Extinct frog hops back into the gene pool

[Still Waters]

In what may be considered an early Easter miracle, an extinct species of native frog has begun its rise from the dead.

Australian scientists have grown embryos containing the revived DNA of the extinct gastric-brooding frog, the crucial first step in their attempt to bring a species back to life.

The team from the aptly named Lazarus project inserted the dead genetic material of the extinct amphibian into the donor eggs of another species of living frog, a process similar to the technique used to create the cloned sheep Dolly. The eggs continued to grow into three-day-old embryos, known as blastulas.

http://www.smh.com.a...0315-2g68x.html

[Coffey]

Something doesn't feel right about this.

We should be spending resources on trying to help species that are in danger of becoming extinct, not bringing the ones that are extinct back, that would surely cause more problems to an ecosystem than it would it.

[CRYSiiSx2]

We have become Gods .

[ash68]

I agree with Coffey,though amazing it's pointless for me,unless some one can explain another benefit of this to me as i can't see it but then i'm not the brightest by a long shot

[Lava_Lady]

Maybe this guy will help out I'm the battle against the cane toads...not sure how but...maybe.

Geez, I am totally grossed out by this frog and the whole giving birth through the mouth thing.

But good for the team of scientists, bravo and all that...

Edited March 20, 2013 by Lava_Lady

[The One Who Is]

I agree with Coffey,though amazing it's pointless for me,unless some one can explain another benefit of this to me as i can't see it but then i'm not the brightest by a long shot

Science is about understanding the universe a little better, not about demonstrating tangible 'benefits' to one individual or another.

Regardless, think of potential applications or other opportunities this would open up; don't consider the matter so narrowly. This sort of research provides insights on more than a single species of extinct frog.

Something doesn't feel right about this.

We should be spending resources on trying to help species that are in danger of becoming extinct, not bringing the ones that are extinct back, that would surely cause more problems to an ecosystem than it would it.

Hmm, there's another equally valid side to that argument, though. If species are going extinct the ecosystem is adjusting itself. Surely helping them hang around will only cause more problems...

EDIT: Quote format paragraph spacing is weird.

Edited March 20, 2013 by The One Who Is

[Coffey]

Hmm, there's another equally valid side to that argument, though. If species are going extinct the ecosystem is adjusting itself. Surely helping them hang around will only cause more problems...

That is a good point, but I was more leaning towards sorting the things we cause which leads to their extinction. Natural extinction is different. That's jsut nature, but whaling, over fishing, hunting for parts to sell and destroying habitats is our fault and the things we should be putting resources into stopping.

I agree with Coffey,though amazing it's pointless for me,unless some one can explain another benefit of this to me as i can't see it but then i'm not the brightest by a long shot

Never put yourself down, there is enough nasty people in the world willing to do it for you.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” - Albert Einstein

Edited March 20, 2013 by Coffey

[The One Who Is]

That is a good point, but I was more leaning towards sorting the things we cause which leads to their extinction. Natural extinction is different. That's jsut nature, but whaling, over fishing, hunting for parts to sell and destroying habitats is our fault and the things we should be putting resources into stopping.

I don't think it's a particularly good point myself; it's just another side to the 'we shouldn't mess with nature' angle. I don't think either strongly supports that we shouldn't bring back old species or try to support the current ones if we so choose.

I don't [and I'm willing to reconsider] see the reason extinctions should be classified as somehow more right or wrong or normal or abnormal than others just because the species causing them happens to be intelligent. I see plenty of reasons for trying to maintain some of the current ecosystems; it's in our own self-interest, however bringing the word 'natural' into this context baffles me every time. Taking away the connotations it's picked up, it just indicates that something was not caused by humans. If it meant 'not caused by chimpanzees' or 'not caused by ants' it wouldn't have much weight at all. Why should we care more about what we're killing off than what other things are killing off, given it's something we don't want to vanish?

EDIT: ...Okay, maybe next time I'll remember the spacing.

Edited March 20, 2013 by The One Who Is

[Coffey]

I don't think it's a particularly good point myself; it's just another side to the 'we shouldn't mess with nature' angle. I don't think either strongly supports that we shouldn't bring back old species or try to support the current ones if we so choose.

I don't [and I'm willing to reconsider] see the reason extinctions should be classified as somehow more right or wrong or normal or abnormal than others just because the species causing them happens to be intelligent. I see plenty of reasons for trying to maintain some of the current ecosystems; it's in our own self-interest, however bringing the word 'natural' into this context baffles me every time. Taking away the connotations it's picked up, it just indicates that something was not caused by humans. If it meant 'not caused by chimpanzees' or 'not caused by ants' it wouldn't have much weight at all. Why should we care more about what we're killing off than what other things are killing off, given it's something we don't want to vanish?

EDIT: ...Okay, maybe next time I'll remember the spacing.

We my personal view is that we have a gift that other species don't. I don't think we are better but I think we have evolved to be able to make a difference to this planet and have a very big impact. I see thta as a responsibility. We should use our intelligence and skills to make the world better and try to protect it. I don't believe half of what we do is "natural" or right.

I often hear people say the reason we over fish or hunt other animals is because we are above them and because we can. Well in my opinion that is abusing power. The Native Americans where right when they said, take what you need and no more. They also stood by a guideline of taking the weakest animals in a herd etc, they did this because it works with nature and is natural. The strongest survive to keep their genes going and produce better quality off spring. Sadly in our day and age ignorant hunters go for the biggest and strongest of the herd, like it's a trophy. I don't get how someone can kill something with a gun and feel proud of themselves. Seems pathetic to me, I see no achievement in that.

[thewild]

This animal is amazing. I don't care whether it is right or wrong, but we are gaining beneficial information from DNA therapy by doing experiments like this. Take the information for what it is.

from the article: "We haven't brought back the gastric-brooding frog yet but we've developed a tool that can stop other frogs going extinct," said Professor Mahony, from the University of Newcastle.

Edited March 21, 2013 by thewild

[Sundew]

Most of the research for deextinction focuses on animals humans have directly or indirectly made extinct. The thylacine would be a great candidate. We killed it off mistaking it for a serious predator of sheep. Parts of Tasmania are still similar to its original habitat, and there are a few offshore islands one proposed as suitable for a population.

It may seem a waste of resources, however these extinct species represent a missing piece of their ecosystems and these systems have been altered by man's ignorance. If there is away to correct this it seems like we have an obligation to do so.

[CrimsonKing]

We my personal view is that we have a gift that other species don't. I don't think we are better but I think we have evolved to be able to make a difference to this planet and have a very big impact. I see thta as a responsibility. We should use our intelligence and skills to make the world better and try to protect it. I don't believe half of what we do is "natural" or right.

I often hear people say the reason we over fish or hunt other animals is because we are above them and because we can. Well in my opinion that is abusing power. The Native Americans where right when they said, take what you need and no more. They also stood by a guideline of taking the weakest animals in a herd etc, they did this because it works with nature and is natural. The strongest survive to keep their genes going and produce better quality off spring. Sadly in our day and age ignorant hunters go for the biggest and strongest of the herd, like it's a trophy. I don't get how someone can kill something with a gun and feel proud of themselves. Seems pathetic to me, I see no achievement in that.

I understand and agree with a lot of what you have said in this post,i am half native american myself and understand the views and traditions of my heritage.

The last part of this post is just a cheap little shot about gun owners that had absolutely nothing to do with this topic.I would appreciate if you use a different method to take these little jabs in the future other than using others heritage to make your points.

I agree though if hunting for trophies it is pointless,hunting for food another story we have agreed on this in another topic.I bow hunt and hunt with a rifle,the tool is not the problem the reasoning for doing so can be.I do not see why vegetarians are so proud of themselves,they eat something that had to die for their consumption and 9 out of 10 did not grow it themselves.What does one have to be so proud of?

On topic i think this could be good and bad aswell depending on what all be decide to bring back.I was reading a article a few days ago about the top 10 species that scientist think possible to bring back and sabre tooth cats,mastadon,and wooly mammoth were all on the list.I then asked myself why would we bring these 3 back?Im no expert but i do not think these animals should even be thought about bringing back.Climate,habitat,and food sources i do not think would be the same anyone else know?If all was possible then if released into the wild we would have some stupid poachers out looking for some tusk or teeth wiping them out all over again.

[Coffey]

The last part of this post is just a cheap little shot about gun owners that had absolutely nothing to do with this topic.I would appreciate if you use a different method to take these little jabs in the future other than using others heritage to make your points.

You completely took me wrong. I never made any comment aimed at Gun ownership. I believe Americans should have guns if they want to, just like I believe the it should be the same in the UK. I also don't mind people hunting for food, as long as they are doing it for food and being selective in the proper way and not harming nature. Killing Tigers for their genitals and teeth is wrong. Hunting deer to eat it is not a problem. Besides hunting is not the reason Americans want their guns anyway. It's to defend themselves against Tyranny. That's why it's int he constitution and that I completely agree with.

You completely misunderstand vegetarians and Vegans. I don't eat meat and I don't do it because I disagree with the way animals are farmed and slaughtered by corporate companies. If you want to know why I have this opinion then watch this documentary:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4DJh-L7Ys[/media]

Unfortunately I do not grow my own because i live in a city, but I will be moving somewhere with a big garden soon to do exactly that. I only buy organic and I mostly eat raw. I also do it for health reasons, I've never felt healthier and more clear minded in my life.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Coffey

[Starseed hybrid 1111]

That's cool and awesome now this is science some science there's more to science of course.let's bring back dodo birds back too and platypus lol

[CrimsonKing]

I don't get how someone can kill something with a gun and feel proud of themselves. Seems pathetic to me, I see no achievement in that.

As i said i agree with the rest of that post,but remember many native americans used rifles for hunting once the europeans brought them here.It is not the weapon used that is wrong or pathetic,it is the reason one is hunting that can be.

Can you answer the last part of my previous post?Think we even have the right enviroment around anywhere for those animals?

[Coffey]

As i said i agree with the rest of that post,but remember many native americans used rifles for hunting once the europeans brought them here.It is not the weapon used that is wrong or pathetic,it is the reason one is hunting that can be.

I should have been clearer, I meant people who hunt for trophies and use rifles I don't get how they can feel an achievement because they used a rifle. I never meant hunting in general with a rifle is wrong. I just meant there is no real "sport" or greatness in being able to shoot an animal. Hunting for food with a rifle is fine, I have nothing against that and I'm a vegetarian... I'd rather some shoot an animal and kill it very quickly then use the meat etc than an animal be kept in a factory style environment and "processed". At least the animal was free and happy before it was killed and then the person is grateful for it, it's all good and natural. That's different to hunting something like Tigers though.

Can you answer the last part of my previous post?Think we even have the right enviroment around anywhere for those animals?

Oh sorry didn't realise that you wanted an answer to that, thought it was rhetorical. lol

I'm really not sure, I mean the Mammoth was HUGE. It needed a lot of food, herbivores need to eat far more than carnivores for energy. So you can imagine how much a Mammoth would need, massive forests, but with far apart grown trees etc. I don't think there is a big enough area for them now. The Mastodon I'm not sure on it's habitat. The sabre tooth cats where huge, if you put those into any ecosystem today they would obliterate the larger pray. They would devour those massive Bison and even take down Mammoths. They would take all the prey from other big Cats and Dogs.

The way i could see them doing it is creating an Island like Jurassic park. lol They would have to let the animals create their own ecosystem again, but we all know what happens in those films. lol

[regeneratia]

Whoa! Very interesting.

[Collateral Damage]

Something doesn't feel right about this.

We should be spending resources on trying to help species that are in danger of becoming extinct, not bringing the ones that are extinct back, that would surely cause more problems to an ecosystem than it would it.

While I do agree that we should be putting forth a far more solemn attempt of prevention, many species have died due to natural cause. Our ability of possessing consciousness doesn't verify the outright murdering of a species, simply because we say, "I can." — but the ability to make amends and restore the lives of a wrongfully destroyed species? That I too agree with.

[Geldoblam]

Woot! 3 days! Way to go, guy!

[lone wolf2]

Let's bring back the dinosaurs. It worked out so well in jarassic park