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