Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Pond Boss Is this cool or what? Cloning a Mammoth.

Yes they are close enough Scot. If I had to guess I'd say they are closer than a horse and a donkey since the elephant evolved from the mammoth. A dog and cat aren't even close.

The elephant womb is acting as an environment to nurture the DNA of the mammoth implanted into an elephant egg cell from what I understand. No hybridizing taking place. I could be wrong though.

For those of you that want some fascinating reading about mammoths here is a great link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

I found the following astounding:

There is an estimate of 150 million mammoth remains in Russia's Siberian permafrost, which covers a vast sparsely inhabited area.[17] Some of the remains are frozen complete, others in pieces of bone, tusk, tissue and wool, from less than a metre (3.3 ft) to 1 km (3300 ft) below ground.

Perhaps they overgrazed their environment if they were really abundant?

What was their life span, and how many years were they on the earth? That's a lot of animals, but if it was spread out over a lot of years, then it wouldn't be too bad.

Scot,

I think all if not most of those questions are answered on the link I gave.

When I heard about the cloning of Dolly the sheep about 15 years ago the first thing that popped into my head was they will try it with mammoths. It's taken a lot longer than I thought it would. My second thought was they would try it with race horses. Just clone the best ones instead of breeding. Haven't heard about them doing it with race horses but it may be coming.

Cecil, I know that there's too many variables to count, but if they lived 50 years, then that would average around 100,000 mammoths on the earth per year. My math's gotta be wrong tho.

This begs the question: Just because we can, should we?

When we try to manipulate DNA to create things that went out for one reason or another, that strikes me as trying to represent God, a domain we should not be in and one that always gets us into trouble. As mere humans, we can not possibly conceive all the consequences of our actions and thus we seem to create more problems than we solve.

I have to say if the whole species could not survive when things were allowed to be naturally selected, then there is a good enough reason not to bring them back.

But to each their own opinions...Live long and fish!

This is a common antiscience position. If an individual cannot understand it, then it must be risky and in God's domain. I am not saying that this is a good idea, just that this argument is used from everything from cloning to GM crops. A common theory about the extinction of mammoths is that humans were responsible. Is it OK to bring them back if we killed them off, but not if climate did? Seems pretty silly to draw the line there. It seems more reasonable to consider the risks and benefits of the action and whether or not a good plan to deal with whatever risks are reasonable is in place.

Most here will confirm that I am a strong advocate of science. However every scientist will tell you they don't have all or even most of the answers. They will be the first and most vocal in confirming that without knowing the risks/unintended consequences it is very dangerous to release an unknown into an uncontrolled environment. Just look at the history of introduced species.

The using of God , Allah , Buda , or whatever in the discussion/argument is understandable , though unnecessary and thus irrelevant , but is certainly not ignorance/misunderstanding. Call it what you may but the use of a higher deity in the discussion is only a correct recognition that man does not have the answers yet , has a history of being wrong all too often, and is sometimes unfortunately and unintentionally capable of doing great harm.

It is an intelligent position IMO ( in fact a survival of the species one) to say if you can't control the situation 100% and don't know the outcome 100% then you do not have the right to unleash upon mankind an unnatural species (or a foreign species into an new environment). Whether one says God made it so leave it alone , or whether it is stated in the context of religion , or humanistic ethical morality (no higher deity) or even in democratically created law (such introductions are often against the law) it all reflects the same basic principal. That principal is you don't own mankind and you have no right to place it at risk by individual actions [i.e. who appointed or elected you (your choice) God , King , Ruler , Judge , keeper of the species, etc.]

Great post Ewest!

Every scientist will agree that we cannot know all of the consiquences of any technological advance. We are never 100% sure. What we disagree on is whether we need to be 100% sure of all the consiquences or rather have a high probabilty that the risks are low. If we must be 100% sure that there are no risks, and we are never sure of this, then we have no technological advances. I for one am not in favor of this. I am happy to have cars, microwaves, and antibiotics, although all come with risks, not all of which were known at the time the advances were made. Life is not risk free. Hunters have to deal with the "rubber-room" mentality all the time. I know that you all are not those people. Therefore, one must look at the risks and benefits, and not invoke the "mother nature knows best" mentality. Mother nature brought us the plague, antibiotics due to modern science brought us the cure. By the way, who suggested that the mammoths were to be released? Are we afraid that mammoths will escape and devastate the midwest? Maybe we should ban elephants from our local zoos, lest they infest the land!

LOL.

"humanistic ethical morality" ????

Well hey we all have our own opinions and I respect that. But the fact that we can POSSIBLY do this fascinates the scientist in me and aspiring sci fi writer. However to be honest with you I think this will fail. I just think the DNA will be too broken down. Yes the frozen mouse's DNA was intact enough but then I'll bet the temps were low enough and stable enough for that to happen, and it wasn't frozen for 5000 years or more. I have my doubts if temps were low enough and stable enough in the natural environment.

BTW clones have been around since the beginning. Anyone that is a identical twin is a clone. A lot of people don't know that.

A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.
The last interpretation may be attributed to Secular Humanism as a specific humanistic life stance. Modern meanings of the word have therefore come to be associated with a rejection of appeals to the supernatural or to some higher authority.

Quote RAH - What we disagree on is whether we need to be 100% sure of all the consequences or rather have a high probability that the risks are low. If we must be 100% sure that there are no risks, and we are never sure of this, then we have no technological advances.

We are not talking about technological advances but genetic introduction. For most technological advances we don't need the same degree of concern as the risk is entirely different. What if that Mammoth DNA is carrying a pathogen that man use to be immune to but is not now.

Is this cool or what? Cloning a Mammoth.

NO its not.

A DNA pathogen that can infect another sexually incompatible species? Can you provide an example or is this another hypothetical risk with no known examples (scifi)?

Well zoonatic diseases do exist.

Come on. Of course there are diseases that affect multiple species, but they are not contained within the DNA of another organism. This is the kind of irrational fear that prevents advances in every field. If you do not understand something, that does not mean that others do not.

My opinion is we've said enough, before we start stepping on each other toes, just a friendly suggestion.

AGREED