Slashdot Mirror


Bringing Giant Tortoises Back From Extinction

fizzysister writes "The BBC reports that scientists at Yale are intending to resurrect an extinct species of Galapagos tortoise, the Geochelone elephantopus. Unfortunately, not in the style of Jurassic Park, so no tortoise-based theme parks just yet. They will, however, be using genetic profiling of living tortoises that carry some of the elephantopus genes, to select the most appropriate of these to mate and thus eventually (after a century or more) create a generation of 'pure' Geochelone elephantopus individuals."

125 comments

  1. Yes... by samcan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But will they run Linux?

    Perhaps a Beowulf cluster?

    1. Re:Yes... by eclectro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude, big turtles are slow as tar. It's obvious they use vista.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:Yes... by GundamFan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why did you post that anonymously? You clearly believe you speak for everyone. What do you have to loose?

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    3. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would that be lose?

      Loose means something completely different. Unless you're saying that Vista is tight?

    4. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I reckon he has loost some spelling skills.

    5. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon he has loost some speeling skills.

      Fixed that for you.

    6. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you post that nonymously, namefag? Think anyone cares who you are?

    7. Re:Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl n1

    8. Re:Yes... by Sigmon · · Score: 1

      "We don't even care that we don't care." /obscure?

    9. Re:Yes... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      They are working on porting Linux for Turtles to run on Tortoises.

  2. TFA doesn't mention by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu. What a gip.

    1. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Cow+Jones · · Score: 4, Funny

      any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu.

      Dude, those giant turtles are scary enough without Ninjitsu.
      In fact, one of them is so huge and powerful that four elephants couldn't manage to keep it down, unless they in turn were weighed down by a huge disk-shaped rock.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    2. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The plans are right here. You just need plenty of radioactive waste to finish the job. :-)

    3. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's where you're wrong, it isn't just one turtle.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:TFA doesn't mention by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a rat to train them. Don't forget the rat.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    5. Re:TFA doesn't mention by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's where you're wrong, it isn't just one turtle.

      That's right! It's turtles all the way down!

    6. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Abreu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, no...

      The current theory is that Great A'Tuin is travelling through the universe in search of a mate.

      When this happens, a cataclysmic event (colloquially known as the "Big Bang") will occur.

      That is why so many sages have tried to find out Great A'Tuins gender...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    7. Re:TFA doesn't mention by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What a gip."

      It's "gyp", derived from "Gypsies". Please get your culturally insensitive references correct or the PC police will run out of work, and we don't want that, now do we? Otherwise they might get involved in more important things, like changing housing policy to provide loans to unqualified applicants.

      Oh, wait...

      (This offtopic flamebait brought to you by the letter Y and the number "I paid off my fucking loans why can't everybody else?!")

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    8. Re:TFA doesn't mention by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      They haven't figured out a way of training a giant rat to teach the tortoises.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:TFA doesn't mention by lpangelrob · · Score: 4, Funny

      The original poster may have been referring to the fact that Ronald Reagan, the original Gipper, also failed to fund the U.S. Ninja/Giant Tortoise Defense Initiative.

    10. Re:TFA doesn't mention by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

      Oh great, I now have coffee all over my monitor.

      Is this from one of the books? If so, I must not have gotten to that one yet. If not, you have a masterly grasp of the humor style. I'd take my hat off, but I'm using it to wipe my monitor off . . .

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
    11. Re:TFA doesn't mention by JasonKiddy · · Score: 1

      Oops - sorry. Don't bring YOUR culturally insensitive references here please :) Oxford English Dictionary: gyp1 /jip/ (also gip) â noun Brit. informal pain or discomfort.

    12. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Oops yourself -- Webster's Unabridged

      [1885â"90, Amer.; back formation from GYPSY]

    13. Re:TFA doesn't mention by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that be the Chelys galactica rather than Geochelone elephantopus?

    14. Re:TFA doesn't mention by l2718 · · Score: 1

      This is from Terry Prachett's "The light fantastic". I cannot find strong enough words to encourage you to read the whole Discworld series, starting with "The Colour of Magic".

    15. Re:TFA doesn't mention by JasonKiddy · · Score: 1

      LOL. Ooooh my dictionary is bigger than your dictionary :) etc...

  3. This could redefine the term species by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    If this interbreeding of existing species is successful, it begs the question:

    Are the existing species really separate species, or are the merely subspecies or even just breeds of the same species?

    The answer depends on the definition of species.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:This could redefine the term species by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, no. Species is a set of animals that interbreed and create fertile offspring. In terms of process, I don't see how that's any different to breeding different breeds of dogs the old fashioned way. In terms of purpose, instead of targeting a set of genotype that creates a desired phenotype, they're just targeting for a genotype that doesn't exist anymore.

    2. Re:This could redefine the term species by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought the definition rested on the the ability of the offspring to procreate successfully.

      Which, I am told, does happen occasionally for jack-asses.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:This could redefine the term species by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      begs the question

      I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

    4. Re:This could redefine the term species by hobbit · · Score: 1

      I do not think that language works the way you think it works.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    5. Re:This could redefine the term species by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Which, I am told, does happen occasionally for jack-asses."

      Occasionally? With the amount of jackasses in the world, how could they NOT be breeding amongst themselves and multiplying?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:This could redefine the term species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'm sure they do. From a column on The Morning News,

      http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/the_nonexpert/begging_the_question.php

      My understanding is that the term âoebegs the questionâ has essentially been bastardized, whereby laymen (i.e., us) have misconstrued or broadened its meaning, and in the process have pissed off a very small group of anal-retentive, scholarly types (i.e., them).

      Now, I assume that when you use the phrase, like most other people, you use it to mean something like, âoeWell, that opens up another can of worms.â For example: Your 16-year-old son gets in a fight with a bouncer at a strip club. Sure, itâ(TM)s bad enough heâ(TM)s rumbling with bouncersâ"and you are probably in need of some parenting booksâ"but you might say the whole situation begs the question: How did he, being underage, get into the strip club in the first place? And did he at least get a lap dance before he was thrown out? (Letâ(TM)s hope so.)

      But that would be the incorrect use of âoebegging the question.â

      So a bunch of logicians and linguists are telling everyone that they are speaking the language incorrectly. This usage is widespread. Everyone here understood what he was communicating. Whether or not it's the original meaning of the phrase "begs the question" is irrelevent. The "common mans bastardization" of the phrase has lead to a new meaning in everyday English and nothing was wrong with his use of it.

    7. Re:This could redefine the term species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There used to be at least some scientists who used the word "species" to describe all of a class of animals that can interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. From the point of view of genetics and studying evolution, this is a very useful definition. The word "speciation" can be used to describe the gradual change of two populations until they will no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I don't think humans have ever observed speciation.

      However, at some point the Creationists started trotting out the fact we have not observed speciation as an anti-evolution argument. I suppose it is, in that there is a lot of evolution we do not understand and have not seen . . . parenthetically, I should mention I have wondered if speciation most often occurs via a virus transporting genetic material in an unusual way, and if outbreaks of that type of virus might be extremely rare, and perhaps the pre-cambrian explosion could be explained by an outbreak of such viruses, and then animals evolved a defense against them to end that explosion of new species.

      Anyway, biologists started coming up with worse and worse ways to define different species. If a geographic event like a river moving separated two populations, so that in practice they did not interbreed even though they could, they started calling those new species. If a population split into some that breed in the spring and some that breed in the fall, they tried to claim speciation there. If they just looked very much different, so that animals were not sexually attracted, they tried to claim that. It was as if they said, "well, eventually these two populations will probably diverge enough to not interbreed, so let's just go ahead and count that egg before it hatched so I can name something after myself."

      Fuck biologists. If they don't have enough goddamn sense not to crap up the language they use to do science in, well, let's just say that explains a lot about the general lack of advancement in all the "life sciences". Some biology text books now spend nearly a whole chapter just explaining the definition of "species".

      Interestingly, it appears the number of species, at least of mammals, might be a lot smaller than we had thought. Grizzly bears and Polar bears can produce a fertile offspring. Lions and tigers are the same thing, and all leapords or jaguars from every continent that they inhabit, can apparently still breed. All domestic dogs, all timber wolves in both Asia and Europe and North America, the dingo of Austraila, and all coyotes are the same species ( I have not been able to find anyone to definitively say that the "red wolves" of the South Eastern US and the reddish desert wolves of the Southwest desert are a separate species or not -- it might not be known). Apparently 1 out of a 1000 mules is fertile -- does that mean horses and donkeys are really the same species ? If we accept that, then have we even done enough experiments to tell if zebras are a separate species ? Are domestic cats still interbreedable with that little desert cat of the Sahara ? Will chickens interbreed with african jungle fowl ?

      Makes Noah's job look easier and easier the more you think about it. (Ok, that was a joke. You anti-creationists can put down the knives now . . . )

      Back to these turtles. The recovery of the sub-species or varitype or race or whatever you want to call it, seems to me like a worth while endeavor, just as the recovery of the quagga, or of the appaloosa, or various other similar efforts were worth it. But by using the word "species" there, you making it confusing to discuss some very interesting questions.

    8. Re:This could redefine the term species by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You just gave justification for deviating from standards. That same principles can be applied to Microsoft and Internet Explorer YET I bet people will all complain. The purpose of language is to be clear and concise. If you start giving multiple meanings to phrases, you will eventually muddy the water, so to speak. Yes, one understood what he was saying, but where would you like to arbitrarily draw the line of what is allowable and what is not. Internet Explorer's deviation from web standards are used by a majority of people AND those deviations aren't magical... people know what they mean. So, its usage is widespread and everyone understands it. Whether or not its part of the original standard is irrelevant. The bastardization of the standard has lead to a new one on the internet and nothing is wrong with how IE uses it.

      To be clear, I find standards to be important. Yes, one can steer away from the standard and still make sense, but that doesn't make it acceptable. As if you allow that, what stops them from steering a tad away from there, so on and so forth?

      A million people can be wrong.

    9. Re:This could redefine the term species by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

      I scrolled down expecting this response from someone. I knew it would come. It's inevitable. Congratulations on being "that guy" that has to point out the fact that someone used "begs the question" in the wrong context. Which begs the question... Who fucking cares?

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    10. Re:This could redefine the term species by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      No, no it doesn't. Even ignoring the fact that you're misusing "beg the question", this issue is already pretty much shot by evolution. Exactly how do you define a species? A population that can interbreed?

      Fine, lets define three populations, "A" "B" and "C" where all members of groups "A" are the same species by this definition, and all members of group "B" are the same species, and all members of group "C" are the same species, but members of group "A" and "C" aren't the same species. Now consider that "A" "B" and "C" are made of one member of each generation of a population that over time evolved from a species that included "A" to a species that included "C" via a species that contained "B". Some members of "B" could, therefor, interbreed with members of "A" while others could interbreed with members of "C". There may even be some members of "B" that can interbreed with some members of both "A" and "C" equally well. By that definition, some members of the species that includes "B" are *also* members of the species that contain "A" and "C".

      These situations *actually do* occur. And even in space instead of time - see "ring species". And so your "new" question is actually just a subset of a larger "old" question.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    11. Re:This could redefine the term species by philspear · · Score: 1

      Fuck biologists. If they don't have enough goddamn sense not to crap up the language they use to do science in, well, let's just say that explains a lot about the general lack of advancement in all the "life sciences". Some biology text books now spend nearly a whole chapter just explaining the definition of "species".

      Hey, fuck you too! Anyway, we have to change our theories based on evidence. A lot of times we're wrong. Terminology changes to reflect reality, not vice versa. If we say a species is one morphology of animals that can breed together, then find that what are clearly two seperate species can productively breed, we're not going to be able to insist that they can't breed, we're going to say we were wrong and species actually means something else.

      When it comes down to it, the whole concept of species is really a cop out as is. The vast majority of the taxa on the planet is bacteria/archea, and a lot of eukarya don't sexually reproduce anyway. Species defined as something that can mate then limits "species" to a very small minority of organisms. The fact that some "species" can interbreed only further shows that the concept is something artificial that better describes our perception than it does reality.

      To summarize, there are two ways we can avoid the possibility of "crapping up" the language we use in science. The first is to ignore reality and insist on using what we know is incorrect useless terminology, the other is to stop doing science, quit needing new terms, and quit realizing when we're wrong.

      Both are idiotic ideas.

      It's the same reason doctors said eggs were good, then bad, then okay. It's not that they liked jerking you around, it's that we're trying to get to the truth, but it's a difficult process.

    12. Re:This could redefine the term species by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the primary requirement for defining a species. However, in the case of many plants and animals (I.e. orchids of same or similar genus or grizzly bears mating with polar bears.) the species is further defined by the likelihood of sexual reproduction. The cause of speciation(The emergence of two species from one.) can be locality(Galapagos), some sort of behavioral trigger(Male lions not understanding female tigers sexual cues.) or anything which might prevent one segment of a species from mating with another segment of a species long enough for them to become sufficiently different(in a genetic sense). Yes, it's a little subjective, but that doesn't means it's a useless scientific concept.

    13. Re:This could redefine the term species by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So a bunch of logicians and linguists are telling everyone that they are speaking the language incorrectly.

      Not everyone. I for one use the term properly, or I don't use it at all.

      This usage is widespread.

      So is using "it's" as a genitive. So is the use of "loose" as an antonym of win. If the belief that the Moon is made of cheese was widespread, would it make it correct?

      The "common mans bastardization" of the phrase has lead to a new meaning

      I've seen plenty of people shoot themselves in the foot, but you've plumbed new depths there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:This could redefine the term species by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      Please refrain from using idioms in your commentary on the misuse of idioms... it drives the discussion into a brick wall which boils my blood.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    15. Re:This could redefine the term species by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Back to these turtles. The recovery of the sub-species or varitype or race or whatever you want to call it, [...] But by using the word "species" there, you making it confusing to discuss some very interesting questions.

      We don't know yet whether the product of this cross-breeding program will produce genetically viable offspring with other members of the parent breed. The most you can say is that we don't know if these are separate species. How quickly can genetic recombination produce incompatible species? An unprovement to out understanding of that question could be an interesting byproduct of this project....

      HAL.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    16. Re:This could redefine the term species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a bunch of logicians and linguists are telling everyone that they are speaking the language incorrectly.

      Not everyone. I for one use the term properly, or I don't use it at all.

      This usage is widespread.

      So is using "it's" as a genitive. So is the use of "loose" as an antonym of win. If the belief that the Moon is made of cheese was widespread, would it make it correct?

      The "common mans bastardization" of the phrase has lead to a new meaning

      I've seen plenty of people shoot themselves in the foot, but you've plumbed new depths there.

      Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

    17. Re:This could redefine the term species by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      He was using it colloquially rather than technically. Get over it.

      Using "Phrase XXX" which is an idiom is not comparable to a grammar or spelling mistake. Also, the rule for using "it's" vs "its", while useful, only exists because some linguist decided to eliminate the ambiguity.

    18. Re:This could redefine the term species by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The only purpose of language is communication. If one is able to communicate, nothing they do to the language is incorrect.

      And people DO "steer a tad away from there" all the time. That's why gay is now a slur instead of a compliment.

      You are an idiot.

    19. Re:This could redefine the term species by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Using loose as an antonym of win is due to a misspelling of the word that was intended. It's not at all the same as giving or assuming a new definition for a word or phrase.

      If you don't know the difference between the spelling of words and the meaning of words and how they relate to language, please stop posting.

    20. Re:This could redefine the term species by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Using loose as an antonym of win is due to a misspelling of the word that was intended.

      "Loose" isn't a misspelling of "lose", it's a different word with a different pronunciation.

      It's not at all the same as giving or assuming a new definition for a word or phrase.

      It's just as bad, it's just as wrong, and it's equally good as a refutation of the "if someone uses it like that then that's how it is" argument.

      If you don't know the difference between the spelling of words and the meaning of words and how they relate to language, please stop posting.

      Well considering that I mentioned the meaning of a phrase higher up, perhaps it's you that should stop posting - or even better, breathing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Bene Gesserit @ Yale??? by Vampo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought they were not supposed to appear for another few thousand years. They are obviously moving into the first experimental stages of their master plan ;)

    1. Re:Bene Gesserit @ Yale??? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Well not to worry. Without the spice they really can't do much.

      Now can anyone explain why I keep having these dreams about President Barack Obama sending a mission to Mars?

  5. Re:So we can eat them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not run so much as shuffle.

  6. what's next? by DragonTHC · · Score: 0, Troll

    are these same scientists trying to bring back the brick phone or black & white TV?

    What is the point of this?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:what's next? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      The point? I'm going to guess that there are a few people that just simply would like to see these giant tortoises swimming around again. There are probably some people that would like to say "see, evolution DOES work"

      There have been some hints that traits of those who survived past plagues could be used similarly, not through eugenics, but through gene therapy to improve mankind's overall situation with regard to retroviruses. Any experimentation in this regard could one day help to better mankind or repopulate parts of the world with food stocks that are more suited to the climate.

      I'm not sure what Mastadon burgers taste like, but Fred and Barney seemed to like them, so if climate change makes that a more reliable feed stock for McD's I guess I'm okay with it. Closer to home, repopulating areas devastated by pollution or other natural disaster with a purpose bred animal which is similar/close to that which was lost in the catastrophe would be a good thing. Restock the pond with as close as we can get, let evolution do the rest.

      There are animals that we would not like to see disappear. Odd creatures give us the ability to see how evolution has solved problems. See this TED talk http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/robert_full_on_animal_movement.html for reasons that we want to study odd little creatures, and perhaps even bring a few back to life from extinction.

    2. Re:what's next? by ksheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Giant tortoises are land dwelling animals. Having seen a few of them at Reptile Gardens, I really doubt that they could swim. The young ones are surprisingly quick though.
      I'm curious why they are going for traditional cross breeding techniques instead of using the start of the art genetic manipulation.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  7. Very Cool by FatSean · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want my own giant tortoise for a pet!

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Very Cool by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      You just need to wait until spring then pick one up.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  8. Brick phone by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Too late, we already have the modern-day brick phone.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  9. Well that makes sense... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 1

    100 years and how much money to bring back an extinct turtle? I just hope I'm around in 100 years for the great turtle project centennial unveiling. Of coure, they ARE turtles, did you think this would happen quickly?

  10. useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someone explain the value of these giant tortioses in objective, real terms?

    There are a few things that would be useful about bringing back an extinct tortoise.

    For one, it allows the animal to reclaim its place in the ecosystem. I don't have information on what caused the extinction of this tortoise, but I know of certain mammals that are fond of killing slow-moving things. If the tortoise went extinct not by natural selection, then it may have left a void in its natural ecosystem that could have downstream effects on stability of the same.

    Though perhaps more tangible is that some of these tortoises could live 150+ years. If we want to study aging and what mechanisms could prolong a healthy life, then something that lives extraordinarily long would be quite valuable. Of course we could study old trees, but we have more in common with other vertebrates.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:useful study animal by timster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is behind your assumption that extinction by natural selection (as opposed, I assume, to human activity) is better for an ecosystem? Isn't evidence of ecological catastrophes of all sizes common in the fossil record?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is behind your assumption that extinction by natural selection (as opposed, I assume, to human activity) is better for an ecosystem?

      Generally natural selection takes out a species when it either no longer fills is niche in the ecosystem, or the niche no longer exists. If external forces (such as humans) knock a species out of existence, then the ecosystem is out of balance due to the loss of that species.

      Isn't evidence of ecological catastrophes of all sizes common in the fossil record?

      Ecological catastrophes are a good question. However, when something like that happens (be it asteroids, volcanoes, plate tectonics, etc), there are usually a very large number of species eliminated from an area at once. Yes, the ecosystem will come back, but it generally re-emerge with much different flora and fauna than what it had prior.

      Catastrophes happen in the record, yes. But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:useful study animal by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Though perhaps more tangible is that some of these tortoises could live 150+ years. If we want to study aging and what mechanisms could prolong a healthy life, then something that lives extraordinarily long would be quite valuable. Of course we could study old trees, but we have more in common with other vertebrates.

      Ever see William Hurt in the Dune miniseries? His acting was so wooden, he put trees to sleep.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:useful study animal by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the tortoise went extinct not by natural selection, then it may have left a void in its natural ecosystem that could have downstream effects on stability of the same.

      And how else would they go extinct? Humans are as much a part of natural selection as anything else. The very definition of natural selection dictates that some species will become extinct while others (humans for example) become obscenely populous.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    5. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And how else would they go extinct?

      Going extinct because something enjoys killing you is dramatically different than going extinct because you are not able to compete effectively for resources.

      The giant tortoises seemed to be doing pretty well for resources in their environment, until a new animal showed up that enjoyed killing them.

      Humans are as much a part of natural selection as anything else

      Couldn't that reasoning be used to justify humans driving any animal to extinction that they don't like? What if I have something against timberwolves? Could I start killing them on sight and claim natural selection?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:useful study animal by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couldn't that reasoning be used to justify humans driving any animal to extinction that they don't like? What if I have something against timberwolves? Could I start killing them on sight and claim natural selection?

      Yep. Unless you have some explanation other than natural selection for how humans got to be advanced enough to do that.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    7. Re:useful study animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post seems to be predicated on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. I would contend that human activity is perfectly natural, and that it can create, alter, or destroy niches. Also, if the giant tortoise was destroyed because it was slow moving (as someone above mentioned), wouldn't that mean its niche was gone?

    8. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Couldn't that reasoning be used to justify humans driving any animal to extinction that they don't like? What if I have something against timberwolves? Could I start killing them on sight and claim natural selection?

      Yep. Unless you have some explanation other than natural selection for how humans got to be advanced enough to do that.

      Then I guess we differ in opinion of what mans' obligation is to the rest of the world.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    9. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. I would contend that human activity is perfectly natural

      I would say that not all human activity is natural. Humans are on a very, very, short list of animals that kill just to kill. Look at the extinction of the dodo bird, for example. The dodo bird had a distinct niche in its own environment, until humans wiped it out. But how many of those birds were killed for anything other than enjoyment?

      Also, if the giant tortoise was destroyed because it was slow moving (as someone above mentioned), wouldn't that mean its niche was gone?

      People killed it because it was slow moving and easy to kill. Some people just have an urge to kill anything they can.

      However, the slow moving lifestyle of the tortoise was fine for its environment. Its nice was in no way diminished by its slow movement, and there were even other species that developed symbiotic relationships with the tortoise (see the galapagos finches) whose niches were disrupted by the loss tortoise populations.

      So to answer your question - no - the niche of the tortoise was not gone.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    10. Re:useful study animal by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      Of course it is predicated on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. Let us examine the possible consequences of your contention that human activity is perfectly natural. Let's suppose that human activity, in its entirety, is perfectly natural. And yet, humans consider some actions (especially taken against other humans) as evil. This too, is perfectly natural. And the consequences, such as the creation of a justice system to protect society, etc. is perfectly natural as well. I digress. What I mean to say is that if all human activity is perfectly natural, then yes, humans can create, alter, or destroy niches. At the same time, it is perfectly natural for the parent post to criticize human actions that result in the destruction of niches.

      And since it is perfectly natural for him to do so, by your statement, why are you opposed to his viewpoint? Actually, it is (consistent with your contention) perfectly natural for you to criticize his view, since all human activity is perfectly natural, just as it is perfectly natural for me to write this post.

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    11. Re:useful study animal by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      Then I guess we differ in opinion of what mans' obligation is to the rest of the world.

      I was hoping this topic would come up. What do you believe is mankind's obligation to the rest of the world, and what is the source of this obligation?

    12. Re:useful study animal by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...the ecosystem is out of balance...

      Please explain "out of balance" in objective terms. Is there only one "balance"? Or are there many? This "balance" concept seems to imply that a particular species is very important to the health of a particular ecosystem. How do we know when this is the case? Or are you saying it's always the case and that every single species is vitally important to every ecosystem it inhabits (or has ever inhabited)?

      I have seen "out of balance" seemingly used to mean "I don't prefer that outcome" -- an intentional deception.

      But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.

      What is the evidence to support the characterizations of "dramatic" and/or "delicate"?

      And isn't a relatively isolated ecosystem less valuable? It would seem like the important, valuable ecosystems are the ones adjacent to populations or crop production or otherwise have a large monetary or other tangible value associated with a certain condition.

    13. Re:useful study animal by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      For the record, I think the article points to a neat experiment. However, I can't let this nonsense pass:

      "If external forces (such as humans) knock a species out of existence,..."

      Humans are not external to "the ecosystem" - we all live on planet earth here. Furthermore, violent impulses are as natural as any other impulses - we have seen them throughout recorded history, and there is every bit of reason to believe they existed before records. Furthermore, violent impulses appear to help individual humans survive, and thus propogate.

      "...then the ecosystem is out of balance due to the loss of that species."

      Huh? What does "balance" mean in regards to an "ecosystem"? There is no such thing - the living world is a chaotic, ever-changing environment, not a static, precariously-balanced one.

      So again, I think this is a neat experiment. Let's not go wrapping it pseudo-scientific language in some strange attempt to morally justify it.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    14. Re:useful study animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of the term "natural" when describing how things work in an ecosystem is a statement that the author believes that man is somehow outside the system looking in. The dictionary definition of Nature separates The Works of Man from everything else that goes on in the universe. Much of the cataloging of the systems of the world assumes a separation of these systems. See, we're special because the ditionary says so.

    15. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Humans are not external to "the ecosystem" - we all live on planet earth here

      That statement is only valid if you view the entire planet as a single ecosystem. I would say that really the planet needs to be viewed as a collection of distinct ecosystems, some of which humans really ought to be considered external to.

      What does "balance" mean in regards to an "ecosystem"?

      Ever monitor the carbon cycle? How about the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles? Everything alive in an ecosystem (and some inert material as well) contributes to the cycles of an environment.

      I agree that there is plenty of change in an ecosystem, but there are plenty of cyclical processes that take place regularly to keep the system habitable for the plants and animals present.

      Let's not go wrapping it pseudo-scientific language in some strange attempt to morally justify it.

      You are presenting about half an argument here. However you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the static forces in an environment. You are welcomed to disagree with me, but you could do us all a favor by familiarizing yourself with environmental science before accusing me of "pseudo-science".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    16. Re:useful study animal by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bogus argument. Humans are part of nature and the natural world. Therefore human activity is as "natural" as a beaver dam. Any other definition of "natural" is... unnatural. ;-)

      The notion that human activities can somehow create an "unnatural" ecosystem is equally bogus. The problem, really, is that our activities lower the _diversity_ of ecosystems. A less diverse ecosystem is no less natural than any other, but it is certainly less resilient. This may cause sustainability problems in the short term, evolutionarily speaking (i.e. until open niches and selection pressure re-diversify the ecosystem).

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    17. Re:useful study animal by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how people confuse natural selection with a moral argument.

      Is your body made like the Terminator, out of metal? If not then you are part of nature. Human choices of course effect our environment, but let's not confuse philosophy with science. Science doesn't care about morals, only about facts. And the fact is if something has been killed by another species and that species was naturally occurring then it was by all definitions "natural selection".

       

    18. Re:useful study animal by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      I would have made a real reply, but these other two did so much better than I could have.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    19. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      if something has been killed by another species and that species was naturally occurring

      The naturally occurring part is what I am trying to emphasize here. Were humans naturally occurring on the Galapagos islands?

      Or what if we dropped off a population of grizzly bears there and they killed off the tortoises? Would that be natural?

      We're talking about non-native species killing off the native species. You can call it natural selection if you want, though I disagree. Did the Galapagos tortoise have a natural predator on the islands before people found them and started killing them?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    20. Re:useful study animal by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Ah then I agree, we certainly could fall into the realm of invasive species in the cases you state and many others. I want to stress that I'm not taking the attitude "well it's natural and they could't adapt so F em". We have the brain to ponder our impact on the world around us, and in turn I would agree an obligation to not only the world around us, but in turn ourselves. After all we can't live without them.

    21. Re:useful study animal by nmos · · Score: 1

      Bogus argument. Humans are part of nature and the natural world. Therefore human activity is as "natural" as a beaver dam. Any other definition of "natural" is... unnatural. ;-)

      Sure but your definition leaves the word "natural" completely redundant and we would need another word to differentiate that which is done or caused by man/technology vs things that are not.

    22. Re:useful study animal by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      But that's exactly the point. The idea that there is some kind of "natural" world that exists apart from and in contrast to humans and their works is rooted, I believe, in the belief that humans were created (and I use the term advisedly) as something distinct from the rest of the world. A dangerous idea, to my mind; if we don't recognise our participation in ecosystem, it is easy to rationalise away the effects of our behaviour. We do not have dominion over the planet and its lives - we are inextricably bound up with them, and must bear this in mind. ;-)

      If you want to distinguish events caused by humans, how about calling them events caused by humans?

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    23. Re:useful study animal by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      it depends whether you are using the word "natural" as the opposite of "unnatural", or the opposite of "artificial". "Unnatural" is a fuzzy value judgement, based on what you consider to be the true "nature" of the subject in question. Artificial is a little more concrete, although in complex systems there are artificial and non-artificial components, thus blurring the issue again.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    24. Re:useful study animal by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      Artificial = made by hand. An artifact. One species killing off another may be shortsighted, sad, stupid, unnecessary, and a whole host of other adjectives, but it's a real stretch to call it artificial... and completely incorrect to call it unnatural.

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    25. Re:useful study animal by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      You're getting in to Social Darwinism here.

      Natural selection does not imply justness. Social Darwinists think that if one group can kill off/subdue another group, it is ok because it is "natural selection". The fact is natural order doesn't necessarily relate to morals at all. It is totally natural for Ethiopians to be starving to death, but that doesn't make it 'just'.

      Cats kill for pleasure (although whether the killing part is intentional is up in the air). If some species of mole goes extinct due to this, is it unnatural?

    26. Re:useful study animal by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1
      "produced by humans (opposed to natural):"

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificial?jss=0

      "made by hand" is a specific subset of "produced by humans". For instance, genocide isn't exactly "made by hand" but it is exclusively "produced by humans" and therefore is artificial, and therefore if you used "unnatural" as a synonym of "artificial" as a lot of people do (hence the point i was making) you can say that genocide is unnatural.

      i would like to make clear that in general, and in this case, i don't use unnatural as a synonym for artificial, but was simply pointing out where the people tend to argue at cross purposes with regards to the idea of something being "unnatural" or not

      if you look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnatural?jss=0 you can see that the conflation of definitions 1 and 4 is where people often slip up in this kind of argument

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    27. Re:useful study animal by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with anything you're saying, I'm merely arguing that the natural/unnatural distinction is a dangerous one because it tends to change humanity (in the mind of the one making the distinction) from participant in the system to something outside the system. That's not so bad when you're talking about the disruptions humans cause, but it is part of the mindset that leads to those disruptions in the first place, I think.

      My real issue lies, I think, with the very concept of "unnatural". It's a useless and wrong concept that directly interferes with our ability to see ourselves as the "part of the whole" we truly are.

      Food for thought, anyway; I never knew I disliked the term so much until this discussion. Cheers!

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  11. Playing God! by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    I imagine people will scream about "Playing God"(tm) in these circumstances. They, of course, say, "What a miracle" when they are brought back from what should have been a death by heart attack. Personally, I think small northern russian and canadian provinces could really have a boom if we'd bring back mastodons and such, selling the hunting rights. In my view, you're only "Playing God" if you're talking velociraptors and making your own artificial creepy stuff. I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage", unless they have jet packs and live in Tokyo.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Playing God! by lilomar · · Score: 2, Funny

      In my view, you're only "Playing God" if you're talking velociraptors and making your own artificial creepy stuff.

      I'm a talking velociraptor making my own artificial creepy stuff -- you insensitive clod!

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    2. Re:Playing God! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You imagine incorrectly. No such idea even faintly presented itself in my head. I don't see anything wrong with Animal breeding programs with a specific outcome and I am very religious. I think you just took an article about tortoises and turned it into a sacrilegious rant in which you pinned up your strawman you created yourself.

    3. Re:Playing God! by Tau+Neutrino · · Score: 1

      And of course, the previous poster was referring to you personally.

      Why not? Everybody else does.

      --
      Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
    4. Re:Playing God! by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't charges of "Playing Darwin" or "Unnatural Selection" be more apropos?

    5. Re:Playing God! by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty religious myself. I just believe you either fess up to picking and choosing which things you consider "playing God", or you throw the baby out with the bathwater and go become a monk. I find bringing Mastodons and Turtles back through genetic manipulation no different than selective breeding, something is gone that Man wiped out - and we want it back. Let me get my strawman out, Euthanasia is altering the time at which God chose your death, while Shock paddles do precisely that - in both cases you are altering what is considered the property of the diety. Personally, I believe we should just do what we're going to do, and realize there are consequences, accept them and move on.

      --
      meh
    6. Re:Playing God! by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that animal husbandry, which is what they're talking about, is something we've been doing for a very long time.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    7. Re:Playing God! by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

      Not that I have a problem with either (or those who choose to do so), but distillation and prostitution have been around for quite a while too. Some religions frown upon them.

      --
      meh
    8. Re:Playing God! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I'll tell Randall Munroe to bring his shotgun.

    9. Re:Playing God! by kat_skan · · Score: 1

      I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage", unless they have jet packs and live in Tokyo.

      Oh, they can still rampage. It's just hard to notice since you can rebuild things as quickly as they can destroy them.

    10. Re:Playing God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS. All the velociraptors are female and this is the internet.

    11. Re:Playing God! by tuffy · · Score: 1

      I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage"

      Everybody, walk for your lives!

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    12. Re:Playing God! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Velociraptors are really just ankle-biters. Think of the little green poison shits in Deus Ex.

  12. Re:So we can eat them? by Smivs · · Score: 1

    Nope, they don't run Linux, but they do have a shell which in this case is a tortoise/atmosphere interface. OK so it's hardware rather than software but it's suprising how much a tortoise and a computer have in common. If you've got a tired old Celeron like me, you'll even find they 'run' about as fast!

  13. hold it ... Geochelone elephantopus is NOT extinct by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Informative

    gct says one species, Geochelone elephantopus, with 14 different races or sub-species, three of which are believed to be extinct.

    So just to clarify, several races are extinct and this discusses bringing them back to life. The species itself though is not extinct ... it's alive and well.

  14. Nothing new under the sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee sounds like what a couple of German scientists did with the Aurochs in the 1920's. Sure tortoises breed slower than cows, but this is hardly new. Read "The Ghost with Trembling Wings" for a pretty thorough treatment of extinction, species definition, and conservation history. It discusses a number of similar programs.

  15. This must be why.. by kettlechips · · Score: 1

    But the long intervals between generations mean that even if the project does start,
    it will not be concluding any time soon. A century ahead would be a fair bet.


    ..it's usually fruit flies with them biologists. Sounds like a tight schedule, they better get a move on.

  16. Re:So we can eat them? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What would be different without them?

    The portions of soup would be a lot smaller.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Re:So we can eat them? by electricbern · · Score: 1

    Do they run Linux?

    Well, they do have a shell.

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  18. Behold, the five assed tortoise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Previous experiments resulted in only three asses, they were totally worthless...

  19. Wooden acting? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Ever see William Hurt in the Dune miniseries? His acting was so wooden, he put trees to sleep.

    I haven't. Was it anything like Jonathan Taylor Thomas in that movie or Seth Adkins in that TV movie or (shudder) Roberto Benigni in still another movie?

  20. Jurassic Tortoise Park by drewsup · · Score: 0

    LOOK OUT ONE GOT LOOSE!!! AHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (10 minutes later)... AHHhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHh!!! (3 hours later)... AAaaaaahhhHHHHHHH!! Wow, we should really start walking away from this thing crawling towards us Huh?

  21. Because we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really tortoises all the way down.

    1. Re:Because we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to make a joke about this, but some other idiot did it first! Piss! Coming out of my ass! Sorry that's the Tourette's Syndrome acting up INSIDE MY ASS. Anyway, just stack those fucking turtles up, mmmkay. FUCK.

  22. Gamara..... GAMARA.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gamara is really neat, he is full of turtle meat, we all love you ga-ma-raaaaaaa!!!

  23. Theory of evolution... by intothemiddle · · Score: 0

    Evolve.. not.. they devolve by natural methods, then we Frankenstein them back to life to say how cute they are.

    But I can contradict myself, [wiki] "Populations fell dramatically because of hunting and the introduction of predators and grazers by humans since the seventeenth century".. humans are part of the evolution processes, so our interactions in whatever negative or positive form are part and parcel of the process.

    But as always GC said it best "We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?"

  24. Species definition and Galapagos restoration by wagr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The definition of species from your primary or secondary education about critters that can breed is a gross simplification. (I pity if you heard it in college also.) That is one basis for determining a species. Others are:

    Location, meaning these individuals could procreate with those, but they never travel far enough to do so (like across an ocean). Sometimes called "populations."

    Morphology, i.e. color, patterns, size.

    Habits, i.e. where they rest or what they eat.

    Mating preferences can be based on all of the above. An example: finches that rest in trees and eat small seeds from succulent bushes tend to prefer the same, even though they can mate with finches that rest in rocks and eat larger seeds from weeds. These groups may live intermingled, they just don't choose mates that way. New chicks learn patterns from their parents, act that way as they age, and hang out with (mate) those who are similar. This is akin to humans marrying only folks of the same social class. Studies on the finches in the Galapagos show that nearly any "species" CAN mate with the others, they just don't.

    The other large reason to define species is funding. More folks will donate to help the "Floreana tortoise" if it is called its own species, even though it is identical to the "Isabela tortoise" except for 1) the island they were/are on, and 2) a few genes. The rallying cry, "Restore the Floreana tortoise" is catchier than, "Move some tortoises and manage their breeding based on DNA."

    The article mentions how tortoises may have been moved from Floreana to Isabela, but they don't mention the real causes of the extinction in the first place. The same whaling ships left goats on the islands to breed and create a population they can harvest meat from next time they visit. The goat population exploded. These goats eat the same bushes the tortoises eat, depriving them of food. The ships also left rats which ate their eggs. Over the past 10 years, eradication campaigns have wiped out the goats from almost all of the islands, and have eliminated rats from some of them. Now that the main causes of the extinctions have been (are are being) removed, efforts to reclaim the populations are starting. This is just one.

    For more information, see http://www.galapagos.org/2008/ or look up "Lonesome George."

    1. Re:Species definition and Galapagos restoration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >These goats eat the same bushes the tortoises eat, depriving them of food.
      >The ships also left rats which ate their eggs.

      Bulshit. Goats don't lay eggs.

  25. The Book of Secrets by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 2, Funny

    The rat is optional. There's now a book to train them. Just have your children and grandchildren teach them to read.

  26. +1 parent for informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    +1 parent for informative

  27. Does same genome imply same organism? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    Bear with me as I go a bit abstract, but /. is for nerds, right? Organisms are a kind of fixed point. a zygote with genome G implanted in an organism with womb (or egg, or, more generally, an environment of some sort) W gives rise to some organism O. O = f(G,W) where f is the 'development' function. But W is itself a function of the organism. So we really have O = f(G,W(O)). O is a fixed point of the function \x -> f(G,W(x)). But it's not at all clear this equation has unique solutions.

    Just so you know I haven't gone off the rails consider the example of Ken Thompsons's famous paper. You might imagine that compiling the source of a C compiler with the compiler it produces is guaranteed to give you the 'right thing'. It's exactly analogous, the 'development' process has multiple fixed points.

    So it's not 100% clear to me that selectively breeding an organism with the same genome gives rise to the same organism. It depends on how much the state stored in the environment W contributes to O.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  28. More English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the Darwin Goat which resides on the sides of the dome volcanoes on the Galapagos island of Espanola. Or the Galapagos Goat which resides on the eastern rim of the Galapagos island of Darwin? Neither are bulls, but both sh1t.

  29. how by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    how exactly do you get an extinct animal back by interbreeding its modern day ancestors, clearly you aren't going to get the exact same traits?

    1. Re:how by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

      My take is they're not looking for the exact same traits as that would be a humongous task. I figure we do something like this:

      1. Breed 2 giant turtles
      2. Compare resultant DNA to control sample (I.E. the giant turtle fossil DNA
      3. If resultant DNA is closer to similarity in DNA to giant turtle than anything else before it, breed again according to step 1.
      4. Else, cull from supply
      5. Rinse and repeat until we're a certain benchmark of the way there (say 99.9% as the stated goal) to creating an old giant fossilized turtle
      6. ???
      7. Profit!

      Simple Mendelian Genetics here, nothing more.

      --
      ...in bed
  30. I will care about non-native species arguments by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I will care about non-native species arguments as soon as you exterminate all the pigeons and Rattus Norwegicus in North America and rabbits in Australia.

    Thanks,
    -- Terry

  31. This has been done with the Quagga by berbmit · · Score: 1

    A successful example is this one, to "re-create" a quagga -- part zebra/part horse that went extinct in 1883. http://www.quaggaproject.org/

  32. That's a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...select the most appropriate of these to mate and thus eventually (after a century or more)...

    Looks like tortoises really DO do it slow!

    In!
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    Out!
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    In!
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    Out!