Whether or not there is a small surviving population somewhere or not, this seems to help further the thought of them living once again along with other extinct animals.

Maybe we will have them to see, once more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080520/sc_af...UwrUpjednMPLBIF

Any thoughts?

"Maybe one day this might be possible but it won't happen in my lifetime,"

hope she is wrong about that. I wanna see some of our extinct animals.

I know the temptation to want to see extinct animals. There are lots of extinct animals I'd love to see again, and if a hundred years from now, technology could bring back whales and elephants, that would be a huge temptation indeed. However: sometimes I feel this is going against nature. Maybe we oughtta sometimes leave well enough alone.

I actually disagree. We are after all just as much a part of nature as every other species on the planet. It is "our" planet, and if we get the technology to bring back extinct animals, i think we should do it. Of course we should not bring back all, that would be irresposible. But i don't see anything wrong in bringing back some species. After all, it is estimated that 25 species dies out every single day, what harm could it do to bring back a handful of those? And if nothing else, then atlest bring back the ones that we "helped" go extinct, such as the Tasmanian tiger.

yes we don't really want a real jurrasic park do we.as much as i would love to see dinosaurs living and breathing.i just have to settle for my salt-water crocs!!

Sorry but i disagree with you. if god wanted the species to be extinct, then he did it for a reason! we already have the technology to bring things back to life, but i say it is tampering with gods plan! everything happens for a reason.

That is only if you actually believe in a god, which i don't. It is not "gods" world, it is ours.

The ability to control and manipulate our environment has been expanding since the first caveman picked up a tool. Even in the bibles first book of Genisis it states that man was given dominion over the animals.

Genetic manipulation was a foregone conclusion as soon as man had curiosity and invented math. It was never a question of if, it was a question of when. If we have enough time before we go extinct we will ultimatly unravel all of physics mysteries.

So the very laws of evolution dictate that intellignce eventually leads to the ability to control evolution itself. How we apply that knowledge is a matter of choice, that we can apply it is a matter of time. We might not even recognize the human race as such in another thousand years. Designer humans are as much a possibility as designer animals and plants.

Ethics of what society accepts will be the determining factor, and ethics change with need and perception. Every technology ever developed has been used, even the most terrible of all, atomic bombs. Every country that can build one has, and many that can't want to. Just look at Iran.

Do not know where the human race is headed, but technology and its applications will be the pavement we travel on.

Even if we do acquire the means to clone these extinct animals, they will never be anything more than curiosities to be displayed at zoos. There is a certain amount of genetic diversity that is required to exist in a population of animals in order to help ensure its continued survival. Cloning extinct animals will produce perhaps a few individuals (presuming one has access to the genome of a few individuals), but nothing that could allow for the reintroduction of viable breeding populations.

So essentially the point I'm getting at is, extinction is still forever, and we should concentrate on sustaining the species we have. Resurrecting extinct animals so they can be put on display is more of an insult to nature than anything, and is not any means of righting any past wrongs humanity may have done to these creatures.

Maybe you could bring back those creatures that have died out because of man,but what do you do with them there isn't enough room for what wildlife we have left,so it will be kept in a zoo purely for entertainment.

I dont know if we should be playing god bringing back extinct animals.

Reference - Jurassic park. haahahaha.

Well, anyone could be the right person to quell what seems a side arguement: A belief in a God(s) is something that is beyond fact. Faith is an opinion above fact and you won't shake it with them, so please don't bring God into this conversation. He/She's a trump card that you just can't defeat with any arguement the person with the faith will take as valid, that's the power of faith.

So onto the revitialization of the Species: They could diversify the genetic code with other species whom are similiar or are close to the desires of the scientist. Like they did in Jurassic Park. We've done some basic things with DNA: Copy, Cut, and Paste. Seriously, just look at what we've done. Its like the basic computer commands. One day we will have the power to mold the code and not just move the code around. We might even one day be able to write whole new codes when we have a real grasp of the power in those little amino acids. Ethics? Well, that's a matter of opinion not fact. And as such, not all of us will hold the same as true. The Chinese and Korean nations are leaps and bounds ahead of us, is it ethics that holds us or is it the lack there of that pushes them? Does it even matter in the long run? Sure Pacifisim is a very honorable way of life, but if everyone else around you is fighting, chances are your going to die. It doesn't matter what ethics you hold true, your dead. Now, will our genetic manipulation hold such things for us? maybe, Chinese clone armies? not likely, they have a population problem already. But super troopers with enhanced senses and strength, possible in maybe another 100-200 years. Who cares if your the most ethical person on the world, you weren't the most efficient. Darwanism doesn't give a damn who was a good person, just the best person at surviving. Even when it comes to each other.

Beyond the fact that it doesn't really matter if you hold ethics important, I believe that it depends on the reason that the species died. If it was the Panda, let it die. The creature cannot procreate and that's a failure in evolution, so let it die. In the case of the Bald Eagle (sadly, give it time) You should because its our fault its dead. Sure we are a creature of this world, but we've left the food chain, we're on whole new level that no spieces has ever gotten. We have become the apex of the mountain that is adaptation. We've left that world, and so we should keep out of it. I try not to let my Cat attack the field mice because he's existing outside that system, an animal that no longer keep the circle going, but takes out of the system without returning to it. We are the cat now, and should keep ourselves out of it. If we were the cause of the exincition of a species, we should bring it back because it wouldn't of happened without us. The natural course would have been its continued existance.

Does God want us to not intervene? How can we say? If the being that is god is beyond our senses, beyond our logic, then how can we even fathom what he/she wants? All that we know of the spirit that is the Alpha and Omega is through people who thought the world was flat and that they needed to bleed themselves to rid a body of disease. Certianly things could have been lost in translation from onmipotent being to broke-out-of-the-stone-age-man. No person alive can say what God wants because they could not fathom it, we have not the faculties as the one who we call God. But if it is the Christian understanding of God, not the Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu, then I'm certain the Bible has a good starting point. Sadly, there will be no passages on Space Flight, Genetic Manipulation, Abortions, or Birth Control. Why? because those things are uncomprehendible to the people who wrote their takes on Jesus' life. There was no comparable idea or thing to these issues, and all we can do is try to decipher what they would say about them. Interpretation is like statistics: they're right 90% of the time, 50% of the time. We'll just have to make it up as we go along, because a 1500 year old book just wasn't ready for these things.

I'm sorry about the whole bible stint, but its likely to be popular with those who browse an english based website. Since it was taken up in the thread, I saw it appropriate.

I'm sure we could attempt to artificially diversify the gene pool of a species eventually. Although I wonder what the result would in fact be. If we take genes from say the Tasmanian devil, and try and diversify the Tasmanian tiger's gene pool with them, do we still have a Tasmanian tiger? What influence would that have on the environment if we do in fact try and introduce them into the wild? Would these new genes make them better able to survive than natural animals? It could have catastrophic environmental repercussions.

It is these sorts of questions which must be answered. If the consequences of such a thing cannot be adequately predicted, and the potential benefit to the world is only slight, then I don't think it is wise to attempt such a thing.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of making novel genetic code, we can already make synthetic DNA, and paste that into living cells. We've almost managed to change the code itself (referring to changing which codons code for which amino acids).

Here's a link for your interest:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/m...e-for-life.html



Funny you should mention places like Korea and claim that a lack of ethics drives them when only recently there has been a rather infamous case of scientific malpractice regarding one of their scientists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4600402.stm

Ethics are in place in science for a reason. To consider the consequences of technology (as I've already mentioned), and to attempt to prevent setbacks caused by academic dishonesty, among other things. Ethics certainly do matter in the long run, as ignoring them can have extreme consequences.

To say that "Darwinism doesn't give a damn who was a good person" is completely false. The fact is, if being nice was so detrimental to ones survival, then no one would be nice, because selection would have removed that trait altogether.

I'll refer you to an article discussing the evolution of altruism (there are many), and why it in fact did evolve.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/737345.stm

Additionally, fitness in a Darwinian sense, refers to ones proportionate genetic contribution to future generations. If being nice means you'll attract lots of mates and have lots of babies, then Darwinism certainly does give a damn. Surviving is meaningless in terms of evolution unless you produced offspring.



The panda's procreational strategy is not unique. Many larger and longer-lived animals produce few offspring at a time. This is an evolutionary strategy that has proved successful for hundreds of millions of years. The panda's decreasing numbers comes mostly from its specific habitat requirements in an area that is rapidly seeing increased industrial expansion. When the panda goes extinct, it will be humanity's fault, as it will be when the Bald Eagle goes extinct.

Also, we have not left the food chain - tell that to the next Grizzly you meet during a hike in the woods lol. That is not to say our dietary requirements will not be capable of being met should these species go extinct, they most likely will. But that should not be the only thing capable of motivating one to preserve the species that currently exist.

Lastly, we have hardly become, what you said, "the apex that is the mountain that is adaptation" either. The largest ecosystem on the planet, the deep sea, is completely hostile to all human life, yet contains a wide variety of thriving species most of which have yet to be described by humans. Not to mention the most successful organisms are also the most primitive - bacteria are surely the sole occupants of the adaptation apex, and can be found in the most hostile environments. Arthropods are probably the most complex organisms that approach the top.

I will end, however, with this note. Genetic modification of animals (including humans), for whatever reason, should be examined in terms of the consequences of NOT using the technology, as well as using it. You raise valid points concerning the use of this technology by other nations, and what may happen to us should we fall behind, but ethics still has a part to play when considering whether its use is justified.

This post has been edited by Supreme Acolyte: Jun 23 2008, 12:14 AM

Its not our's, either...we don't hold the title on it...though we behave as though we do. It belongs to every living creature and you have to question and consider how our tampering with nature will effect a finely tuned machine...one which managed to operate just fine without humankind tweaking it at their whim. I'm not advocating doing away with our technology...just applying ethics when necessary...we do seem to have a knack for fucking things up in the environment, you know..

macdaddy.....I agree with you there....bring back things like the dodo bird or the great auk.....leave the dinosaurs as part of the past.

I am planning on going on a Tasmanian Tiger hunt later this year. I am going to the Tarkine forest in Tasmania. I'll let you know if I see anything! lol I just have to get a GPS, because it's easy to get lost there, as I plan to get off the beaten track and follow some rivers into the heart of the forest, where they might be living. Also, I think following a water source is a good idea.

Bring a good camera.

I wish you lots of luck.

Well, in that sense, it is not possible to "own" anything, but in the sense of the word that most people use it, we do own the earth.

Thank you for removing the topic of debate from the TOPIC. You're fired.

Moving on, I was using it as a metaphor, I myself don't believe in god, but as a euphamism while speaking it is perfectly acceptable. Get off your high horse, I can think of many ways to beat the god "trump card" without much effort.