Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 04:19 PM
I would love to see a clone of a mammoth!
When I was reading the article and got to the part about the hold-outs I remembered reading about one of these areas. If I remember correctly they found something rather odd in the population. There was a change it the structure of the teeth in one generation, in other words the parents had one structure and the babies developed another. Scientists seemed puzzled by this sudden adaptation which usually takes generations to accomplish. I just wish I could remember where I read that. LOL |
Nitpicker
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 06:24 PM
AHEM:
It would be impossible to clone a mommoth because you would need a mammoth mother to plant the baby in. Since we are a bit short on said mammoths, this puts cloning mammoths on hold for the time being.
😕
But one can always hope... |
Evildream
in You mamas house
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 07:41 PM
AHEM:
Incubator
😕
But you could just be stupid |
Lampshade
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 08:21 PM
hate to break it to you Nitpicker, but yes you can. Since Elephants are related to Mammoths, you could probably use the Elephant as a mother. They even had this on a special on the discovery channel (not sure if it is outside of the US or not)about some mammoth they found in Siberia, and a follow up about what they could do with the thing (which was incased in a bunch of ice). |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 09:27 PM
Lampshade is right. An elephant can be used for the cloning of a Mammoth. The only thing about the clone is that it wouldn't be a pure Mammoth, it would be part Elephant and part Mammoth since an elephant egg would have to be used, at least that is the way I understand it. |
J N
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 11:19 PM
Wrong again. When you clone something, you zap the dna inside the original egg (destroying the elephant DNA), and do something magical to cause the genetic tissue of the donor to fuse with the egg. It would be 100% mammoth. Hence it being cloning.
Myself, I'd like to see a quagga |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:15 AM
JN...
Nope YOU are wrong...
Our best ability at cloning a mammoth would HAVE to involve the use of an elephant egg...
You cannot remove all the elephant DNA and therefore the first "clone" would actually only be 50% mammoth...
As further generations were created they would in turn become more and more (percentage wise) mammoth but we would never be able to create a 100% pure mammoth...
It's well documented and discussed... do you not get the discovery channel? I'd swear they replayed that show a million times. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:18 AM
The "true" cloning that you see going on today is because they are cloning species that are still alive...
DNA may be exactly the same but might / does present itself differently each time... which is why even "true" clones can look different (fur color, fur markings) than their originals... |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:49 AM
In procreation, copies of two different DNA strands merge to create one complete whole, new DNA strand. So in cloning a mammoth what do you think you can do... copy the DNA twice and meld it to itself... nope. A mammoth mother would be required to make a 100% mammoth clone of any specimen. Otherwise you must use elephant DNA for the other side of the "cloned" strand and therefore you end up with a clone that's only 50% mammoth.
If the species were gone entirely (elephants) then cloning a mammoth to any degree wouldn't be possible. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 04:04 AM
One major problem anyway would be, that the environment needed to sustain a mammoth has virtually gone. That's why they got extinct. So when you clone a mammoth, you would have problems getting the accurate environment to keep it alive. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 04:10 AM
Hmmm, made my comment before reading the link properly. Interesting story. So, they actually want to recreate the Pleistocene environment? I think there's more to that though than introducing the same species as in the Peisocene, it is also a matter of aridity and seasonality etc. Which are just different today, although that part of Siberia is indeed the colsest still existing analogue. |
Erica Damion
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 | 10:18 PM
To whom it may conern,
I may be on the ignorant side but to me cloning a mammoth is a giant leap. Just like of the possiblilties. Don't think I am just a rubber necker checking this out, I have done my research. Cloning is a wonderful thing, and I know that everything can be abused. It will be risky, but just try to keep all of the infromation needed locked up then we will be alright. This a perplexing subject especially to a 12 year old.
P.S. Who ever said that the mammoth will not be 100% mammoth , IS A FRICKEN RETARD!! Don't you know that the egg casing is only used to contain the other animal's DNA. The blood that flows to the embryo is a nutrient and has absolutely NO DNA from the animal, the uterous is the only thing being used, and I don't think that food will change the embryo's DNA. |
