Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!kuento
From: kuento@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: baby dodo
Message-ID: <26930.27415d0b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 90 20:04:43 GMT
References: <1990Nov14.005513.28666@massey.ac.nz>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 26

In article <1990Nov14.005513.28666@massey.ac.nz>, A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:
> My question is why is it not possible to recreate extinct animals?
> 
> In the case where only dry bits remain (the bones of Australopithecus or the dry skin of the Dodo or Moa or Passenger Pigeon),  are there
> active or recoverable strands of DNA which could be comparably
> removed and implanted into a living ovum?
> 
> arnold
> new zealand

They're working on it! I know of some published analyses of bits and
pieces of genetic material from extinct plants/animals...the problem
with "reconstruction", however is just that: all we can get are bits
and pieces. In order to *truly* reconstruct a critter, we'd need to
get all the chromosomes, with all the genes, all in their proper
arrangements...I hate to be a naysayer, but I just don't see how we'll
ever be lucky enough to get such a complete genetic package for any
long-dead organisms. The frozen mammoths seem to be the best bet for
a near-complete set, and it wouldn't surprise me to see someone raise
a baby quasi-mammoth in the next 10 years or so (i.e., a baby elephant
carrying some mammoth genes), but I can't imagine much beyond that
sort of scenario. Too bad, indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Yanega        (Snow Museum, Univ. of KS, Lawrence, KS 66045)
My card: 0 The Fool         "UT!"          Bitnet: kuento@ukanvax
"This is my theory, such as it is....which is mine. AAH-HEM!"