Why isn't the cloning of a mammoth likely?

[Dignan]

In Cecil's column on the color of dinosaurs (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_010.html) he mentions that scientists aren't likely to succeed in their attempts of making a clone out of the frozen mammoth that was found. Unfortunately he didn't go into much detail. What's the Straight Dope on why it's not likely?

[Smeghead]

Well, firstly notice that that article was written in 1980. Things have progessed quite a bit since then. I'd say that cloning a mammoth isn't out of the realm of possibility, and I believe there are efforts currently being made. But there are still significant hurdles to be overcome. For starters, I haven't heard that anyone has yet found a frozen mammoth cell with all its DNA intact. They might have - I haven't been paying too much attention lately.

Then there's the fact that you'd have to use an elephant as a surrogate mother, which wouldn't make things any easier. And keep in mind that even with animals we're very familiar with, such as sheep, it's taking 30-40+ attempts to get one viable clone.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Details on cloning mammoths--"not likely".

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/mammoths000313.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_481000/481571.stm
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/03/mammoth/index1.html

I love the Internet. :D

[Arnold Winkelried]

The column can also be found on pages 10-11 of Cecil Adams' book «The Straight Dope (1984; reissued 1986, 1998) (https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/dopestore/buystuff.bat#tsd)».

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
The column can also be found on pages 10-11 of Cecil Adams' book «The Straight Dope (1984; reissued 1986, 1998) (https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/dopestore/buystuff.bat#tsd)».

Does it feel degrading being forced to cross reference each and every column reference in a transparently mercenary attempt to hawk more books upon unsuspecting and guileless truthseekers, or do you just get used to it after a while?


;)

[Arnold Winkelried]

Scyla - mine is an honourable calling, and wearing that Straight Dope sandwich board every day is a source of pride for me.

[RiverRunner]

Scyla - mine is an honourable calling, and wearing that Straight Dope sandwich board every day is a source of pride for me.


As long as you have the legs for it.

RR

[DSYoungEsq]

Arnold. Put down the GIF. Step slowly away... Keep your hands where we can see them Do NOT hit "submit"!

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Dignan
In Cecil's column on the color of dinosaurs (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_010.html) he mentions that scientists aren't likely to succeed in their attempts of making a clone out of the frozen mammoth that was found. Unfortunately he didn't go into much detail. What's the Straight Dope on why it's not likely?
It's possible and likely within the next 100 years, I estimate.

The people giving conservative answers are working on the assumption that technology is about at the level it is today. The professional biologists don't stay warmly outfitted in the latest gear by claiming things are possible which they can't deliver on. And they have a particular aversion to having week-old squid tossed at them while they speak at professional conferences.

The "proof" that a mammoth can't be reconstructed is based on a few facile assumptions, which were stated to me years ago by a friend who planned one day to get a Nobel prize in biology.

Assumption 1. DNA breaks down rather rapidly into its component bits. A double strand quickly becomes thousands of indistinguishable A's, C's, G's, and T's. Once broken apart, they all look alike.

Assumption 2. To construct a mammoth, a really clever biologist, with a huge amount of grant money, working in a comfortable lab, with a lot of zombie sub-biologists, would need to have nearly intact strands to be able to make a shrewd guess as to what the original must have looked like.

Assumption 3. Even frozen mammoth meat is *far* too decomposed to recreate mammoth DNA.

Assumption 4. Assumption 2 is the only way to create a mammoth.

The fallacy is 4. The same conservative approach to science which enables biologists to see about 2 months into the future, is the same blind approach that thinks it's really keen and important to experiment with anthrax, etc. I.e., there are precious few biologists who've given serious thought to what their work will lead to 100 years from now.

The problem is approach. They're thinking the only way to make a mammoth is to put together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. But there is another way, which is to build DNA from scratch, one part at a time, that replicates what's seen in the specimens. If it looks like a mammoth, tastes like a mammoth, behaves what we imagine mammoths behaved like, it probably is a mammoth.

This is science decades beyond the state we're at now: pointing to a gene and saying "Ah, ha! There's the gene that causes people to enjoy World Federation Wrestling!" This is science which understands the role of genes in all living mammals, to some degree. That's a long way off. Further than 2 months.

The final ingredient is that people want the mammoth to come back. It would be fantastic. Of course, we might create a few deranged, homicidal, super-fast near-mammoths before we get there, but...hey!...that's science.

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps the reason precious few biologist aren't thinking about 100 years down the road is that precious few of those even thinking about will be toes up.

Of course one might questions why there is a NEED to clone up some wooly mammoths. They came and went in the time line of evolution, so why muke it up? But then again, if they are really tasty and their hair makes for really nicely warm jackets or a nifty rug to spread before the fire place, maybe there is a need.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
Of course one might questions why there is a NEED to clone up some wooly mammoths. They came and went in the time line of evolution, so why muke it up? But then again, if they are really tasty and their hair makes for really nicely warm jackets or a nifty rug to spread before the fire place, maybe there is a need.
I *hope* you're going to be polite about my answer <g> (I had a whale of a fight with a girlfriend about this some time ago).

Without getting into the much more complicated subject of whether we should bring back dinosaurs, etc., I think there's good justification for mankind to restore any animal or plant that it was responsible for extinguishing in the first place.

The mammoth, passenger pigeon, and the moa were eliminated by man. Not even intentionally. Actually, I just went looking for some info on the net, and found an article that suggests my argument with my girlfriend is actually quite widespread.

This is about bringing back the Huia bird:http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9907/20/cloning.enn/

[YeW]

Hi Guys,

Another major argument is - why bother? It will cost an awful lot of money which could be better spent from preventing presently extant animals from becoming extinct. There are plenty of desperately endangered animals that don't see the kind of $$$ spent on them as extinct ones :)

YeW

[Flyfisher]

The point I was trying to make is that if you believe that basic concept behind evolution, survival of the the fittest, then you have to consider the implications of bringing back something that is now longer part of the flora and fawna.

Yeah, perhaps some of you folks feel guilty about man's role in doing in some species. Some of which, one would be hard pressed to deliver evidence to the fact that the demise of it was totally due to the actions of man.

But, hey, man IS another animal is the scheme of things that evolved here (green planet of the clocks). Many species that have come and gone over time did so because they didn't reporduce fast enough to replace their losses due to many different reasons. You know like they were too slow, their food source dwindled away, climate change, vulcanism, high velocity big rocks from space crashing into the planet and etc.

Trying to place responsibility for "sins" our or others ancestors, people, etc. did in the past whether it was recently or 100 years, 500 years, whatever, ago is rediculous. Its like saying if your father was a murderer, then you as his son or daughter are responsible to families of those slain. Poppycock. Your actions are your responsibility and no one else's.

Want to help save what is still part of the flora and fawna? Get involved in conservation. In most of the states conservation is primarily or mostly paid for by the fees charged to the folks involved fishing and hunting. Other outdoor activities like rock climbing and hiking, off roading, boating and so forth contribute nothing in dollars to operation of conservation work for the most part.

Don't fish or hunt? I'm sure your state wil accept gifts to their parks and wildlife organizations. In Texas for example you can buy special license plates for your vehicle where a portion of the fee goes directly to the parks and wildlife department.

Since it is very difficult to change the past and there are unknowns about what the outcome could be, it seems a better idea to press ahead in the flow of time and not try to reinstate the dead. We can make use of what has been learned, and through conservation and education try not to make anything else extinct without a proper weighing of the possible outcome.

Oh, crap ..... I got all preachy :D

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
The point I was trying to make is that if you believe that basic concept behind evolution, survival of the the fittest, then you have to consider the implications of bringing back something that is now longer part of the flora and fawna.

But, hey, man IS another animal is the scheme of things that evolved here (green planet of the clocks).

...

Want to help save what is still part of the flora and fawna? Get involved in conservation. In most of the states conservation is primarily or mostly paid for by the fees charged to the folks involved fishing and hunting. Other outdoor activities like rock climbing and hiking, off roading, boating and so forth contribute nothing in dollars to operation of conservation work for the most part.

Well, you don't sound like my ex-girlfriend, so I guess I hazard to answer.

Evolution isn't "the survival of the fittest." Spencer said this, not Darwin.

The good thing about evolution is that by trial-and-error life sustains itself in changing conditions. The bad thing man's doing is changing things so rapidly evolution by trial-and-error is now largely irrelevant. If man's decisions are by-and-large wise (fat chance), then maybe we'll accomplish things that took evolution much longer to do. Maybe not.

The problem with allowing species to become extinct at the incredible rate that's current is that we have little idea what evolutionary "purpose" these animals served. They *were* there for good, evolutionary sound, reasons--until we came along. Now we don't know what those reasons were, and have no way to find out. Except bringing them back.

A maniac who kills every animal on earth except his immediate friends and family is not following any trial-and-error evolutionary process. He's a destroyer, and most of the things he destroys would have been no threat to him. Therefore he is anti-evolution. He is destroying the process, not working within it.

[Flyfisher]

Exactly the point. Conservation is "wise", where "whole sale slaughter" isn't (well, except for maybe cockroches). Man should try to keep what he has.

If one trys bringing back something that is no longer part of the fawna, the mammoth for example, how is it going to fit into the balance? How would its population numbers be kept in check and, other than man, what predator would do it?

Since the primary four legged predator that used to work at keeping the mammoth in check is also extinct, so should that be reinstated as well? For good examples of installing fawna that doesn't belong in a particular ecosystem time and place, take look at things that happened in "recent" history in the land of the Aussies (rabbits, frogs, etc.)

For the most part the planet is riding in greased grooves. So why risk screwing things up? When man thinks he is actually able to control or change the "course" of the natural world and "knows" what he is doing, he is showing his arrogance. And arrogance generally equals stupidity.


With regards to blaming man; When the mammoth was around, what was the population of man the areas that they lived? And by what evidence, considering that many, many thousands of years have come and gone, can one use to provide the blame of extinction of the mammoth on man? Are there any other reasons that the mammoth went extinct? How did the "ice age" (the last one) affect things? Or is the concept (man doing in the mammoth)just some popular tripe that is being spouted because of some misplaced "green" guilts?

And if one could prove that man of the time was "compleatly" responsible, perhaps one should consider the circumstances that led man to target the mammoth. You know stuff like, day to day survival, food for the family group, warm and dry shelters, clothing and etc. Not too many folks in that time lived to a ripe old age due to accidents, varmints, sickness or just not getting enough to eat.

And with the concern of just trying to stay alive being a daily quest, I'd doubt if those folks spent much time (likely none at all) worried about if there were going to be any mammoths left to kill and eat (assuming that they were really all that successful in killing mass quanities of mammoths) because they killed one.
But since mammoths were real big by comparison to the man, and man's weapon was basically a stick with a pointy end (flint, bone, etc.), don't you think attacking such an animal might be quite dangerous even with 10 or 20 hunters doing it?

To be able to pull off such an attack they would had to have found an isolated mammoth far enough away from a herd that they wouldn't have to be concerned about being attacked themselves by others from that herd. Ever notice that none of the big cats in Africa bother the elephants unless they happen to "luck" onto a real young one that is far removed from the herd?

Same deal, its a form of "risk" versus the "need to eat" assessment. So those folks were probably all too aware of the fact that a pissed off healthy mammoth was bad medicine, and a pissed off herd of the same was really, really bad medicine. So to cap off, these reasons are why I doubt if man is fully, if at all responsible for mammoths being discontinued. They are history and we should leave it that way.

[tony schellhorn]

Actually it will be easier to clone a mamoth (which existed upto several thousand years ago?) , than to try to find viable material from a fossil (rock if you will).
I remember a short story about a scientist that corrected a cardiac leak leak in embryonic alligators' hearts .They grew up to become dragons.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
Exactly the point....

If one trys bringing back something that is no longer part of the fawna, the mammoth for example, how is it going to fit into the balance? How would its population numbers be kept in check and, other than man, what predator would do it? ....

With regards to blaming man; When the mammoth was around, what was the population of man the areas that they lived? And by what evidence, considering that many, many thousands of years have come and gone, can one use to provide the blame of extinction of the mammoth on man? Are there any other reasons that the mammoth went extinct?

What a mammoth is going to do, say about 80 years from now, to the fauna, is another issue. Speculation on this would be welcome, but as a quick first guess I'd imagine that any direct descendant of modern animals wasn't much of a threat, because, after all, we're living with their more successful offshoots. (The same doesn't hold for some bacteria and viruses, which one can assume, if reconstructed would ravage the world.)

I'm not a mammoth expert. (Maybe that came out wrongly?) What I remember reading is that there weren't all that many mammoths, that they lived in the same areas as humans, that humans hunted them, and that there was evidence they overhunted them. To extinction.

Even without archeological evidence it seems like an animal is more endangered if:

1) He's good eating, and useful for hide.
2) He's not extremely smart or quick-moving. (As a monkey, parrot, tiger, or dolphin is.)
3) He hangs out in the same climatic zones that man does.
4) He's no good at fetching newspapers.

[Chronos]

Quoth partly_warmer:The problem is approach. They're thinking the only way to make a mammoth is to put together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. But there is another way, which is to build DNA from scratch, one part at a time, that replicates what's seen in the specimens. If it looks like a mammoth, tastes like a mammoth, behaves what we imagine mammoths behaved like, it probably is a mammoth.Totally useless. If you build an animal from the "ground up", so to speak, then it'll only have whatever features you already knew it had. If all we knew about mammoths was that they had shaggy brown hair and long tusks, then sure, we could probably somehow breed an animal with shaggy brown hair and tusks and call it a mammoth. But that wouldn't tell us anything about the flexible trunks sported by the original. OK, we know about the trunks, too, so we include them. What else are we missing? And what could we possibly learn from this creature we produced?

Another point is that visible form is only a fraction of the story. Look at a shark and a dolphin sometime... Ever notice how similar the shapes are? And yet, sharks and dolphins are about as far separated as you can be in the phylum Chordata. If you blindly breed a "streamlined gray two-meter animal with a dorsal fin", is that a dolphin or a shark?

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Chronos
Quoth partly_warmer:Totally useless. If you build an animal from the "ground up", so to speak, then it'll only have whatever features you already knew it had. If all we knew about mammoths was that they had shaggy brown hair and long tusks, then sure, we could probably somehow breed an animal with shaggy brown hair and tusks and call it a mammoth. But that wouldn't tell us anything about the flexible trunks sported by the original. OK, we know about the trunks, too, so we include them. What else are we missing? And what could we possibly learn from this creature we produced?
...
Ah!

Two factors omitted:

1) Genes don't do only one thing. The gene that makes a mammoth's tusk curve upward may also make its teeth more pointed. The reconstructors only need to identify *one* of the relationships between gene and a function to identify the gene.

2) The "pointy tusk" gene in conjunction with some other seemingly trivial gene (say, the gene to control bone growth) will have unpredictable results. The two together may mandate another trait, or even dozens of traits. For example...fast growing bones?...pointed teeth?...hmm...an animal that is heedless about cracking an occasional tooth on an appetizing armored mammal?

Genes are the *simplest* way of describing a creature. The extrapolations are innumerable. So what one does is work backward from considerable evidence we know (or could rapidly discover experimentally) about animal form and behavior backwards to the simpler basis.

[Chronos]

Except that there are probably a slew (plus or minus a myriad) of genes which could, potentially, cause tusk curvature. Do we want the one that also causes pointy teeth? Or the one which causes thicker toenails? Or the one which causes long eyelashes? And this is even assuming, of course, that we know that that gene causes curved tusks in the first place.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Chronos
Except that there are probably a slew (plus or minus a myriad) of genes which could, potentially, cause tusk curvature. Do we want the one that also causes pointy teeth?....
The situation is complicated, granted, but we're talking about science considerably more advanced, that could track the interrelations of 1,000s of characteristics. It wouldn't be a small task, but then, there are probably 100s of biologists who'd be willing to make it their life's work.

I guess that there are plenty of genes that have only one effect (or one primary effect). Or at least a limited number of effects. I think there would be an evolutionary problem if the mutation to a single gene caused curved teeth in one individual, and blue hair in their grandchild. "Evolution" would have a hard time selecting, because curved teeth might be very, very useful, and enhance survival. Then jump two generations and instead of those great teeth...a punk mammoth!

YeW said:
Another major argument is - why bother? It will cost an awful lot of money which could be better spent from preventing presently extant animals from becoming extinct. There are plenty of desperately endangered animals that don't see the kind of $$$ spent on them as extinct ones
Good point, but I'm looking 80 years into the future. Whether we spend money on a "mammoth project" or not, many (maybe most) species will be extinct by then. It's not an either/or situation. Sooner or later we'll have to decide to do about bringing back extinct animals.

[YeW]

Hi All -

My point is that we need to spend the money on conserving species now - before we lose them.

To my mind it is easier, simpler and better to spend the mega bucks now buying areas to allow these endangered animals to get back from the brink... than it is to spend millions on a project that might allow us to bring back an already lost species... when we could have saved endangered species from becoming extinct using the money from the aforementioned project.

It might not work - in fact I have a strong feeling it won't - then what do we do? Look back and say to ourselves "oops".

There is only so much research money to be had - let's not spend it on glitter & promises when the hairy nosed wombat just needs some land.

YeW

[Flyfisher]

In the past, prior to the "invention" of people, things happened (like big rocks or big balls of ice falling at high velocity or etc.) that exterminated large percentages of all life on this planet. Despite those mass extinctions, some survived through it all to fill in (though it took millions of years) the various "niches" that were opened up and the new ones that were available.

Since Cecil has been on a "roll" of late with the questions related to roaches, you might note that those little multi-legged vermin have been around over 300 million years and through a large mass extinction. They'll probably still be around in another 100 million years after people have joined the ranks of the extinct.

When it is suggested to spend money on "saving" something from extinction or to clone up something that is already extinct, you have to ask some questions. Where does the money come from? What benefit will be provided from it? What might be negitive aspects of saving something? Who decides what ought to saved (should viruses be saved? insects? fish? mammals? birds? amphibians? or etc.?), science (the real kind), government or popular opinion?

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
In the past, prior to the "invention" of people, things happened (like big rocks or big balls of ice falling at high velocity or etc.) that exterminated large percentages of all life on this planet. Despite those mass extinctions, some survived through it all to fill in (though it took millions of years) the various "niches" that were opened up and the new ones that were available. Pardon me for being selfish, but I'm just not willing to put the human race through the equivalent of a comet-caused mass extinction to help development of a really wonderful species 10,000,000 years from now.

But by that logic, also, we should purposely cause as many comets as possible to hit the earth, because it'll accelerate evolution.

The main thing I'm concerned about is me, the human race, and all the critters and other life that's currently here. Secondarily, I realize there are quite a few animals that would still be around today if they had just been lucky enough to live away from a trade route. Or if their feathers didn't happen to make the headlines one year in Paris. These sorts of events don't serve any evolutionary purpose. Unless one sees Christian Dior as a force of nature...

[hammerbach]

Originally posted by partly_warmer


A maniac who kills every animal on earth except his immediate friends and family is not following any trial-and-error evolutionary process. He's a destroyer, and most of the things he destroys would have been no threat to him. Therefore he is anti-evolution. He is destroying the process, not working within it.

This is an interesting concept... But it seems to me that the only difference between this "destroyer" and a life-destroying meteor or {insert your favourite cataclysmic event here } is INTENT, or possibly CONSCIOUSNESS. Granted that human beings do not have either of these en masse, would that make ANY indescriminate large-scale killer of species anti-evolutionary?

[Flyfisher]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, obviously the point has been missed. The overall idea is to practice conservation of what is still here. Which means controlling the numbers. Usually this tends to only be practiced on the "game" animals. Perhaps conservation should be extended to all parts of the flora and fauna to keep things in "balance". It sure would open up the need for biologist to do the necessary population studies and what not.

As for those various plants or animals that are no longer here .... don't worry about it. Some people out there have a twisted view of reality, and labor under the delusions of the "Chicken Little" thought process. The fact that mammoths are extinct, by what ever process that led to it, is of no real enduring problem to the point of being a non problem. And if it is a problem, perhaps someone can devulge why it is using some real and verifiable facts.

[hammerbach]

Originally posted by Flyfisher

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, obviously the point has been missed...

...Some people out there have a twisted view of reality, and labor under the delusions of the "Chicken Little" thought process. The fact that mammoths are extinct, by what ever process that led to it, is of no real enduring problem to the point of being a non problem...

I don't think I missed the point... The source of this "Chicken Little" thought process is often the thought that humans are no longer part of the evolutionary process. I wish to deflate that idea because of the wellspring it provides for guilt and related motives for doing things like cloning mammoths. For instance, note the comments above to the effect that we wiped out mammoths (or your other favourite extinct species) and therefore are obligated to restore them.
I cannot be morally responsible for the effects of either my ancestors or random cataclysmic events, which are equally part of evolutionary process. I CAN be morally responsible (and more practically effective) for what I do today. I think this is the gist of your view...

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by hammerbach
... The source of this "Chicken Little" thought process is often the thought that humans are no longer part of the evolutionary process. I wish to deflate that idea because of the wellspring it provides for guilt and related motives for doing things like cloning mammoths. For instance, note the comments above to the effect that we wiped out mammoths (or your other favourite extinct species) and therefore are obligated to restore them....I CAN be morally responsible (and more practically effective) for what I do today. I think this is the gist of your view... Guilt isn't part of my reasoning.
There's a broader issue here the human race won't able to avoid much longer, regardless of whether it's seen as good to "bring something back". Are you for genetic engineering? 'Cause if you are, your argument falls completely apart. Ok I'm going to genetically engineer a beast who can live in the cold and carry great loads. And I'm going to crib from nature, and as it happens, the result will look a lot like a mammoth. Now are you against it?
We get to Mars in 50 years, and have terraformed it in 250. But the sun and the atmosphere there are different, and the minerals and plants unavoidably affected. So what's "natural" on Mars is different than Earth. In fact, it's more like an Earth Ice Age. So what animal do might they decide is well-suited to Mars? Say it was .... a mammoth.
I don't see that people can get out of making decisions about what life is appropriate to create.

[hammerbach]

Originally posted by partly_warmer
Guilt isn't part of my reasoning.
There's a broader issue here the human race won't able to avoid much longer, regardless of whether it's seen as good to "bring something back". Are you for genetic engineering? 'Cause if you are, your argument falls completely apart...
...I don't see that people can get out of making decisions about what life is appropriate to create.

Sorry, partly_warmer- I didn't mean to upset you... Although I would rather that we avoid genetic engineering, at least under current conditions,it's obviously here to stay. That said, even G.E. represents an extreme in natural selection (or unnatural selection, if you prefer). Evolution continues, whatever the selecting force. Species will still continue to go to extinction, and the conditions which caused the extinctions will probably negate any attempts to bring back the past. As the old saying goes, you can never go home again...
New species will emerge, however, wherever there is a niche to be filled. This will happen whether we engineer it or not.
As to what life is appropriate to create, I can only say that life has long produced and destroyed itself without our aid, often resists even determined efforts on our part in both directions, and will continue to do so.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by hammerbach
Sorry, partly_warmer- I didn't mean to upset you... Although I would rather that we avoid genetic engineering, at least under current conditions,it's obviously here to stay. That said, even G.E. represents an extreme in natural selection (or unnatural selection, if you prefer). Evolution continues, whatever the selecting force. Species will still continue to go to extinction, and the conditions which caused the extinctions will probably negate any attempts to bring back the past. As the old saying goes, you can never go home again...
New species will emerge, however, wherever there is a niche to be filled. This will happen whether we engineer it or not.
As to what life is appropriate to create, I can only say that life has long produced and destroyed itself without our aid, often resists even determined efforts on our part in both directions, and will continue to do so. It's a strange subject, isn't it? Emotion about goals and results which we've only, at best, a hint at?
I don't like genetic engineering. But yet another herd of unthinking scientists turning our natural process on its head isn't reason for us to throw up our hands at directing their activities. Bringing a mammoth back (I imagine) is harmless compared to messing with human genes. I'd prefer they learn their lessons taking a few steps at a time, not swaggering about their power to change humanity. They can learn from something relatively innocuous, like a few mammoths.
There's nothing benign or natural about the direction we're heading, today. It's like a monkey at the helm of a Ford. In an open field. Relatively safe. But not in control.

[hammerbach]

I'm with you on G.E. (ever read Shelly's 'Frankenstein'? Should be required reading for any budding scientist.)
But then again, the world was never a benign place... and so far as I can tell, no man has ever been in control. Scary, isn't it? (I now stop this thought on the grounds that religion and threads don't mix well... Infer what I mean by this at your own risk...)

That's part of what I meant about humanity having no intent or consciousness en masse. Maybe I'll be ready for G.E. when we do, but probably not sooner. And I won't get to see that. Oh, well...

[partly_warmer]

As a follow-up, from "Attitudes Toward Cloning" in American Demographics, March 2002.

This article combines studies from several sources. The main conclusion is that the less close to nature cloning is, the more people are opposed to it. This cuts across age/sex/religious groups. The majority disapprove most of the time.

This poll from Fox/Opinion Dynamics was cited:

"Which is a morally acceptable goal for animal or human cloning?

To reproduce endangered species: 32% yes, 61% no.
To reintroduce extinct species: 23% yes, 69% no.
To reproduce a pet: 15% yes, 70% no."

Now the question is, what if the extinct species was man? The aliens would want to know.

[Acsenray]

With regards to blaming man; When the mammoth was around, what was the population of man the areas that they lived? And by what evidence, considering that many, many thousands of years have come and gone, can one use to provide the blame of extinction of the mammoth on man? Are there any other reasons that the mammoth went extinct? How did the "ice age" (the last one) affect things? Or is the concept (man doing in the mammoth)just some popular tripe that is being spouted because of some misplaced "green" guilts?

Actually, quite a bit is known regarding the role of humans in causing the extinction of some species, particularly large mammals (megafauna). If you take a look at the work of Marvin Harris and Jared Diamond, you'll find a lot of interesting analysis of this issue. This whole issue had a very important influence on the development of human cultures.

The implications are very interesting -- Why were the Europeans able to conquer the territories of the Native Americans? Why did the Aztecs engage in massive organized cannibalism? One of the answers is the fact that unlike in Europe and Asia, where human contact with large ruminants led to domestication, in Australia and the Americas, humans hunted large mammals to extinction. (I'm skipping a lot of steps here, but Diamond and Harris are better at it than I am and they're fascinating reads as well. Look to them for details.) The megafauna were as a result unavailable as a source of protein, as a source of transportation, as a source of propulsion for agriculture and other activities, and as a source of diseases (The most effective weapon in the colonisation of the new world was, in fact, disease).

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by acsenray
Why did the Aztecs engage in massive organized cannibalism?Wasn't that human sacrifices in religious ceremonies? I'm no expert on cannibalism in the New World. I will note however that Cecil Adams has alluded to the issue in this column: Is there really such a thing as cannibalism? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_054.html), in which he saysStories about cannibalism in the Caribbean spread in part because Spanish kings allowed only cannibal tribes to be enslaved. Naturally this inspired the conquistadors to declare just about every inhabitant of the New World guilty.

[Flyfisher]

The point was, it will never be completely known as to why the mammoths are toes up in the evolutionary time line. Man may have just been the last "nail" in their coffin. The advance of ice and the length of the winters could have reduced to the available food sources for the mammoths in a severe way making their survival less than certain with or without being on man's menu. However though, that said, there is no doubt in some instances of extinction of some species ..... the carrier pidgeon for example.

As for cannibalism, there seem to many reasons behind it. Religious beliefs or starvation seem to be "popular" reasons. There are quite of those starvation stories out there (Donner Party, the real story behind Moby Dick, Spanish explorers off the Texas coast on a raft, a soccer team stuck up in the mountains, etc.) But it doesn't seem to a completely confined to humans as, according to some work done, Neanderthals indulged at least once in a while.

I also remember being told about a video where a group of Bonabo chimps "raided" a "rival" chimp group. In the ensuing "battle" one of the rivals was killed due to a blow on the head from a stick. After the attackers ran the others off they tore the dead chimp to bits and consumed the bits. I never saw it myself, so it is hearsay. But, I have seen video of a group chimps raiding another chimp group "camp", for territorial reasons, using sticks and branches or throwing stuff to treaten those being attacked.

[Acsenray]

See, this is why you need to read Marvin Harris. There is a lot of myth and assumption surrounding cannibalism. There are also a lot of reasons for it. However, it seems that the Aztec culture was the only major civilisation that was entirely geared towards warfare for the purpose of obtaining human meat to satisfy the meat cravings of the Aztec aristocracy. To a great extent, this had to do with the fact that there was a scarcity of protein in the Aztec diet. Now, understand, Harris does not make conclusions based on moralism, superiority, or rumour. His basic assumption is that one of the biggest influences on human behaviour is the natural environment and the exploitable resources available. Harris does this a lot better than I do, and without his comprehensive explanation, it's too easy for what I say to be misinterpreted.

[fgarriel]

Is it just me or is anyone else wondering what a Wooly Mammoth might taste like?

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by fgarriel
Is it just me or is anyone else wondering what a Wooly Mammoth might taste like?

A lot like wooly chicken, with a hint of wooly bully. <rim shot>

The good part is that it automatically flosses your teeth while you're eating it.


RR

[Flyfisher]

Barbecued mammoth? Probably taste like barbecued elephant. Of course when they set that rack of ribs on the delivery tray on your car's door down at Neanderthal Slim's Pick n' Chew drive-in, your car would likely become wheels up.

[Racer1]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
Of course when they set that rack of ribs on the delivery tray on your car's door down at Neanderthal Slim's Pick n' Chew drive-in, your car would likely become wheels up.

Cool, just like in the Flintstones! :D

[Acsenray]

There was an episode of the (great) television show "Northern Exposure" in which the residents of Cicely, Alaska, found a frozen mammoth, right? If I remember correctly, they quite enjoyed gobbling it up.

[partly_warmer]

Originally posted by Flyfisher
The point was, it will never be completely known as to why the mammoths are toes up in the evolutionary time line. Man may have just been the last "nail" in their coffin. Quite. I'd agree that given any "average" species, and any average up-and-coming preditor, the new-wave aggressor is liable to overcome a marginal player.

But, you'll agree, mankind isn't just any average aggressor. Given one thing and another, we're the most deadly preditors who have ever existed. I mean that in the sense that we can utterly destroy any species we choose. Without any special effort. Mankind is so overwhelming powerful, we completely defeat the natural evolution of any other species. The mammoth might have been good for 10,000,000 years; it wouldn't make a difference in the face of an attacker who could develop new strageties overnight.

[Flyfisher]

Depending on which point in time one is considering man's ability to be deadly. After all, pointy sticks, sticks with flint or antler points are no where the equal of say the M60 (30 caliber light machine gun ... spits lead at over 500 rounds per minute). And then there is all of "nifty" tools of destruction that have been devised to make the M60 pale by comparison.

But, certainly there isn't much doubt that even when the mammoths were still trudging across the tunda (mile after mile), man was the most sucessfull of the predators around in that time. But, they probably weren't to inclined to take on healthy adult mammoths in a herd unless their need was really pressing.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by partly_warmer
But, you'll agree, mankind isn't just any average aggressor. Given one thing and another, we're the most deadly preditors who have ever existed. I mean that in the sense that we can utterly destroy any species we choose. Without any special effort.You mean like rhinovirus 16 (the cold virus) or the mosquito (anopheles sp.) ? :p

[Flyfisher]

You mean like rhinovirus 16 (the cold virus) or the mosquito (anopheles sp.) ?

Those probably have been ignored over time since it takes way too many of them to make a decent meal. Besides, have you ever tried to skin a mosquito? :D

[Chronos]

Depending on which point in time one is considering man's ability to be deadly.You don't have to go very far. A naked, unarmed man is one of the most helpless creatures on the planet... But give him a rock the size of his fist, and nothing else, and he's suddenly a more efficient predator than a lion, tiger, grizzly, or hyena. Anything fancier than a big rock is just icing on the cake.

[Irishman]

Chronos, I do believe you're exaggerating a tad. On both ends.

It is true that humans are weak, slow moving, slow reflexed, with more limited sense ranges than many other predators. Most predators tend to have better senses of one sort or another: better night vision, better long-range vision, sharper smell, lower and higher hearing range, etc. However, we do have one physical advantage - endurance. Set a hunter across the African plain chasing down, oh, a zebra. The zebra runs away really fast, gets hot and winded. Along trots the human behind. Zebra runs off again, human keeps plodding along. The human will run the zebra into the ground. Cheetahs may be able to run 70 mph, but only in short bursts. A conditioned human can run all day.

Similarly, I challenge you to hold off a grizzly bear, a tiger, or a lion with nothing but a fist-sized rock. Heck, I'll let you pick The Rock (or anyone else) as your champion. I'd still bet on the competition. (Now if you said "a big, pointy stick", I'd give you even money. ;))

Oh, okay, I guess that's not quite what you meant. Rather, have a human with a rock and a lion compete by hunting, and see which does better. See above about endurance.

[partly_warmer]

Yep, a fist-sized rock. Thrown from a tree or high rock = dead opponant. An animal might not even be able to figure out where the attack came from.

Mankind was smart enough to figure that out by 500,000 B.C. A bear, tiger or a lion would have a slim chance. Particularly with a stack of rocks. Or one head-sized one, thrown from 20 feet up.

I like the notion of exaggerating from both ends, tho. Good concept.

[Flyfisher]

A fist sized rock is only good when it lands in the right spot on the target beastie and with sufficient velocity to apply the X-ing to the beastie's eyes. Sort of a "hit or miss" proposition, eh?

Perhaps this was the inducement to invent the sharp pointy stick and later tie on things like antler and flint points because they make a sharper, better edge and it doesn't have to be thrown to be effective. Of course the hunter could walk up (in a non-treating manner) and repeatly beat the critter of choice on the noggin with the fist sized rock.

However, though, the pointy stick has the advantage of keeping the beast at a "safer" social distance, thus reducing the chance of injuring should the beast become very pissed off before co-operating by falling dead.

But, like any other predator, the human with rock or pointy stick in hand went for the critter that would be the easiest to kill and provide the lowest risk. Seems unlikely that some prehistorical type would wade into a herd of wooly mammoths, wind up and bounce a fist sized rock off the noggin of one of them.

He probably realized that shortly after the mammoth got beyond the sting of the rock and short duration cross-eyes, he (the mammoth) would be over to body slam the man with his trunk and then step on him like an annoying bug.

But hey, maybe that's why the "Straight Dope" wasn't invented in that time as the ignorant and stupid people tended to have very short lives and therefore no need for it.

[Chronos]

For competing directly against other predators, I'd want at least a dozen or so rocks, and maybe even some sticks tied to the rocks and with which to throw the rocks better. But for taking down prey, and processing prey into food, one rock is all you need. No, it won't be enough to kill a mammoth, but then, nothing a smilodont has is enough to kill a mammoth, either.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Irishman

Oh, okay, I guess that's not quite what you meant. Rather, have a human with a rock and a lion compete by hunting, and see which does better. See above about endurance.

The trick is to let the lion kill the animal then throw rocks at it to chase it away.

[partly_warmer]

I thought we'd driven this subject into the ground...

I'm realizing though, man's effectiveness didn't lie in a rock. Chimps know how to use rocks. The difference is man can devise strategy, and above all *communicate* his intentions to a dozen other men in his tribe. Result: dead mammoth.

[Irishman]

Okay, I can see how a tree or a high rock can make a fist-sized rock as weapon more effective. However, I maintain that a pointy stick is better, per Flyfisher. Besides, you're not only worried about hunting, but defense from other predators. See my example. You can't rely on having a convenient tree or high rock handy when stumbling across a grizzly. And can you outclimb a lion?

partly_warmer, I think your point is important.

[Flyfisher]

I saw some video (at least several years back) of chimps in where they drove a baboon that they happened on up into a tree. One the chimps, found nice large stick (not pointy) and followed up the tree. Using the stick he (she) forced the baboon further and further out into limbs of the tree. Once the chimp "reconized" that the baboon was in perile footing wise, he placed a couple of rapid fire wallops on the baboon's head with the stick. This either killed the baboon or knocked it out. Either way, it was a moot point since the rest of the chimp's troop ripped the baboon apart and began to eat it. The researchers that filmed this were using it to bolster their claim that chimps plan and reason. I'm not sure I could agree with that.

No doubt our mammoth hunting predecessors had to have a strategy when hunting game. They probably also took note of the things happening around them; How other predators hunted. They likely had different strategies for the different animals they hunted. They probably noticed real quick when hunting large dangerous game like mammoths, it is a good idea to find one separated from the herd or to separate one from the herd. The idea being to avoid having to deal with a entire herd of pissed off mammoths. I'd guess that mammoths would react to one of their herd being attacked much in the same way that living pachyderms do.

But then again, who can really know what mammoths were like? Perhaps they didn't bat an eyelash when one of their buds was being pin cushioned with a cord of pointy sticks and repeatedly wacked on its noggin by some crazy looking two legged varmit wielding a big rock tied on a stick. Could help explain why the mammoths are toes up in time, eh?

[gtbiehle]

I personally would like more than a fist-sized rock when going toe to toe with any predator in any contest. I cannot remember where I read it, but there has been some evidence, contested of course, of fossils of braided rope. The idea here is that humans, who BTW were probably as intelligent 100,000 years ago as today, developed clever nets to act as traps and then drove a herd in that direction. It's easier to stab a mammoth that is entangled. The fossils were found in Europe, not America, but it could just as easily happen that way here. We have not thought of this way to kill a large animal because (1) we have not had to do it, and (2) the rock-and-stick image if more romantic to action-craven masculine types.

[Flyfisher]

I think the general jist that most were putting forth is that the rock pitching and stick stabbing early people did some planning with regards to their conquest of the beasts for food, clothing, shelter, dice and etcetra so as not to become the goo between toes or [on] the menu themselves.

As to whether they used nets to entangle their intended .... I guess they could have. However though, to take on an entire herd of wooly mammoths, they would have needed one hell of a huge net. Just getting one netted, without seperating it from the herd first would likely bring on the evil eye treatment (probably much worse, like man stomping and man flinging) of the unnetted mammoth members.

I have seen some info somewhere (don't currently recall where), but it postulated that the pointy-stick clan made use of "pit-fall" traps to equalize things with large dangerous game like mammoths. As to whether or not the pointy-stick clan dug the hole themselves or just located some suitable terrain and spread branches, sticks, leaves and dirt (or whatever) to assemble trap wasn't mentioned as I recall.