Japanese Scientists Says "We'll Have Mammoths by 2015.

Originally posted by jessieg
After making a Mammoth, they will kill it, chop it into strips, and stir fry the meat.
I wonder how it will taste with a bit of ginger and soy sauce?

Great back up plan. Bring em on.

well hell if they can bring vack a mammoth how about all those whales and dolphins they eat

Thoughts??


First thing I thought is that I wonder how they taste.. second thought.. wonder what they eat so I can make room in the barn.. you know, for my own mini herd.

Im only slightly joking too. Any new animal they want to resurrect better be edible and easily farmable. There are scientific jollies and then there is adding to the food crisis by having a heard of monster huge beasts that consume and cant be culled.

Mammoth burgers anyone?

Originally posted by Astyanax
What's wrong with this?

Bring them all back, I say.

Jurassic Park was a movie.

THIS, logic guys, holleywood science is bad science. we only wiped them out recently. we will need more fur bearing mammals during the next ice age. my only concern is with badly damaged DNA they could turn out kinda retarded right?

They're wasting their time, they should be making a Chimera of a cross between an elephant and a chicken to feed the peeps. Or imagine an Anaconda flavoured with Salmon Meat inside, or Battery Whales that taste like chicken...the list goes on

One mammoth does not a revival make.

Various scientists have been making this same claim for some time now.

This species is not like bringing back dinosaurs. Does the earth even have something alive that can incubate a dinosaur?

However, are they sure that an elephant's RNA and uterus can carry a mammoth? Elephants in captivity are notoriously bad for rejecting their young, giving birth to calves that die well before adulthood. Has there even been a case study to see if African elephants can birth Asian elephants or vice versa? What if the elephant mother rejects the mammoth? What if the mammoth dies of the diseases that elephants now carry that didn't exist then?

too many variables unaccounted for.

reply to post by Aeons


of course there is variables, but if they never start trying those wont be found.

Mammoths aren't dinos. In fact we, dirty little humans, caused them to go extinct by over-hunting them. We caused their extinction. If we can get all upset about a snail darter fish less than an inch long and stop a dam to bring badly needed electricity to our homes, why are we reluctant to bring back a species that we caused to die off? Seems to me it's a moral obligation. Next: the passenger pigeon.

amazing. i hope they can take responsibility and like the person put in the article not create a jurassic park or something worse

Starting with one individual and dooming it to human stupidity isn't really the best possible answer though.

The endevour isn't likely to be cheap. Dooming it to quick certain failure is the height of irresponsibility.

Starting with trying to see if they can get an Asian elephant to bring to term and bring up an African, and then seeing if can bring up a pygmy would probably be good place to start.

Then start looking over the dna of the mammoth, comparing it with the asian, and seeing which changes can be linked to viral infections. Because those snips are probably going to need to be incorporated for success.

It would probably also be a good idea to find the closest mtDNA matches for the mammoth finds to the modern asian. Knowing that a particular metabolic package is most likley to gain success will likely be important. And I doubt that its been considered. The difference between the asian's size and the mammoth's size, the climate they exist(ed) in, and what that MEANS about their metabolism is not trivial.

they do something similar now with lions and tigers to make ligers. These animals are missing the part that regulates size though, and end up huge. we could probably expect abnormalities like that.

Originally posted by schuyler
Mammoths aren't dinos. In fact we, dirty little humans, caused them to go extinct by over-hunting them. We caused their extinction. If we can get all upset about a snail darter fish less than an inch long and stop a dam to bring badly needed electricity to our homes, why are we reluctant to bring back a species that we caused to die off? Seems to me it's a moral obligation. Next: the passenger pigeon.

edit on 1/18/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

There is a black mat in the stratigraphic layers of that time. A black mat that coincides with the extinction of mammoths, and many other larger mammals on the continent. And it also coincides with the time when the Clovis people disappeared, and hunting sites, buffalo jumps were "abandonned" for about a thousand years.

Are you suggesting that those dirty mammoth hunting extincting humans also somehow killed off themselves with their hunting, and in the process laid down a black layer.

You know were there is another "black layer" in the stratigraphic record? The KT boundary. Granted, it is bigger.

My question is why would they want to,the scientists can't even control what is going on with all the animal deaths now and that is what should be the main concern now.Are all the animals we have left here are going to go extinct to

reply to post by jasmine23


imagine the tourism it'll bring to japan, I already feel sorry for the thing.

reply to post by Aeons


You wrote "on the continent", which, considering that "buffalo" jump sites were largely North American, suggests to me that you're talking about the North American Mammoths. What is being examined for cloning is largely the (woolly) mammoth, from eurasia.

Which is a) more closely related to modern elephants, and b) considering that some populations hung around for a long while after others, their extinctions roughly following human colonisation, isn't likely to have died out from an asteroid impact.

reply to post by TheWill


If you ignore that it happened around the same time that North America lost most of its larger Mammals including Mammoths, and assume that this is pure coincidence. Which seems mighty disingenious.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Personally i do not like it, meant to be gone, just leave it.

reply to post by Aeons


Eurasian macrofauna was disappearing not in one concerted leap but over a course of 12,000 to 2,000 years ago - and, for the species which are actually extinct over here (mammoths, a couple of perissodactyls and the greatdeer) they were consistently on islands longer than they were here.

Of course, the australasian extinctions were rather earlier, from 35,000 years ago, which coincides nicely with the human arrival there, if memory serves.

Is this coincidence?

The animals may have been brought into decline by humans and finished off by an impact event, or brought into decline by the impact event and finished off by humans. That way neither the evidence of a contemporary impact or the contemporary spread of improved technology would have to be coincidental.

I'm not rejecting either hypothesis, but it seems to me likely that, seeing as the eurasian macrofauna remained - and in most cases, still remains - in scattered pockets, those that were wiped out during the period of glacial retreat and human colonisation, had helping hands from humans.

by 2015 there will be barely any animal left if we continue like this i think, imagine mammoths

You know, I think it would be really neat to see a live mammoth and all too.. but I still think if they're going to resurrect anything, they should be working on a way to resurrect common sense... its so rare its almost like a superpower anymore!
Forget your spidey sense mr. spider-man...I think i feel my Common sense tingling!