Author Topic: Scientists "Resurrected" an Extinct Animal By Cloning (Read 2967 times)

glacier_71 · « **on:** February 20, 2009, 11:39:55 AM »

Scientists succeeded for the first time in achieving the holy grail of conservation: bringing to life an extinct animal through cloning. For seven minutes.

Male Ibex lying at the border of the cliff, at the Creux-du-Van, region of NeuchÃ¢tel, Switzerland
Just seven minutes after Spanish and French scientists brought the Pyrenean ibex back from extinction, the young animal died of lung complications also common to other cloned animals. And so an extinct species blinked into life for an instant and then flickered out again.

The success, albeit brief, is spurring scientists and conservationists alike to imagine some wild possibilities. Can extinct speciesâ€“say, the dodo or even the wooly mammothâ€“be brought back into their natural habitats through cloning and if so should they?

The Pyrenean ibex, a species of Spanish mountain goat, was declared protected in 1973, but when the conservation plan to save the species was finally implemented in 1993 there were only 10 individuals left. The species went extinct in 2000 when the last known animal, a female named Celia, was found deadâ€“killed by a falling tree. Critics might argue that we have no business bringing back the species from extinction, especially if the very last member of their species was hapless enough to be standing under a tree when it fell.

But scientists still face considerable hurdles before bringing an extinct species back into the wild is anything more than a conservation pipe dream. Firstly, even if the cloned female ibex had lived, she would have had no males to breed with. On top of this, there are other questions about resurrecting extinct species: can enough genetic diversity be created in cloned individuals? How feasible is it to reintroduce locally extinct, captively bred animals back into an ecosystem? If the species is reintroduced, what would stop it from falling prey to the same dangers that made it extinct?

The brief birth of the ibex brought scientists a significant step closer to the seemingly impossible feat of bringing back a vanished species. Itâ€™s conceivable that someday this technology might hold the key to resurrecting a plethora of extinct and endangered species. Already, the The Zoological Society of London and the Natural History Museum are cateloging DNA samples of endangered species in what they are calling a â€˜Frozen Ark.â€™ But until the species resurrection technology becomes a reality, conserving extant species is still so far our best hope. We may someday be able to bring a lost species back to life forever, but for now all we have is seven minutes.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

grazie7y · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2009, 12:37:40 PM »

kadali ra man pod na resurrect. basin wa na to katulog kay magsige to'g experiment unsaon na ma taud2x ang pag resurrect.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2009, 01:15:18 PM »

kadali ra man pod na resurrect. basin wa na to katulog kay magsige to'g experiment unsaon na ma taud2x ang pag resurrect.

i'm sure, it will happen again. i can't but imagine a real Jurassic Park. and dinos chasing me. lol

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2009, 03:05:55 AM »

LoL

In that case we'll have to make sure we're ready for those 'raptors'

"clever girl"

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

kiamoy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2009, 03:12:47 AM »

Sana ma balik ang sabertooth tiger

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2009, 03:22:20 AM »

a favorite monster is the mammoth.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2009, 03:25:39 AM »

If they resurrected dinosaurs, ah id love to just watch and touch my favorite:

Velociraptor.

Probably the most intelligent of the jurrasic and cretaceus dinosaurs.
Actually, their descendents are the Hawks and Falcons.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Macky Ferniz · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2009, 06:02:53 AM »

Nothing can replace concervation.

Incase an instinct species were resurrected, do they have the same behaviour? I believed no. They are just physically resurrected, but thier spirit as wild is already dead.

For example a saber tooth tiger is resurrected, will it learn to hunt? I mean the skill of a species is handed from generation to generation by its ancestors. I don't think it could survive in the wild.

Even until now, humans have not deciphered nor documented a simple language of the animals. Until now, we don't understand how they communicate. In the absence of language, some thought that animals communicate through mental telepahthy. Then if an animal is resurrected, how could he learn thier language if thier known parents are humans.

Pareha ra gud na ug pinoy nga bata unya gipa puyo sa America. So, pag dako niya, dili na siya kasabot ug pilipino language kay lahi na ang iyang environment. Tho ang iyang physical characteristic is pinoy. Mao ra ning istoryaha.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2009, 04:37:20 AM »

Mr. Ferniz brings up a very valid point.

Every species of animal and even plants induce and inhibit/repress a sense of interspecies competition. As even an Evergreen tree will emit allelopathy to repress growth of competitive species from advancing in the same food/nutrient source.

As the mammalian, avian, reptilian and amphibian species in this present epoch compete against each other for the same/given resource--it holds the same for the biotic species of say during the Jurrasic, Cretaceous, Primordial epochs.

If we tried resurrecting a large predatory species like say--Tyrannosaurus Rex--or a large herbivory species like Diplosaurus or Bronchiosaurus; we would have to ask ourselves, "What would they eat?" And, "Who would they compete with?"

Herbivore species in the Donotopic epoch were large because of the increased O2 concentration in the planet, soil was rich, rain was plenteous, the environment--the planet, more like it made it more opportune for biotic species to grow large. Same thing applied for the carnivory species. Even aquatic species--crustacean were large in comparison to today's cousins. Bronchiosaurus were large because of the plentiful green vegetation to support their organismal need for ATP/ADP energy. For continual glyconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, their citric acid cycle. And the carnivory species such as T-REX, Raptorian species, were plentiful due to the high resource presence of the herbivory species. But their world ended, eons ago. Their entire world was wiped out. And it was the miniscule mammalian rat--form which all mammalian kind--would rise from--claimed the planet for its own self. Leading to the rise of primates--and eventually the rise of Human-Kind.

Dinosaurs would not fair well in this present times due to :
1. Human invasive characteristic
2. Increased toxic chemicals in the atmosphere--that have been linked to hormonal imbalance and genomic/chromosomal mutation in animals. (which would also apply to said dinosaurs if resurrected and placed in the wild)
3. Human Supremacy.

When it comes down to it, dinosaurs such as T-REX would require meat to fuel its energy needs. Man would be the preferred target due to man's evolutionary inhibitions:
1. flat razed teeth (no harm to other predatory species)
2. Coarse fibrin nails (offers no harm to enemies)
3. Rather slow speed
4. Small size
5. Numerical presence.

Naturally, there would be interspecies warefare between dinosaurs and Mankind. To which, Mankind would most probably prevail--due to His shear mastery in science and atomic concepts.

Best,
Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Macky Ferniz · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2009, 05:02:09 AM »

I've read a theory that Dinosaurs were big because they never stop growing and they have long life like 200 to a thousand years.

This theory was born because from only an ostrich sized egg, it could grow up to 3 stories high and weigh 10 tons. So it needs at least 200 years to achieve that size at normal cell growth even at the most favorable habitat. For a vertibrate, it is biologically impossible to achieve growth from ostrich size egg at birth to 3-4 stories high considering seasonal migration, mulching, constraints in bone growth, metabolism, no vertibrate can grow like vine in short period of time. So, it has to be at least 200 years or more.

Compared to a blue whale, where it is already a ton when born, so obviously it could grow large.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2009, 09:00:43 AM »

one theory too i heard is that some dinos grew to such humongous size because by nature, they ate a lot and their bodies had to grow so large so as to accommodate the enormous food they ate.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:13:39 AM »

The planet during then was rich, so to say. High quantity of O2 as compared to now, food was plentiful. Vegetation was lush, aquatic life was lush. The environmental factors present then faciliated a necessity for biotic organisms to grow in size.

The way God, in His brilliance, designed things--is through a complementary system. There is a cause for evolutionary processes (per se antibody development through viral activity), so too, is there a reason why Herbivory species in the primordial epoch grew in such large size: Due to the almost infinite green vegetation that faciliated that growth. Lush environment, and high rain yield. As the primary primary produces grow, so too will the primary consumers (herbivory). Now to maintain environmental homeostasis and stability, there must be a limiting reagent, right?

That is where the predatory/carnivorous species come into play. It inhibits the primary consumers from growing too much and disbalancing the rate of production. As that would lead to the collapse in the entire food chain. Carnivory species evolved into multiple aspects--each of whom having their own qualities--hunting and predating over different types of primary consumers (herbivores).

So, as natural evolution made it opportunistic for herbivory species go grow in size (both as a defense mechanism against predation as well as for energy metabolism), soo too did the predatory species evolve in order to hunt the same predatory species and continue as well as maintain the homeostasis of the ecological food web. Thereby maintaining the food chain.

It's all about evolution, guys. The processes then are similar to the processes in this present epoch. Molecular basis of genetics in the present that has revealed these processes--worked the same in the Jurrasic, Cretaceous and Primordial Epochs.

What makes man rather interesting is that Man is the only species in Mammalian-Kind that has nullified the ecological niche theory. As we have defied natural basis of the order of things. Where our numbers should have decreased due to the sustainability problems--we have overcome that. By mass-agricultural revolution, by poultry farm, by domestication of resource-rich animals: beef, chicken, pigs, sheep, turkey, etc, fish, etc.

The viruses and bacteria that are prevalent in the natural environment have evolved through the eons as a way to limit the numbers of population species--nature's way of checking one population from ever getting too numerous and disbalancing the order of things. A preventative step, naturally, to prevent the collapse of an entire food web.

That, man has already defeated. Man, through his shear brilliance and mastery of molecular genetics, Medicine, and Atomic Science--has guaranteed his ability to even check evolutionary processes--or find a way to even reverse it. (genetic therapy, through use of PCR, Molecular Cloning, Microassay analysis, Molecular scissors).

It is amazing how Man, has in a way conquored and 'understood' said processes that has been in constancy in nature for EONS.

Within only 100 some years time, Mankind has begun to understand said processes and develop techniques to address said situation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:35:19 AM »

Even this topic, which is genetically feasable, discusses about genetic cloning.

What kind of animal or species in this planet has that ability, aside from Man?

It is the advances in Molecular Cloning, DNA-RNA-mRNA-Protein analysis, and PCR mechanisms have made this feasible and attainable.

Man can clone a sheep (we have already), can clone dogs (we have already), can clone primates (we have already) and can even clone humans (which we have not yet done due to ethical issues).

So the question stands: Can we clone dinosaurs?
Sure we can, but we need to acquire hematocrit levels, as well as chromosomal samples to do so. And we would need a plasmid or host to grow the DNA strand that would be annealed after hybridization.

Theoretically it is possible. But physically and operationally, Science needs to develop that said platform to continue.

But if this does occur in the future, and am sure it will--as academia would demand it for the good of science--Man would, literally, have the power to raise the Dead to Life.

Genetics, my friends. It's all about Genetics. It is the reason why no one really 'dies'. Genetics is immortal. Even the dead Pharaohs of Egypt, though are physically dead, are genetically still alive. The DNA of say King Ramses II, whose remains are in a museum, can be genetically cloned and proliferated in assay. And we could, in practice, raise him from the dead.

All of his constituents would be the same. Brain, length, color of hair, language, way of talk, size of his lips, skin tone, gait, etc. All of these are already predisposed and determined in the chromosome.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:35:58 AM »

the check and balance of nature is evident indeed in the whole picture of this evolutionary process. but we may have over-intervened in this dynamic of checking and balancing because we are now trying to control the inherent flow of nature. behind that knowledge we've gained about this evolution is the stark reality of fear that nature will eventually destroy us, no matter what, just as it did to the past living behemoths and other creatures.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:46:52 AM »

There in lies the question that many scientists are debating in Academic Forums, my friend.

It isn't a question of 'can we do it', but more so on the level of , 'should we do it?'

There are pure scientists whose life work has paved the road of science and understanding through use of 'questionable' tactics. And many purists would so as much like to inhibit questions of ethical rights when in dealing with science. For them, it is a limiting factor, a rope that prevents the complete realization of the possiblity.

Their argument is that nature does not work in 'ethics' or 'ethos' or 'mores'. Said concepts are human invented abstract concepts.

They would subscribe to the notion of:
Science keeps Man from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism.

Whereas there are bioethicists that would subscribe to the notion that:
Ethics and Philosophy prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:56:37 AM »

the check and balance of nature is evident indeed in the whole picture of this evolutionary process. but we may have over-intervened in this dynamic of checking and balancing because we are now trying to control the inherent flow of nature. behind that knowledge we've gained about this evolution is the stark reality of fear that nature will eventually destroy us, no matter what, just as it did to the past living behemoths and other creatures.

That is very true, Glacier. And indeed, it bears light to the phrase of: "Beware of what you want to know/ Beware of what you do/ Every action bears a consequence"

One of the many reasons why many species have perished in the earth is due to the natural evolutionary flow of things. The weak will perish to make room for the strong. As nature has determined that weak organisms will perish and be unable to proliferate their genetic codes due to failure to mate, failure to metabolize or catabolize/anbolize energy requirements. The strong, meaning the fit, will be able to do so. The powerful in size, the intelligent will be able to outwit a predator and survive to mate, whereas the weak/dumbwhitted will be predated and become fodder for predatory species.

This is a reality in the animal world.

Man is different. The reason why we have so many diseases such as Downe Syndrome (Trisomy 21, HIV, Menkes, Cerebral Ataxia, Telengenctasis, Achondroplasia, Familial hypercholesterolemia etc etc) is because many individuals who naturally would have perished and be eradicated, did not. Instead, they survived to mate and pass on their autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive diseases to their progeny etc.

As a result, we have a manifest of such diseases.

Man's ability to conquor natural flow of things has its gains, but definitely has its fall backs/setbacks if you analyze this in a natural-scientific observation and analysis.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:19:02 PM »

as technology increasingly becomes more intelligent, people thought it's going to hold up the existential fear of death and extinction. instead, it opens up a more dangerous form of extinction--hopelessness and unbelief. ironically, many people no longer care about death, as technology advances. for me, death to them is just to make way for this fear to go. but for the meantime, the project of sustaining life thru technology is there merely to feed the fear, inner fear, and make life live-able, but not to promote profound understanding of life.

i like to make the invention of airplane by the wright brothers as my analogy. when they discovered the way how to fly the plane, men/women became and felt finally like a bird. but as the airplane technology becomes more complicated and advanced, feeling like a bird seems inadequate, for we want to be the bird and own the sky. then we realize it's not just for flying, it's also for killing people. 9/11. fighting aircrafts. technology can only feed the cure of fear, but not hope. so, is this cloning a hope we all are waiting for?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:50:03 PM »

Glacier, I never thought about it in that aspect. Your analogy on the Write Brothers' Aeroplane struck me and got me thinking.

Sure, you do have a point. It illustrates man's unsatiable need to know, to understand, to comprehend. It is that driving force that spearheaded our civilization, to think about it in a broader term--it is the very reason for the maximal progression of the Human Species.

Since the days of the Iliad, of ancient times, Man has studied the stars, charted the heavens, dreamed of the gods. Asked questions about the Divine nature.

You asked the question, "So is this cloning a hope we all are waiting for?"

My answer to this is, "No."

Man can never be satiated. Perhaps our generation or our children's generation will be satisfied, but only for a while. If genetic cloning is conquored and ascertained, it will only lead to further studies--and further dreams to be acquired.

If you look at this in a scientific perspective, one will know that genetics--per se cellular mitosis is linked to immortality. You can kill a bacteria, of freeze a bacteria--and keep it frozen for eons, but if you unleash it again provide it with sustenance, it will be re-awakened. Re-animated. We in the scientific/medical body have done this already.

We observed this when Dr. Cano and Dr. Boruckiactually revived (brought back to life!) over 1,000 types of bacteria and other microorganisms. Some of the life-forms date as far back as 135 million years which was the time of the dinosaurs. Can DNA survive that long? Many point to the plain physics of degrading DNA over time and state that organisms cannot survive for millions of years without having the bases of the DNA, which constitutes the genetic code, degrade to such an extent that the organisms would no longer be viable. But nonetheless, the bacterium was re-animated. Mastotermes electrodominicus was reanimated after some 25-100 million years of 'death' being preserved in a fossilized amber.

We ask ourselves, "How was this possible?" The answer to this is the intrepidity of m-RNA and RNA genome.

Genetics guarantees Immortality. Death is but a manifest of systemic/organic failure due to degradation of transcription right? Due to a defect or mutation (point mutation, insertion, deletion, trinucleotidic degradation, mismatch damage) due to a problem int he start site of transcription, translation and elongation process.

This only means that there was an 'error' that triggers systemic failure. Some kind of repression.

Molecular Genetics answers because it can counter repression, it can co-activate, it can co-repress, and facilitate invitro protein synthesis needed for transcription.

Theoretically, this means that immortality is possible. There is a gene for death. As one ages over time, genetic regulation occurs, a regulator to turn off mylenin production--this leads to loss and damage of the neuroal calyces, reduction and damage of neurotransmitter messages. This results in clinicals: Gaucher's Disease, Tay-Sachs, Alzheimer's, CFS etc.

A complement of genes being turned off will result in: cardiovascular, thoracic, neurogenic, renal, nephrogenic problems. Which, if left untreated, will result to Death.

That is the Medical aspect.

But the scientific aspect--we realize that there is a genetic regulation of turning gene expressivity "OFF". This means there are repressors being activated. If it is 'off', that means it can be turned 'on' again. Through invitro analysis;studies.

Which, ultimately, means that immortality, literally, is possible.

Scientifically, it is very possible.

But that feat--is something that our descendants will acquire. Science has yet to advance to the degree that can realize such notions.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:59:34 PM »

For those who ask, 'How do we clone things?"

This is a good illustration of the basics:

To clone an animal, researchers first take mature cells, such as skin cells, from the animal to be cloned. Next, they take an unfertilized egg from an adult female of the same species and remove the nucleus, which is the cell structure that houses the chromosomes that contain an organismâ€™s DNA. Researchers then place one of the skin cells next to the nucleus-free egg and apply an electric pulse, which causes the skin cell to fuse with the egg. The fused cell, which contains the skin cellâ€™s nucleus, divides and forms an early-stage embryo. This embryo is implanted in the uterus of another female animal, called a surrogate mother, and allowed to develop. The surrogate mother then gives birth to an animal that is genetically identical to the adult that donated the skin cells. This newborn animal is referred to as a clone.

source:
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Education/illustration_of_cloning.htm

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2009, 12:45:04 AM »

Which, ultimately, means that immortality, literally, is possible.

Scientifically, it is very possible.

i prefer to call it "regeneration", enz.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2009, 01:00:31 AM »

As you please, Glacier.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2009, 01:05:08 AM »

As you please, Glacier.

i guess a lot of girls out there, enz, would love to have you cloned. so they can own one like you.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

llzachll · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2009, 03:05:06 PM »

atong e clone ang iring ni glazier para managhan.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2009, 08:51:28 PM »

atong e clone ang iring ni glazier para managhan.

hahahaha...iapil pod teka og clone, zach, kay nindot man pod kag pamarog. daghan malipay imong "mga copies"

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18111.0