Dire Wolf de-extinction

What an amazing case study in how the public's reaction is completely based on the narrative...
manipulating species to make ribeyes 50% bigger - horrible
modifying corn so it is roundup resistant - god awful
raising big horn x marco polo crosses - prison worthy

making cute hybrid dire wolf x grey wolf puppies, inspired by a cool TV show - AWESOME!

🤣
 
RockAndSage said:
I've been wondering what predator could run fast enough to drive the evolution of antelope running speeds. You might have just answered it.
Click to expand...
I had heard this was the cheetah, and that we used to have them in North America prior to the great mega fauna extinction. On further research I read they were maybe not as fast as the modern African cheetah, but who knows.
 
fatlander said:
Human population growth has drastically slowed. The powers to be are actively trying to turn it around to population decrease, not my words, theirs’.

Anyway, I just don’t see the good that can come from this. There’s a reason those animals aren’t here anymore, nature, or whoever you pray to, selected them out. Pretending to ever know the downstream consequences of bringing back extinct species is beyond idiotic. The vast majority of the human caused introductions of living animals all have negative ecological consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The animal that is the most invasive species ever, and has the most severe negative ecological consequences seems to be Homo sapiens. Not that I’m pro dire wolf.

The reduction of human population will be bad for existing economic systems, which are so based on consumption of resources that we call their individual units consumers. It might be good for the longevity of our home planet.
 
Yeah, this kind of thing opens a huge can of ethical, ecological, and practical worms. The idea of “reviving” extinct species like dire wolves is both fascinating and a little unsettling, especially when you consider how different today’s ecosystems are compared to when those animals last roamed.





On dire wolves specifically:


They weren’t just giant wolves; they were a distinct species with unique adaptations, likely more pack-oriented and more aggressive than modern wolves. So even if the DNA is close, what they’ve created is probably a hybrid or a lookalike—not a perfect dire wolf. That raises questions about how “real” the animal is, and whether it belongs in the wild at all.





What do you do with them?


That’s the biggest issue. You can’t just plop them into Yellowstone and hope for the best. They’d need a massive, contained, well-balanced habitat. Otherwise, they could throw the local ecosystems way off. Think of the issues with reintroducing wolves or even feral hogs in some areas—now imagine something bigger, stronger, and with no natural predators.





As for what’s next—sabertooths, Irish elk, woolly mammoths?


Probably, yeah. The mammoth is already being worked on in labs. The Irish elk would be incredible to see—12-foot antlers on an 8-foot-tall deer? It’s basically fantasy-tier stuff. But again: where do you put them? And what happens if they become a problem? Imagine an elk that size wandering onto a highway.





Should this even go forward?


It depends on the goal. If it’s purely scientific, for controlled observation or learning about evolutionary biology—cool, maybe even valuable. But rewilding extinct predators? That’s Jurassic Park logic. We’re not set up to handle the consequences if something goes wrong.





Still, it’s hard not to be intrigued. There’s a part of us that wants to see these ancient creatures in the flesh—like living history. But the line between curiosity and hubris is thin.





What would you do if you had the power to bring back one extinct animal? Would you want it roaming free or kept in a sanctuary?
 
jtevanMT said:
No, This is not a dire wolf, it is a grey wolf where 15 genes were edited by CRISPR to make a grey/dire hybrid. Grey and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical and the new wolf is ~99.9% grey wolf with ~20 changes across 15 genes. These genes were selected for traits such as size and color. Other genes they tried were lethal or caused genetic abnormalities. The wolf genome has about 2.45 billion base pairs. The genetic difference between the grey and dire wolf is about 12,000 base pairs. The scientists only made about 20 changes!

This represents an important scientific breakthrough, but does not restore an extinct species (not even close). This barely scratches the surface of the genetic modifications necessary to re-create a dire wolf, which is not possible at this time. Typical news media hype, all bark and no bite.
Click to expand...
Lots of “unimportant” dna in a genome though. If you change the important ones that differentiate the direwolf from the grey wolf then that’s all that matters IMO.
 
I heard a short interview with the guy and well, nah. A lot of “working with” this or that group and ancestral memories that were probably the dire wolf etc etc.

For transparency they should be required to show pics of all the progenic failures. Making a few cute, phenotypically appealing pups and then using the word “de-extinction” smells a lot like a money grab to me.
 
The Dire wolf was selected by nature for extinction. Man had nothing to do with it. We are back to the Jurassic park syndrome again. It isn’t really a Dire wolf anyway just a handful of traits added to a Gray wolf observed from ancient DNA. They look like a dire wolf just like a bison looks like a bison. I say that because there are no buffalo in North America that do not have bovine DNA. Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota has the healthiest herd in the USA. Obviously we dare not release a predator in the wild that isn’t already there. The Gray wolf should not have ever been listed. The release in Colorado will eventually cause a disaster. The Lobos are approaching or have already approached the numbers that they could be delisted. NWS recommended last fall that they be delisted…Red wolf still in trouble and needs protection and restoration efforts.
 
ODB said:
I heard a short interview with the guy and well, nah. A lot of “working with” this or that group and ancestral memories that were probably the dire wolf etc etc.

For transparency they should be required to show pics of all the progenic failures. Making a few cute, phenotypically appealing pups and then using the word “de-extinction” smells a lot like a money grab to me.
Click to expand...
Good for the zoos, I suspect. A “Pleistocene Park” would be really cool…
 
Cliff Gray said:
What an amazing case study in how the public's reaction is completely based on the narrative...
manipulating species to make ribeyes 50% bigger - horrible
modifying corn so it is roundup resistant - god awful
raising big horn x marco polo crosses - prison worthy

making cute hybrid dire wolf x grey wolf puppies, inspired by a cool TV show - AWESOME!

🤣
Click to expand...
Hey the big horn x Marco Polo cross maybe onto something. I would 100% introducing those critters if big horns couldn’t make it anymore in certain ranges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top