The misnomer of de-extinction

[gwand73 190]

These authors present a cogent argument. An extinct animal is more than its DNA.

Here's Why The Dire Wolf Really Wasn't Brought Back From Extinction, Scientists Argue

When is a de-extinction not a de-extinction? Some headline-grabbing methods for bringing extinct species back to life fall short of such grand claims, according to a new argument published in Biology Letters.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[GaryE35 33]

I have a geriatric male Glossolepis wanamensis rainbowfish here, and I recall a member here suggesting what I could cross him with to try to keep the species around. His argument was the young would at least resemble a wanamensis rainbow.

It just doesn't work that way. Appearances can be deceiving, and fake versions of species don't matter. Every species is the result of natural history - interesting stuff - and isn't a "look".

 

[Boundava11 10]

Agree 1000%
Those are grey wolves with some dire wolf traits, not dire wolves resurrected. Dire wolves are genus aenocyon not canis.

 

[Rusty_Shackleford73 189]

Just wait....Elephamammoths coming soon.

 

[gwand73 190]

A single dire wolf does not a species make. Let’s say you clone the dire wolf using cells from the corpse of the last dire wolf. Now it has the exact DNA of a the dead wolf. You grow the embryo artificially so you don’t have to use the uterus of a living gray wolf. You have the exact replica of a single dire wolf. But there are at least two problems. The habitat of the dire wolf is as extinct as the wolf itself. A species does not exist in a vacuum. The species emerges from populations of dire wolves with significant genetic heterogeneity interacting with their native environment. Genes X Environment. Second problem is the emergence of an inbred population. Let’s say the cloned dire wolf is provided with a mate cloned from another corpse. We have two genotypes. Before extinction dire wolves may have had hundreds of genotypes. The problems we see with line bred fish will now emerge in the new wolf population. This is a genetic bottleneck. If the new clones successfully reproduce, their growing population will be on a different genetic trajectory than the pre-extinct dire wolves. We have disrupted their lineage.

 

[GaryE35 33]

In some ways, we're discussing politics. This supposed de-extinction is window dressing - an assertion of human power that doesn't exist. All creatures are created by their habitats, which they then influence strongly. It's a give and go. If they are extinct because we caused it - hey, we can fix it and put it in a zoo!

That seems the message of this research to me.

It does have hobby implications. There are people working hard to maintain extinct in nature or close to it fish species in their tanks. It's a hopeless task. You can console yourself that people may be able to see the extinct fish because of your work, and there's value in that in raising awareness of what we've destroyed. But the bigger "we" has still destroyed it.

The moment a fish lands in our tanks, it's a zombie. It's left the family table and its feast (or famine) is over. Whether we look at the DNA and make fake dire wolves, or maintain too small populations of fish out of their water, we're playing games. There are millions of years, complex eco-systems, complex relationships with other life, all of which are part of what exists when we see an animal. It's why I enjoy wild type fish, as they are things of incomprehensible wonder to me. Play with genes and turn a Mikrogeophagus ramirezi black or ruin a guppy's tail, and so what? It's cute. But wild versions of those fish have a great backstory we can try to learn. One fish could technically keep you busy for several lifetimes.

Saving habitat isn't just keeping pretty places around. It's protecting the greatest show on Earth and seeing it continue on its wonderful way. If we could de-destroy things, it'd be great, but we barely understand the workings of the things we haven't wrecked yet.