Are they going too far

[R181]

I had to ask myself that question after reading an article about recreating a wolf specie that was extinct 10,000 years ago. I am not overly religious, but this is closer than we maybe should get to playing God. Bigger question is what direction/directions it takes from here.

Dire wolves are back from extinction. Here's how.

Dire wolves, made famous by HBO's Game of Thrones, have been extinct for around 12,500 years. But thanks to genetic engineers at biotech company Colossal Biosciences, these majestic predators are back.

www.livescience.com

Bob

 

[Rufusdog]

I had to ask myself that question after reading an article about recreating a wolf specie that was extinct 10,000 years ago. I am not overly religious, but this is closer than we maybe should get to playing God. Bigger question is what direction/directions it takes from here.

Dire wolves are back from extinction. Here's how.

Dire wolves, made famous by HBO's Game of Thrones, have been extinct for around 12,500 years. But thanks to genetic engineers at biotech company Colossal Biosciences, these majestic predators are back.

www.livescience.com

Bob

What’s the point other than look what we can do? If there’s some higher purpose, noble or otherwise, I’d like to hear it.

 

[TobyC]

I had to ask myself that question after reading an article about recreating a wolf specie that was extinct 10,000 years ago. I am not overly religious, but this is closer than we maybe should get to playing God. Bigger question is what direction/directions it takes from here.

Dire wolves are back from extinction. Here's how.

Dire wolves, made famous by HBO's Game of Thrones, have been extinct for around 12,500 years. But thanks to genetic engineers at biotech company Colossal Biosciences, these majestic predators are back.

www.livescience.com

Bob

No worse than breeding animals to produce breeds that never occur in nature, or changing boys into girls and vice-versa.

 

[nervosa1901]

No worse than breeding animals to produce breeds that never occur in nature, or changing boys into girls and vice-versa.

Just couldn't help yourself, could ya, pal?

 

[R181]

No worse than breeding animals to produce breeds that never occur in nature, or changing boys into girls and vice-versa.

With animals it was normally done by natural and/or artificial insemination to produce animals that produced more milk and the like and not by cutting and splicing genetic material of a non-existing animal.

In the second case no breeding or genetic cloning is used. The change of gender is not forced on anyone but can be requested by an individual.

Neither of those are similar to recreating an extinct species.

Bob

 

[R181]

You know, it is like nuclear fission leading to the creation of the atomic bomb plus other arguably more useful purposes. You cannot stuff the gene back in the box once something is discovered and exploited for good or bad.

Bob

 

[Twelvefret]

Just couldn't help yourself, could ya, pal?

I honestly do not think he, she, or they can.

 

[slapo]

...
Neither of those are similar to recreating an extinct species.

IMO, this is more like a revival than recreating a species. Practically the opposite of killing off a species.
This isn't to say whether it's right or wrong, but there can be some benefits to both, as well as negatives, and it's mostly time that reveals them.

 

[SpeedyPC]

Sometimes you have to look in the mirror and really asked yourself this question is the Anunnaki is our REAL TRUE GOD, are we all created by extraterrestrial, and are we truly the only human species, and civilisation on earth throughout the entire universe? And WHY, and really asked yourself, is why the highest military government hiding UFO alien technology for more than 50 years since US congressional hearing on UFOs and non-human 'biologics'??

Asked yourself TRUE or a total FALSE lie? Is the Bible telling the truth? by not tell us about the Anunnaki?

 

[R181]

IMO, this is more like a revival than recreating a species. Practically the opposite of killing off a species.
This isn't to say whether it's right or wrong, but there can be some benefits to both, as well as negatives, and it's mostly time that reveals them.

Yes, you have to have living examples of an already existing species in order to kill off that species so that is not happening here.

If I have got it right, they took some original segments of the DNA and combined them with artificial manmade segments of DNA. To me that would imply a best guess at recreating a species rather than using 100% original DNA to revive a species. Yea, I am splitting hairs here for arguments sake.

The question is whether it is right or wrong. Unfortunately, only time will tell will show what benefits and negatives happen if we continue down this path.

Bob

 

[SpeedyPC]

Yes, you have to have living examples of an already existing species in order to kill off that species so that is not happening here.

If I have got it right, they took some original segments of the DNA and combined them with artificial manmade segments of DNA. To me that would imply a best guess at recreating a species rather than using 100% original DNA to revive a species. Yea, I am splitting hairs here for arguments sake.

The question is whether it is right or wrong. Unfortunately, only time will tell will show what benefits and negatives happen if we continue down this path.

Bob

It's really amazing by using all the available DNA to bring something back to life, science genetic engineering needs to be extra careful on which type species allow to return to life.

 

[R181]

Another take on Dire wolves.

MSN

Bob

 

[Chris]

Leaving aside for a moment the debate over whether they're actually dire wolves or simply mutated grey wolves I have to wonder what the point is in trying to bring them back? The dire wolf, along with the mammoth are species that nature did not select, they became extinct for a reason. It's not the same as the dodo which became extinct after we killed them all, and even there I'm not sure what benefit there would be in creating a mutant almost-dodo.

The time and money being spent on this could be being spent on trying to protect some of the species we already have that are currently endangered.

 

[Twelvefret]

One observation I have made over the years is that those in research have to find a gig. They have to do something which someone will fund. Then these folks spend their lives studying that topic following the evidence where it leads.

 

[Vacumatic]

I had to ask myself that question after reading an article about recreating a wolf specie that was extinct 10,000 years ago. I am not overly religious, but this is closer than we maybe should get to playing God. Bigger question is what direction/directions it takes from here.

Dire wolves are back from extinction. Here's how.

Dire wolves, made famous by HBO's Game of Thrones, have been extinct for around 12,500 years. But thanks to genetic engineers at biotech company Colossal Biosciences, these majestic predators are back.

www.livescience.com

Bob

This is not a comparable story but I find it remarkable but when nature takes a hand it could have a good outcome.

A single tree of a very primitive conifer, the Wollemi pine was found in the 1990s, thought to be from around 200 million years ago and tree has been extinct for 90million years. An odd looking branch shape and no veins in the leaves. The Australian Forestry Commission has done the sensible thing in not wanting to keep this tree in one territory, saplings have been sent all over the world, including England.