# Woolly mammoths to live again in 5 years



## ValiantThor (Dec 6, 2010)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_asia_afp/japansciencemammoth_20110117104445


----------



## umieraj (Jan 8, 2011)

Great. Another thing for humanity to destroy.


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

thats pretty interesting


----------



## solasum (Nov 17, 2008)

What's the point in spending all that money?


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm gonna buy 5 of them as pets and stick them oot in me garden. Are they takin orders online yet?


----------



## uffie (May 11, 2010)

this is fantastic news


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

uffie said:


> this is fantastic news


Nah i was only jokin mate, me garden wouldnt be big enough.


----------



## kiirby (Oct 8, 2010)

It says a lot about modern society that such an incomprehensibly groundbreaking piece of technology is met largely with disinterest and disdain. Whatever. Ima get me a mammoth.


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

Normally I don't like cloning because you also clone the animals old age clock and so the animal dies of old age around the same time the original would have. Having cloned sheep die of old age at 3 seems mean to me.

But this is different. There is so much that can be learned from this, its important work. One thing I'm interested is how Mammoths react to human presence. When modern humans left Africa they eliminated most of the megafauna living in areas not previously colonized by **** erectus. This is why the elephants of the warm parts of Asia survived but the Mammoths of northern Asia died. A common theory is that the megafauna which interacted with **** erectus learned to fear humans and thus were ready for being hunted by the more intelligent **** sapiens. So it would be interesting to me to see if the Mammoth shows no fear of humans. Looking forward to this.


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

It seems wrong to me...


----------



## Misanthropic (Jun 25, 2010)

I'm against this but not because they're "playing God" or "interfering with nature". 1) I'm against artificially inseminating sentient beings (elephants) against their will, they're not breeding machines that exist for our benefit. 2) As far as I know, wooly mammoths were social animals and it would be unfair to create only one with no other wooly mammoths for companionship and even if a group of them are 'resurrected', they weren't adapted for 21st century Earth. What will their lives be like, especially locked up in some prison (zoo, laboratory, whatever) and poked and prodded by scientists? I bet some of the 'experiments' done on them will be pretty sadistic.


----------



## Jnmcda0 (Nov 28, 2003)

LALoner said:


> One thing I'm interested is how Mammoths react to human presence. When modern humans left Africa they eliminated most of the megafauna living in areas not previously colonized by **** erectus. This is why the elephants of the warm parts of Asia survived but the Mammoths of northern Asia died. A common theory is that the megafauna which interacted with **** erectus learned to fear humans and thus were ready for being hunted by the more intelligent **** sapiens. So it would be interesting to me to see if the Mammoth shows no fear of humans. Looking forward to this.


I'm not sure that a cloned mammoth would be able to tell you that, since it is possible that such fear of humans was a learned response, not a genetic one.


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

Jeez,I don't shave for a couple of weeks and I'm mocked I tell you, MOCKED!!


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

Jnmcda0 said:


> I'm not sure that a cloned mammoth would be able to tell you that, since it is possible that such fear of humans was a learned response, not a genetic one.


That doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

LALoner said:


> *One thing I'm interested is how Mammoths react to human presence.* When modern humans left Africa they eliminated most of the megafauna living in areas not previously colonized by **** erectus. This is why the elephants of the warm parts of Asia survived but the Mammoths of northern Asia died. A common theory is that the megafauna which interacted with **** erectus learned to fear humans and thus were ready for being hunted by the more intelligent **** sapiens. So it would be interesting to me to see if the Mammoth shows no fear of humans. Looking forward to this.


That animal will grow, from birth, among humans, there will be a great amount of domestication.
I think he would act pretty similar to today's zoo elephants.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

Bringing it back just to study why it became extinct? This is stupid... 'let dead dogs lie' or whatever. They should just admit that they're doing it for the novelty. What place does a ****ing woolly mammoth have on 21st Century Earth (other than Dub16's garden)?


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

CeilingStarer said:


> What place does a ****ing woolly mammoth have on 21st Century Earth (other than Dub16's garden)?


Some type of Zoo where some stupid people can go, waste money and get distracted.


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

WTFnooooo said:


> That animal will grow, from birth, among humans, there will be a great amount of domestication.
> I think he would act pretty similar to today's zoo elephants.


Zebras raised in zoos can't be ridden like horses. Wolves raised in zoos won't catch frisbees.










The science behind this is well established. Animals from environments untouched by man are referred to as being naive. Its very common for these animals to be unconcerned by human presence in a manner not typical of wild animals in general. That picture is of a scientist and a wild Artic Wolf, a subspecies which historically has had almost no contact with humans. They have little fear of humans and quickly get used to scientists being around them in a way that never happens with any other kind of wolf. Wild animals which are naive to human presence act in markedly different ways around humans. Most scientists believe it is this lack of fear of humans which make animals in newly colonized territory so easy for human hunters to kill.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

^ yes, that's true. way back when when agriculture and food cultivation was being developed, each area where humanoids were living, only had so many domesticable animals and even domesticable plants. if such animals as zebras and wolves were domesticable, humans would have managed it long ago.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

LALoner said:


> Zebras raised in zoos can't be ridden like horses. Wolves raised in zoos won't catch frisbees.


You missed the word "*SIMILAR*".

Anyway, good pic/info right there.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

leonardess said:


> if such animals as zebras and wolves were domesticable, humans would have managed it long ago.


Dogs descend from wolves.


----------



## ValiantThor (Dec 6, 2010)

they should bring back a t-rex if anything, or elvis presley


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

WTFnooooo said:


> Dogs descend from wolves.


yes they are related. however, if wolves were domesticable, it would have been managed in the 13,000 years that agriculture and herding have been practiced by us. There is a reason dogs have been domesticated and bred for such, and not wolves.

there are instances where wild animals have been kept as pets. even in my own family. but this only has a snowball's chance in hell of working if the animal's habits are very well known by its "keepers" and even then, seigfreid and roy are a sterling example of why this is still a bad idea.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

leonardess said:


> yes they are related. however, if wolves were domesticable, it would have been managed in the 13,000 years that agriculture and herding have been practiced by us. There is a reason dogs have been domesticated and bred for such, and not wolves.
> 
> there are instances where wild animals have been kept as pets. even in my own family. but this only has a snowball's chance in hell of working if the animal's habits are very well known by its "keepers" and even then, seigfreid and roy are a sterling example of why this is still a bad idea.


Part of the dog's domestication included breeding. So in a way wolves were domesticated, not by mere discipline but by breeding the submissive ones and breeding with other types of wolves and maybe other canids.


----------



## Steve123 (Sep 13, 2009)

And in 6 years people will probably be paying $200 a pop in fancy restaurants for mammoth steaks...


----------



## JamieHasAnxiety (Feb 15, 2011)

They died for a reason ya' know? Kinda cool though. :l


----------



## OtherGlove (Dec 28, 2010)

WTFnooooo said:


> Dogs descend from wolves.


The difference between dogs and wolves, is that wolves are predators and dogs are scavengers. Dogs domesticated themselves by following humans around for food scraps. Purposeful breeding cam much later than domestication.

I'm still not convinced that this is a good idea or even worthwhile. Cheating nature to learn how to cheat nature even more? Sounds like a mistake to me.


----------



## Still Waters (Sep 18, 2008)

WooHoo-I could use a good rug!


----------



## Hadron92 (Apr 17, 2009)

The only extinct animal that's been cloned so far is the pyranean-ibex (some kind of deer), and that was achieved because it got extinct a few years ago and its cells were conserved using a special method called vitrification. Oh and that was achieved after hundreds of attempt with surrogate goats - and the one that was actually born died a few hours after its birth.

Now, there is still a loong way to go before the DNA of an animal that got extinct so far back will be remade. 

This is all theoretical.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

JamieHasAnxiety said:


> They died for a reason ya' know? Kinda cool though. :l


Yes - We killed them.


----------



## Colhad75 (Dec 14, 2009)

Next we'll be bringing back the dinosaurs, don't be surprised to see a T-Rex walking down the street within 50 years.


----------



## JamieHasAnxiety (Feb 15, 2011)

Colhad75 said:


> Next we'll be bringing back the dinosaurs, don't be surprised to see a T-Rex walking down the street within 50 years.


I smell a new Jurassic Park movie coming!

Front row seats, aww yeah'! xD


----------



## saillias (Oct 5, 2008)

Literally playing god now. Resurrecting extinct species just for our own benefit.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Colhad75 said:


> Next we'll be bringing back the dinosaurs, don't be surprised to see a T-Rex walking down the street within 50 years.


Add some Poodle genes in it, dwarf it, sell the hybrid to superficial women so they can take it on a leash for a walk.


----------



## SchranzMeister (Feb 11, 2011)

I don't see what the problem is. I would be happy to be brought back into existence. 

Remember that life just wants to be, and it doesn't need to be much.

Do you think the mammoth would be treated hamanely? I think it won't be hurt. I wonder if they'll let it roam freely for a while.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Hmmm... I wonder it elephants and mammoths are close enough to pull this off. You can't simply implant an embryo and have it grow to term. There is a massive amount of very precise molecular signaling and epigenetics involved in development, and should the difference be too great, the fetus will be aborted. Even if it was able to grow, I wonder if the immunoglobulin transfer from mother to fetus will react with the slightly different proteins and other ligands when in the fetus. 

There's a lot to be learned here, looking forward to hearing more.

Also, I really don't understand the "playing G-d" argument to hold back research. There are people who won't take a blood transfusion, or won't seek any form of medicine, choosing to pray instead because those things aren't natural. What is natural, and why is anything we're doing unnatural? I hate to break it to everyone, but it's very egotistical to hold ourselves, and our actions, to be somehow separate. We are nature, and even though our actions are relatively complicated, and we can manipulate our surroundings in a way other animals can't, we are still just as much a part of nature as anything else. And don't get me started on the idea of nature, and naturalism, as if nature is some sort of black/white, tangible, entity rather than a human construct we've created ourselves.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

saillias said:


> Literally playing god now. Resurrecting extinct species just for our own benefit.


How about all of the species that we've killed off for our own benefit?

Bringing them back is righting a wrong.


----------



## bafranksbro (Feb 19, 2011)

I just hope they clone one of those miniature woolly mammoths because that'd be way cooler than a normal size one. :lol


----------



## ValiantThor (Dec 6, 2010)

It probably wont be an exact copy, but more of an elephant of today with a bit of hair on it.


----------

