Why isn't the cloning of a mammoth likely?

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.

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.

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.

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

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? :smiley:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.