Mammoth find: Preserved Ice Age giant found with flowing blood in Siberia

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Judging by the definition you use, you better not ever have children or you are playing God, since that is all that is happening here.

Why thank you for that wonderful post which contributes greatly to the discussion. I am not a Christian I do not have a faith or religion. I am not atheist.

Do you not understand what I am trying to say. IMHO they are playing God. A God is portrayed as an almighty divine being that can give and take life.

If the scientists manage to clone the mammoth. They will have literally given life to the mammoth. So in effect they are playing God. Can you not see what I am trying to say....

Only in the same way parents literally give life to their baby. All the scientists will be doing is fertilizing an egg and implanting it for birth using already available genetic material.

And why if you are an atheist are you quoting the Bible's definition of "playing God"? Your being an atheist explains your cluelessness of the verses you quoted and why it does not apply to this discussion at least.

Human scientists are not almight divine beings. They are not bringing a dead Mammoth back to life, they are simply having a new one born.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

For most animals that is true. The Wooly Mammoth would not be most animals. Research grants and tourism money along with a secluded area such as an island would afford them very reasonable safety. It would be a very rare occurance when one was poached. Elephants may be eaten by those who kill them, but they are NOT breed as a food source, and to suggest Wooly Mammoths would be used to solve the world's food crisis is one of the most ignorant comments I have heard in a long time.

Could you quote and link to me which member posted that mammoths would be used to solve the world's food crisis....

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Yes and everyone talking about them being a food source is just as stupid when they say it. We have elephants, they are not a food source, why would Mammoths which are almost identical be a food source? It lacks basic logic.

As far as ivory that is the first intelligent thing I have heard, and is true. As I said earlier, the money generated from tourism would be more than enough to protect them from poachers, especially if they were on an island reserve.

Ah so we are all stupid. What an ignorant comment to make.

Anyway. Are you saying that it is impossible that if mammoths were brought back they would never be used as a food source. I am sure you must be aware that when mammoths were roaming the lands the people used to hunt them. They were a food source. What makes you so sure in the fact that if they are brought back they will not be used as a food source again...

Like I said in a previous post. One way or another they will be exploited. And do not be surprised if they suffer too...

reply to post by fluff007


It was brought up in this thread, if you want to see who said it you are welcome to look. There have been previous posts on ATS where members said the Mammoths were being brought back to end the world's food crisis. Not maybe at some point someone would have a Mammoth steak, but that they would replace cattle and feed the world with Mammoth.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Only in the same way parents literally give life to their baby. All the scientists will be doing is fertilizing an egg and implanting it for birth using already available genetic material.

And why if you are an atheist are you quoting the Bible's definition of "playing God"? Your being an atheist explains your cluelessness of the verses you quoted and why it does not apply to this discussion at least.

Human scientists are not almight divine beings. They are not bringing a dead Mammoth back to life, they are simply having a new one born.

Do you not read what is posted. I am not an atheist. I am not a anything. I am simply an earth being that is trying to figure out the ways of the universe and enjoying the ride. In the process of which I find myself on ATS in a thread sitting on the fence questioning whether or not it is a good idea to bring back an extinct species.

I never stated that humans were almighty divine beings. I said that God was portrayed as almighty divine being. Basically you see it one way. I see it another way. What makes your way right or my way wrong.

So simply having a new one born is not giving life........?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

It was brought up in this thread, if you want to see who said it you are welcome to look. There have been previous posts on ATS where members said the Mammoths were being brought back to end the world's food crisis. Not maybe at some point someone would have a Mammoth steak, but that they would replace cattle and feed the world with Mammoth.

I have read through this thread 5 times now. I am yet to find the member who posted what you said. Do you mean previous threads. Not specifically this one. And you have decided to group all members who mention the words food and mammoth in the same sentence as people who are idiots as they think they are being brought back to solve the world food crisis... Now that is ignorant.

and to suggest Wooly Mammoths would be used to solve the world's food crisis is one of the most ignorant comments I have heard in a long time.

Yes members in this thread have voiced the question what would mammoth meat taste like. Yes another mentioned mammoth steak. But there are no posts saying mammoths should be used to solve the world's food crisis....

I highly doubt any member in this thread thinks that if the mammoth was brought back they would replace cattle. That is ridiculous...

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

It was brought up in this thread, if you want to see who said it you are welcome to look. There have been previous posts on ATS where members said the Mammoths were being brought back to end the world's food crisis. Not maybe at some point someone would have a Mammoth steak, but that they would replace cattle and feed the world with Mammoth.

I have read through this thread 5 times now. I am yet to find the member who posted what you said. Do you mean previous threads. Not specifically this one. And you have decided to group all members who mention the words food and mammoth in the same sentence as people who are idiots as they think they are being brought back to solve the world food crisis... Now that is ignorant.

and to suggest Wooly Mammoths would be used to solve the world's food crisis is one of the most ignorant comments I have heard in a long time.

Yes members in this thread have voiced the question what would mammoth meat taste like. Yes another mentioned mammoth steak. But there are no posts saying mammoths should be used to solve the world's food crisis....

I highly doubt any member in this thread thinks that if the mammoth was brought back they would replace cattle. That is ridiculous...

edit on 30-5-2013 by fluff007 because: (no reason given)

Here you go, was not hard to find.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Not a circus freak. A food source. Seriously.

I do not group people who think someone might want to try a bite and people who think Mammoths will become a food source the same. The fact you think I do when I was very clear with what belief I found rediculous speaks to your bias in looking for something to nitpick about me, that's on you.

They will most definitely NOT be brought back as a food source. While some people may end up eating some Mammoth, they will not be a food source. There have been numerous posts on this subject (cloning) and there is almost always people talking about them bringing the mammoths back to end world hunger and replace cattle with mammoths, it's ludicrous.

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Only in the same way parents literally give life to their baby. All the scientists will be doing is fertilizing an egg and implanting it for birth using already available genetic material.

And why if you are an atheist are you quoting the Bible's definition of "playing God"? Your being an atheist explains your cluelessness of the verses you quoted and why it does not apply to this discussion at least.

Human scientists are not almight divine beings. They are not bringing a dead Mammoth back to life, they are simply having a new one born.

Do you not read what is posted. I am not an atheist. I am not a anything. I am simply an earth being that is trying to figure out the ways of the universe and enjoying the ride. In the process of which I find myself on ATS in a thread sitting on the fence questioning whether or not it is a good idea to bring back an extinct species.

I never stated that humans were almighty divine beings. I said that God was portrayed as almighty divine being. Basically you see it one way. I see it another way. What makes your way right or my way wrong.

So simply having a new one born is not giving life........?

My apologies I misread in haste, you are correct you state you are NOT an atheist. Still, I find your use of the Bible perplexing since you do not subscribe to it. Having a new one born is giving life in the same way two parents giving birth to a child is giving life. It's not Divine.

reply to post by fluff007


cryo-protective properties

thats the cool bit!

Originally posted by Midnight4444
I'm not completely opposed to cloning the mammoth. However if there is not enough wild area left to keep Elephants alive and unpoached, how could there be a safe place in the wild for mammoth(s) to live?

There's a secret island covered by mist....

Cloning a real live animal thats been frozen for so long...

Sounds like a mammoth tusk indeed!

As far as bringing this creature back to life, I doubt it would grow to its original DNA design. I think too many things have changed in 10-15,000 years. The airborne bacteria is probably different for one. This would alone would probably make surviving impossible.

Originally posted by Warchief666
I think that any opportunity to bring something back should be taken, just so we can learn.

what are we learning and is it worth the responsibility of maintaining a revived species?

Originally posted by Midnight4444
I'm not completely opposed to cloning the mammoth. However if there is not enough wild area left to keep Elephants alive and unpoached, how could there be a safe place in the wild for mammoth(s) to live?

It would not be proper to bring a species back from extinction, only to live in captivity.

May I suggest... There is plenty of unused land in Canada and Russia that would support the mammoth populations. I propose we clone a few, allow some generations of natural breeding to occur, and then commercialize them for livestock production. Might as well enjoy the past the way we enjoy the present
Mammoth rides at zoos, mammoth meat if it tastes good. Can we get ivory back too???

If they can clone it they had better, that is awesome and it would be great to see a species brought back. Why not for other endangered species as well that we currently are loosing.

Originally posted by SixX18
If they can clone it they had better, that is awesome and it would be great to see a species brought back. Why not for other endangered species as well that we currently are loosing.

Isn't prevention better than a cure? I see the argument of wanting to bring them back - it would be interesting to see something that we know roamed the earth thousands to millions of years ago. It would seem like a fantasy coming to life.

But try and put this into perspective a bit and put it in our modern context. Are we really capable of taking the responsibility that something like this deserves? or are we just blindly jumping into it to satisfy our desires until we lose interest?

It's easy to not think about the animal, but just TRY and put yourself in it's perspective. It will grow up surrounded by attention, without many like it. It won't know its own history. The only thing it will know is the moment it is currently in, and sadly, even that will be taken away by us.

If you're going to clone an animal, why don't you do it properly and clone it's environment? We can't do half a job and call ourselves "intelligent beings".

When humans go extinct, and 100,000 years afterward an advanced aardvark society with cloning technology stumbles upon the well preserved remains of say, Oprah or Paul Newman.......should they clone it?

Scientists have met to discuss the possibility of bringing back 24 animals back from extinction.
But a real life Jurassic Park is not an option, it is said, because dinosaur DNA is just too old.
The so called 'de-extinction' of a number of species was discussed at a TEDx conference in Washington DC sponsored by National Geographic.

SOURCE

QUAGGA (Plains Zebra)


MOA


DODO


WOOLY MAMMOTH


IVORY BILLED WOODPECKER


TASMANIAN TIGER

reply to post by Midnight4444


Russia has thousands upon thousands of uninhibited acres, especially the kind where it's too cold for most people to survive or want to visit. Most of these lands can't be accessed easily. Mammoths would have plenty of space to be wild and free.

Originally posted by hp1229

Scientists have met to discuss the possibility of bringing back 24 animals back from extinction.
But a real life Jurassic Park is not an option, it is said, because dinosaur DNA is just too old.
The so called 'de-extinction' of a number of species was discussed at a TEDx conference in Washington DC sponsored by National Geographic.

SOURCE

QUAGGA (Plains Zebra)

MOA

DODO

WOOLY MAMMOTH

IVORY BILLED WOODPECKER

TASMANIAN TIGER

edit on 30-5-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

Humanity could be next on this list.