Helius Infinitus -- Agreed: The Epigenetic role, where methyl tags squeeze or release genes to modulate expression based on environmental influence certainly has a role. BUT, Mr. SocietyofGeeks didn't really delve in to making this a medical explanation. I loved it. To discuss epigenetics for you and others... I'll post a reply here and above: Due to the caste system in India, populations anyone who seems they could be Vysya, are asked as a matter of routine, by anesthesiologists. The standard drugs would kill them. Boys who had experienced a “feast” immediately pre-puberty, when their sperm cells are maturing ... died on average six years earlier than the grandsons of Överkalix boys who had been exposed to a famine season during the same pre-puberty window, and often of diabetes. When a statistical model controlled for socioeconomic factors, the difference in lifespan became 32 years, all dependent simply on whether a boy’s grandfather had experienced one single season of starvation or gluttony just before puberty. It appeared that Överkalix grandfathers were somehow passing down brief but important childhood experiences to their grandsons. Bygren knew such a suggestion would be heretical. Though I focused on the male reproductive system, the female reproductive system is subject to insult as well ... women whom, as a fetus were subjected to hypo caloric states, had an impact on THEIR children, generations removed Lars Bygren, a Swedish health researcher from Överkalix -- had access to a WEALTH of data, the interest of having chosen the field, and the ability to trace his ancestors, in detail -- back to 1475. What researcher armed with such records could resist!? (The SHIT poor Kepler put up with from Tycho Brahe -- to get his research. But look at all the laws Kepler provided for us!!? ) They kept records of birth, death, and agricultural yields for perhaps 1000 years. He drilled down on the data. Simply put: Group A: Effect on the male reproductive system of adequate calories immediately preceding puberty. DIED 3 years below the groups mean; 6 years earlier than those calorie restricted, of heart disease. Group B: Effect on the male reproductive system of caloric deficit immediately preceding puberty. Lived 3 years longer than the avg.; 6 years longer the well fed group; but instead died of diabetes. Another study: 5,451 smokers with 166 pre-pubescent smokers. Those who smoked PREpubescently -- had children who're fatter, even when compared to, EVEN when compared to children of men who habitually smoked. They started smoking AFTER puberty. MALE GROUP (A) ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI (B) (B)(C)Distinction... (B): IMMEDIATELY [PRE] PUBERTY (C) ENGAGED IN (B) POST PUBESCENT (D) GENERATION EFFECTED. (E) CORRELATION (IDK the mechanistic cause) 1. (A) FAMINE (B)YES (C)NO (D)Grand-Children. (E) Avg AGE + 3yrs (HEART FAILURE) 2. (A) FAMINE (B)NO (C)YES (D)Grand-Children. (E) Avg AGE - 3yrs (DIABETES) 3. (A) SMOKERS (B)YES (C)N/A (D)CHILDREN. (E) OBESITY 4. (A) SMOKERS (B)NO (C)YES (D)CHILDREN. (E) NORMAL Though it flew in the face of contemporaneous dogma, that, "the experiences DIED with the individual," when you have a claim based on large numbers ... intellectual honesty that: - Falsifiable / testable - Parsimonious - Has a narrow error margin... THE JIG IS UP. Orthodoxy must yield; for science is an integrated field. Over time, more things will corroborate that which is true. Others will only make SENSE in the context more comprehensive findings... Including retrodictions. The fact that the timing was essentially the same but different in women further corroborates the epigenetic model; hypo caloric states vs. normal intake during GESTATION, when the eggs are made, had the same sorts of effects as did calorie restriction did to men. Like all things medical, as long as this is, it barely scratches the surface. I apologize for errors I made. Obviously I copied data, but I tried to word this in a way that was easiest to get.

It's only a matter of time. another issue is with so little preserved specimens, the genetic variablity is very low. even if we bring them back, the newly resurrected species may be so inbred.

Also I don’t think dinosaurs could ever exist again because dna has a lifespan of only 1 million years, and normal Dinosaurs got extinct like 63 million years ago. But scientists can prove me wrong and somehow find a way to reverse engineer chicken embryos or something

@@TEENYcharma DNA fragments & living dinosaurs [birds] may allow some of the dinosaurs to be de-extinction-ed, but first, easier projects like the mammoth will be acheived...

​@@trumanhw Did the researchers account for confounding factors like the changes in diet and lifestyle of the generations over time? Both diabetes and heart disease are linked to obesity and increased animal product consumption. I imagine the older generations would have been consuming less meat and leading more active lives than their offspring, which would almost certainly have some influence over disease onset and progression. I'm presuming this was accounted for, but my knowledge of epigenetics is limited to say the least. Do you have a link to the research you're referencing by any chance?

Me too!

Or neither? I'm not good at English

I just subscribed to this channel.

Me too

s l o w e d u p l o a d s its me too!

Spell check

@@Merlin.Twiggles how can you fail spelling that bad tho.

"Dead as a Dodo"

@@Lil_Angry_Bitch dodos... :(

Ikr!

Yeah I had one when I was 4 soon ill be 100 years old😢

Disco Saturn Loves To Do Subtitled Comedies and Other Things 24/7 they’re useless in Madagascar’s ecosystem

InsideLine PH BUT THEY EAT ROCKS AND WE NEED THAT!!

@@mildlyhighproductions616 Well obviously since they never lived in Madagascar to begin with.

MagicalFruitBasket wait really I thought like some Dutch explorers found them there but well they’re still useless, my bad

@@mildlyhighproductions616 >doesn't even know where the animal comes from >still calls them "useless" KK mate

It's literally the same as elephants. They're just more hairy and maybe a bit bigger. If you can imagine an elephant crossing sign with an elephant why cant you imagine a woolly mammoth one?

@@serbian_nationalist14 despite this comment being from a year ago my statement stands and it would be cool to see but now I have a new knowledge that may go against “just imagine a hairy elephant”, it’s the Californian Condor one of the few living species that fed upon mammoth corpses and so they grew to sizes that reflected a diet mainly consisting of hairy elephants and up until recently if not for conservation efforts done they would be extinct due to the lack of mammoth sized carcasses to feed from

Dodo's wont be able to revived as there is not enough genetic matieral

Would love to see those dinosaurs back. Brontosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, etc.

@@reynaldoflores4522 This is not Jurassic Park

@@reynaldoflores4522 Dinosaur DNA are old that they the dinosaur cannot be revived

@@Corn_Agentguy there is a madman reverse-engineering chicken DNA to recreate dinosaurs.

Ya after decades some ecosystems have adapted

Getting the volume of animals needed to restore an ecosystem would invalidate any attempt, both in manpower and limited natural resources like water. Plus, there's no telling how an ecosystem will react to an animal that hasn't been seen in decades, some might not have the same amount of predators as they used to and ruin habitats for everything else.

While I am not opposed to de-extinction efforts, I do worry that they often take away vital interest and funding for proven traditional conservation efforts. An example of this is the sad fact that far more funding and effort is going into trying to resurrect the northern white rhino, a subspecies not all that separated from its much more common southern relative. Meanwhile two vastly more evolutionary important species, Sumatran and Javan rhinos, are both on the brink of extinction themselves. Food for thought.

just to play devil's advocate, it can be argued that "refilling" those niches robs unknown amounts of organisms (since who knows what'll evolve to fill that niche) of their potential future.

Half of them are just "BUT THE DINOSAUR MOVIE SEZ DE-EXTINCTION BAD!!11!"

Exactly mate !

No, because this is not a biased channel

@@OldDanTucker that's right!!

Nope, *better*

Sanjay Dutta yes , but with an annoying accent

Well then it’s not the same bird.

@@Sharp26 that's not really the point. People don't care if it's not the same animal genetically, but if the animal fills the same economic role.

WHAT BIRD IS IT

You're saying that the same DNA of an extinct species spontaneously re-self-assembled? That's impossible.

@@doomsgray2946 called the white throated rail bird for your information and it took a lot longer than just a few days to evolve back in existence with this technology we can do it and half the time even so I don’t want to shoot these things into extinction a second time ever

This is exactly what they're trying to do, de-extinction isn't literally making the same mammoth species from thousands of years ago. It's about making a sort of hybrid animal of some kind to look similar to the prehistoric mammoth using selective breeding and filling in the same niche that was once fulfilled by a mammoth. That's how the new Quagga was made. It wasn't an actual Quagga, but an animal that went through selective breeding to look similar.

This isn't the point, they want a similar animal to fill the same ecological role. Not an exact animal for looks.

@@mame9562 They really need to rename it to species revamping, then.

False It's possible We already did it once. But recreating proxie is just easier for a nearly identical result.

Now *THIS* is a cursed comment.

He does speak in OwO-speak, right?

Exactly! It be mildly annoying tho

Swective bweeding

he cant help it

Thanks so very much!

Since all zebra have nearly identical behaviour we don't Care. It's better than nothing or not even an issue.

@demetrius9533 “ the gizzard of the bird was good, but the meat was tough and revolting” quote from a sailor.

Yet they ate them to extinction.

@@glenncordova4027 False, actually it was deforestation and invasive species that wiped out the dodo. Since they laid there eggs on the ground it was easy for introduced predators to eat them. Also from sailors accounts from the 15th and 16th century “ the meat was tough and revolting”.

@@spiritoflegend7483 in the 15th century, ships would stop at Mauritius just to stock up on fresh water and fill their holds with disgusting meat.

@@glenncordova4027 do you have proof of this statement or are you just lying to prove a point?

@H T Yeah, bring back the northern white rhino, all tiger species and the recently extinct Chinese river dolphin!!!

That sounds like Jurrasic Park/World, and I think you know how that turned out........

Lego Batman 27 that is just a bootleg jurassic park, i will send that TO THE TRASH

Or maybe they should be reintroduced in their own habitats to make sure they live the way they used to live, especially the ones which are recently extinct! The Prehistoric Kingdom idea can be applied to some ancient species whose habitat is not possible to be resurrected like the dinosaurs and their contemporaries!

@@Top_Hat_Man not to demoralise you by any means. But this is bad. It's just J-Park with minor twerk. Nothing much, it's not revolutionary or anything.

@@Top_Hat_Man this is absolutely vile. Also I find it funny that you start every single word with a capital lol

Kidyom. U dang, good eye

They have never leaved Italy, i have seen them less then 1 year ago with jonian dolphin conservation.

However these new hybrid species do fill in the niche once provided by these species. It wouldn't technically be the same species, but it would be in the same niche and look the same.

@@mame9562 It wouldn't look the same. That's how hybrids work. And convergent evolution exists, too, so filling the same niche doesn't necessarily equate to being the same as the owner of said niche, either. Are you confusing biologists for time travellers?

That's kind of the point.

You would be right, the Quagga still does not exist

Not the same cheetah though. I'm not sure the Asiatic cheetah exists still. Does it?

@@ankitmajumder4309 Yeah bro, they do. Their last refuge is Iran. Hopefully one day we would get that species as well. But in current scenario its not possible to reintroduce Asiatic cheetah in viable number in India and also Iran was not willing to give even a pair to us. Nevertheless, reintroduction with African species is quite delighting as well.

​​@@ankitmajumder4309 A dozen or twenty individual in the wild But hey it's the same specie, just a different subspecie so who Care they're nearly identical and both are severely lacking in genetic diversity so it's a plus anyway

Yeah and the reintroduction is kind of a failure and was rushed tho. And there's still only one region with lion because they refuse other reintroduction because being the only one to have these make thel feel special. Despite the fact that the specie need to be reintroduced in the rest of the country and suffer from inbreeding. As for tiger some of your reserve got completly depleted of any tiger recently and same for rhino which are nearly all in only one Park. Elephant and deers, wild pigs, monkeys and buffaloes and gaur too are still decreasing and nearly extinct. And gharial are not doing well either. Same for the dholes And thats if we forget baiji. Anyway there's a lot of species that can be reintroduced. Ostriches Wild horses Start breeding back the zebu auroch (Europe as already done that with their auroch for decade now) Even hippo, girafe and tapir. Maybe even javan and sumatran rhino (yes they were once native to India)

@@deinsilverdrac8695 I think you're perceiving the picture in a unilaterally negative way brother. What's your basal criteria to declare the cheetah project a failure? As clarified by a South African expert, 50% mortality is not abnormal, such instances have happened with cheetah reintro in African reserves as well. Has it officially been recognised as failure yet? There have been some natural deaths & early age cub deaths which're being conveniently counted into the total death toll to exaggerate it (so far total 9 deaths out of 24 I suppose). Lets not have an unfair approach! Its too early to be declared as anything as of yet! What shouldn't be overlooked is, India is a natural cheetah habitat & is a historic range of that animal. Reintroduction will not only enhance the native Indian biodiversity, but also elevate the importance of habitually ignored grassland ecosystem. I agree that lions should be shifted to more than one park. Now this idea has more support than it previously had & should be acted upon expeditiously. Rhino reintro has met with resounding success outside Kaziranga in Assam, & they're being reintroduced to UP & Bihar as well. Vulturs, Gharials are recovering. Tiger population is up by 40%. Steady rise in lions noted in Gir. Indian leopard count has jumped up by 63% in four years, number of Elephants, Hog Deers, Swamp Deers, Indian Dolphins have increased in many pockets (as skipped by you). We already have feral horses in Assam. If numbers rise up in their native habitat, we can attempt to bring back Asiatic Cheetah subspecies, Javan & Sumatran rhinos too. We can get Green Peacocks on broad scale as well. What's wrong in reintroducing lost species? For Ostrich, Arabian Ostrich would have been a marvelous choice for India, unfortunately that's extinct so maybe we can get "the closet African species to Arabic Ostrich" for reintroduction in India. That's a truly "wild" but achievable dream. For a pure exotic species like giraffe, Tapir maybe a safari is a better idea in India than its introduction. And for Zebu, let's not intermix revival & reintroduction. Isn't the case of Zebu is of revival and not reintroduction? I'm not going to go one way like you, there have been some negative reports on animal population as well like number of Dholes, Wild Boars, Monkeys have dropped. And I wholeheartedly agree that they need more attention. What is completely ridiculous is to associate declining population (if any) of any other animals with the cheetah reintroduction. Both these things should be seen in their own right first. Declining tigers for instance, need better vigilance in the jungles & habitat conservation, it doesn't need abolition of cheetah reintro. How can a grassland beast (cheetah) compensate for forest beast (tiger) anyways. I agree that the project could have been handled with more diligence & expertise, and could possibly be a failure (or a success otherwise) but this NEVER EVER means the idea of bringing cheetah back in India is wrong. We should get them back again with more care & field wisdom. There have been consistent attempts by vested politicians & leftist media to tarnish & demoralised cheetah reintro efforts just becoz it's success will benefit to the image of present right wing govt. Unfortunately such tendencies shadow the actual ground reality for the supporters & the opponents alike. No doubt there have been lacunae & shortcomings but the idea of Cheetah back is great & should be fulfilled for this great nation! PS: There's massive & popular support for Cheetah reintroduction in India. Cheetah is a Sanskrit name, can there be a greater bond between India & Cheetah than this one.

Quagga are zebra do yes thats normal. And they're still in the process of selection here, it take several generation to have perfect copies of quagga.

Hope not

No because there is no tissue of dinosaurs left for them to extract dna from and the fossils they find aren’t bone anymore but minerals replacing the bone

Nope impossible One they don't bring back anything here They recreate a pale copy of the quagga. Two We don't have any close relative of those dino specie today and we have no tissue or dna left After millions of years Three that would be very stupid and immoral

Where would they live?

Only chance is to use preserved dna that may or may not exist

Yes, the video talks about this at 7:53

@@neoexplains Yes, BUT for the previous 7 minutes, the video is constantly referring to the Quagga as a species, when it is not. Just because an addendum is added on at the end is not license to make erroneous claims in the bulk of the video. Now saying that, this was an interesting video, and it can be overly easy to criticize errors from the outside and come across harsher than you mean, so I am not trying to criticize you personally or denigrate your work. I just think referring to the Quagga as a species for the majority of the video is quite misleading. Be Well

​@@glenbe4026 I definitely value constructive criticism like this and I know it's not a personal attack. I see what you mean but I believe that for this video is does make sense to explain it this way. Apart from the short teaser before the Intro-animation, the first 6 minutes of the video don't talk about the Quagga Breeding project. Then when it comes to that project, the video explains the history of it, which includes the information that Reinhold Rau discovered that the Quagga's DNA matched the Plains Zebra. Our intention was to make it clear that the breeding project was based on that discovery, that's why we structured it this way. Now I could see that your criticism is therefore about the very beginning of the video and how it was phrased there. But also there I believe it's obvious that the history is explained - people did believe it was it's own species - and it was declared extinct - so they believed - but now - it's back - intro animation.

@@neoexplains No worries.

Clones only look alike. Think of it like identical twins.

@@joeybaseball7352 potato potato.

No. Human cloning is illegal and still impossible. We are Bad at cloning. And it would just create another organism with your dna. It will start as an embryo then a baby etc. But it's not you. Just a twin of you will. With his own personnality memory and life. Also he may don't even look like you even with your dna Because a gene can express himself in multiple way

Yet

What’s an BTs

We are in this sixth extinction event since 30 000 years now. First megafauna extinction of the Prehistory then the slower extinction rate of the civilisation Era then the anthropocene extinction of the 1900-today. It's slow and in several part.

The problem with that is will the woolly mammoth even survive with todays weather? I mean those guys had bren in extremely cold areas and to put them in a warmer world would most likely not end up good.

Calisalamander put them in russia

@@calisalamander8455 In a way we aren't making a mammoth we are making a hybrid, and since it will be such a long process it'll end up adapting to the temperatures :)

​@@calisalamander8455 Those guys lived in warmer period than today. They didn't spawn in the ice age like that. They lived and evolved Through several interglacial and glaciaciont event. They would 100% survive in most of northern eurasia and Canada today

I know what movie you are talking about. It's called Khumba.

@@reversehappy9210 thank you, I forgot the title

Sewective bweeding

I thought I was the only one who would a “accent”

Why

Not gonna happen.

We all play our part, your ancestors killed a lot in the beginning, not to mention killing and owning slaves. What sick psychopathic inhumane breed does that?

XD

we can soon simp over neanderthals

@@themako7795 more like the neanderthals will cuck us all

Gah. Im not feeling bad for being superior and dominating over others. We topped the game, we arent losers. All living beings are capable of killing and consuming. We are not special or only villanious creatures.

An Insane Shocktrooper I agree that all beings are capable of consumption, and that all beings have a right to survival, but I think there’s a thin boundary between taking enough and taking too much. There’s a reason we ended up hunting animals to extinction. We never realize how finite things are until it’s gone.

but i want to pet a mammoth

​@@peacewalker3344 We killed them do it count

The issue is that it's not always possible to know. Sometime human are just one major factor but not the only one. Sometime it Can be indirect (we kill specie A and specie B went extinct because it depended on specie A) Maybe give a second chance to other recently extinct species (from the Eemian to today) If the extinction was natural then they'll just be gone again no Big deal.

Thanks for asking! There is an explanation in the video description.

he speaks uwu

Stop being awful people

Backwaund

Cwitics