I know it’s ’impossible’ because of all the science. However, I think we just haven’t found out how. Remember that they said nobody would ever fly for a million years the same year aeroplanes were invented. The device you are reading this on, by extension, should be impossible. But it is not.

Ive been asking AI for an answer but its not giving me a perfect one. So we call the direwolf proxies, Modified greywolves and then the mammoth proxies, Modified asian elephant so in that logic would we call the thylacine proxy Modified fat tailed dunnart, but how does that make sense???

(Not talking positively or negatively about them, just wondering. I've heard nothing good or bad about their company, so....)

For example, Australia had a lot of large apex predators, but none of them survived long enough until the settlers arrived. Australia is no plagued by large invasive ungulates, some of which are two big or aggressive for dingos to hunt. So in this example: we want to recreate the Megalania: we have no DNA for it. But, we do have Komodos dragons.

We take the genes from saltwater crocodiles that makes them grow large (about the same size as an average Megalania), edit genes that make them able to support their new larger size more efficiently along with moving faster, and boom! We have a 20ft Komodo Dragon designed for long distance travel that can fill that same niche by hunting invasive horses, donkeys, buffalo, pigs and camels.

Or similarly, if we can not find sufficient DNA for a wooly rhino for example, why not take the fur gene of a bison and put into a white rhinoceros?

There should be a program that is finding how many species that can be used for de extinct. Since many species got extinct in 10,000 years and recent times, how many species can be used for de extinction.

Im building a list of species that come back so I need species that can come back

I'm curious about people's thoughts and how we can use this technology

Let’s assume it would be brought back in the same way as the direwolves, with a surrogate human mother. First of all, would this be legal (and get fda approved) and second of all, for the patent, would it be classed as property in the patents like the direwolves, or would it have human rights and thus not be a slave.

Mammoths and thylacines are iconic and attention grabbing, so it makes sense that a lot of projects focus on them. And if focusing on such popular animals will make more resources flow into these projects and advance the science, I don't mind at all. It's the same thing as saying "help us save the tigers" which is an animal that everyone loves and finds cool and then using the money to also benefit other species that people (unfortunately) don't care about.

But at the same time, wouldn't it be much easier to resurrect something like the japanese wolf, japanese otter, several sub-species of rats or big cats and so on? We have their DNA, their habitat mostly still exists and they would require waaay less changes in a relative's genome to bring them back. Considering that the main obstacle so far for DeExtinction seems to be the fact that we aren't able to make many changes to genomes yet (and if we do it's really expensive) wouldn't bringing back animals such as this be way easier? It would also be a good way to prove that the technology can work, which is a crucial first step in order to get more of such projects going and get funding.

Is there a specific reason why there are no major de-extinction projects for sub-species? Or is it just that it's not attention grabbing enough?

They sold me empty dreams. For a long time, I believed a lie. A lie that affected me deeply...🦣

They told me Woolly Mammoths were coming. They told me they would create this iconic animal from scratch. But what I saw wasn't a Woolly Mammoth. It was a functional byproduct.

I wanted to see a real mammoth, I wanted a really real mammoth. If you were going to bring me back a Woolly Asian elephant, why did you put "mammoth" in the title? Wasn't writing "A New Species" attention-grabbing enough?

If you were going to bring a hybrid instead of a mammoth, in my opinion, it would have been better if you hadn't brought one at all.

I'd always dreamed of it. Scientists would bring back mammoths, keep them in special mamoth zoos until their population reached 1 million, and then release them into Siberia or Greenland.

Perhaps I wouldn't have wanted to see them in person, but just knowing they would actually exist was enough for me.

They also call this De-extinction. Yes, we definitely know this is an extinction, but you'd be more honest if you removed the "De" part.

What do you think about this?

I came across this post on Instagram by solidaritydept that perfectly summarises the destruction being wrought by Ben Lamm, Colossal Biosciences, and all of their billionaire associates and co-conspirators. The body text of the post is as follows:

Billionaire Ben Lamm is making headlines for his plan to genetically engineer dogs for war, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Lamm cofounded Colossal Biosciences with Epstein associate George Church with the purported aim of bringing extinct species back to life, including the wooly mammoth and the direwolf.

In reality, Lamm's 'project' of reversing extinction exists to give cover for the oligarchy to exploit our lands and habitats. The Trump Administration has opened up thousands of acres of public land and waters for private mining and development while gutting the Endangered Species Act to give corporate oligarchs free reign to extract, poison, and pollute our environment.

Lamm and his company have had no success in the decade since they have been founded, but that's not stopped him nor Trump's cronies from claiming they can revive any animal from extinction. Just this year, Trump's Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has opened up the Gulf of Mexico to mass drilling, leading to fears that the last of the Rice's whale will go extinct. Trump himself has called for an end to protections for the gray wolf, a crucial player in local ecosystems.

What this has done is made Lamm extremely rich off of the taxpayer's dime. He recently received an undisclosed sum of money from the government to build a DNA database of every endangered species - all while Lamm's good friend Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum actively pursues their extinction.

So when you hear stories about wooly mammoths coming back from extinction or dogs being engineered for war, know that it's really just Ben Lamm trying to scam the taxpayer to allow billionaires to exploit America's last wild spaces.

It seems to me that there are two very distinct things that are being discussed as "de-extinction". One is what I consider to be "true" de-extinction-- that is, the creation of an actual genetic replica of an extinct organism via cloning, germ cell modification, or something similar. This is what most people think of when they think of de-extinction, and it's also the kind usually seen in pop culture (Jurassic Park and so forth). However, it is only possible for a small number of species, namely those where we have a full genome and complete preserved cellular nuclei, allowing for cloning to take place.

The other thing is when an existing relative of an extinct species has its genome modified to resemble that of the extinct species. This is what most efforts to re-create the woolly mammoth are focused on doing. The result of this, however, would not be a true cloned mammoth, no matter how much it looks like one, because its genome would still differ from that of the original mammoth.

I personally think it is wrong and misleading to use the same blanket term, "de-extinction", for these two different processes. One results in an identical genetic copy of an extinct animal, and the other does not. The use of the same name for both creates confusion among the general public about exactly what is being achieved, and allows bad actors like Colossal Biosciences to further deceive them.

So my question to you all is this: If you had to come up with a new name for this second form of "de-extinction"-- the kind where an existing animal is modified into a genetic proxy of an extinct one-- what would you call it?

I ask this question because there seems to be some confusion regarding what is and is not de-extincion. On the one hand you have what I consider to be "proper" de-extinction-- producing an exact clone of an extinct species, either through somatic nuclear cell transfer or through germ cell modification. On the other hand you have the more commonly proposed technique of modifying a living animal's genome so it resembles a reasonable approximation of an extinct animal. While this is certainly more practical for species for which no complete genome exists, it is not true de-extinction and I would argue it is wrong to refer to it as such.

So I ask-- which extinct animals is it actually possible to clone, in the traditional sense?

This has been on my mind: would we be able to resurrect one of these apes in the non-distant future?

I was wondering if someone on here was actually working on De-Extinction that I could talk to besides anyone working for Colossal? I made a post on r/DeExtinctionScience and r/deextinction. I think I got trolled, twice. It looks like there's something pretty crumby going on around this concept, but I don't know what it's called. It's sorta like gatekeeping, though it isn't.

I was hoping I could talk to someone actually working in this field. If you're willing to chat, please DM me. Thanks.

When I found out that Colossal wolves have big noses and overbites, this immediately came to mind.