Discussão The Big Bang Theory
Discussão → Séries → The Big Bang Theory → Geral
OT: De-extinction
publicado por tmdb19868063STAFFMOD em 7 novembro 2017 às 8:04 PM
I saw a video today posted on FB by George Takei stating that scientists have DNA and could bring the following back from extinction. His quote was, "Is this how Jurassic Park starts?" What do you think? Do you see only bad things coming from this? Anything unethical about it? Kind of cool and exciting?
1.Dodo- entire population killed for food
2.Heath hen- plentiful in the early 1900s, they were eaten into extinction
3.Caribbean monk seal- hunted into extinction for their oil
4.Irish elk- died out towards end of Ice Age
5.Tasmanian tiger- last one died on 1936
6.Moa (giant flightless bird)- entire population killed for food
7.Aurochs (ancestor of domestic cattle)- died out in 1627
8.Woolly rhino- made it through the Ice Age but couldn't survive hunting
9.Saber-toothed cat- extinct after Ice Age 11,000 years ago
10.Woolly mammal- scientists hope to bring back to life with a surrogate elephant
My answer: I don't see the point of bringing back most of them, and wonder what kind of life they'd have. The only one where I could possibly see a benefit is #2, as an additional food source (if they were able to make many and they multiplied), though I don't know that we really need an extra food source. I don't think animals should be created just as a novelty.
Additional question: If there was no harm to the animal and nothing bad would come from it, which of the ten above would you most like to see first-hand?
Me: 9 (With something between us to protect me!)
Resposta de Knixon
em 9 novembro 2017 às 6:20 PM
Of course the point wasn't that it has already been done. If science only existed about what's already been done, there would be no such thing as theories and hypotheses. But what do mules and ligers have to do with it? The story wasn't referring to clones of mules and ligers, but to species that can and did reproduce normally in the past. What evidence do you have, other than some kind of definitional thing that was maybe adopted with some kind of agenda, that clones of species that could and did reproduce when previously extant, would not be able to reproduce once cloned? For that matter, if we're going to get definitional about it, clones of species that turn out to be unable to reproduce like the originals could, wouldn't really be clones - exact copies - at all, would they? So by that definition, clones - exact copies - of species that reproduced normally in the past, would also have to be able to reproduce. Otherwise they're not really clones. QED.
Resposta de CalabrianQueen
em 10 novembro 2017 às 2:23 AM
And of course you gloss over the point again. Ligers and mules were examples to help you understand the definition of species which I still don't think you get.
The process of "cloning" something extinct involves theoretical reassembly of the genome of that organism using a closest living relative as template. This theoretical "clone " is not reproductively compatible with the original whether it existed or not because all it is is something relative and nothing was truly "brought back".
Reproductive compatibility is a required condition for "species" : therefore a "clone" of an extinct species cannot be that "species".
All in all I think your misunderstanding stems from two areas: not understanding "species" and not understanding "clone" probably curable by you watching fewer science fiction films.
But again, you'd rather believe science as a whole is conspiring against you with pesky definitions and terminology.
Also you're asking me to prove something that has never happened before can't happen rather than you prove yourself that it can happen as you've asserted.
QED :You're not a creationist but you are about as logically gifted as the average one.
Resposta de Knixon
em 10 novembro 2017 às 3:45 AM
If they were only cloning from a "near relative" not some kind of dna sample of the original creature, then it's not really a clone of the original. But if they were able to find actual dna of dodo birds, for example, and cloned actual dodo birds, they would be the same species as the original dodo birds. And dodo birds are neither mules nor ligers, so - unless the cloning process was somehow defective - they would be able to reproduce the same as original dodo birds. If the cloning process is defective, and the results cannot reproduce normally, that doesn't prove that cloning doesn't recreate a species. It just shows they don't have the cloning process right yet.