By Elizabeth Prata

To answer the question in the title, no. The Dire Wolf was not brought back from extinction.

Even CNN Science wrote, The result is essentially a hybrid species similar in appearance to its extinct forerunner.

As usual, the ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) explains very well in this 5 minute video. Corinne Altman who is Zoo Content Manager tells why the dire wolf is not really brought back from extinction.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/12HoNhZPSCV

In 1993 when the first movie of Jurassic Park was released, people became intrigued with the idea presented in the movie that science could extract dinosaur DNA from petrified amber (tree resin) and de-extinct the dinosaur.

Jurassic Park made it seem like amber – fossilized tree resin – was a surefire way to preserve ancient DNA. Just stick a needle in, suck the blood out of a trapped mosquito or tick, and bingo – dino DNA. Source.

Of course, it is not so. Scientists are currently trying to determine how far back they can stretch the limits of defunct DNA. They have revived insects from amber, but only as far back as 2014. IS it a good idea to mess around with bringing back hybrids and genetically modified animals and insects?

Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences, the company behind the revived dire wolf and based in Dallas, … is even trying to bring back the extinct woolly mammoth by 2028… (Source).

Really? Like we need woolly mammoths walking around. Just google ‘yellowstone bison idiots’ and you will see that people who lack common sense do not need to mess with a woolly mammoth unless they think they can outrun one. Ahem…to wit-

More people have been caught being stupid around bison at Yellowstone

There are many considerations for the ramifications of genetically modifying the DNA of animals, of creating hybrids, cloning, and the like. In 2014 the BBC presented an article which raised some concerns about animal ethics-

Human problems: Newspaper articles about the ethical problems of genetically engineered animals are usually concerned about the danger these animals may pose to human beings (usually to human health), rather than any implications for the animals themselves.

Animal rights: Genetic engineering and selective breeding appear to violate animal rights, because they involve manipulating animals for human ends as if the animals were nothing more than human property, rather than treating the animals as being of value in themselves. –end BBC article

Can the genetically modified animal sustain itself in the wild? If not, will there be appropriate care for the animal? Will breeding this modified animal raise issues for future generations of this animal? Will this animal have health complications due to the fundamental change in its DNA?

The modifications of the Beltsville pigs led to many health and welfare problems in the pigs, such as arthritis and lung problems which led the researchers to terminate the experiment. Yet, some say that such unintended consequences do not present a moral dilemma since animals do not have eternal souls and are just animals.

I am not a PETA person by any means, but consequences, unintended, intended, physical, or spiritual, are, well, consequences. And consequences must be thought through.

We do have a dominion mandate as God commanded Adam to shepherd the garden and to keep it. God made man the highest living thing on the earth. Genesis 1:28b says,

fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

While there may be pros and cons to genetically modified plants and especially animals, using technology to better humankind’s life, there are downsides as well. A Pew Center survey conducted in 2018 found that “Americans neither indiscriminately accept nor reject genetic engineering experiments on animals“, and depending on the type of genetic modification pursuits, research into human health and longevity received positive replies in the Pew poll. However, one surprising result did emerge:

Perhaps the biggest surprise of this survey was that over 2/3 of people did not view using genetic engineering to bring back extinct animals as positive.

Yeah, no.

When thinking about God as creator and about man as having dominion, there is a limit as to how far to go. The problem is, even Christian scientists debate about where that line is. AiG notes that man used the technological tools that were available to him in several instances in the Bible.

In Genesis 30:37 we read that Jacob employed some type of DNA separation method to improve his flocks. In the New Testament, Paul repeatedly referred to grafting, which is in fact mixing DNA.

We are using the technological tools available to us now, as well. But do we go so far as to de-extinct an animal? And to what end? For merely cosmetic purposes like glowing fish? Or for more allegedly vaunted purposes such as enhanced biodiversity on the earth for animals or enhancing scientific understanding for humans?

Bob Blasdel, PhD Bioscience Engineering, Bacteriophage Biology said of the current push to revive the woolly mammoth,

An Asian elephant with a handful of Woolley mammoth genes would not be a Woolley mammoth, nor could one plausibly fulfil the same ecological role. At the same time, the breeding cycle of Asian elephants is just profoundly incompatible with the experiments that would be needed. We would be talking about thousands of miscarriages on the path to getting viable offspring, there would be years between each attempt for every reproductive elephant making these potential offspring, and there wouldn’t be enough elephants in the whole world to make meaningful progress over the course of centuries.

To which a commenter asked if it was actually technologically possible at present to de-extinct the prehistoric animal, he thought it was just an ethical dilemma? Blasdel replied,

It is usually presented that way because the ethical dilemma is more interesting and accessible. Besides, who wants to do algebra with elephant menstrual cycles, or consider the challenges of appropriating all of the reproductive age female elephants in Thailand…?

Which brings us back to the moral dilemma of putting all those female elephants through all those miscarriages, so why? In order to allegedly restore the tundra to its original climate?

Remember “killer bees”? scientifically known as the Africanized honey bee, is a hybrid created by crossing African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) with European honey bee subspecies like the Italian honey bee (A. m. ligustica). The hybrid, developed in Brazil, was intended to combine the European bees’ honey production with the African bees’ adaptability to warmer climates. However, the resulting hybrid also inherited a highly defensive and aggressive nature from the African bees. Source. That particular hybridization process didn’t really work out as intended.

When we use our technologies on animals, we should do so cautiously and thoughtfully. We must reflect on what these modifications mean for our relationship to animals and nature, and importantly, what this means in our relationship to God.

We are not the creator, He is the Creator. There’s no known process that can create brand-new genetic information. Natural selection and mutations don’t create new information—they work on information that already exists, writes Ken Ham.

Bless the LORD, my soul!
LORD my God, You are very great;
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
3He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks on the wings of the wind;
4He makes the winds His messengers,
Flaming fire His ministers.
Psalm 104:1-4

Further Resources

Is it Possible to Bring Back Extinct Animals?

A study reveals whether or not it’s possible to bring back extinct animals. Everything scientists currently know lead to one conclusion. In this Answers News broadcast, our hosts (Patricia Engler, Tim Chaffey, and Rob Webb) share their perspective on this subject as Bible believing Christians. 2:21-5:37. Answers in Genesis video

What should Christians think about artificial selection and genetic modification? Where are the ethical boundaries? Creation Ministries International