Extinctions are Obsolete

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Completely disagree

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 are.

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.

a reply to: SLAYER69

We could be creating the makings of our own extinction.

Lemme 'splain.


vec·tor
/ˈvektər/
noun
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.
•Genetics
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 proportions!

Instant doom.

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.

originally posted by: Bassago

That said if we have the technology to restore certain species then each case should be carefully weighed before that determination.

Which is one of the things we agree on and partly what this thread is about.

a reply to: SLAYER69

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?

a reply to: beezzer

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 to extinction.


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.

a reply to: Bassago

So, should we drive the Blue whale and others into extinction simply because we don't know whether or not they were on their way out anyways?

a reply to: SLAYER69

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.

a reply to: SLAYER69

This though, is the whole point between wisdom and knowledge.

We may have the knowledge and ability to do something, but should we?

Could you argue for doing this from an ethical standpoint?

originally posted by: Bassago
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 don't think so, no, not really. If we drive a species to extinction over a non critical reason such as fuel oil, then no, it's not justifiable.

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."

Yet, by human actions some have gone extinct whether or not it was the intended result.

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.

There again we agree.

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:

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 :

www.dropbox.com...

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...

originally posted by: eriktheawful
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 has no adapted to their loss.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Now, having said that. I'd recommend bringing back only those species where their natural habitat either still exists or easily reinstated

a reply to: SLAYER69

...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 Sapien.

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?




F&S

Cool thread Slayer

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.

a reply to: SLAYER69

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 it?

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 prepared.
There are still so many illnesses we don't have a cure for.

We have such problems with evasive species already that bringing back extinct species and reintroducing them into the current environment could be disastrous.

Another point to consider. . . .

Imagine bringing back the Passenger Pigeon.

YAY!

But it has to eat.

Now we've messed up insect populations to the point where we are having serious issues finding pollinators. What if bringing back that bird caused some pollinators to go extinct?

No crops?
Go GMO all the way?

a reply to: beezzer

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 humans.
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.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I'll have to fire on all neurons for this one.

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.
lol.

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.