So, by that logic if we drive Elephants and Rhinoceroses out of existence because we like Ivory/horns it was meant to be simply because they cannot
breed as fast as cockroaches?
If we look at humans as just part of the genetic diversity that come to be on this planet then I fail to see how there is a difference between Earth
caused Natural Selection/Extinctions vs Homo Sapien caused extinction events. Are we not part of the natural selection process as well? I believe we
That said if we have the technology to restore certain species then each case should be carefully weighed before that determination. I would not like
to suddenly see a bunch of Sabre Tooth Tigers breeding in the wild out at Yellowstone park.
We could be creating the makings of our own extinction.
noun: vector; plural noun: vectors
2. an organism, typically a biting insect or tick, that transmits a disease or parasite from one animal or plant to another.
a bacteriophage or plasmid that transfers genetic material into a cell, or from one bacterium to another.
So we bring back the dodo. Now imagine something in the dodo's genetic make-up that converts a simple virus into a "bird-flu" of unseen
I love the idea of bringing back species that have gone extinct. From birds, to saber-toothed kittehs, to dino's!
But we are constantly realigning our own homeostasis. Our own equilibrium that fits us within our environment. And something like this, while
interesting, and fascinating, might just be the doom that dooms us to doomington town in a doom-bus.
I'd really like to understand your thinking on the difference between the Natural Selection vs Homo Sapien Extinctions. To me they are the same thing
unless we look at humans as a special species outside of natural selection. We may be hugely destructive as a species but that doesn't really matter
when you look at the planet as a closed system over billions of years. Or does it?
Although interesting, that's a potential. Not a fact that that would happen. We drove certain species to extinction fairly recently. those are the
ones I'm talking about. If it as you put it were the case then we should have already succumbed to that potential threat while we were hunting them
Dinos and sabertooths etc, although cool, would not be ones I'd like to be re-released into the wild, that's a no brainer.
So, should we drive the Blue whale and others into extinction simply because don't know whether or not they were on their way out anyways?
No that's not what I meant. Simply that if we did drive them to extinction regardless of the reason wouldn't that by definition be a natural
selection extinction event?
I like whales and I'm pretty sure most people don't wake up one morning and say "Hey I'm going to destroy a species today." Mostly that seems to
happen due to ignorance, greed and short sightedness of whoever is dong the wiping out. Whaling is a good example of that. They would also be a
species I'd recommend restoring.
My first reaction would be to say: if the species was eradicated by us humans, and we can bring it back, then we should.
BUT: as it has been pointed out, some of the species have been gone for so long that the environment they were in has now adapted to their loss. Would
we not be possibly causing another extinction by re-introducing that lost species?
As for doubts of whether we cause extinctions or not, off the top of my head, I can think of several species of tigers that no longer exist, who have
no doubt what caused their extinction.....humans.
This discussion reminds me of this video:
edit on 31-8-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)
Personally I think Human civilisation is pushing many species over the edge to extinction. Whilst we are developing technology that could help prevent
ecological disaster, and perhaps eventually resurrect extinct species, the problem we have is our population growth rate mixed with our pursuit of
indefinite economic growth within a closed system (Earth), combined with other factors such as resource management and potentially harmful technology
& agriculture, which is degrading our biosphere, I've tried to explain this a bit in the following network diagram in PDF format :
I agree with Slayer69 that we don't appear to be very symbiotic with our fellow species on this planet..
Its refreshing to think our technology could be used for the best and help with extinction events, but I'm just not sure if our society will change
the paths outlined on the above diagram? Lets hope we do...
...I believe most, if not all, viable species have some sort of symbiotic relation to another or to the environment as a whole. *Except Homo
Could you please clarify? All humans clearly are NOT out of balance (non-symbiotic) with each other and the environment. Moreover, the case can be
made that most who currently live out of balance have been "pushed" there by larger outside forces (economic and otherwise). ....Are you suggesting
that these forces originate from non-human (alien) sources?
The movies 12 Monkeys and I Am Legend got me thinking. Lions appear in both movies, having escaped from zoos after extinction level events hits
humanity. In I Am Legend the lions not only survived but are thriving. The USA's Land mass is at least half of the North American continent.
Within our borders are every type of climate and habitat that exists elsewhere on the planet.
I'm surprised that the USA hasn't built massive wildlife preserves, not for native species but for African and
Asian species of animals. The USA wouldn't have the issues with poachers like other continents do. We could set up entire ecosystems based on
endangered animals elephants, rhinos, hippos, types of deer and predators to limit there populations. The other option would be to start living as
apart of nature and stop destroying it for profit.
I'm not sure about bringing back extinct animals, but sooner or later we will because we can. I do support dna seed banks of as many species as
possible. Our future could depend on the past in some way.
I agree with what another poster said, that if we brought back an older, extinct species who knows what kind of virus/illness it would bring back with
I say before we start bringing back extinct animals we should know /learn everything about our own body, and how to heal various illnesses, so we are
There are still so many illnesses we don't have a cure for.
You beat me to it. I would be concerned that things as mundane as dandruff and saliva from some ancient species could trigger rampant disease in
Seems we have some pretty nasty viruses on the planet right now from animals we have coexisted with for centuries. Add in something we possibly had no
contact with and who knows what comes out of that soup.
Nearly 80 years ago the last Tasmanian Tiger died in captivity. Now if it or a similar species were to be resurrected, How could anyone or anywhere
house such creatures? Rapid urbanization is already eradicating habitats all over the globe and the scant wilderness we do have can barely sustain the
wildlife that they have.
And then there is the issues of acclimatisation. Nobody would drop a village of Inuits into the Sahara and expect them to make a seamless transfer
into their new environment, let alone a species that has been extinct for hundreds if not thousands of years.
As for the the ethical reasons I can see why we would want to do such a thing-it would be a way of righting the wrongs that we've accrued over
thousands of years, But if we were to revive some extinct species then we could be dooming them to extinction all over again.
are you guy's serious? Natural selection and interbreeding?
Lets take a look at the mule. The mule is mostly sterile.
Those claiming darwinism in this thread need to updated their 19th century science books.
So interbreeding and and *survival of the fittest*. Sounds like something a neaderthal would say if they were here to discuss what's on their mind.
Sure Neanderthal dna is in some of us by some freak accident of man on monkey love.
But Evolution come from pathogens, Virus's, Ameobas, And bacteria. A phage is a type of Ameoba that has been tamed in the body in order to combat
infection and act as a buffer to the immune system. White blood cells are an ancient line of these *branches* of pathogens we inherited.
Even if you wanted to believe that a monkey and yadda yadda even matter. It honestly does not. If you knew you're way around *evolution* you could
potencially completely alter an organism to fit into another animal kingdom. It's not even out of the question. It's only likely that This occures
*naturaly* and *unaturally* as well. If we consider consious intent to be unatural and cause and effect to be natural.
You are only about 1% human after all. That's the only thing that makes the distinction between us and everything else.
Why do you think they say bananas have 50% human dna? Or any fruit or animal even as high up as 80-90? Excluding apes? Clearly we can fit into many
linages. And why is this? Because all life on earth runs by principals that utilizes 4 basic elements. Carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen.
Which build up the *molecules* of our body. Each of these atoms carries potencial energy to unleash more life and this is how bacteria and pathogens
thrive on our body.
Mold can appear in the most unlikely of places. This is decaying material forcing life to exaust more energy from the mass.
My point is that these proteins that build the chromosom in our DNA all come from viruses.
And it's very likely amobas are mutated bacteria changed by viruses. So at the very base level at the chain of creation is viruses.
Viruses outnumber bacteria 10 to 1. They are smaller than bacteria, and are considered nano particles ( Within the nano scale)
So what's this about Extinctions being obsolete? It's plagues that force evolution, Not mating.
I don't understand how people can come to conclusion that mateing is the ultimate answer to how life changed so radically on earth. Mutt dogs are
better suited to thrive and they are a mixture of different dog *breeds* Not to mention dogs used to live MUCH longer before they were forced to mate
with brother and sister to force new breeds. This kind of stuff causes huge genetic defects and is not a viable source for evolution. Kidney problems,
Liver problems, Bone problems, birth defects and increased agression. Pure breeds are dangerous and will soon become more ratty without any genetic
reconstruction we could see many dog breeds go *extinct* when more and more become sterile.
And sticking to one side or the other saying Creation is what started everything! or saying Evolution started everything! is futile.
1. Because Viruses carry information.
2. Our body recieves this information
3. We don't know the source of the virus
4. We cannot trace our linage through procreation other than mitchondria DNA.
5. That we could of recieved many of our genes from Infection, Even cross species infection. Changing ecosystems rapidly.
6. All this could of been achieved by an Advanced Extra Terrestrial source
Genetics is making it very apparent that we could of been created by E.T.
How do evolutions respond when we are creating life right now? We will terra form planets with life, And what if we make humanoids there? Would we
claim it was all natural instead of by design? Would we still be ignorant and ignore the fact that just as much as life forms by itself it can be
started by life? Life creates life? Who would of thought....
Could it really be that simple? That life seems to somehow somewhat produce more life? Even elsewhere? I'm sure this sounds sarcastic because its such
an easy and obvious question to answer. Go plant a seed in your backyard with some water and see what happens.
edit on 31-8-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.