The Yangtze River Dolphin is probably Extinct.
- Thread starter Arachnar
- Start date
I am sure the biologists can change some chromosomes here and there... also after time I am sure there would be some "natural" mutations.
BushFishRox;1985783; said:
you make it sound like tuning a car engine j/k. changing the odd chromosome wont make the DNA any more diverse. it only makes them more resistant to certain chemicals, as one example. a bit like GM flowers that are more resistant to cold snaps, give higher yields etc. it doesnt change the DNA to the extent of giving a large gene pool.BushFishRox;1985055; said:
Hey buddy can you back up your claim that china did what they ALWAYS do tell people one thing to make them happy and then didn't do it?.....any proof to your BS
Hey buddy can you show me how does the org such WWF "step in" so china couldn't harm the porpoise without being punished?.........what world you live in?
Hey buddy do you have proof that if the porpoise impedes china from making money that they will lose?.........assume = ass of u and me (in this case, you and you)
Hey buddy do you always split hair and telling people they have comprehension problem if a species or subspecies matters?......Alistriwen was the one who brought up the porpoise species as a whole while I was talking about the subspecies in china pertaining to the conservation. But your superior comprehension skill failed you to grasp such complicated notion.
You said you will hightlight a few things, but only hightlighted one, do I have a comprehension problem or am I splitting hair too or do you have a writing skill problem?
I suspect you just graduated from elemantary school, with your kind of assumption and comprehension problems of a typical teenager mentality. I can have a phd in writing but talking to you will still be like beating a dead dolphin, for your ignorance and lack of maturity is beyond salvation.
There is a lot of proof needed for you to back up your claims, so go get busy.
cichlid2006;1985877; said:
I thought it might of been worth a try
I know very little about cloning and such. 
Scorponok, I think bushfish is right and that your problem is reading comprehension. For that reason it's probably pointless debating with you since you neither understand what I am saying, nor do you understand the materials you are citing.
As to the question of cloning, I think they are able to use any similar species as a host to birth an extinct animal but as was mentioned they'd need to have a diverse gene pool extant already to do this. That would have required collection of egg and sperm from a selection of individuals which of course cannot be done now since they are extinct. The only way now would be to collect the skeletons of many many baji and look for dna but being underwater it seems unlikely. It's actually an interesting principle though, I read about it in the context of reviving dinosaurs.
As to the question of cloning, I think they are able to use any similar species as a host to birth an extinct animal but as was mentioned they'd need to have a diverse gene pool extant already to do this. That would have required collection of egg and sperm from a selection of individuals which of course cannot be done now since they are extinct. The only way now would be to collect the skeletons of many many baji and look for dna but being underwater it seems unlikely. It's actually an interesting principle though, I read about it in the context of reviving dinosaurs.
Alistriwen;1986598; said:
I read something similar in popular science, they were planning to clone the tasmanian tiger and where thinking since there weren't anymore they would have to find a close relative or such. Another problem was that the tasmanian tiger was preserved in alcohol and the DNA was missing and damaged in some places. So now they would have to first fill in the missing pieces.
Maybe they will take it from the toad,lol, like in jurassic park. I honestly don't ever think that we will find dinosaur DNA it been too long, mamoths and sabertooths ,maybe.
That was the whole vein of thought in the one I was reading Im pretty sure. I would have to double check on that but I vaguely remember them citing the problem you mentioned and then saying they'd found a way around it or that they'd been able to look deeper for dna somehow. I think it was similar to the problem with the tazmanian tiger though where they had only dna fragments and not entire strands. Could be wishful thinking on my part though.
Alistriwen;1986633; said:
Here's an article about resurrecting a gene from a tiger in a mouse embryo. They don't talk about bringing the tiger back, as popsci was the magazine that went furth into this but i can't find the online article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=life-after-extinction-tiger&sc=rss
