Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Bringing the Shasta Ground Sloth out of Extinction
Topic Started: Sep 4 2016, 12:14 AM (1,819 Views)
YixianIsLoveYixianIsLife
No Avatar


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/10/bring-back-the-shasta-ground-sloth/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Oh boy yet another animal scientist want to bring back for really no good apparent reason

Posted Image

First mammoths and now that can't work because for some strange reason after 20 odd years they keep making the same excuse why nothing happened yet then rhinos then the cave lions now this. Just admit you can't clone them and it's not possible and move on! We have bigger issues then worrying about cloning dead useless animals! Has Cancer or HIV or AIDS been cleared up yet? There's an idea of what you "scientists" could do
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleodude
Member Avatar
ex-Krampus

While I agree that the constant attempts to bring back long extinct megafauna is very redundant to hear usefull data is still pulled from attempts. From attempts of cloning mammoth we now know the approximate decomposition time of DNA and various new methods of cloning. Even though you might not end up with a giant sloth at the end you might be able to find something new other unique about genetic code. Not to mention at least mapping out parts of the genome might help us produce an even better image of the animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
babehunter1324
No Avatar


Considering how hard it's been to rewild natural areas with extant species (Introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf Reintroduction of the North West Gray Wolf in Yellowstone, jeoparadize of rewilding in the UK and Australia) doing it with extinct animals seems extremelly complicated, expensive and almsot certainly will causemore trouble than it's worth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HENDRIX
Member Avatar
-retired-

The article has a humorous tone, especially towards the end. ;)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulquiorra
Member Avatar


And nobody ever considers cloning animals that we made extinct within the last few decades or even centuries, other than the Pyrenean Ibex, and even that didn't last long. So why can people talk about cloning something that's been extinct for 10's of thousands of years?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

BossMan, Jake
Sep 4 2016, 12:41 AM
Oh boy yet another animal scientist want to bring back for really no good apparent reason

Posted Image

First mammoths and now that can't work because for some strange reason after 20 odd years they keep making the same excuse why nothing happened yet then rhinos then the cave lions now this. Just admit you can't clone them and it's not possible and move on! We have bigger issues then worrying about cloning dead useless animals! Has Cancer or HIV or AIDS been cleared up yet? There's an idea of what you "scientists" could do
You say this as if every "scientist" as you put it has a medical doctorate. Not everyone wants to study cancer or HIV. That's such a depressing field of study, some people want to study potential for life, not reasons for death.

Ulquiorra
 
And nobody ever considers cloning animals that we made extinct within the last few decades or even centuries, other than the Pyrenean Ibex, and even that didn't last long. So why can people talk about cloning something that's been extinct for 10's of thousands of years?
Except for you know the passenger pigeon, great auk, gastric brooding frog, golden toad, Raphus, thylacine, Carolina parakeet, Labrador duck, and about a dozen other bird species and at least one other amphibian I can't remember the name of. http://reviverestore.org/candidates/

You act as if only large mammals matter but it's the small animals that are not only the most likely to have successful reintroduction (and if reintroduction fails or takes a long time, they will do best in captivity). And before anyone starts hugging their Ingrid Newkirk dakimakura's paleontologists studying the thylacine (including Michael Archer, who's been working with thylacine DNA for years) have suggested on multiple occasions that if thylacines hadn't been illegal to keep as pets that they probably would have survived.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErexJkoDhGI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulquiorra
Member Avatar


stargatedalek
Sep 4 2016, 10:14 AM
Ulquiorra
 
And nobody ever considers cloning animals that we made extinct within the last few decades or even centuries, other than the Pyrenean Ibex, and even that didn't last long. So why can people talk about cloning something that's been extinct for 10's of thousands of years?
Except for you know the passenger pigeon, great auk, gastric brooding frog, golden toad, Raphus, thylacine, Carolina parakeet, Labrador duck, and about a dozen other bird species and at least one other amphibian I can't remember the name of. http://reviverestore.org/candidates/
Apart from the gastric brooding frog, have people made an attempt at cloning any of the other? I only mentioned the Ibex, because I new there was some success in actually cloning the animal, even if it did die minutes later. The gastric brooding frog I knew was attempted, but I can't remember if there was any success or not. Thylacine, people talk about it, being cloned, but no attempts so far. The others, I don't know.
Edited by Ulquiorra, Sep 4 2016, 02:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YixianIsLoveYixianIsLife
No Avatar


I really hope that We will be able to bring back the Shasta Ground Sloth along with so many various other American Animals that are sadly now extinct like the Great Auk, Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, American Mastodon, Jefferson Ground Sloth and Running Hyena
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Ulquiorra
Sep 4 2016, 02:06 PM
stargatedalek
Sep 4 2016, 10:14 AM
Ulquiorra
 
And nobody ever considers cloning animals that we made extinct within the last few decades or even centuries, other than the Pyrenean Ibex, and even that didn't last long. So why can people talk about cloning something that's been extinct for 10's of thousands of years?
Except for you know the passenger pigeon, great auk, gastric brooding frog, golden toad, Raphus, thylacine, Carolina parakeet, Labrador duck, and about a dozen other bird species and at least one other amphibian I can't remember the name of. http://reviverestore.org/candidates/
Apart from the gastric brooding frog, have people made an attempt at cloning any of the other? I only mentioned the Ibex, because I new there was some success in actually cloning the animal, even if it did die minutes later. The gastric brooding frog I knew was attempted, but I can't remember if there was any success or not. Thylacine, people talk about it, being cloned, but no attempts so far. The others, I don't know.
I was referring to the time frame. All the species on that list are ones considered potentially viable, and most are from fairly recent times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YixianIsLoveYixianIsLife
No Avatar


Kentucky really needs to have much of its unique fauna brought back from extinction that it has lost
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Imperator Furiosa
Member Avatar
Chaos Theory

Part of the issue with bringing back species that have been extinct for as long as the Shasta Ground Sloth is that the environment has changed drastically in that time. It would even be an issue for some species that have gone extinct in the last few hundred years, their habitat is gone.

And this isn't even getting into the ethical issues surrounding cloning. Should we be cloning animals to begin with, let alone long extinct species? I personally am in favor of cloning research but many people, including many scientists, are not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


I honestly do not see an ethical issue with cloning. Cloning is no more unethical than bringing a baby into the world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anton
Member Avatar
King of Cotingas

Not quite. With cloning, decay of telomeres cannot be undone; clones will always show symptoms of elderliness at a younger age; only if the DNA had been sourced near birth of the individual we'd take it from, it would have a chance to live to an adult age. Having children with potential to live a full life is always more ethical than having children that have a much higher chance of dying sooner.

Other than that, there's also the fact that cloning takes away genetic diversity in a population, meaning genes become over-represented, genes responsible for recessive diseases become more present, leading to an unhealthy population in the long run. If we were to do it with what few individuals we do have of extinct species, we'd need at least DNA of a male ánd a female for it to be a succesful clone, and even then the odds of having a reliable, stable population at any time after that would be near impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


From what I'm finding, Telomeres can be repaired after cloning. This misconception was a worry early on, but actual experiments have shown this is not the case, so this is a non-issue.

Cloning can't take away genetic diversity if there is no population to have diversity taken from. While it is true that genes can become over-represented, this is also the case in selective breeding, and there is no debate on whether selective breeding is ethical or not.

We would not need the DNA of a male and female because then it's not a clone. If you wanted to breed them, you could just change their sex before fertilization, as we have the ability to do so already.

The odds of the population being stable are not really relevant to if cloning itself is ethical because there is more reasons for cloning than just conservation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1