De-Extinction Of Extinct Animals

Scientists can prove evolution more and learn about it more and how it works (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). Scientists will also be able to eradicate diseases that are caused by specific genes by introducing immune species in the wild (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). Lastly, if scientists are able to bring back extinct species, people could get an insight into the evolution process (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). However, that is what scientists want people to think. Sure people could learn about evolution more, but if scientists are able to resurrect and use mostly elephant DNA then scientists won't learn much about mammoth evolution because the mammoth will have the evolution of the elephant. So how can the scientists know? Also how can scientists make immunities from the mammoth if the mammoth is the one producing new diseases that scientists are not aware of

The concept of bringing a species back to life after it has gone extinct has been around for years. The idea that dinosaurs will roam the earth again has fascinated mankind since the first dinosaur fossils were first put together. Pop culture has even glorified this idea in a variety of books and movies made about the topic, such as the famous Jurassic Park trilogy. In science fiction, there are many ideas people have about brining the extinct back to life. Some of these theories have a grain of truth to it, but today, the idea of bringing back a species is no longer science fiction, but will likely be possible in the near future. This process is called De-Extinction. The most recent developments in genetic extraction,

De-extinction: a scientific breakthrough and a process in which humans can use genetic engineering to bring back a species that was once extinct. Despite how intriguing it is that humans can accomplish this, the act of using de-extinction to bring back different species can be detrimental to the environments that they are introduced into. Humans can control how they create and modify a species that they bring back from extinction, an example being which species they use to replicate another species and the modifications they make for it to be able to thrive. However, once they are let out into an environment, the control lessens and the species can kill off different creatures and bring diseases to others, overall having a negative effect. There is no telling what a species will do if it is brought back from extinction, especially if that particular species died off decades or centuries ago and their habitat is no longer what it once was. There would be a chance that they would be brought back from extinction only to go extinct again. De-extinction should be avoided because there are too many risks such as costs, diseases, and the ideology that any species can come back after going extinct.

Do you think de-extinction is a good idea. I don’t, and here’s why. I oppose it because it would upset the ecosystem, they would have nowhere at this point in time, and lastly, they would have to adapt to the geography and weather of today’s society because it has changed since these historic creatures were walking on this Earth.

De-extinction would have to be one of the most good things that would happen to earth. The population would not decrease less and we would see what type of anailms we have or had and see what it was like to have those animals again and what it was like for new animals to come back to this world .

De-extinction could bring back animals that bring good qualities to their ecosystem and have a purpose that was lost. “Even if deep de-extinction cannot replace lost values, it may nevertheless create value.” (Sandler 356) It could bring about advances in many fields of research. A huge point some scientist bring up is the injustice of humans wiping them out. The scientist say we have a duty to bring

The thylacine or “Tasmanian tiger”, was declared extinct in 1936 when the last surviving one was killed in a zoo. The concept “extinction is forever”, was disproven when scientists announced plans on restoring this species back to life by synthesizing its DNA, and cloning it. Many other scientists have started to use this manipulation to restore extinct species. This makes people question what de-extinction is aiming at. Is it a way of making amends to humans, or is it a matter of restoring the ecosystems that were once destroyed?

The positives weigh out the negatives for this proposition. Such positives may include that since humans were the main cause of many extinctions, bringing species back could act as a favor or an act to make up for the wrong of extinction. Also, another positive could be that the more species alive, the better balanced the ecosystem. “De-extinction could help increase the genetic diversity of small populations or those in captive breeding programs…”

There are three different approaches to de-extinction that seem most likely to succeed: cloning, back-breeding, and genetic engineering. Both back breeding and genetic engineering will not produce an animal that has exactly the same genome as the extinct species. Because of this, scientists favor cloning since it would yield a genomic twin to the extinct species (Sherkow and Greely ). Cloning is also by far the most controversial of the approaches.

In topics of scientific research, pros, in many ways, can provide reasoning to outweigh the cons. De-extinction does this in certainty of different environmental and health benefits.

The Long Now Foundation has created an outline of criteria for determining if a species is a good candidate for de-extinction. Broadly speaking, these criteria examine not only whether it is possible to create such a clone or hybrid, but whether any individuals that are successfully bred could thrive in the wild, and whether the renewal of the population would have positive or negative consequences for the modern ecosystem. Some species, like the mammoth, require an ecosystem that can only be provided for them through the managed alteration of the existing

For thousands of years, humans have been some sort of virus to Earth, destroying habitats, and causing millions of different species to go extinct, for example, the dodo. After all of the destruction we caused, scientists have found a way to reverse it, to a certain extent. The fantasy of bringing back extinct species is now a reality. There have been cases of scientists successfully bringing back an extinct species. Cloning for de-extinction should be widely accepted, scientist proper tools, good reasons, and they have already cloned a few species.

Reviving extinct animals with cloning is not wrong. Scientists all over the world are working on cloning endangered or extinct animals with some already having success. They have been working with the wooly mammoth. A near perfectly preserved mammoth was found and now scientists are using its DNA to try to clone it back to existence. There are no current

De-extinction is the process of creating an organism which is a member of or resemble an extinct species. De-extinction I personally do not approve. I believe if the environment is left alone, it would not be a cause for de-extinction everything would reproduce on its own. Species has

Christian Diehm wrote many journal articles, and showed his intelligence through his writing, and education. He achieved several awards, and is an inspiration to scientists across the world. The article that will be discussed today is Should Extinction be Forever? Restitution, Restoration, and Reviving Extinct Species by Christian Diehm. This article is about reversing the plant extinction, or ‘de-extinction’, and how to further this project. This process means that when human damages, or kills an organism they owe restitution towards that species, or a relative of theirs. There are benefits to this design, and there are portions that would not add up if all followed. There are many people who have contributed towards this concept of de-extinction, these people are the ones who have shaped the future for us. This concept of restitution is a good thought in speculation, but there are too many problems with the execution.