They are modified wolves. Their argument that if I looks like a dire wolf it is a dire wolf. We may never actually find the quirks of dire wolf behavior by replicating only certain genes

[–] AntY@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

I mean, it depends on how you define species. If we have a morphological species definition, then appearance is everything. Does individuals that look very similar, have similar dna and can have fertile offspring not count to the same species if their behavior is different?

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Someone posted another article that has a interview with an independent scientist, and I think it's rather illuminating.

Meachen is impressed with Colossal’s announcement but remains skeptical.

"I don't think they are actually dire wolves. I don't think what we have is dire wolves," Meachen told ABC News. "What we had is something new -- we have a mostly gray wolf that looks like a dire wolf."

Shapiro disagrees with that thinking.

"I think that the best definition of a species is if it looks like that species, if it is acting like that species, if it's filling the role of that species then you've done it," she said.

So their only criteria for "Is it a dire wolf," is yupp, looks like one and behaves like one, even though every real scientist is skeptical. This is, never the less, still impressive technology, but bringing back extinct animals seems more like a marketing gimic than a description of what they're actually doing.

Flawless logic. Never mind that no one alive has ever observed a dire wolf.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dire-wolf-revived-biotech-companys-de-extinction-process/story?id=120558562

[–] teft@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You had a direwolf and named it khaleesi instead of Arya…?

Did they name their pet bearded dragon Rickon?

[–] gadfly1999@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

I’d have gone with Ghost, Nymeria and Shaggydog.