Cloning a Mammoth?

181 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111
Cloning a Mammoth?

Do you think its a good idea to try and clone a Mammoth?

Return of the mammoth? Dolly scientist says beast should be cloned | Fox News

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I didn't read the fox article but I read national geographical piece on this a month or two ago and no, I believe this is a terrible idea. First off- these animals would be raised by humans or some other species- NOT wooly mammoths- nothing about this version would be authentic in any way- they would have no species identification/nurture/ etc. their environment/ ecosystem no longer exists and I believe that it is cruel to create a species simply to cage it. I also think that we have seen the down side to tampering with nature (introducing foreign species to native habitats) a thousand times over and it's never good. This would be a mistake on a myriad of levels IMO. Not our job to play god.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

My first response is, SO COOL! I would love to see a real live mammoth! Awesome!

However, my adult side has to agree with Melis. Darn! Cause, so cool.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"ftmom" wrote:

My first response is, SO COOL! I would love to see a real live mammoth! Awesome!

However, my adult side has to agree with Melis. Darn! Cause, so cool.

This, exactly. *sniff*

*scowls at Melis for being the voice of reason*

*stomps feet & sulks at never being able to pet a real mammoth*

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I agree I guess. I'll be an adult and say this is not a good idea

The 8 year old in me is very upset.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I really do not understand the mindset presented here... is it any more "playing God" to create life than destroy it? I can't see that it is evil to create life... not sure on this one.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

I don't really have that big a problem with cloning animals. After all they are animals. I don't see that much of a difference between cloning a sheep and a mammoth. I would have a problem with cloning people because I think there is a lot of experimentation that would have to happen before they are successful and don't agree with experimenting on human embryos.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I really do not understand the mindset presented here... is it any more "playing God" to create life than destroy it? I can't see that it is evil to create life... not sure on this one.

This is a good point and we as a society often choose to create life when natural science would dictate that it should not be created when it comes to humans.

So i don't think the playing God argument really works. We play God when we think its a good thing and don't when we don't think its a good thing.

But i do agree that from a scientific standpoint it could be disastrous. I'll just stick to scientific reasons....i think it could be bad for the things already mentioned. I would like to read some opinions from actual scientists who are in this camp...i'm sure they must exist?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Abortion mentioned

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I really do not understand the mindset presented here... is it any more "playing God" to create life than destroy it? I can't see that it is evil to create life... not sure on this one.

Like eating animals and stuff? I see that as natural order. Bringing back extinct animals is not natural order.

If you are making reference to abortion that's why I personally would not have one- but I simply don't make that decision for others. Like you have no problem wanting to all sexual offenders out to death though you personally might not want to have to kill them yourself.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't really have that big a problem with cloning animals. After all they are animals. I don't see that much of a difference between cloning a sheep and a mammoth.

The difference for me is that sheep still exist today. Mammoths do not, nor does the world they lived in exist today. What animal would gestate this mammoth, and how would it give birth? A baby mammoth would be significantly larger than a baby elephant so the baby mammoth would either need to be born prematurely, which might kill it, or delivered by c-section which would probably kill the host mother. If this is really about advancing the science, then how about cloning some of the species that are on the brink of extinction? Giant pandas, Bengal tigers, Hawaiian monk seals, California condors, the list goes on & on & on.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't really have that big a problem with cloning animals. After all they are animals. I don't see that much of a difference between cloning a sheep and a mammoth. I would have a problem with cloning people because I think there is a lot of experimentation that would have to happen before they are successful and don't agree with experimenting on human embryos.

Cloning a sheep where there are already sheep is pretty harmless(assuming you don't do it in HUGE numbers).

Bringing a Mammoth into an environment where no Mammoths exist is worlds different.

Have you ever read about the pythons in the Everglades? Just as an example.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Or rabbits in Australia. Or Nile perch in lake Victoria? We are dealing with the stinkbug infestation here on the east coast presently. Or hundreds of other examples?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3182

Or did you see Jurassic Park?

(just kidding)

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

Sorry I just seriously doubt that even if they did manage to clone one that there would ever be enough of them that they would exist anywhere besides a zoo, and even then it would be questionable whether at that point they would be able to create one that could reproduce since they would only be able to clone a female. They might possibly be able to cross it with an elephant but then it might be like a mule that isn't able to reproduce. It wouldn't ever be anything more than a novelty.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3182

Anyone remember the movie The Boys From Brazil where they cloned Hitler?

That would be worse than the mammoth.

But I still don't think the mammoth is a good idea.

(I'm so annoying.)

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Sorry I just seriously doubt that even if they did manage to clone one that there would ever be enough of them that they would exist anywhere besides a zoo, and even then it would be questionable whether at that point they would be able to create one that could reproduce since they would only be able to clone a female. They might possibly be able to cross it with an elephant but then it might be like a mule that isn't able to reproduce. It wouldn't ever be anything more than a novelty.

So..... Spend millions (billions?) doing it and caring for these beasts just.......because it would be neat to have what you picture as a giant mule in a cage?

Such a strange argument, to me. No care for possible ramifications? No ethical or religious objection to bringing back something that presumably god or evolution saw fit to do away with? Interesting.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Anyone remember the movie The Boys From Brazil where they cloned Hitler?

That would be worse than the mammoth.

But I still don't think the mammoth is a good idea.

(I'm so annoying.)

I will derail with you Smile
I actually think this is a better idea than the mammoth. Wouldn't it be an awesome nature vs nurture experiment? Start him as an embryo and then control the environment he is raised in. You could clone him more than once and then raise him in different environments.....kind of like the Truman show, but with lots of different bubbles. Totally unethical, but I would watch.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"ftmom" wrote:

I will derail with you Smile
I actually think this is a better idea than the mammoth. Wouldn't it be an awesome nature vs nurture experiment? Start him as an embryo and then control the environment he is raised in. You could clone him more than once and then raise him in different environments.....kind of like the Truman show, but with lots of different bubbles. Totally unethical, but I would watch.

Me too. :oops:

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3182

Guys, just go watch the movie!!!!!!!!! They already did that!!!!

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

So..... Spend millions (billions?) doing it and caring for these beasts just.......because it would be neat to have what you picture as a giant mule in a cage?

Such a strange argument, to me. No care for possible ramifications? No ethical or religious objection to bringing back something that presumably god or evolution saw fit to do away with? Interesting.

Sin caused death.. So humanity killed the mammoth.

far are introducing variety of species to other areas.. far as I know clones can not reproduce.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3309

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Sin caused death.. So humanity killed the mammoth.

Really? So all of the extinct animals has nothing to do with the fact that our earth simply can't sustain such huge popluations of resource consuming organisims?

far as I know clones can not reproduce.

There are many articles on this topic of 'de-extinction'...that don't once say "Besides, there is no point in discussing this because they would never be able to reproduce"

Apparently some scientists feel its possible to clone them with the ability to reproduce as well.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

I do not see the value in cloning a mammoth. I mean, why would you do it? I do see value in learning to clone human organs. If you needed a kidney or heart transplant, being able to clone your own that was a perfect match. Cloning entire humans or animals though would bring up so many ethical questions though.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Sin caused death.. So humanity killed the mammoth.

far are introducing variety of species to other areas.. far as I know clones can not reproduce.

Point a. That is bizarre. But you also believe that the earth is only like 5000 years old amiright? So perhaps debating the intersection of science and ethics will prove impossible for us.

Point b. that is not accurate.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

Point a. That is bizarre. But you also believe that the earth is only like 5000 years old amiright? So perhaps debating the intersection of science and ethics will prove impossible for us.

Point b. that is not accurate.

a- "bizarre" is rude. probably is an impossible conversation I agree.
b- I didn't know they couldn't reproduce.. So lets go from there.. is it the reproducing and entering them into our native environment that is "wrong" or is it creating them in the first place... what if we created them and put them only in captive environments?

ETA- maybe too late.. Meant to write.. I didn't know that clones COULD reproduce.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't get it. Why wouldn't they be able to reproduce?

That's kind of beside the point for me though. Once we have one (or many) we would either have to introduce them into the wild (which seems like a bad idea since we are talking about introducing an animal to an ecosystem that has not evolved to include them) or keep them in captivity forever which IMO is mean. Why create an animal for the sole purpose of keeping them in cages?

In fairness, I admit that I'm a big old hypocrite who takes my kids to the zoo, and I can't really explain why it's worse to create an animal and put it in a zoo than it is to take an existing animal and either breed it or capture it and put it in a zoo. So there's that.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Sin caused death.. So humanity killed the mammoth.

This is a total side note, but do you believe that there are animals (like dinosaurs) that went extinct before humanity?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

It is not rude. Nowhere ever have I heard the "sin" hypothesis discussed when tossing around theories on what causes extinction of dinosaurs or other large land animals.

B. There is no "native" environment for a wooly mammoth. Wooly Mammoths are extinct. I don't understand your question as a result of that fact.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

This is a total side note, but do you believe that there are animals (like dinosaurs) that went extinct before humanity?

nope. sin caused death.. there was no death before original sin. sin was caused by Adam and Eve.

However - there could have been animals die before man died sure.. but it wasn't before there were humans on the earth.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't get it. Why wouldn't they be able to reproduce?

That's kind of beside the point for me though. Once we have one (or many) we would either have to introduce them into the wild (which seems like a bad idea since we are talking about introducing an animal to an ecosystem that has not evolved to include them) or keep them in captivity forever which IMO is mean. Why create an animal for the sole purpose of keeping them in cages?

In fairness, I admit that I'm a big old hypocrite who takes my kids to the zoo, and I can't really explain why it's worse to create an animal and put it in a zoo than it is to take an existing animal and either breed it or capture it and put it in a zoo. So there's that.

When they first were being cloned the public was told they couldn't reproduce.. ie Dolly.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

It is not rude. Nowhere ever have I heard the "sin" hypothesis discussed when tossing around theories on what causes extinction of dinosaurs or other large land animals.

B. There is no "native" environment for a wooly mammoth. Wooly Mammoths are extinct. I don't understand your question as a result of that fact.

native might be the wrong word.. but were were talking about non-native species being introduced to other ecosystems and them decimating the native population.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

nope. sin caused death.. there was no death before original sin. sin was caused by Adam and Eve.

However - there could have been animals die before man died sure.. but it wasn't before there were humans on the earth.

So do you not believe in prehistoric animals like dinosaurs or do you believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted?

I'm sorry, I know this is a derail but I've never heard that perspective before and it's interesting to me.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

And if GOd punished them by making them extinct do you think that perhaps it would be a sin by going against Gods will and un-extincting them?

(maybe the wooly's went gay and god smote them). Total theory here, but its as valid as sin killing dinos.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

And if GOd punished them by making them extinct do you think that perhaps it would be a sin by going against Gods will and un-extincting them?

(maybe the wooly's went gay and god smote them). Total theory here, but its as valid as sin killing dinos.

I did not say God punished them for their sin. Animals can not sin. The Earth was cursed because of original sin. My belief is pretty much all laid out in Genesis.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

So do you not believe in prehistoric animals like dinosaurs or do you believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted?

I'm sorry, I know this is a derail but I've never heard that perspective before and it's interesting to me.

I believe in a literal 7 day creation. And that there was NO death on the earth before sin.. Original sin (eating of the tree of good and evil) caused death. After that there was death to animals and people not before.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I did not say God punished them for their sin. Animals can not sin. The Earth was cursed because of original sin. My belief is pretty much all laid out in Genesis.

Right, God punished them for someone else's sin. Either way, they used to be around and they aren't anymore, that part is irrefutable. No part of you is concerned about messing with God's will by recreating something he saw fit to have disappear?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I believe in a literal 7 day creation. And that there was NO death on the earth before sin.. Original sin (eating of the tree of good and evil) caused death. After that there was death to animals and people not before.

So the fact that we have fossils of dinosaurs that were dead for 65 million years before humans ever existed is.... what??? Fairy stories? Planted by fake scientists out to downplay the role of god in creation? That just does not make sense, and doesn't mesh with the science that we know exists.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I believe in a literal 7 day creation. And that there was NO death on the earth before sin.. Original sin (eating of the tree of good and evil) caused death. After that there was death to animals and people not before.

But do you believe that dinosaurs existed at some point?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Did dinosaurs go on the boat with Noah?

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

But do you believe that dinosaurs existed at some point?

yes

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

So do you not believe in prehistoric animals like dinosaurs or do you believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted?

I'm sorry, I know this is a derail but I've never heard that perspective before and it's interesting to me.

This is a very common belief.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

Did dinosaurs go on the boat with Noah?

quite possibly.. if they hadn't died off before the flood, Noah would have taken 2 of each or 7 of each KIND (not to be confused with species) depending if they were "clean or unclean". The average size dino is the size of a chicken, so it is possible. But, there is no ship manifest so we do not know conclusively which animals were on it, except for the ones we have documentation of after the flood.

Let me play it out for a second.. if you had meat eating huge lizards after the flood, that would eat you... wouldn't you kill them first, if they were coming after you? So it is possible that some that were alive at the time of the flood, and taken on the ark.. (there is no age mentioned just male and female (so indicates it couldn't have just been eggs). And we have the time that they were on the ark), if they were they might have been killed off by people, and the smaller ones by other animals or hungry people..

After Noah landed God spoke and discussed what they were allowed to eat and they were allowed to eat meat, without blood, of clean animals.

I probably should step away from this discussion for a bit.. but my viewpoint isn't that "rare" just not taught in public school. If you want to know more either read the Bible more.. or check out AIG (answers in genesis) they have a great website that will explain my viewpoint better. And a simple Google search will show you that there are many many well known scientists that believe in a literal 7 day creation.

As far as the PP mentioning FACT in relationship to the BIG bang or species to species evolution.. both are still considered theories, and not reproducible so can not be considered science IMO.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Did NOah sit on the eggs, or did he have one of his wives do it?

Bonita, I promise you, the view that Dinosaurs and Man coexisted is NOT very common. It may be in your social circle, but worldwide, amongst any non super conservative bible over science crowd, it is pretty much not even something that people have even HEARD of, let alone something people realize other people actually believe.

Rivergallery I didn't go to public school and I Promise you your viewpoint was not taught at my school (or church) either. And I could SCOUR genesis with a fine tooth comb and not learn about dinosaurs. In fact, if dinos and man were all made on day 6 (that was the day, right?) and they were all vegetarians, and evolution is a myth, why on earth did T-Rex and saber tooth lions and the like have such ferocious teeth? How did they eat veggies with those mouths?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Bonita- do you genuinely believe that 1 in three Americans believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted? That is what I was very clearly talking about.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

And the other two-thirds have read it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Thank you for answering my questions. Smile

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Thank you for answering my questions. Smile

Your are very welcome thanks for asking in a wonderful manner Smile

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4097

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

Well, that explains what is wrong with about a third of our country.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6559

"Potter75" wrote:

Bonita- do you genuinely believe that 1 in three Americans believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted? That is what I was very clearly talking about.

Talking about a literal 7 day creation. I do not know how many people believe in it, but it is not a strange, never before heard of topic.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Spacers" wrote:

Well, that explains what is wrong with about a third of our country.

Bonitas link was so interesting - seeing how education level and this literal belief are inversely proportionate. Duh.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Talking about a literal 7 day creation. I do not know how many people believe in it, but it is not a strange, never before heard of topic.

I knew that some people believed in a literal 7 day creation, but I guess I have just never thought through the implications of that belief before (like not believing in dinosaurs or believing that they coexisted with man.) I don't personally know anyone who believes in a literal 7 day creation- at least not that they've ever shared with me- so I haven't ever given it much thought. My questions weren't meant to be disrespectful; I was genuinely curious because I'm unfamiliar with the details of that belief system. I was happy that Racheal was willing to answer my questions.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments