Scientists aim to bring mammoth back to life

Let's bring back the short faced bear and the north american lion/sabretooth cat, whatever it's called too while we're at it.

We should go ahead and clone Megalodons too. Those would be awesome.

---

Of course, you also realize that frozen DNA from a mammoth could have latent viral DNA incorporated into it's nucleus in the "provirus" stage, which could prove disasterous for modern elephants.

I don't know whether you're right about that QC, but it doesn't matter. I doubt you are right, but biology isn't my subject, so I'll suspend judgement.

Obviously the animal would be kept in isolation until it could be established whether it poses a realistic risk to other animals, and indeed ourselves. Believe it or not, the people who do this kind of work are not complete retards.

Scientists may not be "retarded," but the road to hell is **always** paved with good intentions. These creatures went extinct for a reason. Science should not be bringing them back as it can easily upset our current ecology which is already in a precarious condition due to the chem cos. poisoning the earth.

"but the road to hell is **always** paved with good intentions."

If you believe in Hell, that is. If you don't then it really has no meaning.

I doubt their million dollar pet mammoth is going to be grazing in the Savannah anytime soon so I think your fears of viral DNA getting into the wild is a bit speculative.

I think this is a great endeavor though. Climate, and/or human predation, brought these mega fauna extinction. Bringing them back gives us a chance to examine them with the tools of modern science.

"These creatures went extinct for a reason."

Nonsense. I'd read that their extinction was likely due to over hunting, not due to some Magic-Man-In-The-Sky reason. There is no threat to bringing them back; in fact I suspect they'd be pretty good with Tabasco sauce.

I hope they are successful in bringing them back - subject to the obvious precautions. After all, we are probably responsible for their extinction.

This is so cool! I'd certainly be willing to pay to see it.

And yes QC, I too would love to visit an entire paleolithic zoo! How cool is that?

But let's not limit it to Northern Hemisphere species. I want to see the giant paleolithic marsupials of Australia too!

And, of course, let's bring back some recently extinct species too (like the ivory-billed woodpecker).

Terror birds. And glyptodonts. And those huge elks. And... Neandertals; we ate them to extinction, its only right. And hobbits. Do it. DO IT! ha haaa

I would have to think that we will know enough eventually about genetics and how it determines the form and function of an animal, that we could computerize even the skeletal structure of, say a dinosaur, and begin to back engineer the genes needed to create that form as well as the organs it was meant to support, including the brain.

We may be able to extrapolate essentials and possibilities from existing animals such as birds, to begin filling in gaps in this reconstructed DNA until we have enough Info to reconstruct the animal itself. Possibly we could work our way backward through evolution, extrapolating earlier and earlier forms from what we discern from each successful iteration, until how to construct a dinosaur becomes obvious.

I hope they are successful in bringing them back - subject to the obvious precautions. After all, we are probably responsible for their extinction.

The funny thing is, that this is pretty much true. We will bring this species back from extinction just because we miss having it for dinner. lol

And yeah, definitely want to see a sabertooth in the zoo.

The funny thing is, that this is pretty much true. We will bring this species back from extinction just because we miss having it for dinner. lol

All of the people who evolved to eat Mammoths are extinct.

I want Jurassic Park!!! Really, I don't care if you can extract their actual DNA, just do what Otto was saying and learn to engineer an animal that looks like a T-Rex.

The funny thing is, that this is pretty much true. We will bring this species back from extinction just because we miss having it for dinner. lol

All of the people who evolved to eat Mammoths are extinct.

We are the people who evolved to eat mammoths. Still think youre a species unto yourself? Just because your ass has "evolved" to fit perfectly into your chair doesn't mean you belong there. Go outside sometime!

All of the people who evolved to eat Mammoths are extinct.

I don't think we need to evolve a new functionality to eat meat. Our species have been doing that for a long time. Only to most militant vegetarians would disagree.

Mercury_01 and blazingspark:

Guys take it easy. It was a joke.

Lol.

"After the mammoth is born, we'll examine its ecology and genes to study why the species became extinct and other factors." This line doesn't build a lot confidence in the logic of the team. I think you might want to have an understanding of mammoth ecology well in hand... before you have a live mammoth. You know - so that might be able to feed and care for it adequately.

Scientists may not be "retarded," but the road to hell is **always** paved with good intentions. These creatures went extinct for a reason. Science should not be bringing them back as it can easily upset our current ecology which is already in a precarious condition due to the chem cos. poisoning the earth.

SCARE STORIES AS ALWAYS

All of the people who evolved to eat Mammoths are extinct.

I don't think we need to evolve a new functionality to eat meat. Our species have been doing that for a long time. Only to most militant vegetarians would disagree.

We are not deisigned to eat that much meat.......maybe you need to take a trip back to elementary science...this is from someone you enjoys the taste of meat

Hire out "Prehistoric Park" on DVD, A top TV series and well worth watching.

All of the people who evolved to eat Mammoths are extinct.

I don't think we need to evolve a new functionality to eat meat. Our species have been doing that for a long time. Only to most militant vegetarians would disagree.

We are not deisigned to eat that much meat.......maybe you need to take a trip back to elementary science...this is from someone you enjoys the taste of meat

We are designed to be adaptable. Which includes eating lots of meat if we have/want to.

I am starting to have memories of the flintsones when Fred orders a giant Mammoth steak or a Bronto Burger.

How much for a living, breathing mammoth on the black market? This is the new way forward for bond type super villains who up till now have been restricted to purchasing alligators, tigers (non-sabre toothed), cobras and the like.
Ironic that we have modern day elephant populations in peril from human predation and enslavement and loss of habitat yet immense resources are being invested in bringing back the dead. Weird world.

I would have to think that we will know enough eventually about genetics and how it determines the form and function of an animal, that we could computerize even the skeletal structure of, say a dinosaur, and begin to back engineer the genes needed to create that form as well as the organs it was meant to support, including the brain.

We may be able to extrapolate essentials and possibilities from existing animals such as birds, to begin filling in gaps in this reconstructed DNA until we have enough Info to reconstruct the animal itself. Possibly we could work our way backward through evolution, extrapolating earlier and earlier forms from what we discern from each successful iteration, until how to construct a dinosaur becomes obvious.

Most likely not possible, could you get the Eiffel Tower from just a pile of all it's individual parts? That's the way genes work. We might be able to get something that looks like a dinosaur from modern bird DNA but it wouldn't be one.

I, for one, welcome the return of Pleistocene megafauna, and look forward to innovative steakhouse menus.

Elephant wondering Siberia in complete comfort during the Ice Ages, then suddenly frozen stiff for ten thousand years during a warm interglacial. Nothing odd there.

R_R: It isn't as if the interglacial has melted everything. All you need is for said mammoth to fall into a crevasse and get locked into permafrost (at a high enough latitude that said permafrost doesn't melt even during an interglacial), and voila. Mammoth-sicle.

Was that comment prompted by some alternative version of paleohistory of yours? I'm mildly curious to hear what it is.

I first read about the possibility of bringing back the mammoth via cloning about 1970. At the time the leading biologists said it would be impossible, chiefly because of damage to the frozen DNA. It's great to see enough scientific progress over four decades that this dream may be achievable after all.

@Quantum Conundrum

"Of course, you also realize that frozen DNA from a mammoth could have latent viral DNA incorporated into it's nucleus in the "provirus" stage, which could prove disasterous for modern elephants."

Couldn't scientists then just clone more elephants?

Ronan, your senerio is not unbelievable if we were talking about a handful of animals, but we are talking about the frozen remains of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of animals. The trade of perfectly preserved siberian mammoth tusks (which quickly rot if not continually frozen) has been going on for many hundreds of years and there are still russians making a living driving around looking for these tusks sticking out of the ground. These great hurds were destroyed and froozen in just one day 10500 BC when the North Pole shifted upon them.

hese great hurds were destroyed and froozen in just one day 10500 BC when the North Pole shifted upon them.

Mammoth shit. Most have turned out to have been trapped in sinks. They died over many thousands of years in many different places. There is no evidence for the North Shifting instantly ever much less some magic date that fits your fantasies. Besides which the last Ice Age was ENDING then not starting.

Ethelred

I thought R_R had to be joking. Is there no end to the whack-jobs?

"but the road to hell is **always** paved with good intentions."

If you believe in Hell, that is. If you don't then it really has no meaning.

My how astoundingly profound...either you were trying to dismiss the meaning of the phrase with juvenile "logic" to show how big your atheistic "dick" is in comparison to others on this board, or you're just too fucking stupid to grasp it.

My guess is the former. Bravo, you're "cock size" with respect to your atheist ideals is well established amongst the more juvenile and shallow of those ilk on this board. Though most atheists here seem to be a bit more sophisticated than that...

What I find hilarious is people who continually WHINE, and PISS and MOAN incessantly about how "unnatural" humans and their actions are, and yet seem to be positively giddy about a blatantly unnatural act like bringing back a species who's had its time and was "selected" for extinction.

Speaking of sophistication...
How about we talk about juvenile behavior...

How about we use that last post of Modernmystic as an example of the latter and how one can avoid the former.

Ethelred

There may be a small living population of ivory-billed woodpeckers, as for the tasmanian wolf it's gone and all of it's remains were incorrectly preserved so there is no Dna we can extract period. As for dinosaurs we have sacraficed a few enourmous bones and found (guess what) SOFT TISSUE! unfortunitly there are only a few genomes and fragments of DNA. It may take years to piece even a single part of that back together. As for your megaliths many are not as well ummm... preserved as mammoths. They weren't turned into megalith -sickles and so there is not much we can extract period. ( although i must agree with quantum on one thing ancient extinct bacteria in mammoths is probably as well preserved as the mammoth itself) But if were working with single cells and DNA then we should be able to tell the difference between bacteria and virus from mammoth.

Ronan, your senerio is not unbelievable if we were talking about a handful of animals, but we are talking about the frozen remains of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of animals. The trade of perfectly preserved siberian mammoth tusks (which quickly rot if not continually frozen) has been going on for many hundreds of years and there are still russians making a living driving around looking for these tusks sticking out of the ground. These great hurds were destroyed and froozen in just one day 10500 BC when the North Pole shifted upon them.

We've proved that you're just a crackpot. Please don't pollute another thread.

agreed he is worse than quantrum condrem at least he makes sense SOMETIMES. Not ever like this guy... although there are a lot of mammoths I seriously doubt they are that numerous...

act like bringing back a species who's had its time and was "selected" for extinction.

Well assuming the cloning goes well and assuming that more are cloned, it may be that we are witnessing the first species to beat "extinction". I guess it just goes to show, you aren't extinct until you're DNA is extinct.

Extinction is natures way of saying you are redundant. Extinction is a natural event for the most part. Lets leave nature to sort itself out. Resurrecting extinct species may well be the stupidest and the last thing we ever do.

OK I read an old thread where R_R made a lot of posts and he mentioned a book he wrote. So if he actually wrote the book then R_R was an odd choice for a handle as the author's name is John Gagnon.

No one has reviewed in either Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

For 18 bucks its short.
Paperback: 160 pages

There are rather more books on Amazon than I ever imagined. And nearly all of them sell better.

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #2,033,156 in Books

Wow, that is a big number. Not a good one in this context, just a big one. Somewhat smaller than the energy needed to reverse the rotation of the Earth but still it might explain the lack of reader reviews.

httpDELETE-ME://www.amazon.com/Message-Ancients-John-Gagnon/dp/0981128106

httpDELETE-ME://search.barnesandnoble.com/Message-from-the-Ancients/John-Gagnon/e/9780981128108

Ethelred

I would like to know, why are they using an Africanus Loxidontis as the mother, instead of an Elephus Maxumus? The African is a decendent of the Mastadon, while the Asian elephant is MUCH closer to the Mammoth? I do know that cross breeding the 2 is not possible, crating a "mule" that does not survive the birth. Wouldn't the nutritional/serum/biological needs be better met by a close relative?

I actually have this book. Given to me by a "friend" who believed similar crap.

R_R, were you unaware that if the pyramid shafts actually pointed in the directions you suggest it would have to be a pentagon, not a square?

...and Noah said to the mammoth:"Sorry pal, your time is in the future, get off my boat"?

Well assuming the cloning goes well and assuming that more are cloned, it may be that we are witnessing the first species to beat "extinction". I guess it just goes to show, you aren't extinct until you're DNA is extinct.

No what it means is you were extinct until human beings take your DNA, clone you, and bring you back from extinction.

Sorry, but people who try to hijack the meaning of words and turn the language into apish grunts and clicks peeve me at titch...

Most likely not possible, could you get the Eiffel Tower from just a pile of all it's individual parts? That's the way genes work. We might be able to get something that looks like a dinosaur from modern bird DNA but it wouldn't be one.

I think that there is probably very few genetic options for creating triceratops horns or the specific pelvis shape of a t Rex. These shapes are related to the organs they need to contain and again, there need to be certain organs present which we can find in existing animals and know what genes produce them and where they are located.

You could certainly recreate the plans for building an Eiffel tower from surveying the existing one, or even from photos and an understanding of engineering, and use them to build another one which functions in the same manner. Genes are plans.

Everything from shitting in the woods to building atomic weapons is "natural" because for something to be unnatural it would have to take place outside of nature i.e. the universe.

At what point does a beaver dam become unnatural? There are beaver dams much larger than the smallest human dam, though I'm sure the human one would be considered less natural than the beavers. Is it the building material? No, humans can build dams out of wood. Is it the way the wood is acquired? Both chop down trees, but beavers do with their bodies while humans do with tools. Okay there is a difference. What about animals that have been documented using tools? Are they unnatural? This argument goes in circles until you realize that in fact everything that is possible is also natural.

Everything from shitting in the woods to building atomic weapons is "natural" because for something to be unnatural it would have to take place outside of nature i.e. the universe.

At what point does a beaver dam become unnatural? There are beaver dams much larger than the smallest human dam, though I'm sure the human one would be considered less natural than the beavers. Is it the building material? No, humans can build dams out of wood. Is it the way the wood is acquired? Both chop down trees, but beavers do with their bodies while humans do with tools. Okay there is a difference. What about animals that have been documented using tools? Are they unnatural? This argument goes in circles until you realize that in fact everything that is possible is also natural.

Thank you! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

Someone finally f'ing gets it.

Everything from shitting in the woods to building atomic weapons is "natural" because for something to be unnatural it would have to take place outside of nature i.e. the universe.

You can define it however you want or you can look it up and accept the prevailing definition. Natural are things which are not human-fabricated. Artificial are things which are human-fabricated. There are many very good reasons for maintaining the distinction.

Please explain these good reasons. I'd like to hear them.

The New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean as well as the islands of Stolbovoi and Belkov present the same picture "the soil of these desolate islands is absolutely packed full of the bones of elephants and rhinoceroses in astonishing numbers".

But there is always those who refuse dealing in facts such as - you can draw a line through todays pole and all the proposed main ice sheets of the so called ice age are on one side of that line reaching for the equater while on the other side of that line there is no sign that ice sheets ever existed, just the frozen remains of millions of mammals, almost to the pole, that have been stuck in a frozen wastland for millenia. Of coarse this all makes sense if the pole was at Hudson Bay.

@frank
If I were you I would simply do a little research and find them out for yourself. Start by looking the words up. You sound as if you think you are exploring ground that hasnt already been thoroughly covered.

I thought of an example of 'artificial'- the bible is artificial because it was written by humans for entirely human reasons. Good one eh?

@TheGhostofOtto1923
It's very ironic that you are using a purity argument to argue against religion. (btw I'm an anti-theist)

Also, I found this definition for 'unnatural': "Not existing in nature"

Oh but we need to define 'nature', here we go: "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world"

I'd say that meshes up with my usage of the words pretty well.

The New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean as well as the islands of Stolbovoi and Belkov present the same picture "the soil of these desolate islands is absolutely packed full of the bones of elephants and rhinoceroses in astonishing numbers".

The new Siberian Islands are sections of the previously exposed continental shelf during the last ice age. They're rising due to crustal rebound.

But there is always those who refuse dealing in facts such as - you can draw a line through todays pole and all the proposed main ice sheets of the so called ice age are on one side of that line reaching for the equater while on the other side of that line there is no sign that ice sheets ever existed

Because the southern hemisphere is primarily water, not land, meaning snow would be able to reflect less light out of the environment and dark ocean water would absorb more holding more warmth.

The Hudson bay pole is unproved by you thus far.

And it is more difficult for ice to spread across water. (then there is the fact of warm water currents from the equater go south around australia and the cape of good hope so it is hard for ice to stay.) BUT the hudson pole can be somewhat proven by where the pole is today and where it is going. (towards siberia from canada) just by looking at where it has moved we can back track and see it going down into the USA. (sorry dude it missed the hudson bay by a few thousand mile try lake winnipeg)

And it is more difficult for ice to spread across water. (then there is the fact of warm water currents from the equater go south around australia and the cape of good hope so it is hard for ice to stay.) BUT the hudson pole can be somewhat proven by where the pole is today and where it is going. (towards siberia from canada) just by looking at where it has moved we can back track and see it going down into the USA. (sorry dude it missed the hudson bay by a few thousand mile try lake winnipeg)

It looks to me like you're confusing the North Magnetic Pole with the Polar Axis.

Also, I found this definition for 'unnatural': "Not existing in nature"

Oh but we need to define 'nature', here we go: "The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world"
I'd say that meshes up with my usage of the words pretty well.

You need to research 'artificial'
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial

-a list of typical things which need to use the term to describe them, as not occuring naturally.

@TheGhostofOtto1923
It's very ironic that you are using a purity argument to argue against religion. (btw I'm an anti-theist)

I don't know what a purity argument is. Got a def?

I never used the word artificial. Why are you trying to claim I'm defining words incorrectly I didn't even use? Artificial things exist so of course they are natural. I don't see your point.

@TheGhostofOtto1923
It's very ironic that you are using a purity argument to argue against religion. (btw I'm an anti-theist)

I don't know what a purity argument is. Got a def?

You seem to be fond of telling people to look it up.

As with the stupidity inherent in the frozen zoo concept for living endangered species; HOW would a modern elephant teach a woolly mammoth the behaviors critical to surviving at the edge of the tundra. An elephant is much more than just its genetic makeup; elephants teach their young. Heck they have a form of culture.

I think I might be mistaken... (with the polar axis). But yeah plus we couldn't show them proper mammoth behavior. Reason being, there are no mammoths to get any behavior lessons. BUT I doubt there herds are too much different than modern elephant herds.

@JoD: Recently it was found that mammoths are as close genetically to Asian elephants as the two subspecies of African elephants are to each other, so it doesn't make much sense that they're using African eggs. Maybe they should first try putting Asian elephant DNA in an African cell. If that doesn't work, it seems unlikely that mammoth DNA in an African egg will work.

Purity argument. Fred says it's this:
"A great majority of KJV-only apologists will claim that the King James represents the final, complete, purified Bible having gone through what they insist was a seven-fold purification process in the English language. This process began with the first Bibles translated into English by Wycliff and his Lollard followers, continuing to Tyndale's work, onto Coverdale's translation, then Matthew's, then the Great Bible, the Geneva translation, the Bishop's and finally the King James. King James advocates will call this the Line of Good Bibles or the Tree of Good Bibles. I have called this argument, The Purity Argument"

-is this what you meant? Or like Fred, are you coining a new term the meaning of which is supposed to be obvious?

I'd say that meshes up with my usage of the words pretty well.

-Except that your 'research' stopped a little short. Natural things are:

" in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For, example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind." -wiki

-You see your argument has already been debated and well-delineated. Why try to reinvent things? That's for religionists to do. The word artificial has specific uses which are sometimes not covered by the term natural. As I said this distinction is useful, per the items on the wiki list via the link I posted.

Ha! This is Funny:

Sorry, but people who try to hijack the meaning of words and turn the language into apish grunts and clicks peeve me at titch...

MM doesnt like People who mangle word meanings but then feels entitled to attempt to redefine words like 'nature' and 'god' to suit his own, I don't know, need for mangling I suppose? Unless that was another joke perhaps?

There may be a small living population of ivory-billed woodpeckers, as for the tasmanian wolf it's gone and all of it's remains were incorrectly preserved so there is no Dna we can extract period. As for dinosaurs we have sacraficed a few enourmous bones and found (guess what) SOFT TISSUE! unfortunitly there are only a few genomes and fragments of DNA. It may take years to piece even a single part of that back together. As for your megaliths many are not as well ummm... preserved as mammoths. They weren't turned into megalith -sickles and so there is not much we can extract period. ( although i must agree with quantum on one thing ancient extinct bacteria in mammoths is probably as well preserved as the mammoth itself) But if were working with single cells and DNA then we should be able to tell the difference between bacteria and virus from mammoth.

I think you mean Tasmanian Tiger.

"but the road to hell is **always** paved with good intentions."

If you believe in Hell, that is. If you don't then it really has no meaning.

Besides, these were ice creatures -- this has little to do with Hell. Maybe he meant that the road to the ancient ice sheets was paved with Mammoth poop.

"the soil of these desolate islands is absolutely packed full of the bones of elephants and rhinoceroses in astonishing numbers".

Yes and it took a long time to get that many. Plus some people have odd ideas of what constitutes astonishing. A lot of elephants have been found along the Miracle Mile in Los Angeles. There is no sign that the Earth stopped and reversed there. No signs that the Amerinds were wiped out before they ever got there. Which is what would have happened if your claim was true.

10,000 individual animals were have been dug out of the La Brea Tar Pits. And guess what? They didn't all die in 12,500. They died and were captured over 30,000 years of time from 40,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. A few per decade. Siberia is much bigger place. I sure that over thousands of years even more animals must have been trapped in sinkholes there.

httpDELETE-ME://www.tarpits.org/

More

But there is always those who refuse dealing in facts such as -

Let us know when you stop doing that.

Of coarse this all makes sense if the pole was at Hudson Bay.

Which it wasn't so how about you check things again. Even if the pole had been in different than it really was the center of glaciation was NOT Hudson Bay. More like Greenland. Most of Russia simply didn't get enough precipitation for glaciers to form there. A similar thing can be seen in Antarctica where there is a dry frozen desert, with no glaciers, in one area.

Maximum glaciation was 20,000 years ago not 12500. And NOTHING would have frozen in the impact scenario you claim. EVERYTHING would have been fried to ash. As in EVERYTHING. No Amerinds to have myths, no mammoths to freeze and no grass in their teeth either. The whole planet would have been completely blasted. Just as happened when the Moon was formed.

Ethelred

Wrong thread sorry

Ethelred

Actully it can be the tasmanian wolf OR tasmanian tiger. It has been called by both names. And i agree with the people above those mammoths were collected OVER TIME not all at once.

@JoD: Recently it was found that mammoths are as close genetically to Asian elephants as the two subspecies of African elephants are to each other, so it doesn't make much sense that they're using African eggs. Maybe they should first try putting Asian elephant DNA in an African cell. If that doesn't work, it seems unlikely that mammoth DNA in an African egg will work.

My Point exactly. They DID try to put DNA (insemination) both ways, to an African female (baby died at birth) and 3 Asian females (again, babies died at birth). Another tidbit, I have cuttings from my African of her tusk. I took it into a jeweler who SWORE I gave him a Mastadon tusk. I had to prove to him, that 1)the elephant was very much alive, and 2)she was definately a Savanah Plains African elephant.(I'm a retired elephant trainer). The tusks both in Mastadon and African have a cross hatching, like many xxxx'S circling the inner lining of the tusks,not proof positive, but, Asian/Mammoth are solid in color

@algaefuel Above comment includes....The accidental breeding of an African male to an Asian female, in London zoo, plus other incidents either thru zoos or private owners of Asian males to African females. The prodegee all proved sterile, even if they had of lived, much like a horse and donkey, or zebra...mules, zonks, and etc. Off by a Chromosome or two

The reasoning for using the larger elephant may just be its own point. Depending on the size of the baby at birth it may seriously injure or kill the mother at birth.

African elephants are larger. Perhaps we should ask the scientists "Why an African elephant." And wouldn't the process described above make a halfbreed? Half elephant half mammoth?

@modernmystic do you have any point other than to deride others points. A number of unusual points have been made which you have attempted to shake your own penis at for no other reason than to shake your penis. Grow up!

@JoD and Palijor: Even given that Asians and Africans can't crossbreed successfully, that doesn't necessarily exclude the cloning process that's being proposed. In that process, the DNA of the African egg is removed entirely and replaced with the mammoth DNA, not combined with it as in the insemination procedure. So it's not half one/half the other, and it doesn't matter that the chromosomes don't match up. Still, it might not work for many reasons, including that mitochondrial DNA will still be African.

@modernmystic do you have any point other than to deride others points. A number of unusual points have been made which you have attempted to shake your own penis at for no other reason than to shake your penis. Grow up!

No, I don't have any other point. Pointing out the faults in the points of others is the point of debate. The fact that the point is lost on you is beside the point.

Did you have a point?

Im only here for the Air Jordan shirts.

Ethelred, Why do you talk about excavated tar pits in California, that has nothing to do with the fact that countless thousands of perfectly preserved Mammoth tusks have been found sticking out of the frozen ground in Siberia. People still earn a living today (Ivory) just driving around looking for them. When found they use torches to thaw the ground for extraction. These animals obviously died and were quikely frozen and have remained so for over ten thousand years. Thats why the article above suggests DNA is still avialable. Common sense dictates the ground was not frozen when they were alive and wondering around. Recently a complete baby Mammoth was found with eyeballs and all, this baby had no hair so climate must have been warm, not frozzen ground (lots of pics on net). Your tar pits prove nothing as with the rest of your post.

Skeptic, I'm under no illusion that I'll prove anything, seems the fix is in on this one.

I have a question will it have immunity to certain present day diseases? Also who will teach it mammoth behavior?

Skeptic, I'm under no illusion that I'll prove anything, seems the fix is in on this one.

You mean reality has "set you up"?

Skeptic, No, I mean loud brainwashed flatearthers make any progress impossible.

Why do you talk about excavated tar pits in California

It shows how you get that many fossils.

that has nothing to do with the fact that countless thousands

It most certainly does have a lot to do with it. It also shows that there was no cataclysm and that none is need to get a lot of fossils. Just the right conditions. Freezing require cold. It does not require the Earth to stop and reverse its direction. Indeed it require for that to NOT happen since if it did happen there wouldn't much frozen rock left much less frozen organics.

People still earn a living today (Ivory) just driving around looking for them

People do NOT casually drive in Siberia off the road.

When found they use torches to thaw the ground for extraction

Or they just dug them up after the annual thaw.

These animals obviously died and were quikely frozen and have remained so for over ten thousand years

Yes. Most likely a LOT more than ten thousand in most cases. Twice that for many.

More

Common sense dictates the ground was not frozen when they were alive and wondering around

Common sense often dictates common stupidity. This one for sure as most frozen mammoths DROWNED. There is this thing called SUMMER. There is another thing called WINTER. Permafrost thaws in the SUMMER. It freezes again in the WINTER. When the climate is getting colder it sometimes stays frozen. When the climate gets warmer as it is doing right now stuff that has been frozen for millennia starts to thaw.

Recently a complete baby Mammoth was found with eyeballs and all, this baby had no hair

And it died. Frozen. No hair tends to do that even though it was probably born in the SUMMER like most animals that live near permafrost. Since it failed to grow hair it DIED.

Your tar pits prove nothing

Proved that fossils accumulate over time. Proved that the Earth did not stop on a dime, give 9 cents change, and then reverse direction.

Ethelred

I don't know if there is any room for empathy towards the mammoth.. considering the life to be but.. lets just say I hope I'm never "defrosted"

I don't know if there is any room for empathy towards the mammoth.. considering the life to be but.. lets just say I hope I'm never "defrosted"

Did you read the article?? No mammoth is getting "defrosted", they are goig to clone it. The mammoth is well and truly dead.

Skeptic, No, I mean loud brainwashed flatearthers make any progress impossible.

So the people who don't listen to scienctific endeavor, like yourself, make everything impossible.

I agree.

Well assuming the cloning goes well and assuming that more are cloned, it may be that we are witnessing the first species to beat "extinction". I guess it just goes to show, you aren't extinct until you're DNA is extinct.

No what it means is you were extinct until human beings take your DNA, clone you, and bring you back from extinction.

*Groan* Do you understand that expressions need not be literally true? I was making a joke with reference to the old classic "You're not dead until you're warm and dead", which given the article seemed appropriate.

Sorry, but people who try to hijack the meaning of words and turn the language into apish grunts and clicks peeve me at titch...

I swear it’s like dealing with children on this site sometimes. Read a poem and maybe you'll understand why "apish grunts and clicks" are important to the English language.

I doubt their million dollar pet mammoth is going to be grazing in the Savannah anytime soon

That's because they'd be in the tundra.

There is this thing called SUMMER. There is another thing called WINTER. Permafrost thaws in the SUMMER.

Actually permafrost doesn't generally thaw in the summer. Hence the name permafrost.

I'm not saying it's actually permanently frozen, but the idea is that it is a deposit of ice/frozen ground that remains as such for a long time (through at least two years I think is what it takes to be considered permafrost).

Not an attempt to refute the argument (which it doesn't do anyways), just a bit of clarification.

Gosh Liv I'm sorry if my point was lost on you.

If I hurt your feelings hug yourself for about ten minutes and tell yourself "I love you" at least 30 times and you'll feel just fine...

Ethelred, OK lets stay with the tar pits, because in fact they do record this planets rotation reversal. At the same time the Mammoths died and where frozen in Siberia, 12000 years ago, the La Brea tar pits stopped capturing megafauna. Why, because there was no more large mammals in north america, almost every single one of them had perished for some reason. Science calls it the ice age extinction event, I call it what the eyewitnesses call it, impact and pole shift.

Actually permafrost doesn't generally thaw in the summer.

That is the ground you are talking about and the surface does thaw, otherwise there would not be those circles. Plus elephants in Africa are tear up the ground to get at water. Presumably mammoths caused the sinks, there is evidence that they dug in Northen Europe, they sometimes drowned in via a similar behavior. Those sinks could easily last year after year and thaw out each summer. Water thaws faster than the ground does.

Not an attempt to refute the argument (which it doesn't do anyways)

Don't like being refuted eh. Too bad. I just refuted it.

I am willing to refute the Pope on the Bible and Darwin on evolution. What makes you special? Neaggh thippt.

Ethelred

Ethelred, OK lets stay with the tar pits, because in fact they do record this planets rotation reversal. At the same time the Mammoths died and where frozen in Siberia, 12000 years ago, the La Brea tar pits stopped capturing megafauna. Why, because there was no more large mammals in north america, almost every single one of them had perished for some reason. Science calls it the ice age extinction event, I call it what the eyewitnesses call it, impact and pole shift.

What eyewitnesses?

Ethelred, OK lets stay with the tar pits, because in fact they do record this planets rotation reversal.

They don't. You are the only one making that claim. Prove it. Show actual evidence.

he La Brea tar pits stopped capturing megafauna.

Mammoth feces.

Why, because there was no more large mammals in north america, almost every single one of them had perished for some reason.

Later, not 12,500, . The reason is men started killing them. There is no evidence that the Earth reversed it's rotation. That would have vaporized all life on Earth. The Tar pits included.

In Eurasia, 21 taxa disappeared, and as in North America, other species dramatically altered their habitat range. It is clear there, at least, that different animals disappeared at different times within the time frame of the Late Pleistocene, and thus probably for various reasons. North American data is less clear.

It would be VERY clear if your theory wasn't utter crap.

More

Nothrotheriops: a large ground sloth, range from northern Mexico to southern Alberta; weight to 400 lbs. A browser, it fed on roots/stems/flowers etc of desert plants (including, prominently, Mormon Tea [ephedra]). (Latest dated sample from Rampart Cave, AZ is about 9,000 B.C.E.-- "Before the Common Era".)

Mammutus (Mammoth): M. jeffersonii inhabited open prairies especially in the West (high populations in Arizona), feeding mainly on grasses. (Last dates about 9,000 B.C.E.)

Mammut (Mastodont): rare in western North America, preferred conifer woodlands; fed on these and swamp plants. (Terminal dates 7,000 B.C.E. at latest.)

Science calls it the ice age extinction event, I call it what the eyewitnesses call it, impact and pole shift.

Which is utter nonsense. There would be no eyewitnesses surviving being vaporized and you don't have any eyewitness accounts in any case.

Ethelred

Ethelred - That would have vaporized all life on Earth

It certainly vaporized north america and europe, Dr Firestone has shown a black charchol ground layer exists throughout the two continents, no megafauna or clovis people found above that layer.

Ethel - Latest dated sample from Rampart Cave, AZ is about 9,000 B.C.E.

Acceptable if your a sheep who blindly believes what they are told. Dr. Firestone has shown this impact greatly altered atmosphereic conditions rendering C14 type dating totally unreliable.

It certainly vaporized north america and europe, Dr Firestone has shown a black charchol ground layer exists throughout the two continents, no megafauna or clovis people found above that layer.

R_R would you like to explain the survival of Mammoths up until 1650BC on Wrangle Island in that case? How about the survival of mammoths until 3750BC in St. Paul Alaska?

Sources: "5,700-Year-Old Mammoth Remains from the Pribilof Islands, Alaska: Last Outpost of North America Megafauna", Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Volume 37, Number 7, (Geological Society of America, 2005), 463.

Sergei L. Vartanyan, Alexei N. Tikhonov, and Lyobov A. Orlova, "The Dynamic of Mammoth Distribution in the Last Refugia in Beringia", Second World of Elephants Congress, (Hot Springs: Mammoth Site, 2005), 195.

This sounds as if it's not merely a complicated experiment but a truly mammoth undertaking.

On a more personal level, I am truthfully looking forward to the return of many extinct animale, and would like to see them once again running in heards the world over...BUT if people want the wild stallions of Texas hearded up and slaughtered, (and they do), they will find a way to destroy the greats beasts of any before. I am seriously studying the neuro effects of the Kamodo Dragon saliva in relevance to the treatment of arthritis.

Skeptic - ScienceDayly - new findings from J.Faith PHD and Todd Surovell, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, reveal that this mass extinction occurred in a geological instant. New findings from Faith indicate that the extinction is best characterized as a sudden event that took place between 13.8 and 11.4 thousand years ago.

The GP says 12500 years ago. Of coarse there may have been pockets of suvivors. Perhaps I have gone as far as I should, good luck Skeptic and Physorg members.

The ability to resurrect and potentially repopulate previously extinct species will be one of mankinds greatest achievements.

Everything from shitting in the woods to building atomic weapons is "natural" because for something to be unnatural it would have to take place outside of nature i.e. the universe.

You can define it however you want or you can look it up and accept the prevailing definition. Natural are things which are not human-fabricated. Artificial are things which are human-fabricated. There are many very good reasons for maintaining the distinction.

Man does not create, he discovers ;)

The ability to resurrect and potentially repopulate previously extinct species will be one of mankinds greatest achievements.

Bringing back dead ends that nature has selected for extinction may be one of our greatest achievements....

Either that or one of our biggest wastes of time...

I'd go with biggest waste of time, money and effort just to satisfy some weird frankenstein/jurassic park mad scientist urge. *sigh/shiver*

Bringing back dead ends that nature has selected for extinction may be one of our greatest achievements....

Are you implying that nature has an agenda?

Whatever might transpire at the genetic level, the baby will have the genetic influence of the processer that is available,which is the mothers,and so the offspring will still have the habitation and genetic profile of the mother and the best that could happen is a mix,never a clone.
The processer(Soul for the seminary boys here) is long gone here for that species.
With bi-pedal Hu-mans, the same is true,the processer adds its genetics and controls the growth of the baby,which explains one heck of alot of quandries that could not be explained without my info I just released.
Just like cryogenic preservation,that processer extracts itself from base one programming from the non viable physicality body and the body cannot be repaired (When medical science catches up).
So, those of you who have paid the 160 or more G's to be preserved have been had.
I have that pesty Phd. in Hperdimensional Physics,and you dont.
No clone boys.

I have that pesty Phd. in Hperdimensional Physics,and you dont.

pesky
Hyper-dimensional
don't
It's called spell check.
Do you also have a Phd. in Bovine Coprology?
Also, processor has an o in it.

This is a long bet.

My fat, hairy ex might want to give birth again, maybe they should select her for carrying the embryo. The only snag I can think of is that she may be more bovine than pachyderm.

Skeptic - ScienceDayly - new findings from J.Faith PHD and Todd Surovell, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, reveal that this mass extinction occurred in a geological instant. New findings from Faith indicate that the extinction is best characterized as a sudden event that took place between 13.8 and 11.4 thousand years ago.

The GP says 12500 years ago. Of coarse there may have been pockets of suvivors. Perhaps I have gone as far as I should, good luck Skeptic and Physorg members.

There's no research paper attached to that article. Thanks for playing the media game.

Bringing back dead ends that nature has selected for extinction may be one of our greatest achievements....

Are you implying that nature has an agenda?

No that would be environmentalists, who fly off the handle every time we do something "unnatural"...

My implication is that if natural selection weeded out the failures it's pointless to bring them back...

That thinking sounds like natural selection is always progressing towards some sort of determined end. Mammoths failed to survive some combination of climate and man, but that in no way means they're a fundamentally flawed species. Natural selection only looks at the present environment to determine success and failure. Conditions are very different today.

How would you feel about resurrecting the dodo?

but that in no way means they're a fundamentally flawed species.

What criteria would you use? And YES natural selection IS working towards a determined end...survival. If you survive you've "won" if you didn't you "lose". If natural selection didn't have means and ends it could select nothing.

How would you feel about resurrecting the dodo?

Why would it make any difference if something were killed off by men? Men and their actions are by definition natural.

If bringing back a species serves OUR ends and OUR survival I'm for it. If not I'm ambivalent...unless it's done with tax dollars.

And YES natural selection IS working towards a determined end...survival

ANYTHING that aids survival counts, nothing is predetermined. However being in a large area that gets smacked isn't genetic and cannot be selected.

Why would it make any difference if something were killed off by men?

I take it then that you have NEVER changed your mind on anything. Nor disagreed with anyone on anything, especially on what should be killed off.

Men and their actions are by definition natural.

No. That is the definition of MAN made. Natural and Supernatural do NOT cover the entire universe. Man is outside that definition. Use a different word than natural. What we do is not SUPERNATURAL but it isn't natural either. By you standard NYLON is natural and it isn't.

If bringing back a species serves OUR ends and OUR survival I'm for it.

The human race isn't just YOU. It serves our ends. It doesn't have to contribute to our survival. Just not contribute to our end.

Ethelred

If not I'm ambivalent...unless it's done with tax dollars.

I don't care about your opinion on that. LOTS of things are done with tax dollars that LOTS of people don't like. In fact EVERYTHING done with tax dollars has someone that doesn't like it. You get ONE vote. you don't get a veto unless you are President.

Ethelred

Solve the dilemma of why the Mastodons were in Siberia in the first place, and they were found standing up,frozen,with grasses in their mouth and stomach.
They planted the seeds and they grew and the sled dogs were fed the meat after un freezing.
I have solved the riddle,now you tell me.

Sorry,I called it a Mastodon,when mammoth is correct here. I cannot edit as it takes over 3 minutes for loading.

Why would it make any difference if something were killed off by men? Men and their actions are by definition natural.

No they're not. They're an unnatural invasive species that has very unnaturally affected the environment.

Natural systems which evolve over the course of tens of thousands of years do not relate to ships carrying exotic species from one side of the planet to the other. A very good example of where the separation of 'artificial' vs natural is appropriate. We, as an invasive species, can decide which invasive species are inappropriate and remediate.

Does this fixation of yours with man the nature boy have anything to do with your belief in mans subservience to god? Maybe?

@Modernmystic
"Why would it make any difference if something were killed off by men? Men and their actions are by definition natural."

By your own argument - assuming it were true - man's decision to bring back a species from extinction would be just as natural. That would imply that the process of natural selection does include the possibility of a species coming back through man's activities.

Thinking about it - being so interesting a species that other species go to the effort of bringing you back from extinction might be the ultimate way of survival, and thus make this species perfect in the sense of evolution.

So, what again was your point? ;-)

Processer is just fine,it is in the unabridged section,obviously before some one here was born,and you can say nothing about typos,but the real question is,DO YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL SCIENCE COMMENTARY??

Processer is just fine,it is in the unabridged section,obviously before some one here was born,and you can say nothing about typos,but the real question is,DO YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL SCIENCE COMMENTARY??

Processor is in the dictionary. Your word is not.
As far as scientific commentary -
The epigenome of an elephant might not be compatible with the DNA of Mammoth. DNA methylation patterns and elephant RNA present in the egg from the host probably would affect the reading of the histone code. Hopefully I am wrong, I would like to see a living mammoth.

By your own argument - assuming it were true - man's decision to bring back a species from extinction would be just as natural.

By my definition yes. By everyone elses here it isn't. My argument is that it's a WASTE OF TIME. Not that it's "bad" or "good" or "unnatural".

Being an interesting species, or a species that can benefit the intelligent apex super-predator on your planet certainly isn't going to hurt your chances of being "brought back".

Use a different word than natural.

I'll use any fucking word I want thanks. I'm using the correct one. You may feel free to use the wrong one if it makes you feel better or doesn't drive you batty by not fitting your preconceived worldview.

By you standard NYLON is natural and it isn't.

Pray what is it?

On edit: To save you time Eth, I'm not going to get into an argument over "natural" again. Piss off, or agree to disagree but I'm not going to debate the color of the sky with you for 50 posts...

@'Waste of time':
The point is not to produce a very expensive steak. The point is to develop and improve new technology.

Whether this goal is worth the amount of time and $ that go into it is hard to tell - but don't consider a hairy elephant to be the only result of this project.

I'll use any fucking word I want thanks

Go ahead, misuse the word and rant on.

I'm using the correct one

No.

You may feel free to use the wrong one if it makes you feel better

Natural does NOT cover things humans do. There is Natural, Supernatural and stuff humans have messed with.

Pray what is it?

Usually it's called Man Made. Never natural by anyone using real English.

I'm not going to get into an argument over "natural" again

Your going to RANT again. Nothing new for you. I suspect you are far more interested in ranting than actual communication.

Piss off, or agree to disagree

No. I will point out that you aren't using English. You are welcome to continue being wrong.

but I'm not going to debate the color of the sky with you

This one is enough. Unless you make another asinine reply to support your misuse of the word Natural. You are the only person from the previous discussions still misusing the word.

Ethelred

I see some of those here would benefit from using Midol,tell you pharma guy,or gal, I sent you and you will get the double dose.
Have you guys actually read what you wrote SOBER??

I see some of those here would benefit from using Midol,tell you pharma guy,or gal, I sent you and you will get the double dose.
Have you guys actually read what you wrote SOBER??

Have you read your posts? They're about what public schools expect from a fourth grader.

Oh yes ,I read them from time to time,but I do give out factual information,and I also give out my humor,whether its your blend or not.
I just roar from time to time reading your rants.
Fourth grade heh. Well,I actually did finish my Phd. and just because I am an old school asshole,versus the new age wackjobs I see making science news,you get agitated.
I do not get agitated,I have a great time in my retirement,making certain people just scream and scream. And ou signed up,not me.
Sometimes I even make a typo and folks like you immediately pounce,and I just laugh.
So,I really do understand that the pharma store may be too far tonight,but go ahead and inform them of my discount status tomorrow and hopefully you will feel better,why its church day tomorrow,and my people specifically beat the shit out of people that are dead,but assholes,on church day.
Like Niels Bohr,a kook himself without any legs to stand on,I know,I have challenged him and he is lacking certain components.

Yeah, senility must be fun.

We'll see who laughs when your "reset" never comes. When was that scheduled, again?

I did not make the reset message up,it was reported to our office quite a few year ago,and I do not have the exact date,just a few facts about it,and birds ,fish etc. are signs of the beginning,I am told.
Ahh,senility, what a terrible disease,does it occur in your family?
Senility is a disease connected to certain families,It is specifically not allowed in mine.
Steven Hawkings problems are from his family not being under protection from "The Craft"
All dis-ease is the result of the craft,including "Beer Bellies" and Obesity, and of course every cancer.
Everyone should "look" at their family and see "Just where they STAND"
We are experiencing the largest genocide event in the history of the earth,and senility is just a minor ailment,Imagine the breadth of destruction in your family.
Me,senile,NOPE. Not allowed for me.
You may be doing great,all the way round,and if so,be prepared for a jolt.

I do not get agitated,I have a great time in my retirement

Trolling, trolling, trolling like an asshole.I don't get agitated either and I have yet to reach retirement age.

Sometimes I even make a typo and folks like you immediately pounce,and I just laugh

Wimp. I make them wish they had kept their mouths shut.

why its church day tomorrow

There are rather a lot of Atheists and Agnostics here. We could care less if its Church day nor the day before that was Synagogue day nor that some think Friday is Allah's. Let them waste a day.

my people specifically beat the shit out of people that are dead,but assholes

I would like to see that. I have yet to see an actual contradiction in action.

Like Niels Bohr ... he is lacking certain components.

Well breathe is one I suppose. Kind of hard to have a debate with someone that isn't breathing. Stephen Hawking does NOT count as not breathing.

Trolling, the action of someone with nothing to contribute.

Ethelred