> dodos like a dodo This is the part that's sticky. We can't test against a reference implementation, so the only comparison we can make is to a relative handf

> dodos like a dodo This is the part that's sticky. We can't test against a reference implementation, so the only comparison we can make is to a relative handful of 16th- and 17th-century observations. This is a bird, for example, where there is apparently only a single written description of its nest. It would be difficult to make a convincing argument that we know enough about the dodo to assert the behaviors of the new animal aren't just coming from whatever animal they use to make the filler DNA (the pigeon?). > is it a dodo? I mean, it would seem like it is not, even with a fairly generous definition. I don't know that philosophy needs to enter the picture given that the process itself (as I understand it) can't (intentionally) produce an animal that could reasonably have been the offspring of any of the dodos that more recently lived. > how much actual dodo DNA I'm struck here by the comparison between human and chimp or bonobo DNA (edit: the comparison is that we share something like 98% of our DNA with those species). We need basically all of it to land on a specific species. (I'm assuming they don't have nearly 100% or they would presumably use a process more similar to cloning.)