Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bringing Extinct Species Back from the Dead


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Should we bring extinct species back from the dead?

Earth is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction: Somewhere between 30 and 159 species disappear every day, thanks largely to humans, and more than 300 types of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have disappeared since 1500. These rates do not bode well for the future of life on our planet, but what if extinction wasn’t permanent? What if we could resurrect some of the species we’ve lost?

For decades the notion of “de-extinction” hovered on the scientific fringes, but new advances in genetic engineering, especially the CRISPR-Cas9 revolution, have researchers believing that it’s time to start thinking seriously about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones would do the most good for the ecosystems they left behind. Indeed, earlier this month, ecologists at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), published guidelines for how to choose which species to revive if we want to do the most good for our planet's ecosystems.

Read more: Science

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Havent they done this 23 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MissJatti said:

Havent they done this 23 years ago?

Nope. Scientists are just now researching the possibility of and what extinct animals should be considered. The two animals in the forefront are the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon. Read the article if you want a better understanding of it.

I personally think its worth the effort, but they should do it only with animals they can keep track of.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zenith said:

Nope. Scientists are just now researching the possibility of and what extinct animals should be considered. The two animals in the forefront are the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon. Read the article if you want a better understanding of it.

I personally think its worth the effort, but they should do it only with animals they can keep track of.

Ah yes, the passenger pigeon... which turned the sky black with wings and the earth white with pigeon poop. A crowd pleaser for sure.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a yes providing we limit this to species which the Human race has clearly driven to extiction through our own stupidity. Don't mess with anything remotely naturally occuring.

The risk is though it skews a balance in its habitat and then drives something else to the point where it can't compete and becomes endangered. This ability needs to be very cautiously used.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MissJatti said:

Havent they done this 23 years ago?

Are you thinking of the Dolly the Sheep era cloning? Even though cloning has come a long way since, cloning of animals remains limited. And it's only recently that scientists have seriously considered looking at extinct species, thanks in large part to new advances in genetic engineering.

According to the article, there are three possible ways of accomplishing this:

  1. Backbreeding (finding living species that have traits similar to the extinct species).
  2. Cloning  (taking a preserved cell from a recently extinct animal and extracting the nucleus).
  3. Genetic engineering (lining up the genome of an extinct animal with that of its closest living relative).

Specific details for each process are available in the article. My guess is, depending on how they do it, the animals will vary in terms of how 'identical' they are to the original. It's all early stages still, and we probably won't see anything for at least another 5-10 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clair said:

Should we bring extinct species back from the dead?

Earth is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction: Somewhere between 30 and 159 species disappear every day, thanks largely to humans, and more than 300 types of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have disappeared since 1500. These rates do not bode well for the future of life on our planet, but what if extinction wasn’t permanent? What if we could resurrect some of the species we’ve lost?

For decades the notion of “de-extinction” hovered on the scientific fringes, but new advances in genetic engineering, especially the CRISPR-Cas9 revolution, have researchers believing that it’s time to start thinking seriously about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones would do the most good for the ecosystems they left behind. Indeed, earlier this month, ecologists at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), published guidelines for how to choose which species to revive if we want to do the most good for our planet's ecosystems.

Read more: Science

I dunno.  Animals go extinct for very good reasons, mainly the "survival of the fittest" thing.  Bringing them back could very well upset the balance in nature we have now, could cause a catastrophe (and I'm not talking about a Jurassic Park catastrophe).

On the other hand, I'd love to have some of those animals back to see them in the flesh.  So, personally, yes, bring them back.  Generally speaking, probably shouldn't be done.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not all doom and gloom ...

~

 

Quote

 

Species Success Stories: 10 Animals Back from the Brink

By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer | March 13, 2016 12:44pm ET

 

~
.. and of course my favorite of the lot ... good ol' lonesome George

Quote

Lonesome George (c. 1910[1][2][3][4] – June 24, 2012) was a male Pinta Island tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii) and the last known individual of the subspecies.[5][6][7][8] In his last years, he was known as the rarest creature in the world. George serves as a potent symbol for conservation efforts in the Galápagos Islands and throughout the world.[9]

 

***

On 24 June 2012, at 8:00 am local time, Edwin Naula, Director of the Galápagos National Park, announced that Lonesome George had been found dead by his caretaker of 40 years, Fausto Llerena.[20][21][22][23] Naula suspects that the cause of death was heart failure consistent with the end of the natural life cycle of a tortoise. A necropsy confirmed that he died of "old age".[24] The body of Lonesome George was frozen and shipped to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City to be preserved by taxidermists.[25] The preservation work was carried out by the museum's taxidermist George Dante, with input from scientists.[26]

 

 

800px-Lonesome_George_taxidermy.jpg

~

Description

American Museum of Natural History, NYC

Date 31 December 2014, 15:09
Source Lonesome George
Author Allison Meier from Brooklyn, United States

~

Smile for the cameras George ... RiP ...

~

Quote

 

Sexploits of Diego the Tortoise save Galapagos species
September 14, 2016 by Santiago Piedra Silva

He's over 100 years old, but his sex life is the stuff of legend. Diego the Tortoise is quite the ladies' man, and his exploits have helped save his species from extinction.

Diego, a Galapagos giant tortoise, has fathered an estimated 800 offspring, almost single-handedly rebuilding the species' population on their native island, Espanola, the southernmost in the Galapagos Archipelago.

 

~
 

Edited by third_eye
lost links
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

I dunno.  Animals go extinct for very good reasons, mainly the "survival of the fittest" thing.  Bringing them back could very well upset the balance in nature we have now, could cause a catastrophe (and I'm not talking about a Jurassic Park catastrophe).

When it comes to survival of the fittest, few animals (if any) can adequately compete against us. The idea is not to upset the balance of nature, but to selectively choose those animals that will be of benefit to the ecosystem. Could the consequences be catastrophic? Sure there's always the possibility that the reintroduction of certain species could backfire, but if executed and managed properly, the benefits could be enormous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Its not all doom and gloom ...

Success stories when it comes to bringing back species on the brink of extinction are always great, but we don't seem to be anywhere near on top of the problem. To quote from the article:

Quote

Earth is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction: Somewhere between 30 and 159 species disappear every day, thanks largely to humans, and more than 300 types of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have vanished since 1500.

Edited by Clair
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Clair said:

Success stories when it comes to bringing back species on the brink of extinction are always great, but we don't seem to be anywhere near on top of the problem. To quote from the article:

 

At least its not a one way street as it was in days of past ... :yes:

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
37 minutes ago, Clair said:

Are you thinking of the Dolly the Sheep era cloning? Even though cloning has come a long way since, cloning of animals remains limited. And it's only recently that scientists have seriously considered looking at extinct species, thanks in large part to new advances in genetic engineering.

According to the article, there are three possible ways of accomplishing this:

  1. Backbreeding (finding living species that have traits similar to the extinct species).
  2. Cloning  (taking a preserved cell from a recently extinct animal and extracting the nucleus).
  3. Genetic engineering (lining up the genome of an extinct animal with that of its closest living relative).

Specific details for each process are available in the article. My guess is, depending on how they do it, the animals will vary in terms of how 'identical' they are to the original. It's all early stages still, and we probably won't see anything for at least another 5-10 years.

No about 23 years ago,  scientists extract 80-million-year-old dino DNA from the bellies of mosquitoes trapped in amber.

And then they made a park, showing the outcomes from the extracts

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Clair said:

When it comes to survival of the fittest, few animals (if any) can adequately compete against us. The idea is not to upset the balance of nature, but to selectively choose those animals that will be of benefit to the ecosystem. Could the consequences be catastrophic? Sure there's always the possibility that the reintroduction of certain species could backfire, but if executed and managed properly, the benefits could be enormous.

I'm not adding in the "human equation" to alleged mass-extinctions caused by us, btw.  This was a general "bring extinct animals back" discussion, so just fair warning, I won't be amiable to those that want to make this about alleged human-caused mass-extinctions and start harshing on my species for it.  And I do not subscribe to the tripe that we are in the middle of a mass-extinction event at this time, or at least a man-made one.  IF one is ever proven to be happening, then so be it.  That's nature at work.

Not aimed at you directly, Clair, just wanted to get that off my chest first.

Okay...so, we only bring back specific animals that will benefit an ecosystem.  But why?  The ecosystems are functioning as they should be at the moment, without extinct animals coming back to mess things up.  I do agree that a huge amount of management would be required to stop any bad consequences, but would all that work be worth it for possibly little return?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MissJatti said:

No about 23 years ago,  scientists extract 80-million-year-old dino DNA from the bellies of mosquitoes trapped in amber.

And then they made a park, showing the outcomes from the extracts

And it went all wrong, people were eaten, and it spawn two bad sequels and one fair sequel.  Lessons were learned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MissJatti said:

No about 23 years ago,  scientists extract 80-million-year-old dino DNA from the bellies of mosquitoes trapped in amber.

And then they made a park, showing the outcomes from the extracts

Hollywood's scientific fantasies never cease to amaze me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than almost anything in this world, I want to see a living thylacine. But, that's tough luck for me. I have to say, I don't like the idea of cloning extinct species much. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

I'm not adding in the "human equation" to alleged mass-extinctions caused by us, btw.  This was a general "bring extinct animals back" discussion, so just fair warning, I won't be amiable to those that want to make this about alleged human-caused mass-extinctions and start harshing on my species for it.  And I do not subscribe to the tripe that we are in the middle of a mass-extinction event at this time, or at least a man-made one.  IF one is ever proven to be happening, then so be it.  That's nature at work.

Not aimed at you directly, Clair, just wanted to get that off my chest first.

Okay...so, we only bring back specific animals that will benefit an ecosystem.  But why?  The ecosystems are functioning as they should be at the moment, without extinct animals coming back to mess things up.  I do agree that a huge amount of management would be required to stop any bad consequences, but would all that work be worth it for possibly little return?

The term Sixth Extinction refers to the current loss of biodiversity in some ecosystems. Not all are functioning as they should, and we need to take some responsibility for destroying the habitats of some species. When a species becomes extinct, it causes an upset to the food chain thereby disrupting those ecosystems that are interdependent on one another. The greatest threat to organisms and biodiversity is habitat loss and we're the ones responsible for that loss. There's no way you can discuss extinction without including the human element. As for reviving extinct species, it's worth a shot in my opinion, but only for the purposes of biodiversity. Any other reason, such as a zoo for example, and I will have a meltdown.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

And it went all wrong, people were eaten, and it spawn two bad sequels and one fair sequel.  Lessons were learned.

And for all their good intentions such a scenario wouldn't surprise me. :lol: Five bucks also says that ecosystems aside, they are just dying to do it just to prove that they can.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Clair said:

And for all their good intentions such a scenario wouldn't surprise me. :lol: Five bucks also says that ecosystems aside, they are just dying to do it just to prove that they can.

That sounds about right.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.