Hi there, I’m not familiar in this space at all which is why I’m asking in this community to understand it better from a science perspective.
So the way I understand it they haven’t created a 100% exact genetical copy of a dire wolf since they don’t have a complete DNA sequence that’s fully preserved and intact.
Apparently they made 20 edits to the Gray Wolf genes which I assume aren’t all the edits needed for a fully genetically identical dire wolf.
So my question is if that means that the wolves they created are overall still more similar to a gray wolf when you could go back in time and compared them to actual dire wolves. Or did they actually make the core changes that are so significant that the wolves overall actually are more similar to actual dire wolves and therefore naturally fit into that ecosystem niche that gray wolves don’t?
And even if they’re more similar to actual dire wolves than gray wolves and naturally fit into that ecosystem niche I wonder if they would still have some perceivable differences. Like if we could travel back in time and compare them to the dire wolves created by evolution, is it likely that we would find any differences or are these only neglectable genetical differences that don’t have any effects on any perceivable aspect in their nature such as behavior, appearance, cognition, capabilities etc. or would there still be small differences that would differ from the majority (individual differences neglected of course)?
They’re just spicy gray wolves.
So you mean they are more similar to gray wolves than dire wolves? What is the scientific explanation behind this?
This was posted last night. I do not recall which community. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2475407-no-the-dire-wolf-has-not-been-brought-back-from-extinction/
Unfortunately I need a subscription to read that article.
TL;DR: Gray wolves and dire wolves are different species that had a common ancestor. These wolves are still gray wolves with 20 or so one-letter edits to their genome to express some dire wolf characteristics.
They’ve not become a different species, they’re still genetically-engineered gray wolves that resemble dire wolves.
But what’s the deeper scientific explanation for that? At which genetic state would they be considered dire wolves then?
They likely wouldn’t be able to reproduce with dire wolves. Or, at least, their offspring wouldn’t be dire wolves. Since dire wolves went extinct so long ago, it’s impossible to tell how similar or different these facsimiles are or to know if they could reproduce.
They’ll never truly be dire wolves unless the dire wolf genome is sequenced somehow and they edit and breed it closer.
Philosophically, I’d say they will never be dire wolves. Dire wolves are extinct. But, people may continue to create these and call them dire wolves. Then, what a dire wolf is will have changed.
The base has to be the target species. If, like Jurassic Park, they had an almost complete dire wolf genome, and slightly patched it with grey wolf genome to make it viable, few will argue that it wasn’t a dire wolf, at least predominantly.
But why is it not a dire wolf predominantly when most or the most potent genes are dire wolf? I’m not talking about a pure dire wolf just something like a hybrid that’s closer to a dire than a gray
the two species share 99.5 per cent of their DNA. Since the grey wolf genome is around 2.4 billion base pairs long, that still leaves room for millions of base-pairs of differences.
I’d say they’re leaning closer towards grey wolves until they alter a few million more base pairs, in addition to the few dozen they already have.
one indication that it wasn’t a gray wolf anymore is that it can’t reproduce with them anymore - that’s a pragmatic concept of a species that some biologists use, basically a species encompasses a group that can produce offspring together (broadly speaking) - so a dire wolf shouldn’t be able to have children with a gray wolf (generally), and vice versa.
The definition of a species is a very fuzzy thing, being able to breed or produce fertile offspring used to be considered a defining characteristic of a species, but there are a ton of exceptions to that.
I think I also remember hearing that something about canid (dogs, wolves, etc) DNA makes them very tolerant of a lot of genetic variation (I mean look at dogs, would you ever in a million years think that a great Dane and a teacup poodle were the same species if you didn’t have prior knowledge about dogs being a thing?) There’s a decent amount of debate over how to classify various candids and a lot of them can interbreed just fine, and there’s more than a few coydogs, coywolf, and wolfdog hybrids out in the wild. The company that made these “dire wolves” also said they cloned some red wolves, which is considered a subspecies of wolf, however every known living red wolf also carries coyote DNA, and there’s some debate over whether they should actually be considered their own thing, or are they just a specific population of wolf/coyote hybrids (wolves and coyotes are considered different species) and should they be reclassified to reflect their coyote ancestry as well?
Found an archived version. https://archive.is/KjOdo
If I understand that article right than it sounds like they’re saying they are the same animal (both are dire wolves) from a morphological/physical standpoint which is basically what I was referring to. I was mainly also wondering to what extend that is though and why
Identification of species and their relatedness has not.been done on morphological, but rather molecular basis for quite some time. In molecular terms, they are slightly modified grey wolfs. BTW, dogs are all one species, all very similar even on molecular level, and yet look at their morphology…
I think hank green has a pretty nuanced take on the subject:
