A short search just gave me this (can't be arsed to search more): In 2003 Kinki received mammoth cells from sibiria. The plans to resurrect a mammoth existed back then already. The source [http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/5102390] is not free, but there's a short aggregation.AugustFall said:Can anyone help me find a source? I don't doubt this is true but I'd like to read the original. So far the Escapist's post links to another website who's sources are The Daily Mail, Fox News and Huffington Post.
I once (like ten years ago in some popular-scientific magazine) read about a scientist eating a steak from a sibirian mammoth mummy (after confirming the meat was still alright). He said it tasted like "roasted carpet slippers" if I remember correctly. Can't remember the exact sauce though, so take this for what it's worth.Boris Goodenough said:Oh and @ Joe Wike from facebook, Dodo's tasted horribly, the onyl reason they were eaten was because it was "fastfood".
Do you have some interesting sources (maybe methodic papers or interesting results on this) on this process? I haven't heard much about it, but it really sounds interesting.Baresark said:Haha, after re-reading, the process is misrepresented. They are talking about Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Essentially, you don't take the nucleus from the somatic cell, you simply insert the somatic cell into the de-nucleated cell. Then you insert, fuse with electricity and when it forms a blastocyte, it is then implanted into the elephant.
Fascinating process really.
Edit: It's important to note that though this will be an exact genetic duplicate, it will look very different from it's donor animal.
Not quite as awesome as I'd hoped, but still pretty cool.Baresark said:You misunderstand. They took genetic material from the frozen mouse and cloned it. It was a precursor to an operation of this magnitude.Alar said:Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... the rat was frozen for HOW LONG and they brought it back to life? Was it still functional? Did it seem to have all its facilities in tact? More importantly, can this process be potentially utilized on humans as well? If there was some way to preserve brain function while frozen...
Holy shit. Are we THAT CLOSE to having viable freezing and reviving of people decades later to heal their illnesses?!
And my questions are equally if not more valid, for all other extinct species. For the vast majority of them, the environment they are meant to inhabit doesn't even exist anymore. Sure, we could recreate it in a zoo, but that brings us back to twisted amusement. Resurrecting entire species just to exist in captivity is cruel, and sick. Leave the past where it is, devote your time to saving those animals that are still around, not bringing back those that died off centuries or millennia ago, that have no place in the current ecology.GothmogII said:Wait...-whose- 'twisted amusement' exactly are you referring to? I don't see where the article mentions that this is case. But of course, I'm sure a bunch of scientists have nothing better to do with their time then resurrect dead mammals for fun. :/spartan231490 said:Why? What purpose does this serve except our own twisted amusement. Let the past die, the world is no longer a place for mammoths. Fuck, we can barely take care of the species that are already on this planet, why are we trying to add more.
If you can't see the value in that kind of research I don't really know what to say to you.
I guess, the gist of is is that it really isn't about the mammoths, it's simply that they're the most likely subject due to the aforementioned genetic material available that they don't have for other animals.
We're not, we are just trying to see if we can do it. Without knowing the limits of what we can and cannot theoretically/practically do, we cannot invent or innovate anything. This is just a test that does three things: 1. What is the limit on cloning animals that may be a little different from the surrogate animal? 2. Is resurrecting ancient animals the same as one's who had died recently (which the article notes was only done for the first time in 2008, so that process itself is worth looking into)? 3. Sounds cool so funding would be easier to get from public institutions than if they wanted to do the same thing with Ice Age mice.spartan231490 said:Why? What purpose does this serve except our own twisted amusement. Let the past die, the world is no longer a place for mammoths. Fuck, we can barely take care of the species that are already on this planet, why are we trying to add more.
Everything is part of God's design. He wished for Mammoths to return to the world, so he imbued this scientist with the knowledge necessary to accomplish it.YogSothoth said:HAH! Take that religion, we are going to bring back a species that "god" wanted dead.
Considering regular elephants can grow to 13 feet tall and weigh 20,000 pounds, that doesnt sound like a particularly hard birth at all.Mike Kayatta said:If it does work though, the mother is in for one hell of a birth, as your typical woolly mammoth can grow to twelve feet tall and weigh upwards of 16,000 pounds. Ouch.
Is it really that hard to see the benefit here?spartan231490 said:Why? What purpose does this serve except our own twisted amusement. Let the past die, the world is no longer a place for mammoths. Fuck, we can barely take care of the species that are already on this planet, why are we trying to add more.
Just no. We are not gods, and science is not magic. Some things should be left well enough alone.Mordereth said:Is it really that hard to see the benefit here?spartan231490 said:Why? What purpose does this serve except our own twisted amusement. Let the past die, the world is no longer a place for mammoths. Fuck, we can barely take care of the species that are already on this planet, why are we trying to add more.
Trying to save endangered animals in the current global setting is a losing game; you're only putting off the inevitable. The Past needs to live so we won't repeat it, don't'cha know?
With this technology perfected, we could theoretically return any animal with a close enough species still in existence. A Grizzly Bear female could potentially give birth to a litter of panda cubs (pandas being a rare case of something too thick to screw, yet to cute and lovable to let die).
I'm all for space exploration.maxben said:We're not, we are just trying to see if we can do it. Without knowing the limits of what we can and cannot theoretically/practically do, we cannot invent or innovate anything. This is just a test that does three things: 1. What is the limit on cloning animals that may be a little different from the surrogate animal? 2. Is resurrecting ancient animals the same as one's who had died recently (which the article notes was only done for the first time in 2008, so that process itself is worth looking into)? 3. Sounds cool so funding would be easier to get from public institutions than if they wanted to do the same thing with Ice Age mice.spartan231490 said:Why? What purpose does this serve except our own twisted amusement. Let the past die, the world is no longer a place for mammoths. Fuck, we can barely take care of the species that are already on this planet, why are we trying to add more.
Nobody wants to create a population of mammoth, what's the point? All we are doing is expanding science for its on sake just so somebody can come later on and say, "I can totally use that process from something useful."
Are you one of those people that argue against space exploration too?