Subject:
|
Re: Mass Extinctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Sep 2002 19:40:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
276 times
|
| |
|
|
Curt wrote:
> That's frightening.
> I have a question to any biologists out there. Is it possible to
store the
> DNA of males and females of each species, so that if the species goes
> extinct, it can be revived? Of course, there is the question of how an
> embryo would be grown, but surely they can put the DNA in the womb of a
> similar species, as they are doing with the mammoth project in Japan. Or
> perhaps, someday, we will have the technology to make artificial wombs.
>
> So is this already being done? Or is it not possible? Or has it not
yet been
> thought of?
Curt,
Yes, this current mass extinction is very frightening. I won't go
into any more background on this mass extinction since the article has
done a pretty good job of presenting the concept. The idea of storing
genetic material is a noble, yet highly unfeasible, idea. Scientists
(and politicians) in this field have enough trouble deciding on what a
species is and how to delineate it from other similar groups. A major
question is what do we want to conserve. Do we want a representive
sample of the average organism? Do we want to conserve all of the
variation present in a species? Do we conserve material from as many
populations as possible? These questions can go on and on. Volumes
have been written on this topic.
The US Endangered Species Act (as well as similar acts by other
countries) helps conserve what it considers pockets of significant
genetic variation of a species in the native habitat. But one thing
conservation biologists are finding out is that protecting habitat is
more important than protecting species, its the umbrella effect.
You may think of zoos and botanical gardens as reserviors of genetic
diversity for use in conservation. Cloning organisms for use in
medicine, biotechnology, etc is one thing, cloning an organism forto
live its life in its habitat as nature intended is totally something
else. How do clone something to have adaptive traits in all possible
environments? We may select organisms to save based on one trait that
we believe is to be most influential, when in real life a different
suite of traits is more important? If you clone something that is most
suited to one environment, how do you know the environment is the same
when you go to reintroduce the species? As you can see it is a very
difficult process.
In all honesty, the best way to slow down this extinction is wise and
proper human practices.
I hope my rambling answered some of your questions.
-chris
Conservation Biologist
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
| (...) Actually, the umbrella effect in terms of the ESA is when you protect an endangered species that covers a large bit of habitat in its home range and you end up sheltering the smaller species as well. Sorry for the mistake. Similar concepts (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Mass Extinctions
|
| Scientists Agree World is Facing Mass Extinction (URL) from article: "There is virtual unanimity among scientists that we have entered a period of mass extinction not seen since the age of the dinosaurs, an emerging global crisis that could have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
