De-Extinction

[YJ02]

thoughts? should we care? is there a useful reason to do it other then as a big time "parlour trick?"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-extinction-biodiversity-habitat-environment/

 

[mzzz]

Personally, think we should worry about the preservation and evolution of the species that exist now rather than worry about reviving extinct species. The only thing I'd consider revival from ancient times would be the first forms of life on the planet, the viruses and stuff in a controlled setting. Just to see how from those small single-celled things, we got to all this complex forms of life we have today. But then we'd have to recreate the ecosystem that they were likely in, hmmmm.

 

[YJ02]

Personally, think we should worry about the preservation and evolution of the species that exist now rather than worry about reviving extinct species. The only thing I'd consider revival from ancient times would be the first forms of life on the planet, the viruses and stuff in a controlled setting. Just to see how from those small single-celled things, we got to all this complex forms of life we have today. But then we'd have to recreate the ecosystem that they were likely in, hmmmm.

yes doing that could pose a problem...

 

[Bluce Ree]

Personally, think we should worry about the preservation and evolution of the species that exist now rather than worry about reviving extinct species. The only thing I'd consider revival from ancient times would be the first forms of life on the planet, the viruses and stuff in a controlled setting. Just to see how from those small single-celled things, we got to all this complex forms of life we have today. But then we'd have to recreate the ecosystem that they were likely in, hmmmm.

Yes, because what could possibly go wrong with an ancient virus hundreds of millions of years out of its time?

 

[Overmind One]

Yes, because what could possibly go wrong with an ancient virus hundreds of millions of years out of its time?

Im sick of these scientists trying to play with evolution and natural selection. Things that are extinct today are extinct for a reason.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Im sick of these scientists trying to play with evolution and natural selection. Things that are extinct today are extinct for a reason.

 

[shavedape]

 

[mzzz]

Yes, because what could possibly go wrong with an ancient virus hundreds of millions of years out of its time?

lol yeah, why I said in a controlled setting. But wouldn't you want to know how primordial life came to be? And you have to consider the environment in which they came to be, very extreme and rapidly changing (in geologic sense). That means they had to constantly evolve to changing conditions. I'd love to know how such evolution take place and in relation what we could potentially do to adjust our own course of evolution. Perhaps even figure out how to adjust ourselves for planetary excursions without adjusting or setting up an environment to our fixed current genetic make-up. Also, mostly I wanna fly.

 

[Rac80]

who misses the dinosaurs?

 

[Overmind One]

who misses the dinosaurs?

Exactly.

 

[YJ02]

First a dead Australian frog species-next-a wooly mammoth (don't know why we need woolly mammoths around, there is barely range and habitat enough for the few elephants that remain)

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/447248/20130318/cloning-extinct-frog-embryo-genome-dna-dolly.htm

 

[Rac80]

a baby mammoth would be cute...but I am NOT cleaning up after it!

 

[Overmind One]

First a dead Australian frog species-next-a wooly mammoth (don't know why we need woolly mammoths around, there is barely range and habitat enough for the few elephants that remain)

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/447248/20130318/cloning-extinct-frog-embryo-genome-dna-dolly.htm

The reason for that is because there is perfectly preserved, intact wolly mammoth DNA available from the intact frozen examples they have already found (this is just one example):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-year-old-woolly-mammoth-11-year-old-boy.html

cloneable fragments in Siberia:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...mmoth-fragments-from-siberia-may-be-clonable/

 

[Gatefan1976]

who misses the dinosaurs?

Creationists?

 

[YJ02]

The reason for that is because there is perfectly preserved, intact wolly mammoth DNA available from the intact frozen examples they have already found (this is just one example):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-year-old-woolly-mammoth-11-year-old-boy.html

cloneable fragments in Siberia:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...mmoth-fragments-from-siberia-may-be-clonable/

yes of course-it was in the article on the frog. my point is what possible use is it of to re-introduce such massive animals without the range to support them?

 

[Rac80]

yes of course-it was in the article on the frog. my point is what possible use is it of to re-introduce such massive animals without the range to support them?

I fear the response will be "because we can" and who knows what else will be unleashed.

 

[YJ02]

I fear the response will be "because we can" and who knows what else will be unleashed.

Just think of all the methane the mammoths will release...

 

[Rac80]

Just think of all the methane the mammoths will release...

more than the methane-- what will we do with all of that poop?

 

[mzzz]

lol gotta love the "science"-y threads here, pages of large wall of texts on politics, few lines on poop and gas on 'science'

 

[Gatefan1976]

lol gotta love the "science"-y threads here, pages of large wall of texts on politics, few lines on poop and gas on 'science'

Speaking for myself only here, I can put togeather walls of text on Scifi, or politics, no probs, but actual *hard science* I cannot speak with any true authority, or even inkling, and quite frankly I generally would prefer not to BS on something I know nothing about. (Physics/metaphysics excepted, mainly due to the metaphysics part)

Should we do it?
For "ancient species" I would argue no simply due to the fact that we will have no real knowledge of what the re-introduction of species this old will have on not only us, but our world. Examining genetic coding, well sure, that could work if such a thing is possible without reconstituting said lifeform.

More modern extinctions, ones more caused by us............

Difficult. Technically, I would say Yes, we should because it is because of us they are extinct, but as was noted before, do we still have the environment to support them anymore?

Then you have the observation Rac noted, does the fact that we CAN do a thing, mean we SHOULD do a thing?