• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

De-Extinction

Hmmm.

What we should remember here is that de-extinction is a process which sets out to create an analogue, it's not resurrection or cloning.
 
I'm not understanding your differentiation:
it's not resurrection or cloning

Wiki writes
De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that either resembles or is an extinct species
(underline added).

Do you perhaps mean that even a very close contemporary resemblance obtained via selective & cross-breeding cannot be said to be a literal resurrection in terms of every gene, hair, joint & trait? Only ever just a convergent subjectively-identical semi-twin? And not a true sequegenerational 'clone' (metaphorical or literal)
 
Last edited:
Once again, the Ship of Theseus rears its prow.

What does "being the same" really mean for entities that change with time? Living things constantly exchange material with the environment, after all, and species evolve.

Will I be the same person tomorrow? There is some evidence to believe that we die when we go to sleep, and are recovered from backup when we wake.

How similar does a copy have to be before it is considered equivalent? I understand that imitators of famous artists can produce works extremely difficult to differentiate from the originals, and some make a good living selling these pseudo-masterpieces.
 
The Aurochs 2.0 (which has its own thread here somewhere) is a good example of how selective breeding can recreate a beast virtually indistinguishable from its extinct ancestral form.
I suspect you're not going to succeed in turning out baby mammoths using artificial selection alone though and some more intrusive genetic manipulation will be required. But would that make Mammoth 2.0 a Trigger's Broom animal?
 
I'm not understanding your differentiation:


Wiki writes

(underline added).

Do you perhaps mean that even a very close contemporary resemblance obtained via selective & cross-breeding cannot be said to be a literal resurrection in terms of every gene, hair, joint & trait? Only ever just a convergent subjectively-identical semi-twin? And not a true sequegenerational 'clone' (metaphorical or literal)
I don't know enough about genetics to form any particular opinion on this, but for what it's worth...

The fact the Wiki differentiates between an animal resembling or being identical to an extinct animal should give us a clue as to why it might matter. An individual animal has a genetic history inherited from its forebears that will include behavioural traits and epigenetic expressions that I doubt can be easily bred into an animal if the aim is to create something resembling an extinct species. Closely related animals will share some such traits, obviously, but not necessarily all. I don't really consider selectively bred de-extinct animals to actually be a form of de-extinction. Look at all the morphological changes we've made to wolves to produce dogs, and they're still genetically compatible with each other and considered by some to be a subspecies within the wolf species.

If the species we choose to selectively breed into a replica of an extinct animal is genetically similar to it enough that we can consider the animal de-extinct, perhaps they're close enough that the animal was never extinct in the first place. No definition of 'species' is very satisfactory, after all.

If we choose a relatively distantly related animal, we're just turning wolves into dogs again, breeding one species into a superficially different looking animal, but one that resembles an extinct species, without the details honed through multiple generations of adaptations to selective pressures.

But probably I'm wrong. I could never get my head around genetics. As long as scientists are having fun, and probably learning things they could never have imagined, as is often the case.
 
It's generally understood now that our perception of a unitary consciousness is more or less an illusion. Various different parts of the brain do their own thing. In sleep, though the brain continues to be quite active, this illusion of consciousness evaporates. Now, by some definitions, nonexistence equals death. In waking, a new consciousness forms, based on retained memories of the old.

In much the same way, a recently extinct species can be said to be sleeping, or perhaps in a coma. Traces remain, including DNA in the soil, close relatives, co-evolved species, and in most cases, cultural memories of humanity.

A major difference might be that humans usually wake spontaneously, while recovering a lost species takes some work. Perhaps we lack the technology yet to accomplish such miracles, but a sufficiently similar copy is indistinguishable from an original.
 
Ignoring the ethics for a moment, some selective breeding to incorporate the heavy brow-ridges and receding chin of the Australian Aborigine, the stocky barrel-chested build of the Inuit, the large Semitic nose, the lower and more posterior cranium of the indigenous Basque people, the pale skin of Northern Europeans with perhaps a dash of Celtic ginger hair, could conceivably produce a very convincing Neanderthal 2.0 within a few generations. They wouldn't be a real Neanderthal though.

main-qimg-bf807cd97652fed293e3ab52571a7459-lq.jpeg
 
The Aurochs 2.0 (which has its own thread here somewhere) is a good example of how selective breeding can recreate a beast virtually indistinguishable from its extinct ancestral form.
I suspect you're not going to succeed in turning out baby mammoths using artificial selection alone though and some more intrusive genetic manipulation will be required. But would that make Mammoth 2.0 a Trigger's Broom animal?
Trigger's broom had the benefit of previous broom parts to continue its existence. A mammoth would not have anyone to teach it how to be a mammoth. It would just look like a mammoth.
 
Trigger's broom had the benefit of previous broom parts to continue its existence. A mammoth would not have anyone to teach it how to be a mammoth. It would just look like a mammoth.
I don't know Min.
Despite global warming, there are still plenty of places with an environment not dissimilar to Ice Age Europe - I'm thinking northern Scandinavia, Alaska, Siberia, Greenland etc.
I suspect instinct would be present in a recreated Mammoth to forage for food, form a family group, defend itself against wolves and bears and seek a mate, just as real Mammoths did.
The danger would be that a Mammoth bred in captivity may not have the strong immune system of a naturally born creature, may also have become partly domesticated and could conceivably be a bit unprepared for being cast out into the cold, but I reckon the animal's instinct for survival would triumph eventually.
 
In the Botanical Gardens, in Rome, we 'discovered' one tree that they'd planted was a Wollemia Nobilis - a tree thought to be extinct but discovered in the deep wilderness of Australia.
 
One of the techniques mooted for de extinction is similar to the technique used to create Dolly the sheep. The nucleus of a cell is inserted into an egg and brought to term in a surrogate. In the case of a mammoth the nucleus would be removed from a frozen mammoth and inserted into the egg of an elephant and brought to term in an elephant. The majority of the genetic material (from the nucleus) would be mammoth, however the egg, even though the original nucleus has been removed, will still contain elephant DNA. This is present in eg the mitochondria of the egg, these organelles are passed through the maternal line. Consequently a mammoth born this way will be genetically mostly mammoth but there will always be that but of non mammoth.
 
One of the techniques mooted for de extinction is similar to the technique used to create Dolly the sheep.

I think that's what's getting lost in the communication of this project to the public.

The nucleus of a cell is inserted into an egg and brought to term in a surrogate.In the case of a mammoth the nucleus would be removed from a frozen mammoth and inserted into the egg of an elephant and brought to term in an elephant.

Whilst the first sentence is correct the second is not. The nucleus would be from an elephant which had some its genetic material edited to mimic that of a mammoth. The mammoth cells are dead, they're inert.

Consequently a mammoth born this way will be genetically mostly mammoth but there will always be that but of non mammoth.

In fact it would contain no mammoth DNA at all, and would be the result of edited and unedited elephant DNA.
 
One of the techniques mooted for de extinction is similar to the technique used to create Dolly the sheep.

I think that's what's getting lost in the communication of this project to the public.

The nucleus of a cell is inserted into an egg and brought to term in a surrogate.In the case of a mammoth the nucleus would be removed from a frozen mammoth and inserted into the egg of an elephant and brought to term in an elephant.

Whilst the first sentence is correct the second is not. The nucleus would be from an elephant which had some its genetic material edited to mimic that of a mammoth. The mammoth cells are dead, they're inert.

Consequently a mammoth born this way will be genetically mostly mammoth but there will always be that but of non mammoth.

In fact it would contain no mammoth DNA at all, and would be the result of edited and unedited elephant DNA.
Whilst Crispr technology is one, and probably the most likely to work, it is not the only technique bring tried. That of somatic cell nuclear transfer (ie the technique used to create Dolly the sheep) is being looked at by Japanese (eg Iritani and Goto) and South Korean teams.
 
I'm not understanding your differentiation:


Wiki writes

(underline added).

Do you perhaps mean that even a very close contemporary resemblance obtained via selective & cross-breeding cannot be said to be a literal resurrection in terms of every gene, hair, joint & trait? Only ever just a convergent subjectively-identical semi-twin? And not a true sequegenerational 'clone' (metaphorical or literal)

I think we have to forget selective breeding, nobody at Colossal is talking about that.

My point was that although what's actually being discussed are individuals composed of the edited DNA of other species, the company is making statements like "Colossal is determined to give the thylacine a second chance at life".
 
Whilst Crispr technology is one, and probably the most likely to work, it is not the only technique bring tried. That of somatic cell nuclear transfer (ie the technique used to create Dolly the sheep) is being looked at by Japanese (eg Iritani and Goto) and South Korean teams.

In terms of Colossal though, it's CRSPR. And it's their project that seems to be causing the confusion.

Edit: I see. Sorry, you clearly said that you were discussing an alternative approach.
 
Last edited:
In terms of Colossal though, it's CRSPR. And it's their project that seems to be causing the confusion.
Sorry, I was talking general not the specific company Lord Mongrove mentioned in his original post, my bad.
 
Sorry, I was talking general not the specific company Lord Mongrove mentioned in his original post, my bad.

No, as I just added to my reply, you were clear that you were talking about a separate approach. I assumed that we were talking about de-extinction Colossal style, but of course, whilst Colossal is at the head of this thread its title is De-extinction. My error.
 

De-extinction of the woolly mammoth takes a major step forwards: Scientists successfully reprogramme elephant stem cells

Researchers have made a major breakthrough that could see woolly mammoths returning to life before 2028.

Scientists from Colossal Biosciences have successfully created elephant 'pluripotent' stem cells which can grow into any cell in the body.

82115325-13163981-image-a-23_1709735652593.jpg


Dr George Church, co-founder and lead geneticist of Colossal, [said] that the creation of these cells 'opens the door' to the de-extinction of the mammoth.

'It's not a huge extrapolation to think that we'll be able to synthesise on a large scale in the future,' he said.

In 2006, a scientist named Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to use a chemical cocktail to trigger cells from adult animals to turn into stem cells - those with the unique ability to grow into any other type of cell.

While this has already been done successfully in humans, rabbits, big cats, and even the northern white rhino, until now, it had never been done before with an elephant.

To go from these cells to a living breathing mammoth, the scientists hope to edit them with genes taken from a frozen woolly mammoth corpse.

The cells could then be induced to grow into an egg which could be fertilised and grown in an artificial womb.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ction-woolly-mammoth-elephant-stem-cells.html

maximus otter
 
Back
Top