Mammoth find: Preserved Ice Age giant found with flowing blood in Siberia

Come on, out with the elephant in the room!

Clone!!!

reply to post by GrantedBail


Thank you...

I am still on the fence. We all know that if the mammoth is brought back it probably is not going to be set free in some protected place where it can roam wild.. It will either be experimented on or farmed. And we all know how much those animals suffer for us...

It would be incredible to see. The mammoth might hate it anyway. How do we know.....?

reply to post by jiggerj

Not a circus freak. A food source. Seriously.

It is a possibility. If the scale of the mammoth farming increased. The treatment of the animals would deteriorate. Same goes for cattle and poultry...

I would like to see them try calm down 200 mammoths that decided they wanted to run free......!

Since humans did not cause their extinction, humans should not create their return.

reply to post by kyred


I think the discovery is legit. I did a search before putting up a thread. The link below is the best article on the discovery. Complete with picture of the find...

siberiantimes.com...

Originally posted by Midnight4444
I'm not completely opposed to cloning the mammoth. However if there is not enough wild area left to keep Elephants alive and unpoached, how could there be a safe place in the wild for mammoth(s) to live?

It would not be proper to bring a species back from extinction, only to live in captivity.

We can put them on an Islamd and turn it into a theme park. What could possibly go wrong

reply to post by fluff007


This is a very cool find.

I just read an article in National Geographic about the potential to clone (recently) extinct species (Passenger Pigeon, Mammoths, some frogs, and marsupials). At the time the article was written and published, even though some very preserved mammoths had been found, there were only select types of mammoth tissue & DNA from which to work. That this has actual female BLOOD is astounding.

The article also (rightfully) talks about the ethical debate and implications in cloning extinct species. In addition, cloned animals don't seem to fare very well (or survive). Nevertheless, it would be pretty cool, I guess, even though they could change the face of the land, since there was vegetation when they roamed the current snowy/icy landscape.

Nat Geo: Bringing Extinct Species back to Life

NatGeoLink2

The mammoth in the OP's link looks like it's smiling

Originally posted by fluff007
I agree with you there. If that is done then they will be playing God. By the time that a baby mammoth has actually been cloned and been born. What is going to be the state of the world then. Like you say there might not be a protected place for them to roam freely...

Not too sure if a term like "playing god" is necessarily appropriate when it comes to science, but I'll just leave that one alone.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of cloning them. It would be amazing to see them alive once again. However, I would only agree with it if it they were treated well. They would have to be protected and kept safe in a vast spacious sanctuary where they had enough room to live comfortably.

Wow, very cool

I am all in favor of bringing them back.

Mammoth Steak anyone?
M.

reply to post by Xaphan

Not too sure if a term like "playing god" is necessarily appropriate when it comes to science, but I'll just leave that one alone.

Lol. The reason I say playing God is that essentially they are. God can give and take life. They want to give life back to this mammoth. Same thing from my perspective. But yes I do not want to get into the nitty gritty. It always ends messy....!

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of cloning them. It would be amazing to see them alive once again. However, I would only agree with it if it they were treated well. They would have to be protected and kept safe in a vast spacious sanctuary where they had enough room to live comfortably.

Yeah I agree. It would be an amazing experience seeing a mammoth. But I just cannot see them treating the animal/s that well in the long term.. Time will tell..

reply to post by Midnight4444



the 2nd pic is of a baby one they found in 2007, but it kind of gives you the idea, don't know why they don't have a pic of the female one they just found though

Buffaloes were brought back from the brink of extinction. I say if you have the ability to bring an extinct animal back then you should do so within reason. Many of those animals that went extinct 10,000 years ago no longer fit in this world, like sabercats and direwolves or direbears but a mastodon could find a home in this world. Just no megalodons, i'm not going in the ocean for anything and i damn sure wouldn't do it if you brought back megalodons, i draw the line at being swallowed whole in one gulp, specially when it comes to giant sharks.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles


Since humans did not cause their extinction, humans should not create their return.

There's some dispute about that - some scientists believe that as human settlements became larger, there was conflict between the humans and mammoths for land to feed on. Humans might also have hunted down mammoths.

But I doubt that this creature if resurrected would survive - the immune system would be out of date. Even humans who have been away from urban civilisation for 5 or more years risk death from the sudden introduction of new mutations of bacteria and viruses.

reply to post by GrantedBail


"I kind of agree with you. I don't think we should be playing creator and all that."

If we are indeed created in Gods image, why should we not be able to create/resurrect life?

"It would be nice if science could agree upon the premise that just because science has advanced and these things are possible doesn't mean we should attempt it."

Human beings have never created a tool they have not used. As long as we don't turn this into the island of Dr Moreau it seem like the next logical step to me.

reply to post by Midnight4444


the only reason why -for example lions and rhinos are still alive, is directly because people like hunting them,
the ones arranging these hunts, are the ones breeding them and releasing them in nature...
without these kind of projects-- the "extinct" list would be a lot longer..
there is goodness in evil and evil in goodness..

i think they will clone it if possible and the project will be funded by these kind of individuals,,,

this is the world, that we all live in.

Cool find OP.
What I really would like to see is the return of the sabretooth tiger. Some released in the polar regions as well as in the tropics to see if they can become the apex predator. Yeah I know it's wishful thinking but maybe in the not too distant future.

reply to post by Midnight4444


Siberia has plenty of tundra. And canada etc. Now i might be a dumbass, cause i didnt check what sort of habitat mammoth's lived in. Or what sort of food they prefered.
Anyways, im sure we could fine room for Mammoth's!...
Whole north-east greenland is a nature park sanctuary thing to. But if there isnt any of the Mammoth's food there, nvm then.

Originally posted by Midnight4444

It would not be proper to bring a species back from extinction, only to live in captivity.

We'll do it anyway. If we can.

Scientists are rarely concerned with what is proper, mostly with what is possible.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Midnight4444
I'm not completely opposed to cloning the mammoth. However if there is not enough wild area left to keep Elephants alive and unpoached, how could there be a safe place in the wild for mammoth(s) to live?

It would not be proper to bring a species back from extinction, only to live in captivity.

We can put them on an Islamd and turn it into a theme park. What could possibly go wrong

oh my god that's funny! good thing I wasn't drinking anything cause I would have spit it out!!!