Pericles Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I found this article at national geographic discussing the possiblities of cloning mammoths. I always thought that it was near impossible to clone something that has been dead for so long due to the breakdown of vital cloning components. Not to mention the funding needed to clone a mammoth which would be phenomenal. Anyone think it's a possiblity or have any thoughts? National Geographic Article Click here
AzurePhoenix Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I don't know what the recent developments are in regards to cloning using non-living material, if any, but one of the ideas was finding viable sperm, and using it to breed increasingly mammothy hybrid generations using asian elephant mothers. but still, the genetic material would probably still be degraded
Pericles Posted July 7, 2009 Author Posted July 7, 2009 Apparantly Japanese reasearchers have near intact sperm they are experimenting with. That was one option of creating modern day mammoths in regards to hybrids. Make two compatible clones born naturally then begin to breed the elephant part out of them. I also read that they have successfully sequenced 70% of the mammoth genome and it won't take long before the other 30% is sequenced. I believe it will be done in time.
Sisyphus Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I heard they think they could do it for $10 million in less than ten years, if they wanted to.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I'd bet a mammoth would be far likelier to pull it off with than some other extinct animals, like the thylacine. It's good to have a number of largely intact frozen adults.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 ... I hate you. But indeed, the non-direct hybrid route would take time, dedication and energy (money)... mammoths arent like mice in the breeding department.
CharonY Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Also, IMO the scientific knowledge gain would be dwarfed by the effort that would have to be put into it.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Eh, i see it like the going to the moon thing. More a matter of accomplishment
CharonY Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Well at least I know where the funding went if my grants do not hit ;P
Pericles Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think any scientific organisations would fund the project, probably more of a private investor thing now that I think of it. Which seems wrong to me as the only way they'd get their moneys' worth out of it would be to exploit the clone. Still I'd love to see one.
Deko Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Bringing animals "back from the dead" in a sense, is something that I am unsure about. Animals that died out due to natural selection would not survive in todays climates and recreating them would be like a species on death row. My selfish side would love to see a brontosaurus munching on the tree tops or a velocoraptor chasing down a springbok. Or if they did adapt, the damage reintroducing these long dead creatures would cause to the current eco-systems would be enormous. Perhaps no more cheetahs and giraffes to fill the niche. Cloning animals that died out due to human interference is a different situation. Obviously the mammoth hasn't been gone that long that the climates and natural habitat it used to rely on have changed that much. Also because we caused its extinction I feel it is our duty to bring it back.
Sisyphus Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Also because we caused its extinction I feel it is our duty to bring it back. We have an awful lot of duties, then. Driving other species extinct is homo sapiens' favorite pastime.
Deko Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 I would agree with you mate. I believe it's our duty to put some level of research into bringing back animals, but more importantly efforts should be made to boost numbers of living species.
GutZ Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 It would definitely make life more interesting. If they had the ability to breed so that they could live within the environment now, what exactly are they going to do with them? Are they going to cage them up for the rest of their lives? Let them roam free? Could you buy one as a pet or guard. Lastly would they be scared of mice too? I just want one of those signs. BEWARE OF MAMMOTH
Tolmosoff Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 That would be cool. I would like to see a DO-DO bird, A giant turkey, ancient elephant with giant tusks. Neanthertal ?? Oh no we got two on the Geico commercial. Well back to the drawing board. Modern man killed them off so we should bring them back.
insane_alien Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 species usually dies off for a reason, they are not able to survive in the current environment. that environment includes us. the only reason i can think of for reviving a species is curiosity. and that assumes we have access to a welll preserved DNA sample which, for nearly all cases is not available.
Tolmosoff Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Most animals that got extinked was from mans ( Spear, Arrow, or Bullit ). or even strangulation and poisons. Lucky the Buffalo survived mans hunting for meat and skins. Or bird specie for feathers.
Sisyphus Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 species usually dies off for a reason, they are not able to survive in the current environment. that environment includes us. That's true. As soon as humans spread to an area, a relationship to humans becomes a major survival factor for pretty much every species, so dramatic has our presence been and continues to be. Of course, you could take that further. Mammoths went extinct in large part because they couldn't survive for very long in an environment that included humans as predator. However, perhaps "interesting/iconic/useful/endearing to humans" could be a beneficial trait even post-extinction, in an environment in which humans have the power to resurrect extinct species. And that is a curious environment indeed. Life on Earth has taken an interesting turn.
insane_alien Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 Most animals that got extinked was from mans ( Spear, Arrow, or Bullit ). or even strangulation and poisons.Lucky the Buffalo survived mans hunting for meat and skins. Or bird specie for feathers. most species that have went extinct existed long before we ever came on the scene. (see everything that lived longer than 2 million years ago) and there is one known species to have been completely eradicated by a single feline.
GutZ Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 and there is one known species to have been completely eradicated by a single feline. One of the many reasons feline species kick so much ass.
AzurePhoenix Posted July 19, 2009 Posted July 19, 2009 One of the many reasons feline species kick so much ass. Best mammalian carnivore EVAR. Still, that wipe-out record's kinda lousy compared to our own. Though theyve certainly helped out mightily in the downfall of more than just the one. 1
Sisyphus Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Technically, any species whose last surviving member was eaten by a predator was "completely wiped out" by a single animal.
insane_alien Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 you could argue that, but the cat(singular) was the leading cause of death among that species when he was introduced to the environment. he didn't just kill the last surviving member, he killed all but the few that died of old age.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now