I do realize that. I also realize that many many scientists currently disapprove of exactly this kind of science occurring RIGHT NOW with Colossal Bioscience. I don't need to know every single scientific breakthrough that "might occur" when we have thousands of scientists saying that it's not cloning, it's not resurrection, it's a new animal. The scientific results can be gotten a different way and don't lead to eugenics.

It's abundantly clear that you were looking for me to say something specific so that you could attack just that argument. There's a difference between learning something from performing science, and choosing to perform science that will lead to bad outcomes. There's no reason to try to clone a dinosaur. We have plenty of other animals that will be much easier to clone, we will be able to learn more, and there won't be a ridiculously bad eugenics (or science) outcome at the end of it.

“But even then, it's never the original animal,” he says. “That animal is extinct, that lineage is extinct, but it's a new entity that has some genetic legacy. It's a hybrid.”

• https://www.canids.org/resources/CSG%20gene%20editing%20in%20wild%20canids.pdf
• https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/gene-editing/Dire-wolf-debate-raises-concerns/103/web/2025/04
• https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-dire-wolves-dr-george-278801124/