This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million

Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million - Comments

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 1 by mordacious1

Igor...throw the switch.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:58:00 UTC | #276268

Sciros's Avatar Comment 2 by Sciros

“Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans,” said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
That's cause you're a Catholic, you stupid douche.

I, for one, hope this DNA replication from mammoth pubes works because I'm fucking tired of shitty CG mammoths in those sci fi original movies and in that movie 10,000 CG or whatever it's called.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:02:00 UTC | #276269

Polaris29's Avatar Comment 3 by Polaris29

There is very interesting reading about cloning of ancient lifeforms in Richard's book A Devil's Chaplain, chapter is named "Sons of Moore's Law".
Check it out!

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:15:00 UTC | #276278

cornbread_r2's Avatar Comment 4 by cornbread_r2

“Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans,” said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops."

Apparently then the RCC has worked out that Neanderthals were "humans" in the Catholic sense i.e. soul-infused hominids. According to their theology, as I understand it, that would mean that since these "humans" had never had the chance to hear the Gospels and be baptized, they would automatically be admitted into heaven in the same way that unbaptized babies, fetuses, bushmen and intelligent aliens from other worlds are. Heaven must be a very interesting place indeed.

Christopher Hitchens would also seem to have a new question for the ID Christian theist then: Why did god create and entire species of human only to let it go extinct 42,000 years before Jesus's arrival?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:34:00 UTC | #276279

AoClay's Avatar Comment 5 by AoClay

Well at least it's a lot closer to a human than a cracker. They're making progress.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:09:00 UTC | #276286

Ansu's Avatar Comment 6 by Ansu

I believe that a reason of why humanity is so screwed up is because we are not living the way we were in the pleistocene when are brains were formed. Most of our brains were developed in such an advanced way so we could create complicated techniques tu hunt. Now that we dont, our brains are confused, leading us to miserable, unfullfiled lives.

So, we need to do what we were supposed to: I propose to clone Mammoths so we can kill them.
Life will make perfect sense after that.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:26:00 UTC | #276299

Goldy's Avatar Comment 7 by Goldy

Comment #290151 by Ansu
Indeed. I also propose we all go al fresco and forgo vaccinations and medicine (except for the plants we can gather). I mean, everyone knows life ends at 40, not begins! :-D

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:35:00 UTC | #276305

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 8 by HourglassMemory

I have nothing against this at all. By all means go ahead with it if you get the chance. I'm all for bringging it back...but...
Wouldn't we just end up seeing an elephant with hair?

A dodo would be more interesting. But I'm aware of the difficulties with the dodo.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:39:00 UTC | #276307

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 9 by NewEnglandBob

I can foresee a grassy field of Woolly Mammoth hairballs as far as the eye can see!

$10 million - that is cheaper than Spielberg spent for Jurassic Park.
$65 million to just to market it and it grossed more than $914 million.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:47:00 UTC | #276310

Goldy's Avatar Comment 10 by Goldy

Comment #290159 by HourglassMemory
Moa would be nice - be something to see a bird that big again :-)

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:56:00 UTC | #276318

Opisthokont's Avatar Comment 11 by Opisthokont

Hurrah for reverse extinction!

Personally, though, I think that such efforts should be directed more to resurrecting more recently extinct species. Humans probably killed off all of the mammoths at the end of the Pleistocene -- along with a number of other large mammals -- but there may well have been other factors to their decline as well, and in any event the environment may have changed in inconvenient ways.

I would love to see the dodo come back. Or the Tasmanian tiger. Or Steller's sea cow. These are things that we *know* humans have hunted to extinction, and it would be nice to make amends for that.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:59:00 UTC | #276322

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 12 by Dhamma

Comment #290159 by HourglassMemory:

A dodo would be more interesting. But I'm aware of the difficulties with the dodo.

Please, enlighten me.

I think it's quite breathtaking we will, at least theoretically, be able to pull it off. A species that died out 10 000 years ago will be able to walk on earth again simply due to human technology. We are so amazing - that we need a god?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:01:00 UTC | #276325

AlexAtheist's Avatar Comment 13 by AlexAtheist

Does anyone know if this technology could be applied to the Carolina Parakeet? our native eastern American parrot only became extinct about a hundred years ago and there are preserved specimens in many collections around the world but I wonder if the preserving techniques would destroy usable DNA. The idea that parrots could once again fly in our skies is amazing to me and a bit of an obsession.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:26:00 UTC | #276337

Goldy's Avatar Comment 14 by Goldy

Wonder if the skies will blacken with Passenger pigeons again...

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:28:00 UTC | #276339

theseanze's Avatar Comment 15 by theseanze

That would be so cool! It would provide some more tangible evidence for people who don't understand evolution and DNA, but the sad thing would be watching it die out again in a demonstration of adaptations not suited for the current environment.
It would either be in a zoo--where reproduction doesn't happen much--or some preserve where it would be confused and lonely.

...what did mammoths eat??

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:40:00 UTC | #276350

Sciros's Avatar Comment 16 by Sciros

...what did mammoths eat??
Cavemen and freedom fries.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:57:00 UTC | #276363

Daniella's Avatar Comment 17 by Daniella

I think maybe we should leave dead mammoths lie.
We have enough trouble keeping alive most of the species on our planet anyway.
Money would be better spent preserving the elephants that we do have.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:57:00 UTC | #276364

Mr0Joshua's Avatar Comment 18 by Mr0Joshua

There have been several Russian attempts to cultivate eggs from frozen mammoths that look so perfectly preserved in ice. But the perfection is deceiving since the DNA is always degraded and no viable cells remain.

Maybe they should hook up with the Japanese scientists who figured out how to clone frozen mice.
BBC article

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:12:00 UTC | #276369

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 19 by glenister_m

Odd they didn't mention some groups are trying to find frozen mammoth sperm, which apparently does not need to be alive to fertilize an egg. They would then use the sperm to fertilize an elephant egg and produce a female half-mammoth, then repeat the process with her to produce a 3/4 mammoth, etc.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:24:00 UTC | #276382

Pete H's Avatar Comment 20 by Pete H

This would encounter similar objections as sex education, immunisations, and stem cell research.

If animals can be unextincted then people might be less cautious with already endangered species. This will be as outrageous for environmentalists as condoms are for the Vatican.

On the other hand, seeing as our collapsing financial system, the impending nuclear war with Iran, and climate change might take us back to the Stone Age, perhaps it’s a good precaution to re-establish our natural prey. This will give us something to live on until civilisation re-emerges.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:22:00 UTC | #276386

Roy_H's Avatar Comment 21 by Roy_H

Ooh....Pleistocene Park!

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:51:00 UTC | #276389

bluecastle's Avatar Comment 22 by bluecastle

But we have only got the genes, not the memes. Animals living in herds or social structures also pass memes to their offspring and that is lost, probably forever

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:52:00 UTC | #276401

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 23 by rod-the-farmer

The Carolina Parrot ? Nah. That parrot is deceased.

Mammoths would be so cool. I hereby predict they will be funded by someone who puts them in a closed park, where admission is by paid ticket only, and cameras banned. If you want to see them, you will have to pay. That will help recover the cost of the cloning. Sabre tooth tigers are next. Anything that will draw crowds. Stellers sea cow ? How many people have even HEARD of that, let alone will pay to see one ?

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:56:00 UTC | #276402

Kit Finn's Avatar Comment 24 by Kit Finn

That's odd, I was talking to a geneticist the other day about the possibility of bringing back extinct species. Then we went on about creating unicorns and heraldic pelicans and other mythical beasties...

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:10:00 UTC | #276404

epeeist's Avatar Comment 25 by epeeist

The genome for Neanderthals could be recovered soon - should we regenerate one of those?

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:15:00 UTC | #276406

8teist's Avatar Comment 26 by 8teist

Don`t forget the Dodo

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:18:00 UTC | #276407

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 27 by Oromasdes1978

I really don't think this is a good idea, Mammoth had its chance and Natural Selection said it was time to call it a day, why would you want to bring something back that has been extinct for so long?

I would possibly accept a recent species that had been wiped out due to human interference but this is a creature that is going to be introduced to an environment that it simply will not be able to adapt to surely?

I don't know, am I wrong about this? I think it is an enormously interesting thing to be able to do and very clever indeed, but I still have massive doubts as to whether this is a good idea or not.

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:21:00 UTC | #276408

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 28 by hungarianelephant

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, like Philip, you could say that the mammoth had its chance and was selected for extinction.

On the other, there's ample evidence that the demise of the larger mammals is related to the rise of homo sapiens. If we could repair some of the damage - a big if - then it's much harder to object. We're not talking about dinosaurs here. 10,000 years in geological time is nothing.

It might also help focus minds on the plight of the three remaining elephant species, who remain in deep trouble.

Also on the positive side, the fundies will have twenty two whole months to rave on about playing God, which should keep them busy.

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:03:00 UTC | #276418

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 29 by Quetzalcoatl


In the case of the mammoth, Natural Selection probably equalled Homo Sapiens. I think it should go ahead, if only because I'm interested to see if it can be done. If it can be, then species that go extinct in the future might be able to be brought back.

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:10:00 UTC | #276425

GandalfGrey's Avatar Comment 30 by GandalfGrey

I personally would like to see a Sabertooth cat.
So lets cancel the upcomming Jurassic Park 2010 movie and make one of these...

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:14:00 UTC | #276428