It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning


www.telegraph.co.uk

An extinct animal has been brought back to life for the first time after being cloned from frozen tissue.

The Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, was officially declared extinct in 2000 when the last-known animal of its kind was found dead in northern Spain.

Shortly before its death, scientists preserved skin samples of the goat, a subspecies of the Spanish ibex that live in mountain ranges across the country, in liquid nitrogen.

Using DNA taken from these skin samples, the scientists were able to replace the genetic material in eggs from domestic goats, to clone a female Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo as they are known. It is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned.

Sadly, the newborn ibex kid died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs. Other cloned animals, including sheep, have been born with similar lung defects.

But the breakthrough has raised hopes that it will be possible to save endangered and newly extinct species by resurrecting them from frozen tissue.

It has also increased the possibility that it will one day be possible to reproduce long-dead species such as woolly mammoths and even dinosaurs.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Once they figure out how to prevent/correct the defective lungs...
hello Jurassic Park. Imagine such a zoo, i hope it happens within my lifetime.

It always occurred to me after visiting a nature museum, how sad it is to see so many species stuffed behind a glass display... but now i can see all of these museums full of dead animals turning into our most valuable resource in the pursuit of conservation and in exercising our hand in evolution.

Coupling this breakthrough with the soon anticipated advances in gene mapping and we have just broadened our palette and reversed some of the damage we have made in our massive ecological foot print.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
This may very well have unintended consequences should we ever revive a species that was meant to stay dead. Extinction is part of the natural order of things. It's like true free market capitalism. Where one species fails another rises to take its' place. We should really tread carefully.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I definitely agree. Cloning for medical reasons is one thing, recreating extinct life.... it will turn out badly. Maybe not now, but in the future. Extinction is a cycle of life.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
For us to better understand the origins of life and variances in species this process is key. Obviously we wouldn't let most of these animals into the wild unless we saw an ideal position for them to play in sustaining a life cycle.

Most of these animals i can see filling up zoos as a community service but also at the same time helping support genetic research in the environmental and life sciences.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
There is a reason animals become extinct.

In the process of natural selection does it seem fit that a failed species should "suddenly" be foisted back into a life-cycle that it previously failed?

Doesn't make good sense to me. What has science to gain by reanimating a dead species.....to determine why it failed?

Sounds like running in circles to me.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
In many ways we as a species, a member of the animal kingdom, have overstepped our bounds.

We could restore the balance to many ecosystems that we have irresponsibly altered.

As for those animals we keep in captivity, there is a lot to be learned.
For starters... what did they look like and how did they behave etc.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mekanic
 


Extinction is a cycle of life, but it ceases to be a cycle of life when one species is the one responsible for the extinction of millions of species.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by deenamarie53
 


again, if the Bald eagle had gone extinct, would it have been the eagle's inability to survive? It's not natural selection when someone takes a gun and hunts all of the members to extinction. So in essense, it's not going in circles, it's fixing the mistakes we've made and restoring some sort of balance to the world.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I guess we could ponder for hours on end as to the why or wherefore a species becomes extinct.

I've heard it said that perhaps the dinosaurs became extinct due to some form of cataclismic event...but then again, perhaps they died long before. Who's to know and who can prove?

Maybe it was Homo Sapiens....they get the blame for everything


Oh....btw. I DO damn-to-hell humans for every freaking two-headed third generation reptile. I know we're poisoning our planet. But.....there's other reasons needing to be considered why species become extinct before we dump on the humans.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus24
 


The Bald Eagle is a beautiful example of what we can and MUST do to prevent the unnatural extinction of a species.

I was originally responding to the post and the return of a long dead species... one that is unnatural (to our present biology).

I'm all for protecting our present flora and fauna. I just think it unwise to mess with ancient mother nature.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Good for them


Now I want for Christmas a

Mammoth
Sabre tooth tiger
and
T-Rex



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
In many ways we as a species, a member of the animal kingdom, have overstepped our bounds.

We could restore the balance to many ecosystems that we have irresponsibly altered.

As for those animals we keep in captivity, there is a lot to be learned.
For starters... what did they look like and how did they behave etc.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]


As "keepers of our kingdom" we're not doing such a good job, eh.

I say we wisely shepherd the eco-system we presently have. Let's better understand why we behave/misbehave as we do....so that we can have a better, more fruitful tomorrow.

We're all captives to the world we create. Let's make it better and let the long-dead dry bones stay in the museum. Not roaming the earth it was never meant to habituate.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Well said... though I would venture to say and think it safe to say that what we could learn about the accuracy of our archeological record and some of the key mutations that have occurred through evolution millions of years ago would be priceless.

To bring some of these animals/monsters back from the grave would be an accomplishment as rewarding as space travel... in this case a form of time travel.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I agree, it would not be a bad thing to correct some of the mistakes we made.

However, I doubt cloning will ever fully restore any species.

Why? Simple...

To have a healthy population of any species, you need genetic diversity. Generic diversity comes from sexual reproduction between unrelated individuals.

The genetic health of a population depends on there being a certain number of unrelated individuals in that population. Unlike the urban myth that you can have a male and female of any species, that can restock an extinct population, the truth of the matter is that such a population will turn out inbred and genetically unfit.

To have any chance of restoring an extinct species, so that you get a relatively healthy breeding population, you need at the bare minimum 10's of unrelated individuals, although 100's would be preferable.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Good point... though i think that there is an easily remedy, in that we have multiple fossils found at different geographical locations of any one species.

Breed/test-tube them several at the same time... chances are you'll end up with both genders... which could cross breed, noting the family tree... you would pair accordingly to ensure the branches don't cross but instead head in the most broadest direction.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I completely agree, extinct species shoud be left alone. Alteast the dangerous ones. We've all seen Jurassic Park, that's most likely how it would go, and then what?

I don't want to end up in a real life Turok. I think the mamoth's and some other specific creatures would be ideal for the process, we just need to be sure scientists don't go "clone" happy and end up creating some disaster.

As human beings, we do things through Trial and Error. In this case, the errors might be too much of a risk, even if it for the furthering of science.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Spooked by a sci-fi trilogy are we?

Just as we have stumbled in the past as we progressed in our understanding through the wonders of science, our collective gain has always out weighed the loses.

We must continue to follow our heads... not our hearts.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Not spooked, more like forward thinking. I'm just not ready to put the VERY LARGE reprocusions of messing something like that up, in the hands of our particular scientists. Espcecially when most likely there is an Elite Pyramid scheme running things and directing funding.

I would love to have scientists who were JUST scientists get grands with no strings who could do as they pleased, that would be great, i don't think any scientist would cross the no no line.

It's the current set up of our world that sparks my fears about cloning, and it's uses if it ever becomes commercialized.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by deenamarie53
There is a reason animals become extinct.

In the process of natural selection does it seem fit that a failed species should "suddenly" be foisted back into a life-cycle that it previously failed?

Doesn't make good sense to me. What has science to gain by reanimating a dead species.....to determine why it failed?

Sounds like running in circles to me.



I don't understand why people take this stance. Viruses and diseases are created from nature - does that mean we lay down and take it because nature says so? Or do we take advantage of our sentience and create ways to circumvent them?

Natural selection is unavoidable for creatures who do not have the means to stop it. The human species does have the means thanks to advancing technology. Bringing back extinct species is in our power. There are of course reasons to bring back these creatures - scientific study. Besides that, reasons such as "because we can" also come to mind.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join