If you dunnart know they were bringing back the thylacine

[birdsandbats]

ok 1. the behaviours and instincts are all there

We literally cannot say this for sure, because we don't have an animal to look at yet. I don't think it will, but you can't honestly claim this, because it seems highly likely it won't. In fact, any learned behaviors this species may have had are for sure gone, even Colossal would agree.

they are doing the right thing.

I don't believe they are. I think what they are doing is a Colossal waste of money with no benefit. Even if they are successful with creating an animal, this animal will be incapable of fulfilling the ecological role it needs to fill to bring back the ecosystem.

 

[Jayden8763]

im done aguing, i know im right but i just couldn't care less about this because i already know that they have proven every point you have made wrong. but, you just do the research please (and alot of it(emphasis on the alot))

 

[Birdsage]

yes but have you even seen what colossal has done?
as they said at colossal, it isn't a matter of if, but when. now watch this:

I’ve heard plenty of comparisons of de-extinction proposals to Jurassic Park, but this is honestly getting ridiculous; “Tassie” is obviously just Colossal’s knockoff of Mr. DNA.

 

[Jayden8763]

ye but... welll its... (you've got a point)

 

[birdsandbats]

but, you just do the research please (and alot of it(emphasis on the alot))

I would suggest the same to you, especially with some of your more recent claims...

 

[oflory]

I'm partially convinced Colossal is run by a secret group of conservationists and zoologists using the possibility of de-extinction as a front for getting tech startup levels of funding for real projects like elephant HPV, cane toad toxin resistance and rhinoceros reproductive research...

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

You also seem to fail to appreciate that a zygote is an interacting system between a nuclear genome and cytoplasm; regardless, at present there is no way of using a living Thylacine egg so it cannot “be” a Thylacine! We are a long way from understanding all aspects of the cytoplasm nucleus interaction, and so whatever is produced will be a kind of replacement, rather than a Thylacine.
By the way, what is your evidence that the ecosystem is not functioning without Thylacines? I have no doubt it is functioning differently, but I suspect that it is working well enough in the modern world.
Am I sad not to be able to see a living Thylacine? Certainly. Is there value in trying to develop cloning technology? Yes. Is it a better option than attempting conservation techniques before extinction occurs? Certainly not. Will we be able to produce Thylacines using this technology? Not in my lifetime.

 

[PossumRoach]

I'm partially convinced Colossal is run by a secret group of conservationists and zoologists using the possibility of de-extinction as a front for getting tech startup levels of funding for real projects like elephant HPV, cane toad toxin resistance and rhinoceros reproductive research...

If colossal is reading this I hope they find a cure for foot and mouth disease and other diseases that affect the international transportation of ungulates. That would relieve many international ex situ programs for rare and endangered ungulates.

 

[DDcorvus]

In the end we have a private biotech company that needs to justify it's work to it's investors and might want to present it's work for future investors. So that is something to take into consideration when they present their work. Research into gene-editing and cloning is useful and could benefit conservation. Is creating GMOs that resemble extinct species and potentially introducing them into the wild the right way to go? I'm not sure. It is a way to attract funding that otherwise might not be spend on conservation, but at the same time we need to reflect if doing this is conservation at all.

But they are not doing de-extinction here. They are creating organisms that resemble extinct species. And those organisms will not behave like the species they resemble as that is lost. Also note that species don't behave the same way as they did 1000 years ago. Ecosystems changed, species composition changed and species had to adapt.

 

[LaughingDove]

So regardless of the unproductive back-and-forth, I think a very interesting question is raised here: what actually makes something a Thylacine?

If one were to fully genome edit a dunnart cell so that it were completely identical to a Thylacine, this could include the mitochondrial DNA if relevant as there was some discussion about this earlier, start the zygote off in a dunnart, and then transfer it to an artificial womb, would that creature be a Thylacine?

I honestly don't know the answer to that and I don't think there is a clear answer. Obviously the first cell is a dunnart cell with Thylacine DNA in it, it is not a Thylacine cell. But would it eventually become a Thylacine as it grows and develops?

What if you were to repeat that dunnart process with a quoll or a Tasmanian Devil or something else. If, hypothetically, that same treatment produced an identical creature each time. So a 'Thylacine' derived from a dunnart or a quoll or a Tassie devil completely independently using the gene editing pipeline was in no way similar to the parent, would that be sufficient evidence that a real Thylacine has been created?

Another interesting point is that they're working with a single specimen that they have sequenced. So there is no idea what the genetic diversity in Thylacines would have been and every individual created would be genetically identical.

And if this costs, I would say very very conservatively, $800 million for this single project alone... is it worth it?...

 

[Nile Hippo Expert]

To answer this question very specifically, yes, SOMEONE had to have seen a thylacine if it is/was a described species.

 

[birdsandbats]

So regardless of the unproductive back-and-forth, I think a very interesting question is raised here: what actually makes something a Thylacine?

If one were to fully genome edit a dunnart cell so that it were completely identical to a Thylacine, this could include the mitochondrial DNA if relevant as there was some discussion about this earlier, start the zygote off in a dunnart, and then transfer it to an artificial womb, would that creature be a Thylacine?

I honestly don't know the answer to that and I don't think there is a clear answer. Obviously the first cell is a dunnart cell with Thylacine DNA in it, it is not a Thylacine cell. But would it eventually become a Thylacine as it grows and develops?

What if you were to repeat that dunnart process with a quoll or a Tasmanian Devil or something else. If, hypothetically, that same treatment produced an identical creature each time. So a 'Thylacine' derived from a dunnart or a quoll or a Tassie devil completely independently using the gene editing pipeline was in no way similar to the parent, would that be sufficient evidence that a real Thylacine has been created?

Another interesting point is that they're working with a single specimen that they have sequenced. So there is no idea what the genetic diversity in Thylacines would have been and every individual created would be genetically identical.

And if this costs, I would say very very conservatively, $800 million for this single project alone... is it worth it?...

And of course, to wade into this philosophy some more, some would even argue that something cannot be a Thylacine if it is not fulfilling an ecological role in an ecosystem. Some, like Holmes Rolston in his well-known work Environmental Ethics, would argue that captive individuals aren't even their respective species.

 

[dillotest0]

And of course, to wade into this philosophy some more, some would even argue that something cannot be a Thylacine if it is not fulfilling an ecological role in an ecosystem. Some, like Holmes Rolston in his well-known work Environmental Ethics, would argue that captive individuals aren't even their respective species.

From what I understand...
The thylacine was the largest dasyurid. It was larger than the dunnarts and kowari for sure, larger than the quolls and also the Tasmanian Devil.
So as opposed to the mice and rats and such that found themselves on the second-to-most-southern-continent-area, thylacines ate mainly larger prey; emus in particular.
But since 1865 there have been no emus in Tasmania. So for a while before extinction the thylacine was without its main source of prey. And of course that's about the time things started to get worse....
So, even if we successfully implanted thylacine DNA into a dunnart embryo, even if the parent carried it to term, even if the resultant animal was morphologically like a thylacine and acted like one to boot, and managed to create a reproducing populace of genetically diverse individuals, be it we find a live thylacine somewhere in New Guinea to use as potential mate or not - all of which points I am skeptical of... the ecosystem still wouldn't be totally complete!

To add, much of Tasmania is covered in farmland. If the neo-thylacines happened to reproduce with great success, would there ever be time for surplus? Would they start crawling into farms to repeat history? I have the same aversion to bears in the United Kingdom - even if they did well in the Scottish highlands, there just isn't enough stretches of habitat anymore to truly support a bear population... I digress. Tasmania is not what it was 50 years ago, nor is it what it was when Benjamin was pacing around in hope of a girlfriend, or what it was when the last wild thylacines were being relentlessly persecuted.

As an aside....
I think there is one element to de-extinction not fully appreciated by its pariahs. Generations have grown up knowing of the woolly mammoth and dodo and how they are no longer alive. They represent, semiotically, something that was but is no more. They hold us in humiliation, but in accountability also. If the day ever comes that the neo-dodo takes its first steps onto the forest floor of Mauritius, what effect would that have on the minds of lawmakers and politicians - that what was is again? Would they feel the same way about species on the 'highway to hell' as they did before... or would this convince them that this can be done with anything? As in, 'it's not a big deal that an animal goes extinct, we can just bring it back!'
Personally I don't really like this idea of 'cleansing past societal sins'. I feel it covers up the past and works as a smokescreen in lieu of a better future. It diverts funds away from where they are needed most I think.

 

[LaughingDove]

And of course, to wade into this philosophy some more, some would even argue that something cannot be a Thylacine if it is not fulfilling an ecological role in an ecosystem. Some, like Holmes Rolston in his well-known work Environmental Ethics, would argue that captive individuals aren't even their respective species.

Yes I think this argument is logically consistent and is defensible although I suspect most members of this forum would disagree as it makes the idea of seeing interesting and unusual species in zoos completely redundant.

However I do think there's something very sad about the idea of species being reduced solely to the ecosystem function they play. I think something is lost if for example all deserts had the same set of organisms, even if those all functioned perfectly.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

thylacines ate mainly larger prey; emus in particular.
But since 1865 there have been no emus in Tasmania. So for a while before extinction the thylacine was without its main source of prey. And of course that's about the time things started to get worse....

There is zero evidence whatsoever that the primary prey of the thylacine was the Tasmanian Emu; in fact, they seem to have largely taken waterbirds and smaller marsupials, with multiple studies into their cranial and mandibular morphology showing that they were probably incapable of taking prey their size - let alone something the size of an emu!

 

[LaughingDove]

the ecosystem still wouldn't be totally complete!

I don't think this is a good reason not to do something though. We shouldn't try and reintroduce x species (regardless of de extinction, say something formerly extinct in the wild) because the ecosystem wouldn't be totally complete. The ecosystem that Arabian Oryx or Californian Condors (especially the latter) are reintroduced in will never be fully complete. And these species will always require active human intervention.

As an aside....
I think there is one element to de-extinction not fully appreciated by its pariahs. Generations have grown up knowing of the woolly mammoth and dodo and how they are no longer alive. They represent, semiotically, something that was but is no more. They hold us in humiliation, but in accountability also. If the day ever comes that the neo-dodo takes its first steps onto the forest floor of Mauritius, what effect would that have on the minds of lawmakers and politicians - that what was is again? Would they feel the same way about species on the 'highway to hell' as they did before... or would this convince them that this can be done with anything? As in, 'it's not a big deal that an animal goes extinct, we can just bring it back!'
Personally I don't really like this idea of 'cleansing past societal sins'. I feel it covers up the past and works as a smokescreen in lieu of a better future. It diverts funds away from where they are needed most I think.

This is a very interesting one. I think having optimism can be immensely valuable for conservation and fear of extinction and a feeling of hopelessness/the looming inevitable void is not usually a good motivator.

The point with diverting funds depends on whether those funds really would be available for other stuff. The money for the Apollo moon landing programme could have done more if spent in a different way, I think de-extinction, if it is to be done, is perhaps best thought of as it's own Apollo Programme or Human Genome Project or a mission of that magnitude. It's not really part of conservation necessarily.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The ecosystem that Arabian Oryx or Californian Condors (especially the latter) are reintroduced in will never be fully complete. And these species will always require active human intervention.

Indeed - in fact, the process of saving the Californian Condor explicitly led to the deliberate extermination and extinction of another species (Colpocephalum californici, the Condor Louse) within their ecosystem!

 

[Jayden8763]

I don't think this is a good reason not to do something though. We shouldn't try and reintroduce x species (regardless of de extinction, say something formerly extinct in the wild) because the ecosystem wouldn't be totally complete. The ecosystem that Arabian Oryx or Californian Condors (especially the latter) are reintroduced in will never be fully complete. And these species will always require active human intervention.



This is a very interesting one. I think having optimism can be immensely valuable for conservation and fear of extinction and a feeling of hopelessness/the looming inevitable void is not usually a good motivator.

The point with diverting funds depends on whether those funds really would be available for other stuff. The money for the Apollo moon landing programme could have done more if spent in a different way, I think de-extinction, if it is to be done, is perhaps best thought of as it's own Apollo Programme or Human Genome Project or a mission of that magnitude. It's not really part of conservation necessarily.

pls watch 03:00 and afterwards, all of you because you keep saying the same thing about this.

 

[Jayden8763]

If colossal is reading this I hope they find a cure for foot and mouth disease and other diseases that affect the international transportation of ungulates. That would relieve many international ex situ programs for rare and endangered ungulates.

they have been working with conservation companies on diseases that kill many animals so maybe they are already

 

[birdsandbats]

pls watch 03:00 and afterwards, all of you because you keep saying the same thing about this.

Since you seemed completely convinced that this video would prove me wrong and tell me lots of things I didn't already know, I just watched through it. It told me nothing I wasn't already aware of and confirmed this works exactly like I thought it did.

The woman in the video did make the claim the created animal would "look and act exactly like a mammoth" which is clearly a wild claim they make only to convince investors. Even if we assume it would look exactly like a mammoth, elephants have many, many learned behaviors that would be lost in the process. These animals could not act like mammoths because there are no mammoths to teach them how be mammoths.