balance again on purpose. What do you gain from that? And if you're not careful enough, the balance will be changed so much that the cloned species suddenly supresses the species that replaced them in their territory. Do two wrongs make a right? Would you keep a Mammoth in a zoo, just to look at it and be satisfied with yourself? Would you put it into the wilderness? Where? What do you do if it gets in contact with people and there are accidents? What do you do if the Mammoth supresses other animals in the territory? Same thing with climate change. Thousands of years ago, the place I'm sitting at right now, sweating because of the heat, was covered by 2 kilometers of glacial ice. And it wasn't the industrialization that made it melt away. Had our current culture existed at the end of the last ice age, we'd start to panic and try to stop it, because it gets to warm and our planet will explode. Heck, the Mediterranean Sea is filled with artifacts under water because between then and now, water levels have risen and other changes have occured. These things are normal. But because right now climate change means we'd lose a couple of white sand islands that make great postcard pictures, and we'd have to build new dams around costal cities, we act like climate change was something unnatural. What actually happens is that our defined comfort zone is changing, and we don't like that. Heck, if we could, we'd be stupid enough to try to stop tectonic plate movement because it causes earthquakes and in the long run we'd have to change our maps. We are already thinking about weather control, and are desperately trying to change the climate on purpose, without thinking about the consequences these actions might have. This is all extremely silly. Earth is fine. Changes are part of nature. We should start to accept that, and adapt to the changes instead of making useless attempts of preventing them, or - in this case - useless attempts of undoing them.
Yeah, I just see this as going too far and given how fragile the biosphere can be would likely do more harm than good.
In most cases there is insufficient variety of DNA to build a viable population - i.e. two mammoths are just not enough. You would need dozens of different individuals. There are two alternatives - 1) Introduce DNA from modern equivalents - cut your mammoth with a little elephant and you could be in business. The problem is, it's not quite a mammoth. 2) Reclone the creature when it dies. As many times as you like - you've got LOTS of DNA. Especially from a mammoth !
If we simply accepted nature as it is, we'd still be hunter-gatherers and we wouldn't know how to make and use fire. It's all just a matter of degree. As for bringing back extinct species, the dodo became extinct roughly 300 years ago. The last thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) died in 1936. I don't see how cloning these species today (assuming it's possible) could have any significant effect on the environment -- especially if cloned specimens were kept in captivity and not released into the wild. Frankly, I think it'd be kind of cool to see a living dodo or thylacine. Or a Great Auk. [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vqCCI1ZF7o[/yt]
All well and good, but who's gonna feed it? Huh? and it'll have to be walked. Every day? Are you ready for that responsibility, young man? Are you? Remember what happened with the gerbils? And the sea monkeys? No. This isn't happening. Now, get upstairs and finish your homework.
I hope we bring back these animals. I would love to see a herd of wooly mammoths roaming the word again (horribly enough I bet they would make great steaks... after there are loads of them). If humans had a hand it eradicating them we should bring them back, I have no moral issues with it. Science rocks!
Resurrect extinct animals? Are you kidding? See a living dodo or mammoth or Irish elk? Maybe even a brontosaurus or a trilobite? You better believe it.
Trilobite?! I would love to see those as well but aren't they way too long dead (250 million years ago) to get a viable sample?
I would have no problem if scientists brough back the thylacine. Its habitat and its prey is still here. It is very unlikely to fall victim to the disease that is threatening the Tasmanian Devil due to that disease method of spreading. The giant tortoise has been reintroduced to two of the offshore islands of Mauritius. Because the two species that were endemic to Mauritius are extinct scientists had to introduced a closely related species, the Aldabra tortoise. So far, it looks like the introduction is a success The tortoise seems to know instinctly not to eat the shoots of the rare ebony tree but to wait until the tree bears fruit. The seeds of the tree geminate better if they have been through the stomach of the tortoise and are now becoming more common. The tortoises also seem to be munching away on the saplings of introduced plants. The dodo probably performed an important role on Mauritius so the island might benefit greatly if they could be cloned and reintroduced. It has been suggested that the dodo might have been the main disperser of the tambalacoque tree but there is disagreement about this (the main disperser could have been the tortoise). Nowadays the seeds are force-feed to turkeys to get them to germinate.