Extinct: no longer in existence?

[EdEarl]

Since Craig Venter announced the creation of

" or after an

, has/will the meaning of an extinct species change? In one sense extinct means no longer living, but if the genome exists is the species really extinct? If we continue to use the term extinct species to mean not currently living on the Earth, do we need another classification for reversibly-extinct species?

 

The reason for this question is its relevance to conservation including laws governing threatened and endangered species. The snail darter controversy is an example of a legal action on behalf of an endangered species that was time consuming and expensive. Snail darters were moved to another river and reclassified as threatened instead of endangered, and a damn was built. The ability to save or create DNA and revive extinct species potentially changes the legal remedies in similar cases.

 

What do you think?

 

Moderator: Please move this post if another forum is better, e.g., philosophy, politics or speculations.

Edited June 27, 2013 by EdEarl

[CharonY]

a) Craig Venter still did not create synthetic live b) introducing DNA of extinct species was not really successful so far (i.e. the clones died rather prematurely).

 

At this point saving DNA and use it to revive species is not more than a speculation. Of course, it may be that in future the process will be optimized. There are several limitations, however. The first is that you will have a collection with sufficient genetic diversity and also store these samples. That is going to be very costly. Second, you will have to clone and implant the organisms (or otherwise have them develop). Depending on species that again is likely to be a very costly process, especially if you want to create a viable population. Finally, you need compatible host cells, though I assume that most animals and plants have sufficiently close relatives to harvest (but may not be true in all cases).

[EdEarl]

a) Craig Venter still did not create synthetic live b) introducing DNA of extinct species was not really successful so far (i.e. the clones died rather prematurely).

a) Venter did not claim abiogenesis. "Synthetic life" are his words.

b) Article about the trial to recover an extinct species. TY CharonY.

[CharonY]

I know what Venter claimed and note that i did not mention abiogenesis either. I object to the synthetic life as he essentially just removed DNA from a cell and introduced DNA that, while artificially produced, holds the same (albeit reduced) sequence of the organism it was taken from. He did a couple of variations but essentially he introduced DNA into a cell, which does not make it a synthetic lifeform (at least not much more than all the mutant strains created to date).

Edited June 27, 2013 by CharonY