If you’re genetically modifying an elephant for cold tolerance and fur growth, you’re not “bring a mammoth back from extinction”, you’re creating a furry elephant. It may look somewhat like a mammoth, but genetically it’s not a mammoth at all.
It’s like saying you can genetically modify a homo-sapien to have a pronounced brow ridge and a hairier back and say that you’ve brought the neandertal back from extinction. No you haven’t, you’ve just designed a human who looks different.
Well, the goal isn’t to just create woolly mammoth-lile creatures by copying characteristics. The goal is to recreate the genome from what genome data we have into a living creature.
It’s not like they are trying to create a sweded version, but take a creature that is already close and change the genes to match.
At least, that’s how I understood it based on the article.
And the most annoying part is that this is incredibly fcking useless. Wooly mammoths went extinct for a reason. Large animals are becoming less and less evolutionary preferred. Wooly mammoths are adjusted for the cold while our globe is warming.
Can we just use our fcking resources for things that matter???
Not really, we humans killed most big land animals that we found as we expanded our territory, back when we were hunters. This happened in big “islands” like Australia and Madagascar, as well as all the small islands. There, large animals had lived in equilibrium for centuries, and their extinction matches some short time after humans arrived.
An exception are the galapago islands, as they were discovered in the 19th century.
And to recreate the species they’d need hundreds of them from different genetic material. Which means they’ll likely create a single one that will eventually die and costed billions of dollars.
Besides the fact that the hunting hypothesis is that; a hypothesis, there’s a lot of other factors as to why it isn’t a good idea. Mainly, ohh idk… The fact that they have had no place in nature in over tens of thousands of years? Even if we managed to create an artificial habitat and role in an ecosystem for them, they would be very vulnerable due to megafauna’s increased minimum land requirements because of their size and in danger constantly due to climate change.
Yeah, as I recall they’re actually really important to the ecology of Madagascar. A native species of tree simply doesn’t grow without them. And without those trees, well you can imagine that affects a lot of things.
Can I be nit-picky here for a second?
If you’re genetically modifying an elephant for cold tolerance and fur growth, you’re not “bring a mammoth back from extinction”, you’re creating a furry elephant. It may look somewhat like a mammoth, but genetically it’s not a mammoth at all.
It’s like saying you can genetically modify a homo-sapien to have a pronounced brow ridge and a hairier back and say that you’ve brought the neandertal back from extinction. No you haven’t, you’ve just designed a human who looks different.
Well, the goal isn’t to just create woolly mammoth-lile creatures by copying characteristics. The goal is to recreate the genome from what genome data we have into a living creature.
It’s not like they are trying to create a sweded version, but take a creature that is already close and change the genes to match.
At least, that’s how I understood it based on the article.
And next you’ll say that genetically-modified ears aren’t enough to make catgirls real either 😩
Can we let this one go? Not for science, not for accuracy, but for the prospect of having catgirls in our lifetimes, at least?
And catboys! We can be equal opportunity here.
I already have the hairy back, can I say I am half neanderthalensis? Better than homo sapiens seeing how things are going…
That’s not nit picky.
And the most annoying part is that this is incredibly fcking useless. Wooly mammoths went extinct for a reason. Large animals are becoming less and less evolutionary preferred. Wooly mammoths are adjusted for the cold while our globe is warming.
Can we just use our fcking resources for things that matter???
Not really, we humans killed most big land animals that we found as we expanded our territory, back when we were hunters. This happened in big “islands” like Australia and Madagascar, as well as all the small islands. There, large animals had lived in equilibrium for centuries, and their extinction matches some short time after humans arrived. An exception are the galapago islands, as they were discovered in the 19th century.
And to recreate the species they’d need hundreds of them from different genetic material. Which means they’ll likely create a single one that will eventually die and costed billions of dollars.
Besides the fact that the hunting hypothesis is that; a hypothesis, there’s a lot of other factors as to why it isn’t a good idea. Mainly, ohh idk… The fact that they have had no place in nature in over tens of thousands of years? Even if we managed to create an artificial habitat and role in an ecosystem for them, they would be very vulnerable due to megafauna’s increased minimum land requirements because of their size and in danger constantly due to climate change.
Yeah, bring back the passenger pigeon! We need more pigeons! Do something that’ll make a difference already!
Also, can we get some dodos up in here? Where all my dumb birds at?
Jokes on you, bringing back dodos is an objectively better idea 😎
Yeah, as I recall they’re actually really important to the ecology of Madagascar. A native species of tree simply doesn’t grow without them. And without those trees, well you can imagine that affects a lot of things.