Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by vaksel on Saturday January 31, 2009 @11:12PM
(#460504)
why do people care so much about species going extinct? Millions of species have gone extinct before....millions of species will go extinct again. Its the cycle of life.
I mean sure its pretty horrible that a whole species goes extinct...but why does it matter if there are 300 species of goat or 299.
For every species that goes extinct, another 2 spring up to take its place. Adapt or die. Why should we coddle the inferior species? Let the nature take its course. Remember, if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, man wouldn't have survived.
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by Raphael on Sunday February 01, 2009 @12:54AM
(#460586)
It's cool to keep a few around for novelty purposes. Also, if it seems humans are responsible, it is a source of guilt. Although, there is the trend of caring about some species over others, hence campaigns such as "sea kittens".
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by dmm on Sunday February 01, 2009 @07:36AM
(#460819)
Biological diversity is important to the quality of human life. For example many would say that many amphibian species are endangered and nearing extinction. In many areas amphibians are extremely important predators of insects.
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by mattmaroon on Sunday February 01, 2009 @11:07AM
(#460952)
Species didn't used to go extinct the way they do now. Also, new ones don't spring up anymore. We've fundamentally destroyed the natural process by drastically altering every single ecosystem out there.
The reason to care is that we could, very easily, be left with nothing but rats and pigeons if we don't.
We ought also consider the species of animals whose numbers are increased when the human population increases - chickens, goats, cattle, minks, dogs, cats, laboratory white mice, and canaries.
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by mattmaroon on Sunday February 01, 2009 @01:04PM
(#461087)
I'm sure it would make the aurochs feel better to know that after we slaughtered it into extinction, we kept the domesticated version around to live in tiny pens and provide us milk and/or beef until we slaughter them too. And wolves will be happy to know their domesticated brethren are in humane shelters everywhere after we gun the last one down from a helicopter.
Heck cattle are considered by some the most suitable cattle breed for low intensity grazing systems in certain types of nature reserves, due to their ruggedness and lack of need for human care. Heck cattle today are propagated in some places to fulfill the role of extinct megafauna in the ecosystem.
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by mattmaroon on Sunday February 01, 2009 @02:51PM
(#461229)
It's a replacement from the standpoint of humans who want meat and/or labor. From an ecological standpoint, our attempts to create replacements often fail miserably.
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by ericb on Saturday January 31, 2009 @10:38PM
(#460474)
What happens if you average over several non-intact samples and take the common denominator? Or layer the DNA over a descendant based on certain markers? Given enough damaged "files" and good diff tools, I feel like hacking together a working one would be possible. Can someone who knows more tell me what I'm missing?
Re:Extinct ibex is resurrected by cloning
by ars on Saturday January 31, 2009 @11:21PM
(#460512)
DNA is more complicated than that. I don't fully understand the process, but I believe it works like this:
You can't read the atoms in DNA one after the other and make a list. You chop the DNA into pieces and pattern match sections (fragments) against markers. Then you try to put fragments together by matching overlaps.
But if you have sections that repeat, or have a lot of the same atom over and over, you can't directly read those.
Usually when they say: "we published the DNA" they mean the "coding section" - those are the sections that can make proteins. But there is a lot more to DNA, non-coding, or junk DNA that can not be easily (or at all?) read.
So for the comment above yours, I think what they have is fragments, but no overlapping sections, so that can't put it together into a whole. It's not like a file with gaps - it's random pieces of it, of random lengths, in a random order.
I mean sure its pretty horrible that a whole species goes extinct...but why does it matter if there are 300 species of goat or 299.
For every species that goes extinct, another 2 spring up to take its place. Adapt or die. Why should we coddle the inferior species? Let the nature take its course. Remember, if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, man wouldn't have survived.
The reason to care is that we could, very easily, be left with nothing but rats and pigeons if we don't.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR2...
We ought also consider the species of animals whose numbers are increased when the human population increases - chickens, goats, cattle, minks, dogs, cats, laboratory white mice, and canaries.
Humans also created a similar replacement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_Cattle#Controversy
Heck cattle are considered by some the most suitable cattle breed for low intensity grazing systems in certain types of nature reserves, due to their ruggedness and lack of need for human care. Heck cattle today are propagated in some places to fulfill the role of extinct megafauna in the ecosystem.
A replacement was also created for the extinct tarpan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_horse
Source? What is an ecological standpoint?
You can't read the atoms in DNA one after the other and make a list. You chop the DNA into pieces and pattern match sections (fragments) against markers. Then you try to put fragments together by matching overlaps.
But if you have sections that repeat, or have a lot of the same atom over and over, you can't directly read those.
Usually when they say: "we published the DNA" they mean the "coding section" - those are the sections that can make proteins. But there is a lot more to DNA, non-coding, or junk DNA that can not be easily (or at all?) read.
So for the comment above yours, I think what they have is fragments, but no overlapping sections, so that can't put it together into a whole. It's not like a file with gaps - it's random pieces of it, of random lengths, in a random order.
Discrete units of information on DNA strands are not atoms. They are nucleotides or base pairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair
Or, you can use the other definition of atom: indivisible part, and an atom of DNA is it's smallest building block :)
It's even playing god now! All hail our new Canonical master!
Prepare for the Jackalope to become real sometime after April.