[darynthe]

Is it feasible? If so, should we do it? And if we do it, which species should or could we revive?

Here a couple of articles on the topic:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Excerpt

Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. For Pleistocene species, such as mammoths, cave bears, dire wolves, and even Neanderthals, soft tissue is available, and some scientists have even made efforts at sequencing. This frequently requires multiple samples, as no individual sample is likely to contain the full sequence of uncontaminated DNA. In Jurassic Park, gaps in dinosaur DNA were replaced with segments of frog DNA, but this is problematic because it assumes that the scientists knew which dinosaur genes corresponded to which frog genes they were splicing in. As genetics advances, it will become easier to make these guesses, although substantial portions of the original genetic material is still likely to be required.

I think that financially it is doable if zoos charge people for seeing the revived species. However I doubt we would be able to put them in freedom as their environment is for mostly gone.

[Zombicide]

Unlike with some humans (especially actual people), the animals won't quite care; I say go ahead, send in the clones. I'd be in attendance.

---------- Post added 11-30-2010 at 11:55 AM ----------

I think in order to get dinosaurs we're going to have to rely on bringing bird atavisms to the forefront and engineering or breeding what's been evolved out of them altogether, and then of course, all we'll have are theropods but still sounds cool to me.

Some of the more recently extinct fauna can be recreated relatively easily, ancient stuff, not so much since dna kinda sucks in the preservation department but yea, let's engineer some fairly accurate short faced bears from grizzlies or wild-guess megalodons from great whites or actual clones from preserved dodo dna.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by Zombicide To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think in order to get dinosaurs we're going to have to rely on bringing bird atavisms to the forefront and engineering or breeding what's been evolved out of them altogether, and then of course, all we'll have are theropods but still sounds cool to me.

Making chickosaurus's indeed. I'm not so sure that that will be the only option to get all the dinosaurs, but it's definitely the easier path that they're taking at the moment.

I don't have any issue with it. But freeing them is a big issue, you risk both the species and the existing species. Unless your doing it with (very) recently extinct species.

[Axel]

Could be interesting to have Megalodon in the sea.

[mieu]

Dinosaurs, please.

[Vagrant]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-- Process known as "ancestral gene resurrection"

While I don't particularly care about the philosophical ramifications of the idea, there are a lot of logical issues. Many genes are still missing from ancient species, and the fossil record is conspicuously absent for some species (as those species don't fossilize well). Some insects preserved in amber have all their genes waiting to be determined.

In addition, there comes the issue of growth and development. How do you create an artificial egg with the right proteins, hormones, carbs, etc in a laboratory without having a basis of comparison (the mother)? How do you create the embryo? How do you raise the animal when it clearly has no guiding influence from its parents (assuming it's a relatively intelligent animal)?

[Silverity]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. -- Process known as "ancestral gene resurrection" While I don't particularly care about the philosophical ramifications of the idea, there are a lot of logical issues. Many genes are still missing from ancient species, and the fossil record is conspicuously absent for some species (as those species don't fossilize well). Some insects preserved in amber have all their genes waiting to be determined. In addition, there comes the issue of growth and development. How do you create an artificial egg with the right proteins, hormones, carbs, etc in a laboratory without having a basis of comparison (the mother)? How do you create the embryo? How do you raise the animal when it clearly has no guiding influence from its parents (assuming it's a relatively intelligent animal)?

More importantly than all of that--- didn't you people learn anything from Jurassic Park?! It's a bad idea!

( Show Spoiler )

And for those who will undoubtedly take my post seriously... I'm joking. We're having a hard enough time preserving species on this planet, I don't see the value in trying to add new, more fragile, ones to the mix.

[HackerX]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. -- Process known as "ancestral gene resurrection" In addition, there comes the issue of growth and development. How do you create an artificial egg with the right proteins, hormones, carbs, etc in a laboratory without having a basis of comparison (the mother)? How do you create the embryo? How do you raise the animal when it clearly has no guiding influence from its parents (assuming it's a relatively intelligent animal)?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Which is why there's been a lot of work around heading in the other direction, taking existing animal dna and slowing switching things on, working backwards. See Zombicide's comment about bird atavisms & my comments about chickenosaurus (see above).

This book
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a really easy to read overview. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, this is a good read.

	Originally Posted by Silverity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see the value in trying to add new, more fragile, ones to the mix

Because it's not just about bringing back other species. Bringing back other species provides an interesting drive that drives the wider concept; that is, understanding DNA, and what effect various genes have. Think of the wider benefits that might come with a better understanding and application of gene therapy.

[Nonsuch]

If they ever try to reconstruct a neanderthal, then someone has to decide whether neanderthals are human or not. (Most humans today are carrying 1-4% of the neanderthal genome.) Racism will take on a whole new meaning. Etc. etc.

What a bucket of worms that will be.

---------- Post added 11-30-2010 at 07:48 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by HackerX To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This book To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a really easy to read overview. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, this is a good read.

Little Jack Horner Sat in a Corner

Building a Dinosaur . . .


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[HAL 9000]

	Originally Posted by Silverity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More importantly than all of that--- didn't you people learn anything from Jurassic Park?! It's a bad idea!

While I realize this was said in jest, I believe Crichton did bring up a valid point. These creatures existed in a world almost entirely different from our own.

There are challenges and ramifications we would never be able to foresee.

[maru]

Yes! Farm Moa.

[JonD]

	Originally Posted by HAL 9000 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While I realize this was said in jest, I believe Crichton did bring up a valid point. These creatures existed in a world almost entirely different from our own. There are challenges and ramifications we would never be able to foresee.

The question is, does the risk outweigh the benefits? It depends on the species. I'd be up for reviving a T-Rex, because we'd be able to hunt them down if things started getting out of hand. But an insect would be much harder to deal with for obvious reasons.

I think we should revive some species because of the value of other forms of life. Exotic ecosystems have contributed to medical breakthroughs, for example. Also, you may have heard the recent news story that
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. We are probably currently eradicating species that have similar strange traits, that could provide benefits to us in the future. Allowing species to become extinct, or to stay relevant to the thread, not reviving species is like eliminating a tool that we do not yet know how to use.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by darynthe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it feasible? If so, should we do it? And if we do it, which species should or could we revive?

Maybe. Probably not. Depends.

These kinds of discussions - and the scattered focus of science in general - make me facepalm myself every single time... Instead of catching rare butterflies or resurrecting dinosaurs or improving fuel efficiency on Hummers, shouldn't we be spending more money on space exploration? Even if we manage to resurrect every single extinct species that has ever lived, it will be pointless if we all get squashed by a random asteroid - which we won't be able to stop because NASA's funding keeps getting slashed.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We need to secure our planet from extraterrestrial threats first, then establish a foothold on other planets to at least have a fighting chance as a species if Earth becomes compromised. Then and only then can we start wasting money on feeble and frivolous pursuits such as this.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dru]

Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe. Probably not. Depends. These kinds of discussions - and the scattered focus of science in general - make me facepalm myself every single time... Instead of catching rare butterflies or resurrecting dinosaurs or improving fuel efficiency on Hummers, shouldn't we be spending more money on space exploration? Even if we manage to resurrect every single extinct species that has ever lived, it will be pointless if we all get squashed by a random asteroid - which we won't be able to stop because NASA's funding keeps getting slashed. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. We need to secure our planet from extraterrestrial threats first, then establish a foothold on other planets to at least have a fighting chance as a species if Earth becomes compromised. Then and only then can we start wasting money on feeble and frivolous pursuits such as this. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

what are we going to survive on, if as you say the earth is destroyed and we are all that's left? frankly i think the ideal of populating other planets is unrealistic. what happens if and when asteroids decimate those planets?

so the human species gets wiped out in a few millenia. BFD. the universe won't even bat an eye. i don't see anybody mourning the total loss of countless other species... as long as people are around it'll all be okay, though, right? everything's dandy.

no, i don't think we ought to be pumping funds into space exploration, i think we ought to ante up and improve the overall quality of life on the planet we are already on - it would certainly be less tricky than migrating celestial bodies when things get too complicated on the one we've carelessly fucked up. you think life on another planet will be any better than life on this one? pfft. not if people have anything to do with it.

[Supaslim]

I guess for me it depends on why they went extinct. Is it because of an Ice Age or other natural disaster? Is it because they were out-competed by another species in the same niche (eg. the marsupial Thylacosmilus was out-competed by the morphologically and ecological similar placental mammal Smilodon) or is it because humans carelessly hunted them to death?

If their original ecosystems haven't changed much, and we were the direct cause of their extinction (like the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo, the Thylacine), then I see no reason why they shouldn't be revived and placed back into their native habitat, particularly if they are only recently extinct.

I wouldn't bring back anything from before the Quaternary, though. the earth has changed too much, and we wouldn't know how it would affect them, and how they would affect it.

I second the moa ranching, though.... Sounds like good eating.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	what are we going to survive on, if as you say the earth is destroyed and we are all that's left?

By "footholds" I mean colonies that would eventually grow to become self-sustaining, either through terraforming the planet in question (see Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars trilogy), or adapting to the existing atmosphere. For example, the surface of Venus is hell, but it's possible to set up camp a mile or two above it where the pressure isn't so great. All you have to do is bring your own atmosphere, since breathing methane isn't exactly healthy.

	frankly i think the ideal of populating other planets is unrealistic. what happens if and when asteroids decimate those planets?

Continuous expansion. If you have 10 planets, the chances of all 10 being hit at the same time are minuscule. Keeping all your eggs in one basket - or on a single planet, on the other hand, is just asking for it.

	so the human species gets wiped out in a few millenia. BFD. the universe won't even bat an eye.

To hell with the universe.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Even though Drake's equation is full of holes, the fact remains that life - and especially intelligent life - is incredibly rare. We may be the only species capable of space travel in our part of the galaxy. As a species, we beat the odds many times to get to this level, and I don't see why we have to stop now and simply sit around.

	i don't see anybody mourning the total loss of countless other species... as long as people are around it'll all be okay, though, right? everything's dandy.

Right. Dandy.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	no, i don't think we ought to be pumping funds into space exploration, i think we ought to ante up and improve the overall quality of life on the planet we are already on - it would certainly be less tricky than migrating celestial bodies when things get too complicated on the one we've carelessly fucked up.

That's like saying you'd rather spend all your money on eating ice cream instead of fighting cancer after getting diagnosed. Sure, ice cream is delicious and even has certain benefits for one's health, but if you know that cancer (=asteroid) will eventually kill you, such behavior is irresponsible.

	you think life on another planet will be any better than life on this one? pfft. not if people have anything to do with it.

I never said it would be a paradise - definitely not at first. This is about improving the odds of our survival as a species, not space cruise ships with all-you-can-eat buffets.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jonathon]

	Originally Posted by darynthe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it feasible? If so, should we do it? And if we do it, which species should or could we revive?

We?

WE?!

Are you a geneticist darynthe, with enough resources to pull something like this off? Contribute in any way?

There is no we. Once cannot speak for the whole of humanity.

I'm for: Terraform Venus and slap some intelligent reptiles onto it. Fun times. "Gods in the Heavens" indeed.

Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

what are we going to survive on, if as you say the earth is destroyed and we are all that's left? frankly i think the ideal of populating other planets is unrealistic. what happens if and when asteroids decimate those planets? so the human species gets wiped out in a few millenia. BFD. the universe won't even bat an eye. i don't see anybody mourning the total loss of countless other species... as long as people are around it'll all be okay, though, right? everything's dandy. no, i don't think we ought to be pumping funds into space exploration, i think we ought to ante up and improve the overall quality of life on the planet we are already on - it would certainly be less tricky than migrating celestial bodies when things get too complicated on the one we've carelessly fucked up. you think life on another planet will be any better than life on this one? pfft. not if people have anything to do with it.

It increases the odds of species survival, therefore a worthy investment. If you care for humanity that is.....hahaha

You're looking at it from the perspective of the Universe. Dont. You should only ever look at the Universe from your own personal mind. "What is good for me?"

Children make mistakes. Stop crying over spilt milk. Human Civilization is still young. Rahrahrah.

[Alderamin]

Revived megatheria would be awesome. Hopefully they would be docile because those things were enormous.

[Zsych]

They'd be getting revived for our own amusement. Why not.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I never said it would be a paradise - definitely not at first. This is about improving the odds of our survival as a species, not space cruise ships with all-you-can-eat buffets. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

going back to your cancer analogy, what good would it be to set ourselves up on another planet if cancer and HIV are going to follow us there, where we have less resources to sustain ourselves in the face of mortality?

i'm not saying never give space exploration the ol' college try, i'm saying it would be better, immeasurably more practical, to first take care of the issues we face today before dreaming about solutions for next tuesday.

[Supaslim]

	Originally Posted by Alderamin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Revived megatheria would be awesome. Hopefully they would be docile because those things were enormous.

THey are pretty awesome. Probably my favorite megafauna.

[darynthe]

Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe. Probably not. Depends. These kinds of discussions - and the scattered focus of science in general - make me facepalm myself every single time... Instead of catching rare butterflies or resurrecting dinosaurs or improving fuel efficiency on Hummers, shouldn't we be spending more money on space exploration? Even if we manage to resurrect every single extinct species that has ever lived, it will be pointless if we all get squashed by a random asteroid - which we won't be able to stop because NASA's funding keeps getting slashed. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. We need to secure our planet from extraterrestrial threats first, then establish a foothold on other planets to at least have a fighting chance as a spaecies if Earth becomes compromised. Then and only then can we start wasting money on feeble and frivolous pursuits such as this. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh you should remember to open a thread in the feedback subforum so the whole science forum be closed until after the terraformation of mars. So nobody wastes time discussing anything else for the next thousand years.

(BTW, you facepalm everything so I am surprised why you bother to continue in the INTJf at all.)

---------- Post added 12-05-2010 at 04:37 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Jonathon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We? WE?! Are you a geneticist darynthe, with enough resources to pull something like this off? Contribute in any way? There is no we. Once cannot speak for the whole of humanity.

Ok, any moderator care to change the name of this thread to : "Should geneticists with good investors revive extint species after NASA has successfully terraformed mars?"

Thanks in advance.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	going back to your cancer analogy, what good would it be to set ourselves up on another planet if cancer and HIV are going to follow us there, where we have less resources to sustain ourselves in the face of mortality?

Er... You're mixing the analogies here. Again: ignoring space exploration and extraterrestrial colonies while gleefully researching other stuff is like eating ice cream all day every day instead of getting treatment after being diagnosed with cancer. We know Earth has been hit with huge asteroids in the past. We know those collisions caused ice ages and the near-instant extinction of almost all species. And yet here we are, fucking around with saving pandas and reviving dinosaurs.

A proper way to extrapolate the analogy would be this: sure, beating cancer (=colonizing other planets) would be incredibly difficult and would require a huge sacrifice, and after achieving that goal, your standard of living would probably be lower (can't eat certain food or do certain things that could cause remission = life on other planets would probably suck at first), but hey - you'll still be alive (=not extinct as a species), and you'll have so many more things to look forward to and enjoy (=continue exploring the universe and improving ourselves). On the other hand, you could gorge yourself full of ice cream (=ignore the space program) and have as much fun as you can (=yay for reviving dinosaurs and other frivolous projects), until someday you either won't wake up (=instant destruction caused by an asteroid or some such) or will get hospitalized at the very end and spend your last days in agony (=some other natural/man-made disaster that will kill us all as we remain trapped on this planet).

	i'm not saying never give space exploration the ol' college try, i'm saying it would be better, immeasurably more practical, to first take care of the issues we face today before dreaming about solutions for next tuesday.

Really? And when, pray tell, will be a good, appropriate and practical time to spend resources on hedging our bets and colonizing other planets? Chances are, by your definition there won't be such a time. If you postpone it by 10 years, in 2020 people will say "hey, we can't do that now - we're working on sexbots!" In 2030 it will be holographic TVs, in 2040 it will be cloned mini-pandas available to any consumer, in 2050 injecting yourself with nanobots will be all the rage, etc. If you keep postponing something so vital "for next tuesday," it's just as shortsighted and, in a way, suicidal as eating ice cream instead of getting cancer treatments...

[zibber]

I think it's very important to realize that there is no "should" involved in this. (As with nature preservation.) Humans like to think they are doing what is right, but in all honesty it is just choice.

Origins and extinction are chance (excepting, in one sense, those species single handedly wiped out by thinking humans), preservation and revival are choice.

[Nonsuch]

Hey, the other planets which are candidates for colonization are just as likely to be struck by a meteor as is the earth.

I think that sitting down and eating a bowl of ice cream is more rewarding than trying to dodge phantom asteroids any day of the week.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.