Slashdot Mirror
Cloning Another Extinct Species
Tekmage sent us a wired article about scientists cloning cloning an extinct tiger. We mentioned a similiar
case involving a bird awhile back, but its getting more common.
I knew that triceretops DNA I've been keeping in my fridge all summer would come in handy. It'll be on E-Bay next week.
Just a list of a couple of films that I have seen that include something to do with cloning or DNA problems that give ya some ethical/scientific thoughts about cloning and 'messing with life'.
"Species" and "Species II".
"The Thing".
"Jurassic Park" + "The Lost World".
Anyone know any decent sci-fi books or other films... feel free to add em on...
p-i.
But this species did exist 133 years ago... It isn't like the world changes so drastically in 133 that the animal wouldn't survive...
The one question I have to ask is why? Why do we need to bring this animal back into existance when they describe it as "an alley dog". Why not bring back some of the supposed beautiful creatures of the past?
So, let me asked this: If a bird like the Dodo was hunted to extiction by ANY other animal, would we consider it to be natural selection? I mean, obviously the Dodo was incapable of defending itself againt human hunters, but just how is that different than defending itself against another predator like an alligator or something? Did the Dodo die out because we were *unfair* in hunting it so much, or did it die out because it was just a really dumb bird? I'm serious - maybe it was just time for the Dodo to check out. If not from us, than from something else.
I don't know about that, cloning dead species might make it possible for scientists to help live ones. Take, for example, the cheetah. The cheetah was hunted almost to extinction and the few that survive have very little genetic diversity.
Today scientists have a database of cheetah lineage that is consulted before they are bred to prevent excess inbreeding. Another thing that might help increase their genetic diversity is to clone cheetahs from old trophies. They were heavily hunted, so these trophies shouldn't be too uncommon.
Does this
I know some scientist from Japan are trying to get soome Woolly Mammoth DNA to bring back those guys. But wouldn't cloning the endanged species such as Pandas be a better idea.
I saw this and was thinking, what if we get so good at cloning extinct animals from DNA that we stop caring so much about the animals already endangered because we know that we'll be able to revive them from DNA once they're gone?
The cloning here regenerated a perfect being from the DNA found in the alien space craft wreckage...
There is lots of dissagreement about what this number is, but 50 seems to be a reasonable minimum number of organisms (it might be much higher- more like 500.) There are only 6 animals preserved around the world: an order of magnitude less than what seems to be needed. Even if we could bring back a stock of these animals, would all our efforts be in vain?
Off subject but does anybody remember playing Bionic Commando of the NES, where they clone Hitler. Great graphics for the time. Is anybody making an updated version for any platform?
I love it when the AC's go out trolling. Sometimes this is the best laugh I get in a day, but today I found some silly ASSERT's in M$ code that really take the cake. (CString.Mid(CString.GetLength()+1)... what fun)
As much a fan I am of the United States (gotta love those wacky politicians) and have faith in its scientists (one country came up with both Agent Orange and asbestos, amazing!), sometimes I question the zeal with which they explore certain life sciences.
Now I admit, I don't have a degree in a life science. My Biological-Anthropology degree is considered a social science by many. In fact, most of my evolutionary studies have been limited primates. Guess I really shouldn't talk about evolution as a whole. What do I know about fish.
And as far as Star Trek is goes, yes I have watched too many episodes. I've seen too many episodes of Designing Women too (about 3), but I'm not sure what relevence either has with this thread.
I'm not sure where you got the quote "cloning will destroy the human race". I must have posted that in a past life. Although I must admit that somewhere in the back of my mind I've imagined what might happen some day in the future if some scientist can't figure out why we allowed zebra muscles to be wiped out (note: they haven't been yet, but we're trying) and clones some back into existance. Heh-heh, hope they don't like the sewer system too much.
There is unnatural extinction. it's called deforestation. try that perspective. Why? read the fine-print... we wiped out countless species (or have come close to it) for our own selfish needs. then we complain when there is something missing, or new diseases sprout. Why? because mankind are all a bunch of whining idiots. Humans are not the dominant species on this planet.
Does your so-called "intelligence" make you feel you're dominant? Sorry buddy, you are inferior (just as I am). But that gets into a whole other social argument that's not fit to print on slashdot. Humans are no longer a part of nature because we seperate ourselves from it, giving ourselves almost demigod-like qualities and feeling... "above" for lack of a better term. Humans no longer kill to survive. We kill because we can.
Is anyone else reminded of the sci-fi story where all flora and fauna is reduced to gene-banks? (Foundation, by Asimov, perhaps?)
The concept was that "someday" when there was enough food for people, those animals and plants that didn't have any other "purpose" would be restored. In the meantime, the whole of the planet (and all subsequently discovered planets) was turned into a massive city with living space and hydroponics.
Maybe this isn't in our future, but doesn't it get easier to drive a species to extinction if we can always bring them back "someday"?
"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Who is able to say what is/is-not a "horrible, stupid, short-sighted mistake with horrible repurcussions"? There is no real absolute ethic or moral standard to apply here (is there ever?). One man's geese is another man's gander, etc etc. The fact is that we are a part of nature. These animals were driven to extinction simply because they were competing with the local humans for resources (livestock), and the humans were simply more able. Survival of the fittest. Mean? Yup. The past is the past. Attempting to right past wrongs sets a precipitous precedent... When do we return Neanderthals (or one of the other thousands upon thousands of extinct species) to the face of the planet? We surely aided their extinction by out-competing them for resources! We should persue this line of research - but not because we can right past wrongs - because we can, and will learn much from the efforts.
...was from a SF short story I read years ago (and I can't remember squat about the story, but this one bit really stuck in my mind). They took the sperm from one of the frozen mammoths (or are they mastodons?) in Siberia and impregnated a couple of elephants. (This assumes they're close enough to cross-breed, of course.) Then they were cross-breeding the offspring with the most mammoth-like characteristics in order to "purify" the genetic material. Sure, not as "cool" as cloning, but I thought it was an interesting thought.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Well yes, that's true - they would not necessarily be anything like their originaly copies, psychologically. However, there is no hard scientific evidence to show us whether personality is something you are born with or aquire through experience. Most research tends to support the theory that it is a combination of both. So, if that were the case, a clone of Hitler might have some of his traits, but not necessarily all of them, based on its own life experiences.
But this species did exist 133 years ago... It isn't like the world changes so drastically in 133 that the animal wouldn't survive...
Is this flamebait? Or have you failed to notice that species sometimes have very localised ecosystems?
The one question I have to ask is why? Why do we need to bring this animal back into existance when they describe it as "an alley dog". Why not bring back some of the supposed beautiful creatures of the past?
So I guess it was flamebait. Someone moderate?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Of course, there will be issues regarding this. Many people have seen the movies based on it, and many can see the problems with it. But it's not a T-Rex or an alien species. It's an animal that was put to extinction by mankinds own selfish stupidity. Thylacine has interacted with mankind before, it should have no problem adjust to a simple 133 years of change (1866-1999).
Why not use the technology (that probably killed some of these animals) to bring them back? It's understandable we should let natural extinction alone (Dinosaurs, mammoths, etc) but why not try to right our wrongs?
"Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair... Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?"
I don't think we have the technology to fully process the information found in DNA and simulate what it would create. Besides, you couldn't clone an animal like the T-Rex from just his DNA, could you? I was under the impression that you would need some sort of host-mother, like was used in Dolly? So, on those lines, could someone describe how a cloned Dodo bird would be "born" ?
And I think it's funny.
I use my moderation points to influence the posts that I would want to read, had some one else moderated them. And of course to filter out the stuff that I don't find intresting or relevant.
That's the way that moderation should work. Generally it does.
If enough people disagree with my moderation, it will get moderated down to -1.
But whatever. I still laughed when I read it. I'm betting that others did too.
I saw on cable awhile back a grainy black and white film of the last living tasmanian tiger, just walking back in forth in its cage.
Had to be one of the most depressing things I ever saw.
I can't imagine anyone saying that it is not worth bringing this animal back after watching this video.
Bah! Humans are a sum total of their genetic makeup and their environment. To REALLY re-make someone, you'd have to replicate all the outside factors that acted on them after they were born.
:P
Good luck.
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
please, please email me about it. I'm running out of funny eBay auctions :)
This is old tech now. It's been done with Quaggas (no, not the beasts from rogue that start appearing after the 6th level or so and killing you, I mean the strange mix-of-horse-and-zebra things that used to live in S. Africa.) They now have a breeding population of about 60 (IIRC) and with selective breeding they're getting more Quagga-like every generation. They reckon purestrain Quaggas are maybe 5 years away (also IIRC).
Well - yeah, I guess you could claim it's natural. Good or not is debatable - but it always is, since what could be classified as good is relativistic (thus are morals and ethics).
If we are capable of destroying ourselves (and we now are), and we do, did we deserve it? I think you could conclude (if conclusions are possible from beyond the grave) that we were incapable of handling our environment as well as we thought, and - frankly - natural selection rightly prevails again.
Would it then be the responsibility of the apes that then ruled the world to return us to non-extinct status when they possesed the technology to do so? :)
My brain hurts.
...would be to re-create the dodo. It became extinct because we ate them all. They must have tasted great! Bring them back, I want to eat some.
The original Doctor Dark.
Technology isn't evil. It's risky when it isn't mature.
Look at the early stages of nuclear power. The gov't was blowin' up sh*t out west with people a few miles away watching - and receiving massive doses of radiation. Yeah, that sucked for those people, but what we learned about atomic power was great! Think of all the positive applications of nuclear power - naval power plants, spacecraft, traditional ground-based power, medical treatments, etc etc.
If nobody is willing to take on the possible risks of testing out new technologies, no advancement is possible - and potential long term benefits of the mature technology will not be achieved.
Besides, I'm positive that there are countless unforseen uses for this technology down the line - the sky is the limit, so to speak.
The Tasmanian "tiger" is actually a marsupial, not a feline of any sort. It's more closely related to the kangaroo than a cat.
Still a major achievement if they can pull it off
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
DNA is already "aged", and is no long the information required to create an individual from the normal starting point (ie, shortly after fertilization).
The informations is still there actually. Just the non coding (i.e. not containing genes, and genes are the parts on the DNA strand that serve as a blue print for the production of a protein) edges of the DNA strand (called telomeres) get shorter with each cell division. The DNA in sperm cells is kept 'young' because the enzyme telomerase restores the telomeres.
Points to you, anonymous sir. Yes, it is.
Aristoi is a fine book, and contains a much better treatment of cyberspace, biological engineering and nanotechnology than many other science fiction novels.
(There -- now the relevance to Slashdot and to this thread is re-established. ;)
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
will this stuff get up to the clone wars in many scifi books , and the first wave on tv. could we do this to hurt our selfve more. should there be laws on cloning. i think it is great that we are getting extinced speices back , but how is this any going to last , being clones of one another ,they are all susptibale to the same plages , and all. we will see i think
im not the clone he is
The article states that they intend to extract DNA from a pup that has been preserved in alcohol since 1866. So it wouldn't be adult DNA used, nor embryo DNA, but whatever they can get out of a pickled infant.
The DNA of a pup is roughly as old as that of an adult. The majority of your cell divisions take place before you are born.
Oooops, sorry. They never existed.
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
The plan to recreate extinc specis does not equal the plan to release the clones into the wild. Besides, the thing won't be able to procreate without cloning, since that would require cloning 2 sexes, and only the DNA of one specimen has been preserved.
I don't see any mention in the article that they have infant/embryo DNA samples to clone from, however. I was under the impression that one of the lessons learnt from Dolly the Sheep and similar is that if you clone from adult DNA, you have problems caused by the fact the DNA is already "aged", and is no long the information required to create an individual from the normal starting point (ie, shortly after fertilization).
But I do wish that the media would stop pushing the idea that a clone might be created with an intact set of memories, a complete person! That sort of information simply isn't stored in DNA.
While I generally have my reservations about cloning, I think this is (finally) a development/use of cloning that I can applaud without going into all sorts of moral contortions.
...
Would it not be great if the we could use this technology to save the threatened species from extinction. It doesn't look like we (the human
species) will stop destroying the planet we live on anytime soon. Maybe this would at least enable us to keep the (potentially very useful DNA) of endangered (or soon to be extinct) species around, for fun (zoos, etc) and (of course) profit. I'd much rather see a cloned tiger in a zoo than not to see one at all. Of course I'd much rather see them in the wild, but I really doubt that that's an option our kids will have in a few decades
What would be a far more noble persuit would be to first get our own species under control so that there might be *room* for some extict species and the ones that aren't (including us).
Save the Humans: Send a box of condoms with instructions to the Pope.
Cloning of extinct species seems like potentially a really dangerous idea. The reason most things go extinct is because their ecological niche is complete destroyed. This also means that their predators have gone away or adapted to eat something else. The cane toads in Australia are the classic example of putting a species into an ecosystem that really is not expected them. What a disaster that has been.
There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies or vampires anyway.
That we are not entirely sure that it is extinct. There are regular 'sightings' with at least some basis of evidence behind them - not the usual kooks ;) Tasmania, like most of Australia, is very sparsely populated... A very high percentage of people live on the coast. It is quite possible that the thylocine (Tasmanian Tiger) is still around somewhere...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Maybe this time she'll give fish a turn at ruling the planet.
70% of the planet and a huge majority of it's livable space (3d, not just surface area) are underwater, so whose to say that they don't already. I was just reading a story the other day about dolphins off the coast of madagascar with nuclear strike capabilities.
+&x
You make many fine, serious points, which are important. But it was funny. Try not to let the danger the planet is in make you lose your sense of humour.
The original Doctor Dark.
When the ranching concerns bring back a cloned species just to mass produce it for your local meat counter? When Tyson brings back the dodo and KFC has fried or rotisserie dodo? They're certainly not going to bring them back only for science..
-Rich
It's sad to read all the hyped stories about cloning, including their sometimes catastrophic so-called forecasts. I'd like to see some more reflective discussions about the subject instead of the parrot-like announcements copied from non-authoritive sources; 'next they are cloning this and that etc...'. It looks like scientists are playing the role of priests 'explaining' scientific pseudo-truth, which a lot of people want to believe in. Fundamental problems are being discarded as technical hurdles, rrrrrright. Everybody making a living doing research will recognize this. Regarding the use of cloning to prevent species from becoming extinct: In my opinion the first thing responsible for extinction is loss of habitat (for example due to cultivation of land by humans). If one doesn't tackle that, you are only working on the symptoms. Second, for a specie to survive it needs a rich and diverse gene pool. Simply growing a bunch of clones won't do, even an idiot can understand that. Btw, has it occurred to less mentally impaired that mapping the genome is not equivalent to understanding the working mechanism (even if that is a sensible, although 19th century, paradigm)? Simply recording DNA sequences and associating them with functionality or form is not even close to grasping the syntax or symantics of the DNA 'languange' (my preferred paradigm), which complexity might be profound. It had a looooong time to evolve, ya know. Treat science with a bit more respect, and scientists with a bit less pleaze. Ivo
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
We dont want this dam, we dont want this pulp mill, we dont want to legalise homosexuality, etc etc.
In actual fact, the Tasmanians wanted the dam more than anyone else, and were rather annoyed when a more ecologically minded federal government stopped it.
As for the homosexuality thing, well, rednecks are rednecks...
That's an interesting point, I guess the difference between humans and other predators is that we have the capability to understand the difference between excessively hunting a species to extinction and just catching the next meal.
If a pack of hungry aligators jumped on a boat and went to the habitat of the dodo and just gorged themselves on the easy prey, no - I don't think I'd judge them as harshly as humans who did the same thing, because the humans _should_ have the ability to understand the consequences.
You could argue that the dodo was ill-suited for survival and that their time was over. You could also argue that the dodo (like any living thing) existed in an ecological system where their continued presence was the result of some self-sustaining cycle and that their presence was beneficial. In other words, even though they were flightless and had no evolutionary developed skill for evasion of predators because there had been no predatious pressure, they still were a part of a balanced eco-system where their presence was beneficial (eating overgrowth, producing fertilizer, etc).
Also - going back to the first post, I think it was funny. Tasteless, but funny.
Lighten up. It can be funny and twisted at the same time. Sort of HHOS.
As far as I know, they haven't even attempted to clone Huia birds (or any other extinct species) yet, they're still arguing the ethics of it. Personally, I don't think it matters much, I figure their chances of success are somewhere between fat and slim.
I suspect about 10 to 20 years from now, they'll be able to inspect the DNA in the samples they have and realize they were too damaged to use anyway.
However, I suspect about 20 years after that, they'll probably be able to repair or resequence the DNA to create viable embryos of extinct species. Whether they'll be able to justify it ethically is a different question.
What next - bring back plants from the Jurassic period? We've never had contact with them... they could attact some heretofore unknown disease, or be particularily deadly to us.
We shouldn't meddle with the affairs of mother nature - this is her lab, not ours. And history has proven time and time again that incompetence breeds massive failures - sometimes fatal. Just watch any AOLer on Usenet to get a good idea of what clueless people are capable of. What if we mess something up and can't repair it? Who are we going to go to for expertise - god? He's been on vacation for thousands of years. Good luck.
--
I believe that it was snakes that killed off the Dodo birds, they somehow got there on boats or somesuch and systematically wiped out the population by eating the eggs.
I wonder about the day an animal comes along to hunt us into extinction :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I don't know that we're incapable. You mentioned 'every nuke in existence' - compare oil spills... if "all the oil in existence" was pumped into the ocean...?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
You don't need as many originals as you would expect. There was a program to save the Mongolian Wild Horse or Przewalski's Horse from extinction when there were just 13 samples in zoos around the world. With careful breeding control, that number is over one hundred now, though I don't have the exact number. With so few samples, there is probably a lot less in the genetic pool than there was, but it's better than not having them at all.
This sounds like the beginning of a bad B movie, which eventually involves a 500 foot genetically enhanced cockroach trashing New York and munching on the inhabitants.
I am saddened that humanity hasn't learned anything from the wisdon of Godzilla movies.
"How do you spell cat?"
"K-A-T"
"That's not how you spell cat"
"Well, what does it spell then?
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Not the case. Of course all ecosystems are somewhat isolated, but to imagine that this renders there inhabitants "weak" is a distortion of the process of evolution. In a nutshell: ecosystems evolve not just the individual species within them. Any ecosystem is a large and complex solution to an unique set of problems. Within any such large and complex solution there will be points that are easily exploited by aggressive newcomers. This is not to say there is something wrong with the ecosystem.
In any case, one of the interesting points about the Australian ecosystem is that it has not been isolated from all placental mammals. This is not the reason (as the poster suggests) for low energy use marsupials and reptiles predominating. The standout example is the bat. Given pig like animals evolved into whales and apes into humans, over the past few million years, it is implausible that "superior" placental mammals such as bats would not have evolved into niches in the Australian ecosystem unless the marsupials had some advantage.
In the Australian ecosystem energy efficient marsupials have proven to be the superior solution over _evolutionary time_. In the short term placental mammals will disturb the balance of the system, but there is already evidence that these animals are adapting to Australian conditions. In particular, rabbits with smaller litters. How long before they are competing directly with the more highly atuned marsupial reproductive system?
AFAIK the last one was hit on the head by a drunken sailor on Mauricius (?) But please correct me, might be I've been wrong all those years.
How about restoring the sabre-tooth tiger? We can use such big predatory cats with fangs longer than their heads to scare the shit out of hikers and other outdoor adventurers right here in North America. >:)
What is going to be next ? ... since ... to my opinion ... Jurrassic Park is coming very close to reality now ...
...
... "oops, bad clone, lets kill it and lets TRY IT AGAIN to do it better" ...
... does the world ever learns some things could be bad to handle ? or immoral to handle? like the accelerator ... cloning ... of'course ... curiousity ... but when will it happen that a very big problem will be coming our way ... like half the earth destroyed because a species or a plant we have cloned that overcomes us ? ... "oops sorry, that was not calculated" ....
Maybe next time we will see a lot of people eaten alive by some "velo" in the middle of New York
Probably the scientists will answer with something like
Sadly enough
Freaker / TuC
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I just recently read an article of a Japanese-Russian research group that's trying to bring mammoths back to earth.
Whoever rated this as funny should have his moderator rights revoked for a month.
This is _NOT_ funny. We have destroyed so many species by either eating them or by declaring them as evil that even the top 10 list can make anyone sick.
Even if the australians do not succed it will still be great if they try. And hopefully be followed by someone else to reincarnate:
1. The dodo (Mauricius)
2. The travelling pigeon (USA)
3. The Berentz cow (Russia/USA)
And many many more
And what I hope is that some anti-cloning maniacs following/seeking divine guidance will not try to throw a couple of molotov cocktails in the lab that do this work.
And yet, life goes on....
Contrary to what some whackos would like to believe, the world isn't going to end just because we wipe out a few thousand species. It hasn't yet and it won't anytime soon.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Please let's not advance the consumerist mentality of humankind any further than it already is.
If we think along the lines of, "It doesn't matter if we cut down the rainforest, because we can re-make the gorillas somewhere else", we're going to lose sight of why it makes much more sense to live with nature than to fight it constantly.
I hear this argument from Monsanto: "Well, the chemical agricultural revolution didn't work, and I know we said this last time, but this time, we really do have the answer, in this test tube right here..."
Pull the other one.
What we need is to step back and take a holistic approach. I'm not against cloning, but it treats the effect, not the cause.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Well, humans often give dolphins fish for free. I have to buy fish. Take away the equal opportunity for the two species to catch fish (and the dolphin is obviously the advantaged predator in that respect), then it looks like in at least one respect an aquatic based mammal seems to be in control ;-)
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
Or a Penguin
"Even though they described the bird as 'walchvogel' meaning
'disguting to eat' they certainly must have had fun
clobbering the clumsy creatures that waddled up to them
only to be hit on the head with a stout staff. In fact the
name Dodo comes from the Dutch 'Dodars' or 'Dodoor',
meaning a sluggard or a stupid fool. "
- This is from http://www.mauritius-canada.com/dodo/
Hmmm, I find myself getting increasingly fascinated by the Dodo and am reading all about it now.
L.
PS - That web site says:
"You are the 6,439th person visiting this page since March 1st, 1999". It will be fun to watch the slashdot effect. Hehehe. They won't know what hit them. Literally.
I--R--O--N--Y. S--A--T--I--R--E.
I suspect that the original poster *ARGEES* with you! His modest proposal is clearly a poke at the people who actually would think of such a thing (albiet probably not in so many words) -- if you don't get this, please go study a history of satire, starting with J. Swift.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
That isn't exactly a valid analogy, considering that with our technology we could hunt to extinction pretty much any large land animal we wanted to.
Besides, there really are good reasons for having large dumb docile animals: they're great for domestication. If you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel you'd know that a primary reason that native Austrailian and American cultures were so far behind their European invaders was that their ancestors had hunted to extinction most all the large herbivores native to their lands. We would all have a much greater variety of meat now if those ignorant hunters had the foresight that we now possess.
Not as many are you would think, I read in the new scienist that 47 monkeys are more genetically diverse than the entire human population!
As to how to bring back an extinct species and a compatible one, if you have the sperm you can bring them back, by fertalising a generically compatible special, (like mammoth and elephant) get a female one, and do the same again and again. Within 4 generations you get within 93.625% of the orginal. 50+25+12.5+6.125, actually thats the minimum as the species was genetically compatible in the first place, it will share many traits.
Not personally bashing you but the damming of the fraklin just was plain stupid... currently tasmainia uses about 45% of its available electric output from all the other damms... homusexuality is another matter though (its finally leagal in tas)
Still, there is only a maximum of twelve copies of each gene. I agree that maybe with a very good programme you may be able to keep them viable, but you'd still be working a long time to breed out the traits you don't want. I still don't see that you can keep a population healthy, without changing them from Tasmanian Tigers into something else.
And then indeed there are the social problems.
Art school. We'd all be hateing the moderistic creations of yet another modernistic painting. Not a music school.
Introduce Australian lifeforms elsewhere and introduce lifeforms from elsewhere to Australia. Who will win out and survive? Now tell me which ecosystem is millions of years behind evolutionarily?
"Millions of years". Say that a few times. Count to a million a few times. Think about it. It's a large number, isn't it? Then think about it again. Evolution works in timespans of millions of years. Okay? I'll say it again, very slowly and clearly: Evolution works in timespans of millions of years. What happens over a span of decades doesn't tell us a whole lot. Wait for a million years and see who's left. In the short term, imported placental mammals may very well out-compete the local marsupials in Australia -- but the fat lady has not sung, and even if all imported mammals do consistently out-compete all local marsupials (this seems to be your claim), then what? In a few million years, they will have adapted to survive over the long haul under local conditions. Every niche where the marsupial occupant has been driven extinct will be occupied by a placental mammal which has evolved to fit that niche -- and lo and behold, local conditions will select for individuals who fit the niche best, and they will be the ones most like the previous occupant. So maybe, "millions of years" from now, somebody comes along and imports the distant descendants of today's European bunny-rabbits. If so, the whole thing all will happen all over again, and one of your drooling, futuristic, inbred descendants -- who will have flunked some futuristic equivalent of Bio 101, just like you did last semester -- will babble the same nonsense about it.
Over the course of millions of years, Australian marsupials evolved to thrive in the Australian environment. That is the environment in which they have evolved ever since they've been there. That is where they are. That is where they live. Simple enough for you? That environment differs from other environments. This infantile babble about some species being "behind" is meaningless. An organism can be well, or not well, adapted to survive in any given environment. You're entirely missing the point. A camel is beautifully adapted to survive in certain very arid areas, but so what? Pre-Columbian Eskimos didn't survive in the Arctic by being "more advanced" than polar bears; they got along by imitating polar bears.
Nevertheless, I'll say I got a good laugh out of your bizarre assertion that evolution will "slow down" with respect to animals surrounded by a large body of water -- as if evolution where some kind of magical, extrinsic force, reified by an act of God but unable to cross water.
I hope they try to clone a mastadon they have plenty of dna samples from frozen specimens in the arctic.
Clone old King Tut. That boy would be rich.
He died thinking he would live again.
If I had the equipment and know how, I'd clone
myself.
It's too late. We already have meddled, and that's why a lot of species are extinct that might not be.
Heck, there's no way we can't "meddle" -- we're right smack in the middle of it. Anything we do -- or don't do -- will have an effect. What we need to do is get a lot better at thinking about what we're doing, and the effects thereof.
It's like Stewart Brand said: "We are as gods and might as well get good at it." Hell, we'd better get damn good at it, and quick, before we seriously fuck things up.
Well dropping a bunch of nukes would certainly "affect the global environment". So yes "we are even capable of messing things up."
Going against nature is also part of nature; the endless debate about man "interfering" with nature, and the idea that "man-made" equals "unnatural" are both old and wrong. Man is part of nature, and all of man's acts are part of nature. "Unnatural" and "supernatural" are meaningless words.
Bringing back an extinct species is not unnatural. On the contrary, is it both natural and good.
If the planet is viewed as a single living organism, as individual human cells and symbiotes make up our bodies, then humans are the brains of the operation. It's good that the planet is starting to learn to take care of itself.
Although I wouldn't personally mourn the extinction of the mosquito.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Actually it is, but only the Bene Tleilax know how to keep the memories intact. And I don't think they will licensing their axlotl tanks any time soon.
--
Creationism: no place for it in high schools
I've always wondered what wooly mammoth or sabre toothed tiger would taste like. Form a restaurant based on extinct delicacies!
I am wondering about whether its worthwhile to clone an extinct animal. From what I remember of my High school biology, when 2 things of similar (99% similar within the species) mate, inbreeding occurs. Remember the idea of cousins marrying cousins, mating and causing genetic defects? These extinct animals then could only exist in a lab. Yes I remember hearing that even though Dolly is not exactly like the sheep she was cloned from, I dont think that science can adequately predict what will happen.
It all seems like a bad idea to me.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
That isn't exactly a valid analogy, considering that with our technology we could hunt to extinction pretty much any large land animal we wanted to. Why does that make it any different? All dominant species have some characteristics that make them dominant... it's what makes them *DOMINANT* in the first place. As in: some animals have sharp teeth and claws, and others run/swim/fly very fast to avoid prey. We have brains, which allow us to make tools/weapons which make us the dominant species on earth. It *IS* natural selection at its finest.
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
totally offtopic...is your handle from Walter John Williams _Aristoi_?
Ah, but you're using a very narrow definition of "global environment" when you really mean "your environment". Most life on earth is still in the oceans. And if every nuke in existance were exploded uniformly over the Earth, most life would continue. (probably not us, though). Humans are in capable of harming the planet significantly. You must look at the world detatched from your bias of being a part of humanity to understand this statement.
What sort of moronic, sci-fi believing idiot are you. I bet you probably don't even have a life-sciences degree. Where do you get off making a statement like "cloning will destroy the human race". I think you have watched one to many episodes of Star Trek or Space 1999. Sorry, had to get that off my chest, now I can continue. We CAN control cloning, and one or more damn Tasmanian Tigers is NOT going to kill the entire human race. Please pull your head out of your nether regions and realize that unless we (the US) allows cloning and genetic manipulation some damn communist country or other unsavory (like CANADA or France) will beat us to the punch and destroy the free world.
I have long opined that citizens of the industrialized nations spend too much time complaining about trivial problems, since most of their big ones are solved, or nearly so. My proposed remedy was an infestation of Giant Flying Tigers (TM). That would get us focused on the things that really matter.
"You want to impose gun control? Screw that, gella. I need my gun for protection against Giant Flying Tigers(TM)!"
"I don't care if he sexually harassed you, Jim. The fact is, he's a fine hand in a pinch. Remember what he did when Giant Flying Tigers (TM) took over the building?"
"Leave the abortion clinic alone, Elsie. The news says there's a swarm of Giant Flying Tigers (TM) headed our way. First things first, dammit!"
But these aren't real tigers, and they don't fly, and they don't plan to release them in our cities. So what's the use?
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
The irony here is that the conservationists and park ranger bureaucrats who failed to save the poor mutts the first time around are the ones who are fighting to prevent the scientists from giving them a second chance at failure.
t ext.html
More irony: The tasmanian tiger might not even be extinct! T'would be hi-larious if they spent $30M to bring back something that is alive and well in indonesia... (http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/ttiger.htm)
And here is a nifty movie of the last tasmanian tiger. It's 1.5 megs and in quicktime. He is one ugly critter; watch him tear a rat to pieces.
http://vcserv.seas.smu.edu/tastour/fauna/tiger-
I don't know how to make direct links work and I'm too lazy to look very hard. Sorry. Just cut and paste and then enjoy.
Scudder
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Segfault is over here. You seem to have gotten lost.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
Good one!
Bush should have died, not Reagan -- Morrissey
Morrissey rides a cockhorse -- The Warlock Pinchers
I think that cloning can be use effectivly, but we can't go around thinking we can destroy the envoirnment just because if we kill any animals, we can clone them back. For what it costs to clone them, we can set up conservations and such. And just cloning a few of a species won't keep the ecosystem intact, which is what is the most dangerious part about animals going extint.
Anyone else find it curious just how positive an attitude most (obviously not all) posters have towards cloning. I was under the impression that most of the population was opposed to cloning! But then we are smarter than most of the population, I suppose.
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
I can't stand it when some luddite comes out and denounces cloning or whatever because it will take away interest from preserving existing species.
WHAT IS THE GOAL HERE?????
Is the goal to perpetuate the existing process, no matter how broken it is, or is the goal to figure out the best way to help save animals from extinction?
It seems that the guy who says that cloning will take away from preserving existing species is really afraid that his paycheck will be taken away and he might have to switch jobs.
Cloning is just one technical solution to saving species that might become or are already extince. We should develop the technology and use it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Read all about the Tasmanian Tiger here
2^5
But we won't know until we have a large sample of clones to see if there is a statistically significant reduplication of personality!
Besides if that Austrian music school had accepted Hitler when he applied, we might all today be listening to the masters on CD as presented by the great Austrian philharmonic Orchestra conducted by the masterful Adolf Hitler.
Maybe the holocaust is the fault of those school administrators since they had the power to prevent it.
A lot of species become extint beause mankind killed them, if they can recover from that they can recover from anything ! Whats a little virus betweeen friends
This problem has already been solved by nature. SEX will result in variations. The set of even a single set of DNA will always recombine in a different way as the new species reproduces. This inbreeding will result in some bad combinations, but they will die off and thus slowly remove the bad genes from the pool over time. And minor mutations will slowly introduce new variety.
"I have no respect for a man that can spell a word only one way"
- Mark Twain
If they want to reintroduce the species (in the long term even), I hope they froze cells of enough different exemplars (100? Anyone here have an idea of how many different DNA samples you would need to create a healthy population?) or they will have to clone the same animal again and again which doesnt seem too useful to me.
Yes folks, it's official, next month they are going to be even more adventurous, and bring back the ever dreaded Mac Clone.
After consulting with many MANY scientists, they decided it would be the ultimate test of science to Clone the Mac.
However, Apple seems to disagree...
(Note: this is a joke, all names and faces were left in tact because nobody is truly innocent.)
Whoever rated this as funny should have his moderator rights revoked for a month.
This is _NOT_ funny. We have destroyed so many species by either eating them or by declaring them as evil that even the top 10 list can make anyone sick.
Even if the australians do not succed it will still be great if they try. And hopefully be followed by someone else to reincarnate:
1. The dodo (Mauricius)
2. The travelling pigeon (USA)
3. The Berentz cow (Russia/USA)
And many many more
And what I hope is that some anti-cloning maniacs following/seeking divine guidance will not try to throw a couple of molotov cocktails in the lab that do this work.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
FIRST CLONE!!
I have taken the DNA from pickled slashdot columns and cloned them to create this scientifically advanced post.
P.S. I refuse to participate in any further tiger cloning unless the DNA is released under an Open Source licence.
(Score: -1, Thou Hast Lost an Eighth)
If we are cloning dead animals, how long until we bring back Joan of Arc, or atleast her genes. Of course, its probably not feasible at all, but it just rings of the boys of brazil.
As stated in the article: It would be cheaper to save still present species from extinction than to re-create already extinct ones. Still, it's an interesting (and highly debatable) project which surely would lead to a better understanding of DNA, but an inefficient way to preserve species.
Hey, perhaps the prospect of good sales will bring in $$ to pay for the cloning of the dodo. It would be a good thing, so chill.
One thing that many of you non-Australian type people wouldn't know is that Tasmania is the ass-end of the ass-end of the world. Its main distunguishing feature is that it is full of people who restrict development and advancement in any form, not only science. We dont want this dam, we dont want this pulp mill, we dont want to legalise homosexuality, etc etc. No wonder its the government of another state (NSW) handling this whole cloning deal.
(This might sound like flame-bait, but its sadly all true - I've lived here for 20+ years)
Out of interest (sorta OT) anyone here from New Brunswick, Canada? Our latest government *claims* to be attempting to model Tasmania on that area.
- Chuq
Okay, I agree that actually creating an animal from DNA salvaged from a dead-animal-in-a-jar is quite a feat, that will indeed do much for research in fertility and might well help preserve existing species. However, the Tasmanian Tiger will probably not be helped much, with only six DNA samples, the genepool is small to say the least. The first and second generations may do well, although chances are that there are already too many errors in the existing DNA. The DNA in the Jar does not preserve very well, as it is still subject to background radiation that will do damage.
All the information is probably still in there, as there are enough cells that all have a piece of correct DNA. To my knowledge there is no technique to combine all 'good' pieces and filter out the bad other than sequencing ALL of it several times. Then you can compare the sequences and try to synthesize the DNA. Which turns you back to yesterdays problem with the 'artificial bacterium', but then multiplied 10,000 times. Not to mention that at present we cannot even sequence one human in less than ten years, with several thousand of laboratories working together.
But okay, lets assume they have done it. When you breed them, you will have to inbreed them after the third generation, which is NOT a good idea with such a small genepool. Even lab mice, in which most bad traits have been out-bred long ago, don't respond well to that kind of inbreeding.
The technology might be useful, but not for resurecting long-dead animals, except if you're willing to keep doing it over and over again. At best you may be able to crossbreed it with a close relative again, but then it wouldn't be a tasmanian tiger anymore...
Like most scientific breakthroughs there really isn't too much of a point to this besides bring back an ugly, probably unedible animal, but some point down the road there probably wil be a good use for this. Have the knowledge because you can.
I read a NASA officials comments on the ISS. He said that "we haven't even thought of most of the uses for the ISS." So if we can build a multi-billion dollar RV in space, why not bring back a ugly little rat from extinction.
Anyways, as long as we don't clone Velicoraptors we'll be okay.
Whoever rated this as funny should have his moderator rights revoked for a month.
This is _NOT_ funny. We have destroyed so many computers by either eating them or by declaring them as evil that even the top 10 list can make anyone sick.
Even if the australians do not succed it will still be great if they try. And hopefully be followed by someone else to reincarnate:
1. The Compaq
2. CP/M
3. The Apple II
And many many more
And what I hope is that some anti-cloning maniacs following/seeking divine guidance will not try to throw a couple of molotov cocktails in the lab that do this work.
You may be shocked to know that over 95% of all known species to have ever existed are extinct. And virtually all of them before humans even existed. And following each "tragedy" of mass extinction was a wonderful EXPLOSION of new speciation that moved in to fill the gap vacated by the predecessor. Mammals (including you) filled the niche occupied by the dinosaurs.
As for the ozone "hole" (An alarmists term; a hole would be no ozone. The ozone layer is just thinner over Antartica.). It's arrogant for us to have maybe 30-50 years worth of data on atmospheric conditions at the south pole and make absolute conclusions that we are causing them. We still cannot explain the causes of the ice ages (which make up most of earth's history) nor the brief warm periods (which we are in now). Hell, no one on earth can even tell me if it's even going to rain next week. We don't know anything about global weather patterns. The sun may undergo periodic fluctuations that dwarf anything that all the R12 we can deliberately produce and dump into the air would do. I propose that man does not possess the capability to significantly affect the global environment. How arrogant to think we are even capable of messing things up.
It's damn nice to see some initiative being taken to correct even a small amount of the damage we've done.
What we did is part of the natural order. Species drive other species to extinction all the time. This is not "damage". It is nature and natural. A species will grow wildly, consuming all the food and other species in an area, many of which will go extinct, then it's population will fall back to some self-sustaining level and new species will diverge to fill gaps left by the extinct ones.
Will there be a market for extinct species DNA? I got a couple of flesh-eating insects in Amber that I think should be worth somthing....
We can try to reduct the introduction of new plant and animal species to Australia, but we cannot stop it. Thus the extinction of many of the indigenous species is already unstoppably underway. It's only a matter of time now. It is not "bad", though. It's just nature catching up in an area where it was naturally isolated from for so long.
Scientists annoy me sometimes. Scientists, to me, seem like a bunch of four year olds playing with daddy's shotgun: "Look Billy, look at all this cool stuff I can blow up with this gun! Wow! Isn't this great and entertaining?" But little do these four year olds know the power that they truly possess in their hands. Pretty soon, if left alone long enough, they end up shooting themselves with this "great and fun toy".
Man is a lot like that in regards with technology. Man is soooo enamored by the fact that of "All this great and fun things we can do with technology" that they are forgeting that they are toying with powers that were once reserved for the gods. Man is too immature to handle this. And when I read about scientist altering human and animal DNA, I feel that they are really toying with something fundamental.
I encourage you scientists to start reading books on philosophy and maybe even theology (and no, I don't believe in an interfering Catholic god, so don't send hate mail about me being a "creationist" or a "mythologist" because I am not).
Technology is evil.
- Steve
steve @ tripperjones.com
That's what we're trying to work on. Fixing something that was a horrible, stupid, short-sighted mistake with horrible repercussions. Something that was totally unfixable, but that we might be able to do something about now. I totally agree that the money still could be better spent in preserving the species that are currently endangered... however, you can actually get grant money for genetics whereas conservation money is hard/impossible to get. Whatever can be done should be.
Yes... and that reason is us. Human beings... not god. We certainly weren't concerned about playing god the first time around and I think it's shameful that such an excuse should be used as an argument against reparation. While I think that genetic experiments should be carefully thought through, I see this as an attempt to fix man's failings - or as attempt to restore god's creation if you prefer.
Leilah
~ Leilah
BeoTiger clusters? :)
A DNA sequence perfectly defines the end result, right? (give or take random noise) It would thus be wise to first do a full-lifetime simulation of all custom DNA before actually creating it ... thus we'd have a chance to check out what the hell we have created? Besides, it would be perfectly fine for me to only see a simulated T-Rex ;)
--Coke
. . . and kudzu in the American South, Japanese beetles also in the U.S., no doubt the list goes on . . . I'd add humanity in just about every place we've gone outside Kenya, but the right-whingers would have an epileptic fit and start barking at the moon . . . come to think of it, what's wrong with that?
On the other hand, AFAIK pheasants are not native to the U.S., and they fit in just fine. Similarly, many lakes and streams in the Western U.S. have been stocked with East-coast trout; they've elbowed out the native trout, but they're filling the same niche and no harm seems to have been done if you're not a trout fancier. Then again, the various subspecies of trout involved are so close that they can interbreed, so that may not be a valid example. I guess what I'm saying is that this is an endeavor to be approached with some degree of fear and trembling, but it's not a guaranteed disaster; you may luck out.
Interesting point in the article about the cost of bringing back the tiger. However, it makes me think. Cloning is a technology that is very "sexy" right now. This means that scientists are going to be running around like headless chickens trying to get gramnts for bigger and better cloning projects.
This worries me a little. I'm worried, because it sounds like these scientists are trying to bite off more than they can chew. The more high price, but high risk projects that fail, the less likely that companies will stump up the money for further projects. Eventually, cloning whithers up and becomes a pariah science - like VR research did in the late 80's.
Of course, VR research still goes on, but if there hadn't been so much hype, bandwagon hopping and generally badly thought out, but highly publicised projects, a steady stream of investments into VR might by now have produced greater results.
Of course, the majority of experiments should go ahead, but when I hear of "cloning extinct Auzzie marsupials back to life", I just know that this is going to make it to all the tabloids around the world, with no mention of how astronomically difficult such a venture should be.
Perhaps we should try reviving something a little simpler first before issuing the press releases about mammoth steaks being reanimated!
A little planning goes a long way...
Interesting point in the article about the cost of bringing back the tiger. However, it makes me think. Cloning is a technology that is very "sexy" right now. This means that scientists are going to be running around like headless chickens trying to get gramnts for bigger and better cloning projects.
This worries me a little. I'm worried, because it sounds like these scientists are trying to bite off more than they can chew. The more high price, but high risk projects that fail, the less likely that companies will stump up the money for further projects. Eventually, cloning whithers up and becomes a pariah science - like VR research did in the late 80's.
Of course, VR research still goes on, but if there hadn't been so much hype, bandwagon hopping and generally badly thought out, but highly publicised projects, a steady stream of investments into VR might by now have produced greater results.
Of course, the majority of experiments should go ahead, but when I hear of "cloning extinct Auzzie marsupials back to life", I just know that this is going to make it to all the tabloids around the world, with no mention of how astronomically difficult such a venture should be.
Perhpas we should try reviving something a little simpler first before issuing the press releases about mammoth steaks being reanimated!
A little planning goes a long way...
To paraphrase Wally Pleasant:
At the rate we're going, the scientists are going to eventually make a really big mistake (like cloning something they can't control) and we'll all get wiped out... and that's evolution!
If we as a species are too stupid not to leave things alone, maybe its time that we all kick off and let Mother Nature start over. Maybe this time she'll give fish a turn at ruling the planet.
Actualy a cople of writers claim that no matter how you cook a Dodo it tasts bad.
It was discribed as a "Rank Meat".
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
This is a pretty useless comment, but what the hell:
IIRC, the dodo was actually a vital part of the reproductive process for a certain tree in their habitat. I think there is one tree of that species left now. The dodo would eat the fruit, and something in the digestive process would allow the seeds to grow. Or that's the theory at least. And it might not be the dodo, could have been a different bird I'm thinking of. Now that tree's fruit just drops and rots...no more trees. Anyway, the point is that you should be really careful when you decide to kill off a species. It just might be important in not-too-obvious ways for something you like (although I don't think anyone's too broken up about those trees).
-beme
1971
Dunno 'bout you but...
It depends on what you value - i.e. the things that are important to you and your quality of life. I value diversity in species, large natural areas without parking lots and strip malls. So for me bringing back an extinct species doesn't quite solve the problem as I see it. How about you, what do you value? Do you look forward to a world of big cities where the gaps inbetween are filled with endless burbs and the occasional nicely manicured park? If you are an american have you been to one of the more popular national parks recently? Many of them are very crowded. I suppose if you personally love being around throngs of people thats just fine. Me, I really like to listen to the breeze in the trees once in awhile without the sound of Fred yelling at Martha to shut the damn kids up.
I love a city experience, but I also want to be able to paddle my canoe, sail my boat, hike, or go on safari in wild areas. I am very thankful that "conservationists" are fighting to keep some places on our once beautiful planet for enjoying these things. Currently the evidence sugests to me that population growth (NOT economic growth) is at the root of these trends that to me, are BIG and very sad problems.
Hmmm.. I really shouldn't post when sleep deprived.
Consider Learning Esperanto: www.esperanto.net
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
All cloning films suck (at least all I can think of, and certainly the ones you list here). If all cloning films suck, then real life cloning must suck too, since films reflect reality. In other words, these scientists should do something more interesting. Warp drives are usually cool in films, make some of them!
Or am I wrong?
Go for it. I think it is wonderful to actually have the capability to bring back a species of animal that was here long before we were. Too bad the conservationists do not see past what they believe to be true. With every new experiment we get that much closer to perfecting cloning. Which if you think about it is really only going to save us in the long run. If we can bring back some of the most basic of animals and plants....some that were key to our worldwide food chain. If we could possibly start making cows that didn't carry e-coli, chickens that didn't carry diseases that end up killing people. Wouldn't it be nice, I would rather enjoy showing my future children, animals that, I've never even seen! On that note, I'd actually like to see a DoDo bird. I remember reading that the last of them were bludgeoned to death. Were they a harm on livestock!? No....they just happened to be something to kill. I'm not saying, hey let's, let those cloning boys just have a free for all and clone everything in sight. Of all things that should have boundaries this is one of them. If the cloning is done for our and the 'worlds' betterment. By all means, go for it! I applaud you. However cloning of humans, and cloning of potentially harmful (to the ecosystem) animals and possibly plants....should never be done. I applaud their efforts and their intelligence, please I beg of you to use it.
So few of us get the chance to learn what you do, we rely upon you to use good judgement.
Did the Dodo die out because we were *unfair* in hunting it so much, or did it die out because it was just a really dumb bird? I'm serious - maybe it was just time for the Dodo to check out. If not from us, than from something else.
AFAIK, it wasn't just human hunters that decimated the dodo but also dogs, cats, and rats which were introduced into its habitat by, guess who, humans. So it wasn't just a matter of it being the dodo's time to check out. We pretty much screwed up its habitat when we colonized the place. It didn't have predators before we introduced them.
So if I move to x-land just before an alligator shows up in x-land on its own and starts eating stuff, that's not my fault. But if I move to x-land and decide I want to play "Crocodile Dundee" and bring in alligators from Florida to keep as pets and one of them escapes and starts eating stuff, then it's definitely my fault.
Does this
The trick with the Dodo was: it could not fly, and was (AFAIK) a lousy runner and even worse swimmer. There were no natural predators on that island, so the Dodo bird had no need to develop effective fugitive systems.
So hunting that bird was VERY easy.
Doh!
Press the any key to submit.
Which of these is the any key?
I'll just try them all.
Where are there so many copies of my article!
It wasn't quite like that, but apologies anyway for submitting twice!
A little planning goes a long way...
:)