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.

 

cloning the thylacine

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
An Australian scientist is currently trying to clone a Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) in an effort to bring the animal back from a human induced extinction. The group is using a Thylacine pup that has been preserved in alchohol as the source of genetic material. Should people be attempting to undertake this kind of endeavor? Please give a reason with your reply.

End of Extinction:
science.discovery.com...

Background on the Thylacine:
www.cryptozoology.com...




posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I have been wondering when people would start doing this for a long time. I'm all for it. If we can get more Pandas, or Rhinos, or whatever is about to be erased from the planet, I say let's do it! And let's bring back some of those animals that my Grandparents have seen, but I never will, because of extinction. Is there some 'Jurrasic Park' scenario I'm not seeing?



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I think this is a good idea. People might say that it would screw up the ecosystem or whatever, and I really have no knowledge of that kind of thing. But I think to be able to bring back extinct animals even just to keep in a zoo is a good idea. Let's just hope if they bring back dinosaurs those scientists read/watch Jurassic Park a few times.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Humans are responsible for a lot of the animals thats get extinct so if we are able to correct our mistake we should do so.

[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Shazam]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
i want all the Extincted animals back !! CLONE AS MADLINGS



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
i think that cloning in the case of the tasmanian tiger and other animals that were driven to extinction foremost by humans they should definetly be recreated or cloned.

i am not sure about dionosaours. but they could could clone gigantopithicus(i think) and make a bigfoot.

i will quote grey CLONE CLONE CLONE!!!!!

i am not sure if it is a good a idea to clone dinosaurs though. but whatever naturally everthing occurs. naturally things twist and turn.


concrete is natural and so is cloning.


peace



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Animals went extinct for a reason. What life would they have outside of zoos that would be different from before? Would you want to be brought back just so you could be caged and gawked at?

Trying to correct our mistakes of destroying a species sounds noble and all, but what is the real reason that we are doing it? Think about it.

Protect the enviornment and natural habitats that exist currently because if the animals of today are in decline because of it then the animals of yesterday will surely be unable to adjust to them.

Just because we can do something does not validate that we should.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
Trying to correct our mistakes of destroying a species sounds noble and all, but what is the real reason that we are doing it? Think about it.


Because we can!!! We should clone because we can!!!


I'm only half joking...I don't see anything wrong with cloning these old animals like the Taz Tiger, Mammoth, etc. It's not like we'll ever have enough of them to be able to release them into the wild.

We wouldn't have to keep them in cages... I imagine they'd be put in a protected habitat where they can't be hurt, and they can't hurt the environment.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
Animals went extinct for a reason. What life would they have outside of zoos that would be different from before? Would you want to be brought back just so you could be caged and gawked at?

Trying to correct our mistakes of destroying a species sounds noble and all, but what is the real reason that we are doing it? Think about it.

Protect the enviornment and natural habitats that exist currently because if the animals of today are in decline because of it then the animals of yesterday will surely be unable to adjust to them.

Just because we can do something does not validate that we should.


I agree that we should not clone simply because we can. There should be a purpose behind it. We should not randomly clone animals that went extinct naturally (i.e. dinosaurs, mammoths, saber-tooth cats, etc). But this is an animal that did not go extinct naturally. This animal was hunted into extinction (like so many other species) by humans. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing natural about extinction by human.

If this works, the lesson learned could be applied to animals that have not yet gone extinct, but are on the verge and could be saved.

One of the pre-eminent cloning specialists in the US has said that cloning should have rules. Rule #1 being - does the animal to be brought back have a habitat. In this case the animal does. The habitat of the Thylocine has been virtually unchanged since its demise.

In this program, he didn't mention any other "rules." Anyone out there have any rules they think should apply to cloning extinct animals? If so, what are they and let's see how they fare in this situation.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
imo the rules should be that if they were driven into extinction by human hunting or human destruction of habitat. so no dinosaurs. so the elephant bird, moa, stellar's sea cow, and the doe doe could be brought back.(there is a bird somewhat similiar to the doe doe on an european island facing a future not unlike that of the doe- doe. also animals that are on the brink of extinction like the california condor, siberian tiger, .....

i know that there is an actual tiger with long hair that went extinct.

i found this site interesting. all of these probably could be cloned if habitat exist.
the quagga and aurochs i do not recall hearing of previouslly
www.petermaas.nl...



[Edited on 4/19/2004 by panchovilla]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr No One
One of the pre-eminent cloning specialists in the US has said that cloning should have rules. Rule #1 being - does the animal to be brought back have a habitat. In this case the animal does. The habitat of the Thylocine has been virtually unchanged since its demise.


Well, if the destruction of its habitat is not the problem then what is? Man and pouching? That is still happening. Animals that it depends on for food; have we killed then off? I would love, just as anyone, to see an extinct animal brought back to life, but I do not think that it should simply be for my amusement. There should be valid purpose in everything that we do...more then then the advancement of the self.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
even if they do bring back an extinct animal, it would be useless since there is no genetic variations since they're clones and therefore, genetically identical. the elephant seal is going into extinction for this very reason. the scientists are also using only 1 pup as in 1 sex. how is it going to reproduce?



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by Mr No One
One of the pre-eminent cloning specialists in the US has said that cloning should have rules. Rule #1 being - does the animal to be brought back have a habitat. In this case the animal does. The habitat of the Thylocine has been virtually unchanged since its demise.


Well, if the destruction of its habitat is not the problem then what is? Man and pouching? That is still happening. Animals that it depends on for food; have we killed then off? I would love, just as anyone, to see an extinct animal brought back to life, but I do not think that it should simply be for my amusement. There should be valid purpose in everything that we do...more then then the advancement of the self.


This animal was hunted to extinction. Farmers in Tasmania thought this carnivore was eating their livestock and set about hunting down every wild specimen they could find. A few remain in captivity after that, but the last one died in the 1930's.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
even if they do bring back an extinct animal, it would be useless since there is no genetic variations since they're clones and therefore, genetically identical. the elephant seal is going into extinction for this very reason. the scientists are also using only 1 pup as in 1 sex. how is it going to reproduce?


They can choose the sex during the embryonic development. But the question of genetic diversity is a good one.
That was not covered in the information that was presented involving this case.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Thats an interesting idea. Maybe we could clone the Dodo. Then I would be able to have Dodo Vindaloo to go with my pint of 'Best Pixyland'.


D

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Hope they clone the thing. Always wanted to see the Tassie Tiger. Interesting though however, that many say they've seen the Tassie tiger running around Australia. No photos ever take though.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Thats an interesting idea. Maybe we could clone the Dodo. Then I would be able to have Dodo Vindaloo to go with my pint of 'Best Pixyland'.


I would clone every extincted animal Except the Dodo it is the must dumb looking bird ever



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hmmm i could finally get that dodo egg iv been after.... hehe, really though, I believe that we should bring it back, but only in moderation. What i mean is, who knows the effects it could have. Back when people from Europe were first discovering other places (ie Austrailia) they sent ships back and forth. Doing this brought a population not native to that area. (Im sure most of you already know this) but im talking about small animals such as mice and rabbits, for a time they were causing havoc with crops and such. It just doesnt have the ecosystem to support animals like that. So Yes i think they should be brout back, maybe for study and zoo's and such, but not released into the wild population.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
i also think that cloning would be good to make animals stronger and more disease resistant. but i guess the natural processes of evolution do that anyway.


well regardless i am all for cloning. on a show last night, wired for sex, on tech tv they said something about how genetic engineering or cloning may eventually lead to humans being "unwired for sex". well imho this would be very terrible. well does anyone have any ideas about cloneing or GE leading to a lack of interest in sex?

if that was the case i may be swayed to the other side.

also it may be possible to GE immunities to deadly uncurable diseases!

[Edited on 4/26/2004 by panchovilla]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
No way! We should not use cloning or genetic manipulation to try and "improve" on nature. This is surely a path to madness. Think about it....how much of a leap is it from "making animals stronger" to "eliminating" human defects?

Look at the example in Deep Blue Sea. Talk about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join