Replies

Seems pretty silly to me that most of these scientists probably believe in evolution, yet aren't willing to leave its supposed results alone.

Just because scientists believe in evolution does not mean they cannot tamper with the results.

They don't know the temperment of these creatures, but they're willing to risk human lives to revive a species that no longer fits the planet in its present state.

I would have to say that the risks to humans is probably quite small.

How illogical and wasteful is that?

Scientific progress has never been constrained by fear of risk. Throughout history great men have taken monumental risks in the name of science. There's nothing illogical about it. To be able to successfully clone extinct species of complex, multicellular organisms would be a scientific breakthrough of the highest order.

As far as wasteful? See my post# 124.

I would have to say that the risks to humans is probably quite small.

And when they recreate a carnivorous dinosaur that's larger than today's largest land carnivore? How will these animals be treated when they become ill or injured, particularly the larger, more aggressive ones?

Well, of course it would be a scientific breakthrough but to what end? To bring back a species to conditions unnatural to it? What natural science will we learn from creatures who have no natural parents or background to learn from?

As far as wasteful? See my post# 124..

I saw it. There are plenty of other scientific endeavors aside from AIDS that require funding. Non-embryonic stem cell research comes to mind. On the zoological side, what about the creatures that are presently in the lowest depths of the ocean? Why are we more interested in extinct species, rather than in discovering present-day species? Perhaps even species only thought to be extinct?

I'm not against scientific progress. I just think we need to carefully consider that just because we can do something doesn't always mean that we should. Knowledge is only as good as the wisdom that applies it.