DNA from an extinct tiger species lives... in a mouse

Tasmanian tigers aren't really tigers. But still cool!

it begs the question how dna screams creationism and predetermined design when all the instructions for an outrageously astronimical range of known creatures past and present fits neatly for every one on the head of a pin. But it's useless unless specific molecular machines in a predefined environment are already present to build on it...don't we normally use intelligence for real world problems like that??? Solutions are not always immediately evident and many times much trial and error are not known until it's too late. Evolution doesn't have much room for error to get things right so it all had to happen by chance perfectly the first time =P lol it's too ridiculous to contemplate...sorry to digress...

Them bible bangers are gonna be pissed off about this one.

But i do agree with echoz. It is wrong screwing with mother nature.

and now Australia's newest attraction... "Jurassic Park."

Echoz it is clear you understand nothing about genetics!

such presumption Ross' ...heh. Have we ever met? genetics indeed is very complex and technical (such that I believe that random blind acts of time, chance and the inherent properties of matter could not possibly be responsible for that extreme complexity specificity we find even in the simplest building blocks of life); and I agree that my knowledge is quite limited but I do grasp theory....even evolutionary.

evolution, to be true in explaining the origin of completely new "never before seen" species and creatures, demands an increase not only in the quantity but the quality of genetic information; and mutation-selection, no matter how long you wait (if you want Time to prove your case for you, you're better off buying the magazine) cannot provide it. we are in an obvious state of genetic decay, often generally referred to and generally accepted as genetic load or burden, (and Time, evolution's god-hero only makes this worse steadily increasing that very genetic corruption through mutations over more and more time through future generations)....and obvious to anyone is the fact that there are no new spawns of entirely different creatures. rather extinction, instead we find, is very real.

mutation and selection are very real also of course, but they do not produce changes required by evolutionary standards necessary to explain the origin of species. mutations being no real help, are rather, ironically, great for explaining the origin of disease, disease organisms, and birth defects. Natural selection is no real help explaining *entirely *new *species either, but it's great for explaining *how and *where different specialized sub-types of already existent life got around; again not to be mistaken as the spawning of new never-before-seen creatures to grace the earth through the miracle of time and blind unintelligent chance

Genetics? the evidence has done nothing but force evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection in providing any basis or mechanism for the dramatic changes evolution claims. A theory without a proven mechanism is still just a theory among others; and not entirely fact as is presupposed today by giddy atheist wannabe's. and just because you want to, or have been indoctrinated, or otherwised trained what to think on this subject, won't make it any less so. so save your passion for someone who believes it, and your scorn for someone who might be discouraged enough to give up the pursuit of truth for the comforts of prejudice. Hint: It's not me.

There will always be missing "links" and the greater the boasts and claims for evolution it seems, the greater the gaps, in an as yet controversial and largely (embarrassingly) unproven theory that has many already to deal with, even on microscopic scale. So, believe what you want. And I'll try to take it for just what it is, in my own humble view, as well, which unfortunately does not include evolution (I think there's a greater chance Michael Angelo could have painted the frescos of the Sistine Chapel totally blindfolded the entire time) but...perhaps somewhere we'll meet in the middle =)

Thanks.

"supposedly" is right, thank you. hey, nice point about man's overhunting. It doesn't really negate the fact/problem of extinction however, and the fact that the gene pool is "shrinking" even by extinction as much as genetic decay. ...you seem to be under the impression the taz is coming back soon somehow too, but it's not.

to the misleading information of the link you present: the interesting thing about DNA is that all the information is *already* there, literally built-in, it pre-exists somehow without anyone knowing anything how it got there...literally a blueprint for biological construction, a set of plans. I mention that because I find it literally amazing. (who makes blueprints if you only care about random chance, if you blindly or randomly don't care *how* anything comes together? ala "evolution") it's far-fetched and requires more faith than I'm willing to give it. It certainly doesn't explain the mystery and wonder of DNA...there is even error-correction that goes on. To me it's hard to deny that pre-supposes intelligence, and hardly chance or blind luck for all the variety of life that uses DNA blueprints. Does anything that live NOT have DNA??? ...there used to be a saying that an apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

here's a "crucial" fact: evolution still has to "prove" there is a legitimate mechanism to increase genome information in quantity and quality. Looking at that the alleged "evidence" of that link, you can easily see that the mutation-selection is merely of variation within kind--like different breeds of dogs but they're still dogs...NOT entirely and completely radically new species and creatures we've never seen before, which is what evolution claims to be and do. Randomly. By chance. With absolutely no intelligence...

I don't think it's ok that we're creating massive extinction rates by our practices, but I also don't really think we should be screwing around with sh*t we don't fully understand. Here we are splicing genes into our food and from one organism to another, and no matter what the intentions behind it are, I can't help but feel like its going around with a big gun wearing a blindfold, you know?

If we would stop trying to help all of those we have screwed over and helped ourselves instead (by learning to live in a more sustainable, non-impact way), we wouldn't be doing the very things that are creating the mass extinctions in the first place...

lets clone one of these bad boys and then some dinosaurs. jurrasic park is coming

wow. thank you Kati_kat for bringing up those additional "extinction-en-mass" issues. We hear scientists often talk about a "finely-tuned universe" that honestly doesn't leave virtually any room for the kind of error time and chance would certainly need to "blindly" come up with similar frankensteinish possibilities. It should be fairly obvious there is an already-established balance of nature that, once disturbed, isn't likely to improve anything as much as to destroy life as we know to enjoy it...hence obviously logical conservation efforts. because, theories aside, if there's anything many of us more truly believe, extinction and disease and death are more relevant and true to life today than any impact evolution would even pretend to make, otherwise we might be worrying if the next generation of super-powered klingons was going to be more friendly than the last. =) It would at least definitely seem no amount of assumed environmental pressures via natural selection or mutation is going to evolve any surviving "adapting" organism to any truly "new creature" status...instead, very simply, the response to changing environments is not even enough adaptation or supermutation to account for any completely new entirely different species, as from molecules to man or fish to frogs...

YO someone give echoz an award please i just gained a new outlook on subject that i was a little confused about and really! do you um? so...
Hey echoz did you go to college?

it's absolutely fascinating isn't it. glad you share an interest in something we're all very interested to know a lot more about 'wisper'...

awesome . i'm hoping to have a pet caveman one day .

First they kill the species off,By killing it's enviorment's,then when they figured out they did bad...they wanna make it up..By playing god...Why?Why?Why?...It's great and all that they wanna bring back these animal's that where killed off by people in the first place,Either by enviormental problems or by human's moving into there habitat or Evil poachers who sell there body part's or fur as useless souviners...WoWzErS..What a world HuH..

Echoz, you talk about "Adapting" and "New Creatures" like they'll come around the perverbial corner any minute now.

Evolution takes time, and it sure as hell isn't always right, but it is a scientificly proven process. There is no real argument that holds any weight against evolution that I've heard.

So if creatures haven't evolved, they were created by who knows who, why do many whales have a pelvis and vestigal leg bones? Why do dandilions, who reproduce without fertalization, id est: cloning themselfs, have the proper organs (pistil and stamen) for sexual reproduction?

Only females exist in several species of the genus Cnemidophorus. They reproduce through parthenogenisis, which is to say that the egg is able to develope without a male's sperm. But they still attempt to mate with eachother. You heard right, lesbian lizards. This is an example of mating behavior that no longer has any use, seeing as the lizards evolved to be a uni-sex species.

If you take a close look at animals and plants, you can see that they where not designed by a creator, but evolved. Evolution is far from an exact science that people make it out to be. It is a messy, confusing, and sometimes flawed process of minor mutations and small changes. And not everything evolution does is benificial to the animal or plant in which it takes place.

Totally Creepy. Did anyone else read "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood?

Weird. This seems a bit to "Brave New World" for my liking.

It's alive, its alive!!!!!

It provokes a deep moral response but in what way is bringing a species back worse than destroying thousands of species willfully or unintentionaly with our impact on the environment?

I still don't see anything wrong with bringing back a species that we, as a species, wiped out not even a century ago.

And I, personally, think it'd be damned interesting to see the possible mutant species produced...but we don't have to worry about that, since they'd likely be killed before being...er..."born."

But none of that is going to happen anytime soon, so writing it off just because "we don't know" is silly.
We Must Know.

with opinions like echoz im glad his not the one at the forefront of human advancement hehe just my opinion :D

It's so frigin cute!

I disagree with people saying that this is wrong.
The extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger (or Thylacine) in 1933 was anthropogenic. The possibility of bringing it back someday would almost be a way to morally better ourselves and reverse the damage caused in the past, and present. And if it works, we can apply it to save all endangered species, and even some of the (human-caused) extinct ones!

Thats a titillating thought....I hope (am sure) we will get to see this in our lifetime.

So where is this Taz Tig gonna call home or any other speices we made extinct. I'll tell you where; in farms for their furs, ivory, skin, and food! that's where. You know them bigwigs are already thinking of products to sell.

All in all though that pic along with the ability to clone is pretty amazing. Could be dangerous, but still amazing.

Next up! DNA from that dinosaur named Leonardo and others like it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1010_02...

Damn Ziur! So cynical!
Usually cynicism is realistic, but methinks this particular animal would have so much attention on its small population that breeding-for-furs wouldn't go down without one hell of an international outcry/ outright ban.

And that's just after it becomes "public property."

public property, ain't that right. Or they will just do what I said with the excuse of "feeding and funding" for the animal's survival and then we will all be on Current voicing our disgust on those actions. lol