should/can we bring back the dinosaurs?And other recently extinct species? what are the ethical qualms against such a thing? Is it playing God?We have already brought back Dire-wolfs, mammoth is coming soon. They're trying to create a neanderthal as well.
>>18547372They had it coming.
>>18547372I don't really think we can (at least with our current tech) since fossilized flesh is exceptionally rare to begin with, of those that we could get none of them really have the needed info to make a viable genetic match to recreate them
>>18547378Part of why i made this thread. DNA decays way earlier than 65 million years, when the dinosaurs died.The dire wolves and mammoths went extinct just 10-12k years ago. But they still couldn't clone it with the current tech. What they did was something more peculiar; they experimented with genome of the grey-wolf, fine-tuning it until it resembled a dire-wolf.They switched on the genes that made it bigger. The ones that made it white. etc.They have experimented with rats and made them limbless.They've fully mapped the brain of a fly.How is this not humans trying to play God wth genetics. We definitely have much more information about the human genome than grey-wolves. Isn't it pushing ethical bounds?
>>18547372It's not history or humanities.It's comically impossible. Fossils are literally rocks, not even "bones," and even if these fossils were, by some miracle, actually "bones," it would still be impossible because DNA degrades rapidly due to environmental factors. We have human samples from the Iron Age or even the Middle Ages (that compared to dinosaurs in chronological terms, would be "yesterday,") with such poor quality that they are essentially useless for genetic analysis..Besides, DNA has a limited lifespan estimates have changed since the last time I checked, but fossils over 1 million years old generally don't contain readable DNA sequences.
>>18547397>We definitely have much more information about the human genome than grey-wolves. Isn't it pushing ethical bounds?Why would that be? I don't see how genetic analysis could be a sin.
Are the Yamnaya in heaven or burning in hell?
>>18547400We're talking about the ethical humanities side of genetic engineering. I think everybody and their mother knows you can't clone a dinosaur from fossils or amber like jurassic park.But what's scary is that, with sufficient technology, you can actually reverse engineer species. Let's say take a chicken all the way to a velociraptor. This is not something outlandish, it's feasible with supercomputers and AI in the near future. >I don't see how genetic analysis could be a sin.It's not breeding a dog to look like a disgusting pug. You're actually in a sense wielding the power of God.
>>18547424You are watching too many movies
>>18547372>should/can we bring back the dinosaurs?Short answer: No/"kind of".Long answer: The atmospheric conditions and biosphere the dinosaurs lived in is functionally gone (with some exceptions perhaps in parts of South East Asia and South America). They would not be able to comfortably live or propagate in our modern world. Unless, of course, your dinosaurs "weren't" dinosaurs, but novel genetic hybrids composed of a number of different animals bred and doctored into the shape of a dinosaur - kind of like what Jurassic Park did. Which, unfortunately, might be the most "practical" way of making a dinosaur as basically none of their genetic material has been left intact. >We have already brought back Dire-wolfs, mammoth is coming soon.You're referring to Colossal Biosciences? They didn't make Dire Wolves. They didn't even make a hybrid. What they specifically did was genetically alter three *Grey Wolves to make them "look" like what they "thought" Dire Wolves would look like. It was a purely cosmetic/superficial process.*Grey Wolves aren't even the closest living relative to Dire Wolves. I think it's the Jackal or the African Painted Dog(?)>And other recently extinct species?Creating recently extinct species would be doable, so long as we have well preserved genetic samples, modern relative surrogates, and comparable environments to house them in.Lots of extinct Pleistocene animals fall within this category; as we have dozens of species of preserved permafrost mummies, ample living surrogates, and large tracks of unused circumpolar land in Canada and Russia they may find comfortable.
>>18547372Please tell me the fury pink gay bird thing isn't a biblically accurate t-rex. Don't do that to me I may not recover.
>>18547372>We have already brought back Dire-wolfsGray wolves with 20 (or so) edited genes to make them superficially "resemble" a dire wolf and no actual dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome remain gray wolves.
>>18547372>We have already brought back Dire-wolfsNo we hadn't, baka
>>18547787>Please tell me the fury pink gay bird thing isn't a biblically accurate t-rex. Don't do that to me I may not recover.It's not.The most accurate, as far as we know based on the remains that we have available, paints the t-rex as smooth & featherless, while being fairly bulky.
>>18547843Oh thank God. It looks so cool. Even with the kind of Habsberg underbite.
>>18547854No frickin way. The pink one from op looks more agressive and agile
>>18547857But it's pink with feathers anon. Drag queen Jurassic baka
If we were capable of doing it, and providing proper care and containment for them, not worried about any kind of contamination or anything like that, etc, then there are no reasonable arguments against having some extinct species in zoos other than superstition. No, Jurassic Park isn't an argument, it is a movie
>>18547372if you are going to bring them back with gay feathers then dont bother
>>18547372Dinosaurs aren't real. They're a Hollywood commodity made to eternally mock the goyim for believing in giant lizards
couldn't work as the climate and oxygen levels in the atmosphere were a lot different back then
>>18548605But the members of the tribe also believe in the dino-saur
