World Discovered: woolly mammoth with 'strawberry-blonde hair'.

[tom_mai78101]

The juvenile mammoth, which was found in a frozen cliff in Siberia, gives an important insight into the unknown secrets of the animal including hair and eye colour.

An examination of its body, described by scientists as having “huge significance”, is even said to show human beings “stole” their food from hunting lions, with wounds consistent with attack from both predators.

In found to be true, it will be the first evidence of interaction between mammoths and ancient humans ever found in the area.

The well-preserved mammal, which has been named Yuka, is thought to have been between three and four years old when it died and still has its foot pads and ginger hair in tact.

It may have lain unnoticed in its icy tomb for more than 10,000 years, experts said, with its injuries being perfectly frozen in time.

Frozen in time: Woolly mammoth with strawberry-blonde hair found in Siberia

The "exquisitely preserved" remains - thought to be 10,000 years old - were found in a frozen cliff in Siberia

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[FireCat]

It's amazing find. Just don't dare to clone it!

 

[The Helper]

I think they definitely should clone it. That would be cool!

 

[FireCat]

I think they definitely should clone it. That would be cool!

Nah. Think of the diseases and the dangers to existing animals. "Such cruelty" and being locked up in a zoo hmm

 

[The Helper]

They should at least clone a herd then. Put them on some Preserve, and see what happens. The only thing is that they could not learn from there parents as they would not have any. It would all be instinct and whatever interaction Humans had in it.

 

[FireCat]

They should at least clone a herd then. Put them on some Preserve, and see what happens.

Hahahaha Why not Just let them go their own way?

 

[Wiseman_2]

Hmm. I always wondered what mammoth tasted like.

 

[Danny Cross]

I think they definitely should clone it. That would be cool!

I completely agree. What better way to learn about it than to have one around. Scientists can only guess things off things they find around one, but a real live one would give factual answers.

 

[Varine]

They should at least clone a herd then. Put them on some Preserve, and see what happens. The only thing is that they could not learn from there parents as they would not have any. It would all be instinct and whatever interaction Humans had in it.

They would get there eventually. I would like to ride one.

 

[FireCat]

Cloning something, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. you want that?

Spoiler

And Btw abnormalities in cloned animal has been very high.

 

[camelCase]

Cloning something, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. you want that?

Spoiler

And Btw abnormalities in cloned animal has been very high.
-Irrelevant image-

Do you have a valid source to back both those claims?
No, a funny picture is not a valid source.

 

[Varine]

Cloning something, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. you want that?

Spoiler

And Btw abnormalities in cloned animal has been very high.

So? Do you SEE a mother in the picture anyway?

 

[FireCat]

^

For the mammoth this would need to be an elephant (as best biological fit) but even here the size difference may preclude gestation to term. .

Q. Occasionally one hears claims that extinct animals (e.g. woolly mammoths, Tasmanian tigers or dinosaurs) are going to be brought back to life using somatic cell nuclear transfer using frozen or otherwise preserved tissue and surrogate pregnancy in related animals. How plausible are such claims?

A. Although in theory such "resurrections" might be possible, in reality they are extremely unlikely; there are two BIG issues.

For a Tasmanian tiger this would need to be another large species of marsupial which will poss quite a challenge. It is possible that closely related species could be utilised but it should be noted that no one has managed inter-species cloning yet. There is certainly no dinosaur-friendly recipient; our biggest reptile is the alligator, which is just not big enough, and we have no idea if reptiles can be cloned - only mammals have been cloned. There is very little known with regards to the embryology of such wild animals so our ability to perform experimental embryology including cloning would at the very best be extremely inefficient. For livestock we predict efficiencies in the range of 1-5%; for a wild animal at best we might aspire to 0.1%, i.e. 1 live animal from 1,000 transfers.
Secondly, for cloning to work, viable whole cells are required. So for example, the mammoth tissue frozen in Siberian tundra may not be suitable. Yes if there are intact cells in this tissue they have been 'stored' frozen. However, if we think back to what actually happened to the animal - it died, even if from the cold, the cells in the body would have taken some time to freeze. This time lag would allow for breakdown of the cells, which normally happens when any animal dies. Then the carcass would freeze. So it is unlikely that the cells would be viable. Even, let's say that one in a thousand cells were nevertheless viable, practical issues come into play. Given that we have an efficiency of 1% cloning for livestock species (we have no idea how difficult it will be from this species - some living species have proven extremely difficult to clone, e.g. rabbit and rat) and if only 1 in a thousand cells are viable then around 100,000 cells would need to be transferred. Given the comments above, only cattle could be the recipient surrogate mother for a mammoth, and each surrogate could realistically only carry one foetus. So we would need 100,000 cattle for this experiment. The prediction of a one in a thousand viable births is most likely to be an underestimate and given the inefficiency of embryology methodology as indicated above all indications are that this experiment would be vast and beyond practical funding possibilities (many, many millions of £s). For animals where preservation has not been instant leading to poor cell quality cloning is not possible.

.

Cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries. That's a lot of effort with only a speck of a return!

Why is this? Here are some reasons:

The enucleated egg and the transferred nucleus may not be compatible
An egg with a newly transferred nucleus may not begin to divide or develop properly
Implantation of the embryo into the surrogate mother might fail
The pregnancy itself might fail

2. Problems during later development

Cloned animals that do survive tend to be much bigger at birth than their natural counterparts. Scientists call this "Large Offspring Syndrome" (LOS). Clones with LOS have abnormally large organs. This can lead to breathing, blood flow and other problems.

Because LOS doesn't always occur, scientists cannot reliably predict whether it will happen in any given clone. Also, some clones without LOS have developed kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems, which can cause problems later in life.
Read More Here.

Oh shit, I Just found something else

The researcher in question is disgraced South Korean cloning expert Woo-Suk Hwang. In 2004, Hwang and his colleagues published a paper in Science claiming that they had extracted stem cells from the world’s first cloned human embryos. In 2005, Hwang’s team published a second study, also in Science, claiming they had generated stem cells genetically matched to specific human patients — another scientific first.

Less than a year later, it was revealed that Hwang’s papers had been based on fake data, and the papers were retracted. By 2006, Hwang had admitted to falsifying results, and the South Korean government had stripped him of his license to conduct stem cell research. That same year, he was indicted on charges of fraud (for accepting millions of dollars in private donations), embezzlement (of US$700,000 in government money), and bioethics infractions (for using human ova supplied by two of his own researchers). When the trial ended three years later, Hwang was convicted for embezzlement and ethics violations (he was cleared of fraud), and sentenced to a suspended two-year prison term.

Do you want Moar?!?

 

[camelCase]

Blah, blah, blah and blah.
First quote merely says it's difficult.
Second quote says it's expensive and current technology is inefficient.
Third quote says it's inefficient, too, and that complications may occur in the clone; big whoop, beings born by natural means also suffer complications.
Fourth quote merely talks about something irrelevant.

Where is your data to support the following claims?
+ Cloning something, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. you want that?
+ And Btw abnormalities in cloned animal has been very high.

Also, to answer that question "you want that?", yes, I do.
Risk is no reason hold back science if progress is possible.

And unless you can come up with a reason to not try and clone anything, this argument will become circular.
"We shouldn't dabble in cloning because we don't know enough and it's risky!"
"We don't know enough and it's risky because we don't dabble in cloning!"

 

[FireCat]

+ Cloning something, would be extremely dangerous to the birth mother and the clone. you want that?
+ And Btw abnormalities in cloned animal has been very high.

There's already an answer, so you haven't figured this out yet?

 

[Varine]

So what's the answer? If you say 42 I'm going to be pissed.

 

[FireCat]

say 42

Let's see here, ah yes 7 x 6 = 42
Oh crap you got it right, you deserve a cookie! Varine

 

[The Helper]

link fixed probably been broken a while