DE-Extinction: Were some species MEANT to die or did God leave room via Cloning?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom

Regardless of whatever your views are on how the world began, be it with Theistic Evolution or Young Earth Creationism or Progressive Earth Creationism and a host of other views, something I've seen consistent in all camps is the view that GoD IS in control - with some species that died (like the Dinosaurs and other creatures from things like the Ice Age) going extinct by His Design...and for anyone seeing the film "Jurrassic Park", you are already aware of how many have felt that some things were meant to remain dead.


However, Cloning has brought into the picture a new host of problems many have not been comfortable with. There have been a lot of debates on the issue of whether or not some species should be brought back in light of recent advancements...and for more

• Cloned Species — National Geographic Magazine
• Reviving Extinct Species May Not Be Science Fiction :
• NPRResurrected Frog Gives Us Cause To Brood : NPR
• It's Called 'De-Extinction' — It's Like 'Jurassic Park,' Except It's Real ...
• Bringing Extinct Species Back to Life - National Geographic

Many are excited at the prospect of bringing back species like Mammoths and other creatures that were lost - be it because of environmental factors or the actions of man. However, many have wondered if perhaps it's an issue of playing God - and not considering the suffering that a cloned animal would go through.

Take, for example, the Mammoth.​

As exciting as it'd be to see some brought back - especially after seeing so many films/media presentations on it (including kids versions like "Ice Age" ), there are some big issues that not many consider.

Even in cloning it, the fact of the matter is that it'd be brought into a world foreign from the one it grew up in. ..and would probably be in captivity for a long time (if not life) to study it. Poaching being as bad as it is (more discussed elsewhere in #47 ), it'd not be a surprise if someone would be more interested in hunting it down than actually taking care of it. Moreover, we know that cloning takes a lot of attempts and many don't survive or live long when trying to create the perfect model. That raises issues of abuse/mistreatment. Moreover, as Elephants are herd animals, to raise a Mammoth/try to get it to have offspring would be bad since the offspring would probably be seperated from each other in order to study - and that can do pyschological damage.

One of the other big concerns is that you're never just bringing back an extinct animal - but also potentially bringing back extinct pathogens. We have no idea what diseases certain animals carried when they were alive - and with them in a new era, they could mutate and harm human kind as well. Not many consider the aspect of how some species may've died out due to diseases present in their day from other animals - or carried diseases themselves that led to the extinction of others.

There are so many factors to consider - and for many, ones views on Creation as well as Eschatology make a difference. I've shared before here my thoughts on things like the Flood (as it concerns differing views on the Flood/its connections to the Ice Age) and my views on how Death was something present before the Fall ...due to my beliefs that Adam/Eve were not made immortal and had to eat the Tree of Life to live forever - and that not all animal life was ever given the command to eat herbs/fruits (the aquatic animals being excluded amongst others - as shared earlier in #24,#25 and #40 )...but with the current issue, I feel that having a view that death is a part of the natural world makes me wonder if some things are best left alone - or if we'd be setting ourselves up to harm ourselves in the long run. Others feel that it's part of an Eschatological framework that supports the idea that man may end up destroying himself just as it was with the Flood when man became wicked.

Regardless of what your view is, would those who choose to participate share what they think on the issue? Do you feel cloning/raising extinct species to life is a good thing? Do you feel that your views on the Origins of Mankind make a difference as to whether or not you support what is happening in the world of science? Moroever, what factors - good or bad - could you see happening as a result of this in man's development?

 

[ChetSinger]

I think we have authority to do it because we still have authority over the earth.

Whether it's a wise action is a trickier question. We already have all kinds of environmental problems because we've introduced, for example, fish and beetles from Asia to North America. Some of those things have found happy places in our ecosystems and have gone gonzo all over our local lifeforms.

So what might happen if we clone a pretty-to-look-at extinct fish? We'll sell it at our pet stores by the thousands, and the unloved among them will get flushed down our toilets and end up in our rivers. And then, what will they do? Who knows?

So I find myself against it. Legal in the eyes of God? Sure. Wise? I think not.

 

[Assyrian]

Just image mammoths loose in the New York sewers...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just image mammoths loose in the New York sewers...

Why would mammoths be loose in the sewers of New York? Mabye in the park...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think we have authority to do it because we still have authority over the earth.

.

I was always under the impression that authority was meant to go together with responsible stewardship. The issue of having dominion not being the same as domination or reckeless rulership. Just because we have freedom to do things doesn't mean that we should - as the world stands or falls on what man does.

Whether it's a wise action is a trickier question. We already have all kinds of environmental problems because we've introduced, for example, fish and beetles from Asia to North America. Some of those things have found happy places in our ecosystems and have gone gonzo all over our local lifeforms.

So what might happen if we clone a pretty-to-look-at extinct fish? We'll sell it at our pet stores by the thousands, and the unloved among them will get flushed down our toilets and end up in our rivers. And then, what will they do? Who knows?

The dynamic of invsaive species is highly significant.

Understanding how to live in harmony with the environment IS Key. It is amazing how many cases have occurred with invasive species, such as Dingos being brought to Austraila and harming much of the wildlife...and the same with Cane Toad eating off things even though it was not natural to the Austrailan landscape and was brought over as a pet released into the wild originally.

And sometimes, things were brought over that were natural and yet foreign to environments with good intentions...only to have them get out of control. Kudzu comes to mind, as it is a serious invasive plant in the United States that been spreading in the southern U.S. at the rate of 150,000 acres (61,000 ha) annually.

Kudzu: Misunderstood Weed​

It was introduced from Japan into the United States in 1876 at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, where it was promoted as a forage crop and an ornamental plant. From 1935 to the early 1950s, the Soil Conservation Service encouraged farmers in the southeastern United States to plant kudzu to reduce soil erosion...and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted it widely for many years. It was subsequently discovered that the southeastern US has near-perfect conditions for kudzu to grow out of control — hot, humid summers, frequent rainfall, temperate winters with few hard freezes (kudzu cannot tolerate low freezing temperatures that bring the frost line down through its entire root system, a rare occurrence in this region), and no natural predators. As such, the once-promoted plant was named a pest weed by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1953. Kudzu is now common throughout most of the southeastern United States, and has been found as far northeast as Paterson, New Jersey, in 30 Illinois counties including as far north as Evanston, and as far south as Key West, Florida.


Its now all over the trees/landscape and in some cases choking life out of plants....whereas in other cases, there has been a symbosis that has occurred. The same principle seems to happen with animals who become feral over a period of time, even though once they were tame (i.e. Dingos in Austraila, Feral cats, etc)....and the same happens in reverse with animals who became domesticated.

Invasive species are not something to be played with, as they're so unpredictable and a wild card.

If that has occurred with species in our local areas, then what will occur with extinct species whom we often have no idea what will happen - especially seeing that the ones developing via cloning may react differently to environments that've changed from what they used to be?

So I find myself against it. Legal in the eyes of God? Sure. Wise? I think not

Makes sense.

 

[Assyrian]

Why would mammoths be loose in the sewers of New York? Mabye in the park...

Thought it'd make a nice change from the alligators in NY sewers of urban legend.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thought it'd make a nice change from the alligators in NY sewers of urban legend.

I could see it happening more so with some extinct species of alligators (like Sarcosuchus or Super-Croc - deadly as they are ) rather than working with a Mammoth..

Deinosuchus vs Sarcosuchus​

Deinosuchus, supercroc !

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't see the point of cloning long-extinct animals. So many modern species are at risk of extinction - why not focus them instead of wasting time reviving animals which have already had their time on Earth? Where would we put them anyway?

 

[ChetSinger]

Where would we put them anyway?

In zoos to be gawked at. But we'd underestimate their strength, and they'd break out of their cages at night, and they'd be evil, and hungry, and <cue ponderous movie music>

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't see the point of cloning long-extinct animals. So many modern species are at risk of extinction - why not focus them instead of wasting time reviving animals which have already had their time on Earth? Where would we put them anyway?

It does make a difference when considering the ways animal species are destroyed in the process of what we do today...AND whether or not man was meant to make more species come back from the dead when we already harm what's present.


In example, was saddened last year (at least one of the stories on it) to learn on how a species of rhino was wiped out recently:

• Western Black Rhino declared extinct - World news - World environment | NBC News

For another example, the fish are feeling it very hard lately, as the plight of the world's fish supply due to overfishing is already clear. Now fish stocks face another pressure as fish will shrink up to a quarter by 2050 as a result of climate change, according to a new study. The findings, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, were based on a computer projection "to see how fish would react to lower levels of oxygen in the water," Matt McGrath at BBC News writes. One can read more in Climate Change Will Shrink Fish Size - Business Insider. Setting the stage for man to kill himself in multiple ways (death by a thousand cuts) when it comes to being wasteful with the environment.

Some of the things that man has done toward the world are not surprising....as man often tends to do things in ways that damage him in the end due to how he has yet to learn how to take care of his neighbor - and when desperation sets in, so does bad behavior. This can be see, for example, in MANY nations in Asia where the economy is struggling due to exploitation and impoverishment/neglect of others --the evidence of this seen in many of the trades they allow/support there which are apart of the Black Market/Underworld dealings others turn to for survival.

Smuggling wildlife is one of those things.....as it is one of the top industries in the world---a sympton of the black market and organized crime....and in many ways, a rape of the natural world due to the bad economies of certain Asian nations. Some of these animals are killed for traditional medicines as well as for food...sometimes, exotic foods. And others are simply killed for the sake of decorations, as is the case with the massive eradication of elephants for their ivory tusks. ....with many of them used in Catholic churches. Shocked me seeing the ways that even believers were involved in the massive slaughter. Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma said the Catholic Church does not condone killing animals to make their parts into religious items, like taking the tusks of elephants and carving these into ivory statues.

Was reading on that at home last year when considering the poaching of elephants, smuggling of elephant tusks and the illegal trade of ivory worldwide that were highlighted in a recent National Geographic article, “Blood Ivory” subtitled “Ivory Worship” written by Bryan Christy. ..with a priest in the Philippines being involved in a controversy over the issue of illegal trade for making religious items (more discussed here). Despite global ivory ban, global ivory ban, tusks are carved into Jesuses, prayer beads, and amulets.

​

In an interview, the author of the piece, Bryan Christy, said it’s up to religious leaders to end this practice:

… “the leader of the Catholic Church have an extraordinary opportunity to make a difference to the survival of elephants. Few words to them: enough with the religious icons in ivory.”

​

National Geographic:-Wild-Blood Ivory Smugglers

Contraband that failed to get past Kenya’s law enforcement agencies (Brent Stirton – National​

And for more info on the issue, one can go online/consider investigating the following under their respective titles:

• "Asia's Wildlife Trade >> National Geographic Magazine" ( )
• Elephant Ivory Poaching - National Geographic Magazine
• Ivory Worship - Photo Gallery - National Geographic Magazine
• “Blood Ivory” in the Philippines - News Watch - National Geographic
• "Wildlife Smuggling: Why Does Wildlife Crime Reporting Suck? (PHOTOS) " ( c)
• "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity By Ronald J. Sider" )
• "Asia Being Plundered of its Wildlife through Organized Crime to Fuel Multi-Billion Dollar Industries" ( )

What saddens me more, however, is to see the responses of Believers. For many have an eschatological view that the world is dying/on its way to Hell..and therefore, when the Lord comes to rapture us out of it, He'll bring judgement. In their views, there is no point for man to try and make a difference.

For others, their viewpoint is that nature was meant to be subjected to MAN's dominion.......which in their minds equates to man having DOMINATION of nature and allowed to do whatever he desires. For myself, I cannot see that due to how the Lord seemed to have Adam/Eve in the garden caring for it-----as Genesis 2 makes clear

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
​

From what I've been able to see in the scriptures, there were many cases where the Lord was angry at the ways in which man seemed to be flippant with his creation since the Lord noted how he sustained it----and it was a reflection of His glory......essentially meaning that defaming creation for its own sake was akin to a person defamining a masterpiece. Although I understand that man was given dominion, I've never been under the mindset that scripture meant to say that man was meant to abuse nature.


If man cannot understand what it means to be a steward of Creation, it makes NO sense for men to be focused on bringing back extinct species since they may end up sharing the same fate that got so many other creatures killed.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In zoos to be gawked at. But we'd underestimate their strength, and they'd break out of their cages at night, and they'd be evil, and hungry, and <cue ponderous movie music>

Truthfully, if we're not careful, I could imagine some breaking out and doing damage to the world. If you recall the work by Michael Criton "\Jurrassic Park, I love what Ian Malcolm noted early on before things got out of hand - as Malcolm, having been consulted before the park's creation, was especially emphatic in his prediction that the park would collapse, as it was an unsustainable simple structure bluntly forced upon a complex system..and highly unpredictable.

One of the best scenes ever from the movie adaptation of the bookr:

Jurassic Park - Lunch - Great Scenes​

The entire background dynamic of what occurred was very much an issue of discussing how EVOLUTION of species should be seen - and what happens if it is not respected. For it was brilliant how the scientists were so confident of themselves in breeding the extinct dinosaurs with limitations (and using frog DNA to fill in the codes) that they never considered how using frog DNA to fill gaps in the dinosaurs' genetic code enabled a measure of dichogamy, in which some of the female animals changed into males in response to the all-female environment. As Ian Malcolm predicted well, "Life Finds a way"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In zoos to be gawked at. But we'd underestimate their strength, and they'd break out of their cages at night, and they'd be evil, and hungry, and <cue ponderous movie music>

Truthfully,

I am a bit disturbed by some of the developments man has been doing - even apart from using cloning in order to recreate extinct species. For in trying to bring certain things back, there does not seem to be an understanding of the damage that could entail.

If you recall the thread that happened some time back where on asking if dinosaurs were related to chickens, I was shocked to see how far others would go to bring things back from previous ages. For reverse engineering techniques have been done to engineer embryos and bodies of chickens where certain traits dormant were brought out - from longer arms to teeth and other characteristics from dinosaur era.

For more:

• How to Hatch a Dinosaur | Wired Magazine | Wired.com

https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/h...lse&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.1.1.0</DIV>

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken​

It seems that man is playing some dangerous games - and I can easily forsee a reality like the one discussed in "Planet of the Apes" (as shared before here from previous discussions on man/apes and evolution) where man self-destructed because he failed to remember his role in the way nature develops.

Then again, if believing in Theistic Evolution, perhaps it is the case that man is right on track with his abilities in genetics and needs to continue re-focusing on how they use it.

 

[ChetSinger]

Truthfully, if we're not careful...

Truthfully, I am a bit disturbed...

OK, I'll be serious again. I figure that re-introducing extinct animals into the biosphere would be initially successful, but we'd eventually find ourselves dealing with unforeseen complications.

I think it's a common pattern, illustrated by examples like these:

• We introduce antibiotics, save many lives, but decades later find ourselves battling resistant strains.
• We introduce attractive foreign lifeforms into a local biosphere, like English sparrows, but decades later battle their great numbers.
• We build a dam, enjoy cheap electrical power, but decades later find that local salmon are dying out.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

OK, I'll be serious again.

The jokes are fine, as I found it funny what you said. I just got back quickly to dealing with the OP

I figure that re-introducing extinct animals into the biosphere would be initially successful, but we'd eventually find ourselves dealing with unforeseen complications.

I think it's a common pattern, illustrated by examples like these:

• We introduce antibiotics, save many lives, but decades later find ourselves battling resistant strains.
• We introduce attractive foreign lifeforms into a local biosphere, like English sparrows, but decades later battle their great numbers.
• We build a dam, enjoy cheap electrical power, but decades later find that local salmon are dying out.

You can never really predict things truthfully when it's not natural...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

God is in control..

 

[SkyWriting]

Moroever, what factors - good or bad - could you see happening as a result of this in man's development?

Cloning has no special properties. It may be an insult to those
who worship evolution as savior, but evolution and natural
selection are not God so interfering with the "natural order"
with cloning is no more an insult to God than you taking an aspirin.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Cloning has no special properties. It may be an insult to those
who worship evolution as savior, but evolution and natural
selection are not God so interfering with the "natural order"
with cloning is no more an insult to God than you taking an aspirin.

When animal abuse occurs, that is an insult to the Lord - and with cloned animals harmed by the process, I don't see how God would wink at that....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Bringing back extinct Animals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWZv-BdpTaw

 

[SkyWriting]

When animal abuse occurs, that is an insult to the Lord - and with cloned animals harmed by the process, I don't see how God would wink at that....

I don't see any links to scripture so I'm going to assume that
your thoughts are not Gods and you don't know if He's winking
or what He winks at. As for how you would see Him winking,
I'm at a loss for that as well. God winks at my neighbors in
West Bends WI where they make pressure cookers.
He lets them attend His church even. Others in my state
make nails and ball bearings.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't see any links to scripture so I'm going to assume that
your thoughts are not Gods and you don't know if He's winking
or what He winks at. . As for how you would see Him winking,
I'm at a loss for that as well. God winks at my neighbors in
West Bends WI where they make pressure cookers.
He lets them attend His church even. Others in my state
make nails and ball bearings
.

Nothing said there deals with scripture (nor does one assume thoughts are not from scripture without actually being responsible in STUDYING scripture first to see if what's said doesn't line up with it..Proverbs 18:13.....and it isn't difficult if doing basic review ...from Proverbs 12:10 which says "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel" to many others) - and thus, it's assumed you really have no understanding on what scripture says when it has often spoken directly on the issue on environmental stewardship and not abusing creation (and such was already talked on).

Seriously, one has little room talking on others not knowing if God winks or not when they haven't dealt with what God made clear in scripture he DIDN'T wink act with disrespecting nature (more shared in #47 as stated before - and the same shared in #34 was referenced earlier when it came to going through scripture/seeing what it says on stewardship/animals having souls ). It's best to either deal with the Word/don't divert from it when it comes to animals/cruelty and what can come about from cloning...or take it elsewhere when it comes to not addressing it. The OP is dealing with what scripture says on respecting nature, cloning and whether or not it should be done. Scripture was already given...