Slashdot Mirror
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
Ant writes "ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today."
if the Pope hadn't passed away.
I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
This new-fangled 'resurrection ecology' has "bio-hazard" written all over it.
While in our Politically Correct Era the focus is on how mankind has exploited the eco-system - let's not be too quick to jump on the band wagon of thinking this is a wonderfull way to bring back the Do-do and other species that came to an abrubt end in modern history.
Exploitation of wildlife resources is only one of many reasons.
Another reason is because ecology changes and those species not well suited to adapt to the new environment naturally die out. And one major change to environment is DISEASE. Entire species can succumb to a communicable virus in rapid succession and those whose immune systems can not adapt or physically migrate to another suitable habitat will die and continue to die untill the disease either mutates or all the suitable hosts are dead.
You see -- it's called NATURAL SELECTION for a reason.
And while I'm not entirely against this use of technology, I'm highly wary of it's uncontrolled use.
By what standards are we to determine which species to attempt to cultivate and let loose into the wild or one ofour many splended zoos/aquariums? And how can we accurately model and predict the ecological impact these actions would have? Is it possible that the introduction of these since extinct animals immune systems back into a modern ecology cause viruses to mutate into potentially deadly forms for us and other modern animals? Or would we see entire colonies of animals brought back only to die off in short order as they once again prove themselves unable to cope?
Personally, I think this technique should be left in the realm of advanced research for decades to come untill a time comes where we are capable of knowing whether or not a reintroduction of specie posses a threat to modern organisms or to the potential resurrectee.
"More SEA MONKEYS!"
You can get all the sea men you want, just have to close your eyes and suck it out of a hose.
Sea women might be harder to come across though.
oh the innuendo...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist.
If you're talking about Creationist in the sense of taking the beginning of the book of Genesis literally, then you're right. But even the Pope didn't think people should take the beginning of Genesis literally.
Science tells us the universe started with the Big Bang. But science has no explanation for the big bang, or what was before it, and likely never will. Which basically leaves you at the Bible's claim of "God created the universe out of nothing" but without mentioning God. It really doesn't make a difference at all on studying science whether you believe the Big Bang happened out of nowhere or that it was caused by God.
few of the scientists that supports creationism are involved with biology or similare ... They are often scientists in a complitly diffrent fields ... like computer science
Dr. Fred Brooks would be an example here.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I hate to burst thine bubble, sir. But apparently you've never studied much religion. Reason is used entirely throughout religion and a lot of it makes more sense than primodial mud giving rise to anything. Read the Catholic Catechism.
There is no evidence for evolution (don't even think of quoting TIME bs). In the same way, there's nothing concrete to support creation. It all boils down to assumptions and where evidence points.
Like someone said earlier, we'll never no for sure what happened. We just have to take a very educated guess. Which way does the evidence point? It's already very plain that there was something similar to a global flood (hmm....Genesis....). There's tons of stuff that points towards creation. So far, I have seen nothing at all that would give any evidence of evolution. Nothing. Show me something, and I'd be grateful. I am not entirely convince either way. But more and more I see the fallacy of evolution.
These people seem to have a few things in order