Should we clone extinct animals?
Pretty self-explanatory... :)
Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
Side Score: 76
|
 |
No, I don't want pet raptors!
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
How can we clone something extinct? I'm pretty sure there's no dinosaur DNA sitting around to clone. haha. But that'd be pretty neat. Wouldn't you want to clone someone who died that you love? Same situation ain't it? Wait wait, I think the question is, should we bring extinct animals back to life if we could? Hehe. When Pandas go extinct, I would totally be all for them being cloned and coming back. I loooooooooooooove pandas. (There's a panda behind me in my lil icon picture.) :-) But for dinosaurs, we could clone them as a way to self-destruct humanity, because I can't imagine what good would really occur if we brought the dino's back. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
Soooo many things wrong with your arguement. First of all, please do your research before you complian about things. There IS dino DNA out there. It is possible. In fact scientists have been working on cloning a Wolly Mammoth. And lastly, scientists aren't quite dumb enough to clone T-Rexs... At least not right away. They would clone the gentle giants. The Dinos that feed off of vegetation. Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
Yeah, just for the curiosity of seeing them, we could put them in zoos... That would be definitely interesting, I bet most people would like to see them. Not to throw them back on nature though, they are extinct and don't enter the equation anymore, let's not play with nature's equilibrium. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
You really do not see the point in cloning animals? It is not so the scientific community can say "look at us!" The reason becomes clear if you do some research. The primary reason for the cloning of animals is to take one step closer to the ability to clone human body parts. The primary reason that transplants fail is the body rejects a donor, that is if you can even find one. If someone needs a heart transplant, you would rather let them die than have technology allow itself to advance far enough so that the need for an organ donor no longer exists? I digress. There is nearly a one in ten billion chance that we will be able to resurrect an animal that has been extinct for over ten million years. Hell, there is a one in five billion chance that we will be able to resurrect an animal that has been extinct for eighty years. I speak of the Tasmanian tiger. This animal became extinct because of humans. Not because we encroached upon their habitats, rather they were hunted to near extinction sometime in the 1800s. The last Tasmanian tiger died in captivity in 1936, because its keeper forgot to open the door to where it slept. It died, not from old age, but from being stuck outside in inclement weather. The Tasmanian tiger is only one example of animal that humans have hunted to extinction. Why should we not try and fix a mistake we once made that led to the death of an entire species? The Bald Eagle nearly vanished from this earth not too long ago. It was only because of a conservation act that we were able to save our national symbol. Regardless of where you are from would you not want to bring back the symbol of patriotism and national pride which you had destroyed? Who is to say that these cloned animals would even be released back into their natural habitat? Yes, the reintroduction of a species that has been extinct would have massive repercussions on the newly established Eco-system. Is there something so wrong with seeing a woolly mammoth in the zoo, or a Tasmanian tiger playing in the artificial plans set up by the zoo keeper, even a t-Rex (god forbid). What about the animals such as the polar bear? Slowly we are destroying their habitat. We cannot change our ways as easily as we can change our technology. So Why wouldn't we want to keep them alive using whatever means necessary? Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
"The primary reason for the cloning of animals is to take one step closer to the ability to clone human body parts." Makes sense. But I posed the question of whether or not cloning an extinct animal would be ethical. If we clone an antelope or a lion and release it (on purpose or accidentally) into the wild, little change will happen in the food chain and the environment. But think of the repercussions that might occur if a dinosaur is suddenly running through the wild- it may disrupt the entire food chain! So I understand your point, but would that justify cloning a dinosaur? Or can it only justify cloning cows and sheep and rats? Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
I comprehend what you purpose as a potential issue to my argument. However, it would be nearly impossible to clone a dinosaur. There are two issue that come into play when cloning: 1. You must find a full DNA structure of the animal that you are trying to clone, i.e. you would need to find a nearly perfectly preserved dinosaur. Which is extremely improbable. 2. You must find a suitable mother for the animal to be breed from. An animal that shares much of the same characteristics as the clone you are trying to create. Since the closest living relative to a dinosaur is an aviary animal it is considered mere fantasy to clone any large dinosaur. So you do no need to worry about a Jurassic Park incident. Even if this were possible to breed such a beast it, and they would be done so in a limited supply, there is no reason that they should be released into the wild. Even if it were on accident, a T-Rex romping through villages in remote parts of the world should not be considered a great danger when one realized the level of weaponry and technology that we can implement in order to secure the beasts capture. I used the Tasmanian Tiger as an example of an animal that could be released into the wild because it was the largest predator in its Eco-system, and that environment has not changed since it disappeared eighty years ago. Clones animals such as the polar bear, grizzle bear, mountain lion, panda, etc. could be released back into the wild. We could even clone whales to repopulate the ocean after the years that they have been poached to re balance the Eco-system, which we had throw out of balance. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
Simple answer, If we have made a species go extinct because of our greed and hunger and we have the technology and science to bring the species back. we should do. We SHARE this planet. Who is anyone to think that we own and control this planet. If i could do anything to reverse what we as humans have done i would do it. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
3
points
If we're going to clone and restore extinct "animals", my suggestion is that we first clone and restore the FF of America. They will awaken and realize that the nation they died for has become one full of apathetic and simple minded individuals who suckle on the teats of the very government the FF gave their lives to eradicate. Oh yeah, bring about cloning! Clone 300 Patrick Henrys as well as a couple hundred George Washingtons! Once these revived individuals see the cesspool this nation has become, they'll move to restore it to the Constitutional Republic they initially gave their all for. If you don't like it? Keep your head down...or in your ass which seems to be the most prominent storage point for the ill informed masses these days. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
3
points
3
points
YES! Think about the medicines that could be taken from such beautiful beings! I want the following: A T-Rex scale jacket, A raptor feather fedora, Brass knuckles with raptor claws on them. And I would also love a few DODO bird burgers, bald eagle nuggets, and sweet sweet pterodactyl kabobs! Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
i dont know what yall are thinking. but scientists have been successful with this process of ressurecting animals that have been extinct. Of course they wont bring back the t rex. there is none of its DNA left on this planet. There is a way to do this. Its also a huge step for human kind. its not bragging. Its expanding. You people need to believe in this society. not bring it down. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
|
3
points
Although it would be pretty awesome to do that, I really don't see any reason besides science saying "Look at us!" Unless there was some use for that animal, it's nature, and we don't really need to mess with it that much. Who knows what can happen if we mess with the natural way of species, especially if we introduce them into an environment they didn't live in previously, because then they can cause more extinctions, problems, etc. Besides, I've seen Jurassic Park. No thanks. Until there's a real reason to do so, I don't see the need. Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
1
point
You really do not see the point in cloning animals? It is not so the scientific community can say "look at us!" The reason becomes clear if you do some research. The primary reason for the cloning of animals is to take one step closer to the ability to clone human body parts. The primary reason that transplants fail is the body rejects a donor, that is if you can even find one. If someone needs a heart transplant, you would rather let them die than have technology allow itself to advance far enough so that the need for an organ donor no longer exists? I digress. There is nearly a one in ten billion chance that we will be able to resurrect an animal that has been extinct for over ten million years. Hell, there is a one in five billion chance that we will be able to resurrect an animal that has been extinct for eighty years. I speak of the Tasmanian tiger. This animal became extinct because of humans. Not because we encroached upon their habitats, rather they were hunted to near extinction sometime in the 1800s. The last Tasmanian tiger died in captivity in 1936, because its keeper forgot to open the door to where it slept. It died, not from old age, but from being stuck outside in inclement weather. The Tasmanian tiger is only one example of animal that humans have hunted to extinction. Why should we not try and fix a mistake we once made that led to the death of an entire species? The Bald Eagle nearly vanished from this earth not too long ago. It was only because of a conservation act that we were able to save our national symbol. Regardless of where you are from would you not want to bring back the symbol of patriotism and national pride which you had destroyed? Who is to say that these cloned animals would even be released back into their natural habitat? Yes, the reintroduction of a species that has been extinct would have massive repercussions on the newly established Eco-system. Is there something so wrong with seeing a woolly mammoth in the zoo, or a Tasmanian tiger playing in the artificial plans set up by the zoo keeper, even a t-Rex (god forbid). What about the animals such as the polar bear? Slowly we are destroying their habitat. We cannot change our ways as easily as we can change our technology. So Why wouldn't we want to keep them alive using whatever means necessary? Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but they don't correspond with the data I've encountered - which assert that cloning long-extinct animals is a technological impossibility. Cloning recently-extinct animals may be possible, although there have been no successful attempts thus far. So if my understanding is correct, we may be able to "resurrect" and repopulate recently-decimated species at a much greater likelihood than "one in five billion", while the odds of "resurrecting" a ten-billion-year-old animal are, for the forseeable technological future, zero. --------- "Although scientists have yet to clone an extinct animal, they have attempted to clone animals such as the woolly mammoth, and efforts to clone several extinct animals, including the Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo, a Spanish mountain goat; the huia, a bird that once lived in New Zealand; the Indian cheetah; and the Tasmanian tiger, are currently under way. However, these attempts have met technological hurdles, and, as of now, no extinct animal has successfully been regenerated by cloning. Indeed, several recent attempts to clone the Tasmanian tiger and the bucardo have failed. To clone an animal using current technology, the nuclear DNA encoding the animal's genome must be in nearly perfect condition, meaning that it is nearly free of degradation . . . DNA is fragile and unstable, especially after an organism dies as the natural machinery to preserve it ceases to function. No meaningful genetic information can be preserved in most geological environments much longer than 10,000 years and almost certainly no longer than 100,000 years. Thus, cloning of dinosaurs, which have been extinct for millions of years, is technically impossible. Even the preservation of DNA for 10,000 to 100,000 years is only possible in favorable conditions. Most recent specimens of animal remains contain DNA in very small amounts that is severely damaged and often contaminated by microbial or fungal DNA. Such DNA is unsuitable for cloning. The best preserved samples of DNA from archaeological samples have been recovered while frozen in permafrost. However, while well-preserved carcasses of woolly mammoths, which became extinct around 3,700 years ago, have been uncovered in permafrost, the DNA recovered from such remains is extremely fragmented and present in very small quantities and is unsuitable for cloning. The prospects for cloning more-recently extinct species are much more promising as remains are better-preserved and some are artificially preserved by man. However, isolating intact DNA specimens from recently-extinct animals has proven difficult. The failure to obtain undegraded DNA samples led to the suspension of a recent attempt to clone the Tasmanian tiger, which became extinct in 1936 . . . Likewise, all known DNA samples from remains of the dodo, which became extinct near the end of the seventeenth century, are highly degraded. Despite these difficulties, real progress has been made towards the cloning of extinct animals. Undegraded DNA samples of extinct animals that can be used in cloning have been isolated. Before the bucardo became extinct in 2000, scientists took samples of its cells and artificially preserved them in a living state. These samples are of sufficient quality for cloning, and scientists were able to reconstruct bucardo embryos and implant them into mountain goat and mountain goat-domesticated goat hybrid surrogate mothers. However, none of the cloned bucardo embryos have completed gestation and developed into a cloned animal. Despite the failure of attempts to clone the bucardo, efforts to clone the bucardo are currently ongoing and researchers are optimistic that they will be able to successfully clone this extinct animal." - Ryan Hagglund, George Mason Law Review, Winter 2008 "PATENTABILITY OF CLONED EXTINCT ANIMALS" --------- Cloning human body parts would involve cloning from live cells. That's a very different matter than cloning from the DNA that's left in biological remains. The major issues with human cloning appear to be more ethical than technological. Cloning an extinct animal, though, poses entirely different technological challenges. So I don't think that the cloning of extinct animals is really a direct technological step in the development of human cloning; we can clone live animals with some success already. I find it more likely that cloning extinct animals would be limited, by the constraints of technology and DNA, to recent extinctions; and that the most likely use is species restoration. If only very recent extinctions would be candidates for cloning, I must wonder whether it would even be financially worthwhile unless there was some big government money backing the project with a vested interest in restoring some native critter. "Passenger Pigeon Park" just doesn't have the same feel to it; maybe it's the lack of vicious carnasaurs, but I just don't think it would have a huge commercial draw. If this assessment is correct, species repopulation and ecological preservation would probably be among the top reasons to attempt cloning of an extinct animal. Side: The tech is pretty limited
Here are three: the Dodo, Thylacine, and Steller's Sea Cow. If we can bring them back, we should try. It would be so amazing to see these creatures alive again. It satisfies that curiosity. Jurassic Park was science fiction, and a scare tactic film. Really there is nothing to be afraid of. Make way for progress. Side: make way for progress
2
points
Didn't they go extinct because of the asteroid wiping them out? I don't know if that's really for a reason. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, that asteroid hit Earth because NASA wasn't around to blow it up before it got here. Hehe. Hey hey, I've always been asking myself this question (in case anyone knows the answer), does the bible say if God made dinosaurs? Because I don't think anything went back far enough to say he did, since it was waaaaaaaaaaay before the origin of man. At least man that we're aware of and could prove. Just wondering though. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
If you want to be talking about God creating man. It also says that God created animals in the seven days. And since dinosaurs were indeed animals God must have created them. If you were a really knew Genesis you would already know that its story goes back to the origins of time when God created the Earth. So yes the bible does go back that far. Also God put man on earth to be master over beast. I am pretty sure he did not intend us to determine which of his creations were worthy of existence or not. However, that is exactly what we have been doing since the time of man. And I'm pretty sure NASA would not have helped. Because they still have no idea what to do about any theoretical asteroid that could be hurling towards Earth to wipe out our very existence either. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
They went extinct. So what? Here are three more animals that went extinct: the Dodo, Thylacine, and Steller's Sea Cow. If we can bring them back, we should try. It would be so amazing to see these creatures alive again. It would satisfy that curiosity. Jurassic Park was science fiction, and a scare tactic film. Really there is nothing to be afraid of. Make way for progress. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
2
points
1
point
1
point
First of all, it will cost LOTS (obviosly) and the money spent on that could be used to find cures for deadly desieses. Sure, it would be nice to see a raptor or a wolly mammoth in a zoo but, there is limited space for the wolly mammoth or other extinct creatures in the world to live freely due to global warming and human development. Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
1
point
No because you cannot tame a species that has been killing for over a billion years. You can't 'teach an old dog new tricks'. I would love to have a pet T-Rex, but it's impossible to get them out of the mindset of killing. Just like us humans we have that instinct to kill to survive. Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
1
point
Do you people know the definition of cloning? It means to make cells genetically identical from a person or animal. This would mean you CAN'T clone extinct animals because they're already extinct and cloning something that's extinct would create another extinct thing. To get a better perspective on it, think of this: a family's dog is 12 years of age and has cancer so it needs to be put to sleep. The family still wants that same dog so they try to clone it and make a new puppy. That new cloned puppy will still have cancer because it was cloned from the other dog. You can't have identical physically features and also have brand new "insides". Side: No, I don't want pet raptors!
If a dinosaur were to be cloned from any organic matter left on its remains, it would mature into an egg first and then into a baby dino. You're implying that an animal, to be cloned, would somehow clone into another animal of the exact age, size, weight, and color. A clone is just a genetic copy. There are still environmental factors that change appearances and personalities. And besides, the cloned animal would start out from birth, not from the end of its life... That doesn't make sense. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
1
point
When cloning, it is essentially the same as asexual reproduction whereby one set of genes are passed onto the offspring, and the offspring obtains genetic information from the one parent. Your example of cancer being passed on amongst the dogs is invalid as cancer is not a genetic disease, it is purely a body disfunction, and therefore will not be passed on genetically, so the animal will just have the same chance of obtaining the disease as any other creature of its kind. Side: Yea, bring that T-Rex back!
|
