Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Dire Wolf De-Extinction

Summary

In this engaging video, Clint's Reptiles explores the recent developments in de-extincting a species very close to the long-lost dire wolf. While headlines claim that dire wolves are back, the reality is more nuanced. Through advanced genetic engineering techniques, scientists have reproduced organisms that closely resemble these prehistoric creatures. However, these animals, known as Romulus, Reheis, and Khesi, are not true dire wolves but rather an amalgamation of grey wolf genetics and special gene edits. The video delves into the implications of using such technology to potentially bring back other extinct species and raises profound ethical questions about de-extincting animals, the purpose of such species, and the moral considerations behind cloning.

Highlights

• Clint clarifies that while dire wolves are headline news, the actual genetic resurrection may not meet expectations. 📰
• CRISPR Cas9 technology played a crucial role in gene editing to create these dire wolf-like creatures. 🔬
• Dialogues around the morality and practicality of bringing back extinct species are central to the video. 🤔
• The narrative emphasizes the speculative nature of such scientific endeavors and their ethical implications. 📚
• The video ends on a contemplative note about human intervention in nature and where the lines should be drawn. 🌍

Key Takeaways

• The claim of dire wolf de-extinction is exaggerated; the creatures are genetically modified to resemble dire wolves but are not identical. 🔍
• Utilizing CRISPR technology, scientists edited genes of grey wolves to more closely match dire wolf genomes. 🧬
• Ethical dilemmas arise regarding the resurrection of extinct species, and how we might reintroduce them into the wild. ⚖️
• While the technology isn't perfect, the genetic advancements mark a significant step toward de-extincting species. 🚀
• This project sparks debate over potential future use, such as cloning endangered species for conservation efforts. 🌱

Overview

Clint's Reptiles captivates viewers by diving into the fascinating story of recent attempts to bring back the dire wolf, weaving in intriguing evolutionary biology. While the headlines suggest a Jurassic Park-esque revival, the reality lies in nuanced scientific achievements that blend advanced genetic strategies with ethical introspection. Romulus, Reheis, and Khesi are charming figures on this biological chessboard, embodying the potential of modern science tempered by the lessons of the past.

The video expertly walks us through the science of de-extinction, highlighting how researchers leverage CRISPR Cas9 gene editing to recreate the genomes of prehistoric animals. While entertaining, the narrative does not shy away from discussing the ethical complexities of such endeavors—whether humanity should tread the path of resurrecting lost species, and the potential ecological impacts of such actions. Enthusiastic yet balanced, the presentation leaves viewers pondering the wisdom of resurrecting species that humans once drove to extinction.

Ultimately, the episode is more than an account of genetic tinkering; it's a thought-provoking exploration of the relationship between humans and nature. Clint encourages viewers to contemplate the future of conservation, where cloning might remedy dwindling animal populations. The dire wolf resurrection serves as a launchpad for broader discussions on the ethics of ecological intervention, adding a layer of depth to what initially appears as a simple scientific curiosity.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Introduction and Overview The chapter titled 'Introduction and Overview' describes the groundbreaking scientific achievement of creating a living dire wolf, a species thought to have been extinct for about 10,000 years. The transcript briefly acknowledges the possible reasons for its extinction, including climate change, loss of prey, and competition.
• 01:00 - 03:00: History and Characteristics of Dire Wolves The chapter discusses the recent news about animals resembling dire wolves being born, which has captured public interest. It clarifies that these creatures are not true dire wolves but are the closest resemblance in the past 10,000 years. The chapter aims to explore what dire wolves are, the nature of these new wolf-like animals, the process behind their creation, and their potential implications.
• 03:00 - 05:00: Misconceptions and Media Coverage The chapter 'Misconceptions and Media Coverage' discusses direwolves, a species of wolf-like canids that lived in North and South America from around 125,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. It explains that there were two subspecies: Enosion Dyrus Gildi and Enosion Dyrus Dyrus. Despite common misconceptions, direwolves were approximately the same size as the largest modern greywolves, with the larger subspecies Dyrus Dyrus noted for its size.
• 05:00 - 10:00: Creation of the New Dire Wolf-like Animals The chapter delves into the creation of new animals similar to dire wolves. It describes their physical characteristics, noting their smaller feet compared to modern wolves, yet with larger heads, canines, and stronger jaws. Isotope analysis reveals their diet predominantly consisted of horses, and additionally camels and bison, particularly based on findings from dire wolves preserved in the laba tarpits.
• 10:00 - 15:00: Genetic and Ethical Considerations The chapter 'Genetic and Ethical Considerations' discusses the hunting and scavenging behaviors of early mammals, particularly focusing on their interactions with large animals like mammoths and mastodons. A significant point highlighted is the exceptional bite force of these mammals, which, relative to their size, was the greatest among any known etheran mammals. The chapter clarifies that despite some common misconceptions, these creatures were not wolves, although wolves were among their closest relatives.
• 15:00 - 20:00: Potential and Future Implications This chapter discusses the evolutionary relationships between grey wolves, dire wolves, and other canids such as coyotes, dogs, and jackals. It highlights that while dire wolves are more closely related to actual wolves than some animals labeled as wolves, they have distinct evolutionary paths. The chapter also mentions future discussions on canids, including a unique species that lacks bones, and encourages readers to subscribe for more insights.
• 20:00 - 25:00: Ethical Dilemmas of Cloning Extinct Species The chapter discusses the ethics and media portrayal of cloning extinct species. It mentions the sensationalism in news outlets and how headlines often don't capture the complete story, emphasizing the importance of reliable sources like Ground News for balanced reporting.
• 25:00 - 26:30: Closing Remarks and Patreon Extras The chapter discusses the varied media coverage of a recent story about the revival of direwolves. It highlights that over 500 outlets have reported on the story, with different angles depending on their political leanings and reliability. Some media frame the scientific achievement with skepticism, using terms like 'genetically engineered', while others celebrate it as a thrilling new era in science, drawing comparisons to 'Jurassic Park' and emphasizing the success of the company valued at $10 billion.

Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Dire Wolf De-Extinction Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] Well, hi there. If you've been following the news, then it's likely that you know that we recently and for the first time created a living, breathing dire wolf. a species of wolf-like canided that went extinct around 10,000 years ago, likely from a combination of climate change, loss of prey species, and competition
• 00:30 - 01:00 with other species, including humans. So, they're back. Though, if you've read past the initial headlines, you probably know that this is not exactly true. But these are probably the most dire wolflike animals to be born in the last 10,000 years. So, now seems like a good opportunity to talk about the direwolf. What it is, what these are, how they were made, and what this could mean for
• 01:00 - 01:30 the future if you're into that kind of thing. So, let's start with the direwolf. Direwolves were wolf-like canids that lived in North and South America from about 125,000 years ago until about 10,000 years ago when they went extinct. There are two known subspecies of direwolves. Enosion Dyrus Gildi and Inosion Dyrus Dyrus. They were about the same size as the largest modern greywolves with the larger subspecies Dyrus Dyrus averaging about
• 01:30 - 02:00 68 kilos around 150 lb and the smaller subspecies coming in about 8 kilos or around 18 lbs lighter than that. That said, they weren't proportioned like wolves and they weren't wolves so that isn't so shocking. They had smaller feet than modern wolves, but bigger heads, larger canines, and stronger jaws. Based on isotope analysis of many dire wolves that were entrapped in the laba tarpits, it appears that they fed heavily on horses, but also on camels, bison,
• 02:00 - 02:30 ground sloths, and pong horns, and occasionally on larger animals such as mammoths and mastadons. To what degree they were hunting these large animals versus scavenging them is still unclear. What is pretty darn clear is that they could bite really hard. In fact, for their size, they had the greatest bite force of any known etheran mammal ever. What is also clear is that they weren't wolves. Not those actual direwolves. They weren't wolves, though wolves were among their closest
• 02:30 - 03:00 relatives. Greywolves, however, are more closely related to coyotes, dos, jackals, and of course, domestic dogs than they are to dire wolves. Not all foxes are foxes and not all wolves are wolves. Direwolves are much more closely related to actual wolves than are some other things called wolves, but we'll talk more about that when we discuss all of the canids later this year, as well as the species of candid that doesn't have bones. So, be sure to subscribe if you don't want to miss that. With all this recent excitement around dire
• 03:00 - 03:30 wolves, it's so easy to get wrapped up in all of the thrilling headlines. Some outlets run with drama, while others lean hard into sensationalism, leaving little room for the actual science. It can be hard to know what sources to trust, and one headline rarely tells the whole story. That's why I love Ground News. Whether you use the website or app, Ground News helps you compare how different news outlets cover the same story side by side. You'll see where the
• 03:30 - 04:00 sources lean politically and how reliable they are, and even who owns them. Take this recent direwolves story. Ground news shows that over 500 outlets have covered it. Some frame the direwolf revival with skepticism, emphasizing the sort of nature of the achievement and using genetically engineered in headlines. Others focused on the thrilling new era of scientific wonder, drawing Jurassic Park comparisons and touting the company as a $10 billion
• 04:00 - 04:30 venture. It's really the same event told through very different lenses. The blind spot feed is a really awesome feature that helps you escape the echo chamber. It highlights under reportported stories so you don't miss what's happening around you. So, if you want to see the world through a more informed lens, go to ground.news/clint or use the link in the description for 40% off the Vantage plan. That's ground.news/clint for 40% off. Thank you to our friends at Ground News for
• 04:30 - 05:00 sponsoring this video. Now, let's get back to it. So, that is the direwolf. But what are these? Well, these are Romulus, Reheis, and Khesi, three puppies produced by Colossal Biosciences in late 2024 and early 2025 that were purported to be direwolves, but they aren't. They are, however, quite rad. So, let me explain what they are. And to do so, I'll explain how they made them because it is
• 05:00 - 05:30 super cool and very promising if you want to see a dire wolf, a mammoth, a thyloine, a dodo, moa, elephant bird, or any other extinct animal come back from the dead in the near future. Okay, so I've been seeing some sources saying that these are direwolves and others saying that they aren't direwolves at all because no direwolf DNA was used in their creation. And I would say that neither of these positions are correct. It is somewhere in the middle. But let me ask you this. If I took a sample of
• 05:30 - 06:00 your DNA and sequenced it so I knew the entire sequence, then took the DNA of a banana and edited the banana DNA sequence until it was identical to your DNA. Then removed the DNA from a bonobo egg and replaced it with the sequence of DNA that I created that is identical to yours and implanted that egg into the uterus of a bonobo that served as a surrogate mother. Would the baby that would subsequently be born be a human, a
• 06:00 - 06:30 bonobo, or a banana? Personally, of the three, the one that I would say for sure that it isn't would be a banana. Yes, we got the nucleotides from a banana, but it's the sequence of those nucleotides, not their origin, that actually matters in my opinion. And given that its nuclear genome is identical to yours and assuming that you are a human, I would say that for all intents and purposes, it's a human. So I do think this would
• 06:30 - 07:00 be a viable way to clone a human. And if you had knowledge about the complete mitochondrial genome, you could take it even further. You may end up with some maternal effects with regard to gene expression as a result of having a bonobo surrogate. But this is no banana, so don't try to eat it. And I say all of this because these uh dire wolves have no direwolf nucleotides in them. But if the nucleotide sequence is identical to that of a direwolf, then I, for one,
• 07:00 - 07:30 will have no problem calling them dire wolves. Heck, in the future, we might be able to essentially 3D print complete DNA sequences in the lab, and I would have no problem calling organisms produced in such a way to be the same species as were the organisms from which the sequences were modeled. In this case, Colossal Biosciences examined the DNA contained in a direwolf tooth and earbone. They looked for DNA in 46 total samples, but only those two generated usable DNA. They then compared those
• 07:30 - 08:00 sequences to the DNA of a greywolf. The truth is that greywolves and direwolves are not the same. But they are also not very different. The vast majority of the genome is conserved between both of them. So if you start with the complete genome of a grey wolf and then alter everything that is different about that greywolf from a direwolf to be identical to what we find in a direwolf, then you no longer have a strand of greywolf DNA. What you have is
• 08:00 - 08:30 a complete strand of direwolf DNA. So the only question in my mind is to what degree did they do this? And the truth is that Colossal has not yet published a paper on exactly what they did. So some of the details are a bit fuzzy. But we know that it was nowhere near the entire genome. That said, they identified 20 key differences between the DNA of the greywolf and that of the direwolf. And then using a gene editing technology that we need to discuss in greater detail soon called crisper cast 9, they
• 08:30 - 09:00 were able to alter those segments in the DNA of the endothelial progenitor cells, EPCs, that were collected from a living greywolf. Those altered EPCs were then inserted into the egg of a domestic dog, which is also more closely related to a greywolf than are direwolves. And those eggs were then implanted into surrogate dogs and allowed to develop. And a couple of months later, the pups were born. And this is what they look like. And they're still growing. So, what are they? Well, like I said before, they
• 09:00 - 09:30 aren't direwolves. Well, they aren't pure greywolves either. Their genome is at this point much more similar to that of a greywolf than it is to the genome of a direwolf. That said, this is the closest thing that we have seen to a direwolf in the last 10,000 years. They are more genetically and phenotypically similar to direwolves than are greywolves. But again, they're more genetically and phenotypically similar to greywolves than they are to dire wolves. Hopefully, you caught that distinction. And their mitochondrial
• 09:30 - 10:00 genomes are almost certainly those of the domestic dogs that contributed the eggs. So, they're transgenic organisms like the glowing axelottals that we discussed in this video. And really, if you dig into what they've said, Colossal doesn't claim that they are anything more. But that ends up buried under sensational headlines. So that will likely come as a disappointment for many. But that doesn't mean that this isn't exciting for those of us that are excited about the concept of resurrecting extinct species. And even more so for those that are excited about
• 10:00 - 10:30 the use of cloning technology to bolster the populations and genetic variation of extant species that are in danger of extinction in the future, while at the same time forcing us to grapple with a number of ethical questions that have to this point been more hypothetical than practical, like is it okay to bring species back from extinction? If so, under what circumstances? And what do we do with those animals that we resurrect? Are they destined for a future exclusively in captive settings, or do we attempt to reintroduce them into
• 10:30 - 11:00 places with suitable habitat? Do we want dire wolves running around in North America today? These are big questions, not even all of the questions, and they aren't just academic anymore. And while these may not represent resurrected direwolves, they do represent resurrected direwolf genetics now functioning in living, breathing animals. The more we know about the genomes of extinct species, the more plausible it is that using the exact techniques employed here, we could
• 11:00 - 11:30 actually produce organisms with genomes that are identical to the extinct species that we're attempting to resurrect. This isn't the endgame, but it's a heck of a proof of concept. Not to mention the fact that Colossal is also using this technology to clone endangered species. I mean, heck, suppose we have one male rhinoceros left of a subspecies that is otherwise extinct. Well, in the past, that would be the end of the story. But not if we use his DNA or the DNA that we have of
• 11:30 - 12:00 other individuals that are no longer with us to produce a mate for him. Because in XY species, you can make females and males using genetic information in male DNA. A whole population could be generated. variation could be added and dilutterious alals could be eliminated. This is huge. And while we may not have the complete genome of a direwolf to work with, there are other extinct species whose complete genomes we have at our disposal. We have nearly complete genomes for animals like mammoths and thyloines and increasingly
• 12:00 - 12:30 complete genomes for other animals like cave bears, quagas, penguins, you know, real penguins, moas, and stellar sea cows. And let's just face it, most of those species were driven to extinction by humans in the recent past. And the world would just be a better place if we had them back. Well, that is looking increasingly less hypothetical. And if you really want to get into an ethical quagmire, I mean, one of the biggest ethical dilemmas that you can get into
• 12:30 - 13:00 as a geneticist, then we could always discuss the fact that two of the most complete genomes that we have for any extinct species are for Neanderthalss and Denosovians. And right now, we are definitely at the point where our scientists should probably be more preoccupied with whether or not they should than they are with whether or not they could. Because the reality is that we almost certainly could and if not now very soon. But I can promise you that if
• 13:00 - 13:30 a Neanderthal or a Denisovian walked by you as you were walking down the street in New York that they wouldn't be the strangest person that you saw that day. So it's hard to say that it would be okay to keep them in a zoo. And if you clone them using colossals techniques, you would almost certainly use a sapen's genome as your starting point and a sapen's egg as your donor. and a a sapiens female as your surrogate. So, could we? Yeah, if not now, very soon. But should
• 13:30 - 14:00 we? That would be a very difficult case to make. How can we stand in the light of discovery and and not act? As always, like and subscribe, and we hope to see you real soon. As you may have expected, today's video has a pretty extensive Patreon extras video. It it was really awesome because Will came in here having not heard this news and Jason came in here having researched extensively this news and they had very different
• 14:00 - 14:30 feelings about this story and we got to have a really really awesome discussion. If you want to see that or the host of other features we have for our patrons on Patreon, please check it out. I don't know. It's just mourning. a species of wolflike canid that went to extend asterisk and we'll get there. Cool your
• 14:30 - 15:00 jet would be the banana. Let me say that how I have it before we do that. Yeah, I got money that it was a chihuahua a chihuahua egg. Can you imagine? and a and and a Chihuahua surrogate mother, which is why they only birthe one puppy at a time. That's where my money's at. Yep. Nailed it. [Music]