• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The return of the dire wolf

Gatsby said:
Astonishing. For the first time in earth history, an extinct species has been revived. TIME Magazine has confirmed that Colossal Biosciences has revived the dire wolf, which went extinct 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period.

It's a truly fascinating achievement that could lead to other de-extinctions of recently-extinct species. To answer the obvious question: No, this technique can't be used to go full Jurassic Park and bring back dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago...just too much time has passed and too much genetic information has been lost. But this could potentially work for other Pleistocene animals such as mammoths and saber-tooth cats, or even more recent extinctions like passenger pigeons and aurochs.
Click to expand...
That's what we need. Saber tooth cats. Talk about a well meaning, but entirely destructive piece of research.

It's fascinating, but I can see this going, very , very wrong.

OR, maybe this will make men men again.
 
Gatsby said:
I would think that a newly de-extinct animal would immediately become critically endangered and therefore protected from poachers. But I'm not sure our environmental laws have any provision for de-extinctions.
Click to expand...
"Protected from poachers" doesn't that mean "it will cost you more for the chance to attempt to kill one" as far as the United States of America is concerned?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"Protected from poachers" doesn't that mean "it will cost you more for the chance to attempt to kill one" as far as the United States of America is concerned?
Click to expand...
I don't know the details of US environmental laws, but I think it's illegal to deliberately kill an endangered animal at any price, unless it's actively threatening you. But I might be wrong about the specifics.
 
NOLA Dude said:


Gene editing was at the heart of the conversation—and according to Lamm, China isn’t just experimenting with it. They’ve already created genetically modified children.
Click to expand...

Which came first the genetically modified chicken or the vegan egg substitute replacement?
 
Gatsby said:
I don't know the details of US environmental laws, but I think it's illegal to deliberately kill an endangered animal at any price, unless it's actively threatening you. But I might be wrong about the specifics.
Click to expand...
Poachers is a misnomer here. Poaching is illegal, at all times.

If endangered, it will keep them from being hunted. (even for $$)
 
It's very cool. Not to rain on the party or anything, but if they have only one breeding pair, the species probably won't survive. That isn't enough genetic diversity to sustain a population. Unless they found a number of them frozen, this could be about as far as it goes. Enjoy it while it lasts, however.
 
Helix said:
It's very cool. Not to rain on the party or anything, but if they have only one breeding pair, the species probably won't survive. That isn't enough genetic diversity to sustain a population. Unless they found a number of them frozen, this could be about as far as it goes. Enjoy it while it lasts, however.
Click to expand...
I have a solution

1744219580003.webp
 
Next: Dragons.
 


Maybe next they could resurrect something a bit more tasty.
 
Can't anyone explain the difference between a wolf and dire wolf?
 
Parker_Chess said:
Can't anyone explain the difference between a wolf and dire wolf?
Click to expand...
The size, coloration and most likely the prey. Unfortunately, for the little ones the prey is also extinct.
 
Gatsby said:
Astonishing. For the first time in earth history, an extinct species has been revived. TIME Magazine has confirmed that Colossal Biosciences has revived the dire wolf, which went extinct 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period.

It's a truly fascinating achievement that could lead to other de-extinctions of recently-extinct species. To answer the obvious question: No, this technique can't be used to go full Jurassic Park and bring back dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago...just too much time has passed and too much genetic information has been lost. But this could potentially work for other Pleistocene animals such as mammoths and saber-tooth cats, or even more recent extinctions like passenger pigeons and aurochs.
Click to expand...
It's not a dire wolf. It's a gray wolf with some genetic editing. The dire wolf remains extinct.
 
Parker_Chess said:
Can't anyone explain the difference between a wolf and dire wolf?
Click to expand...
The dire wolf is an extinct canid that went extinct about 10.000 years ago during the last Ice Age. It is from a lineage of canids that diverged from other canids early, so it's not closely related to any canid alive today. It was larger than current wolves, and quite possibly an expert on big prey on open grasslands, though some researchers thnik they could have been forrest hunters too. Despite having wolf in the name they were not that closely related to modern wolves. Dire Wolves lived in North America, and most of the remains of them are from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, California.

The popular view of dire wolves being really large wolves with white fur (they probably did not have white fur) comes from GRR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire book series, that was adapted by HBO to a tv show called Game of Thrones. That version of the Dire Wolf was basically a really huge wolf.
 
I don't like effing with nature ............... leave dire wolves in the past, don't create them again IMO
 
Gatsby said:
The timelines for de-extinction of other animals, according to Colossal Biosciences:
  • Wooly mammoth - By 2028
  • Tasmanian tiger - By 2028
  • Aurochs - "Soon"
These timelines are from *before* the announcement that they have revived the dire wolf. So they may actually be ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...
They need to be thinking long term imo.

What can they re-introduce into the wild? It certainly won't be these large predatory animals that fascinate everyone.
 
Gatsby said:
The timelines for de-extinction of other animals, according to Colossal Biosciences:
  • Wooly mammoth - By 2028
  • Tasmanian tiger - By 2028
  • Aurochs - "Soon"
These timelines are from *before* the announcement that they have revived the dire wolf. So they may actually be ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...
Considering they haven't actually revived the dire wolf, I wouldn't keep my hopes up.
 
joluoto said:
It's not a dire wolf. It's a gray wolf with some genetic editing. The dire wolf remains extinct.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, you are correct but this would be a hybrid.
 
NJBob said:
Strictly speaking, you are correct but this would be a hybrid.
Click to expand...
I dunno, some sources says they have uses dire wolf DNA, other says they haven't used it. The genetic samples from direwolf remains has only given fractious DNA, and for that reason I doubt they actually used any direwolf DNA. They edited a grey wolf's genes to recreate something similar to the fenotype of a direwolf (i.e. give it similar characteristics), but they also probably went for Game of Thrones rather than the actual animal, thus white fur.
 
joluoto said:
I dunno, some sources says they have uses dire wolf DNA, other says they haven't used it. The genetic samples from direwolf remains has only given fractious DNA, and for that reason I doubt they actually used any direwolf DNA. They edited a grey wolf's genes to recreate something similar to the fenotype of a direwolf (i.e. give it similar characteristics), but they also probably went for Game of Thrones rather than the actual animal, thus white fur.
Click to expand...
According to the article I read in the NYT, DNA retrieved from Dire Wolf fossils were used but the wording is unclear as to whether it was directly used or if the wolf DNA was merely edited.

Either way, the results are not Dire Wolves.
 
Cope said:
Poachers is a misnomer here. Poaching is illegal, at all times.

If endangered, it will keep them from being hunted. (even for $$)
Click to expand...
PIFFLE - it will just cost the hunter more to find a guide to help them hunt them.

It is illegal to rob banks.

People still rob banks.

It is illegal to hunt protected species.

People _[fill in the blank]_ protected species.
 
Gatsby said:
Astonishing. For the first time in earth history, an extinct species has been revived. TIME Magazine has confirmed that Colossal Biosciences has revived the dire wolf, which went extinct 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period.

It's a truly fascinating achievement that could lead to other de-extinctions of recently-extinct species. To answer the obvious question: No, this technique can't be used to go full Jurassic Park and bring back dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago...just too much time has passed and too much genetic information has been lost. But this could potentially work for other Pleistocene animals such as mammoths and saber-tooth cats, or even more recent extinctions like passenger pigeons and aurochs.
Click to expand...

We should not be bringing back species that naturally went extinct.
 
Bodi said:
We should not be bringing back species that naturally went extinct.
Click to expand...
The dire wolf probably didn't. It was likely a combination of natural causes (e.g. climate change) and human hunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom