4 ms·

Hopefully they have a DNA sample somewhere. What a shame.

worldsayshi 5y ago
I was just thinking, are there any initiatives in long term DNA storage of extinct or endangered species? Then there might at least be a chance to bring them back one day?
- Someone 5y ago
  Long term DNA storage can be done digitally. I doubt DNA alone will be enough, though. Mothers provide proteins and messenger RNA to their offspring, and the young may learn crucial skills from their parents. If you put mammoth DNA in an elephant egg, you may get something that looks like a mammoth, but will it ever behave like one?
plank_time 5y ago
One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate which would create too many bad genetic problems from bad genes.
- _Microft 5y ago
  Even hundreds or thousand of samples of a species would most likely still be an enormous genetic bottleneck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    There are numerous vertebrate species with only a few thousand (or fewer) extant members. Many have been greatly reduced over the 20th century, some have been on a long decline before that. Some have been small / relict / outlier populations for much or all of human history. Whether this means the bottleneck hypothesis is overstated, or that we're looking at a tremendous number of bottlenecks, isn't clear.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      The reproductive strategy of a species also matters. Species that produce hundreds or thousands of young (and then winnow down to the survivors) are better at quickly "breeding out" genetic flaws (if 50% of the young die, it's not a big deal), and have an easier time recovering from population bottlenecks. Vs large mammals where raising one genetically-hobbled offspring (who then dies, or fails to reproduce) is a huge loss to the potential of the species.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        r/K selection theory, for the interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
- fouc 5y ago
  All that really means is that the offspring with bad genes might die sooner, but if population growth keeps up then eventually there'll be enough variety.
pvaldes 5y ago
We can't clone a second Yang Tse River.

I was just thinking, are there any initiatives in long term DNA storage of extinct or endangered species? Then there might at least be a chance to bring them back one day?

Someone 5y ago
Long term DNA storage can be done digitally. I doubt DNA alone will be enough, though. Mothers provide proteins and messenger RNA to their offspring, and the young may learn crucial skills from their parents. If you put mammoth DNA in an elephant egg, you may get something that looks like a mammoth, but will it ever behave like one?

plank_time 5y ago

One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate which would create too many bad genetic problems from bad genes.

_Microft 5y ago
Even hundreds or thousand of samples of a species would most likely still be an enormous genetic bottleneck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  There are numerous vertebrate species with only a few thousand (or fewer) extant members. Many have been greatly reduced over the 20th century, some have been on a long decline before that. Some have been small / relict / outlier populations for much or all of human history. Whether this means the bottleneck hypothesis is overstated, or that we're looking at a tremendous number of bottlenecks, isn't clear.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The reproductive strategy of a species also matters. Species that produce hundreds or thousands of young (and then winnow down to the survivors) are better at quickly "breeding out" genetic flaws (if 50% of the young die, it's not a big deal), and have an easier time recovering from population bottlenecks. Vs large mammals where raising one genetically-hobbled offspring (who then dies, or fails to reproduce) is a huge loss to the potential of the species.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      r/K selection theory, for the interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
fouc 5y ago
All that really means is that the offspring with bad genes might die sooner, but if population growth keeps up then eventually there'll be enough variety.

pvaldes 5y ago

We can't clone a second Yang Tse River.