@Oil tank Or he's one of the many people that frequently claim to see a random wild one still lurking around. Obviously, they're extinct, but that doesn't stop people from being hopeful they're still out there somewhere.
I think it would probably be easier setting up a selective breeding program of asian elephants as long hair accross most of their body is an observed trait. would take *a while* but any "rejects" from said program in the first generations would only server to strengthen the asian elephant population, which goes with any conservation programs that may currently exist already
Stupid idea It will only create a monstruous hairy elephant, not a mammoth They are in fact very different in some aspect to elephant Yes they share 99% DNA, And we share 98% with chimpanzee so every gene count. It will be bad for asian elephant since a lot of the individual would be at some point not pure asian wild elephant and not mammoth either and it will take a lot of generations (120-200) or even more Did you know how slow elephant are to reproduce, breed, give birth and mature or how hard it's to kept them well in captivity, only 3 generation would take a entire human life Let's focus on helping asian elephant first Whaat purpose this insult to nature would have except our enjoyment of seing a poor disformed intelligent animal in a zoo. The only way to have a mammoth is by cloning and gene editing You take mammoth dna, if not completed use asian one and hope you get the 1% difference right Wait several years of trying to inseminate a asian elephant with the little embryo you made and hope she give birth (wich is already difficult with elephant so it will be nearly impossible) And hope the baby survive, grow and doesn't catch a modern disease that it's immune system can't fight or can process food with elephant bacteria and not mammoth bacteria and that your clone is viable and fertile (most clone are not viable and have short lifespan) And put it in a zoo Useless, we can create a sustainable population with only 4-8 material sources you will have incredibly poor generic pool Inbreeding will kill the specie in few decades You'll need at least 50 individual to be able to make a "viable population" that will be on the Line of inbreeding issue even with top human management And at least 500 individuals that are not related to have a viable population on long term So you will have to clone mammoth and edit genes with elephant one (not the 1% difference) and hope it don't mess to much with the future mammoth (wich is incredibly risquy) Chance of having a mammoth in the next three decade are pretty much 0 In the end of the century maybe, if we are still alive, or if tundra still exist and did not melt. Elephants will probably be extinct or near extinction and have the priority over mammoths. So except if you have decoded and know all the elephant and mammoth genome and can manipulate it with no secondary effects That you have at least 20-40 years of advance in cloning technology and knowledge That you have the complete dna of at least 50 differents unrelated specimens of mammoths. Or a time machine We won't see any mammoth helping against climate change and preserve permafrost in the toundra of Siberia and reste of Russia, or in zoos.
That's when we were headed toward a new ice age, remember? Then they switched to "Global Warming." Turns out that's not really happening so now it's simply "Climate Change", a nebulous, unprovable concept as the climate is ALWAYS changing. But lately it's become a "Climate Emergency" as the global elites make their final big push for their new totalitarian global regime. Are we really just gonna sit back and let them do it?
@@JonJon-vg2nv We dream to reach to moon for even longer before it happen. Transform an idea into a reality can be harder that we first though. Also, maybe it is impossible, there is a possibility that we cannot success in creating mammoth.
if we can bring them back, we would have a new way to prevent the extinction of current animals.. which is a big big deal. what we learn from trying could be really important.
@@anpowicasta2135 the plains bison is thriving in North America, sadly the slightly larger sub species still has extremely small numbers and can only be found in Canada and Alaska. Efforts are being made to bring back a strong population
Rich f**ks have been cloning there dogs and children and spouses for years. Not sure why you would want a exact clone of your wife though, one of her is unbearable as it is.
I remember finding a VHS tape my dad brought home. It was called “Raising The Mammoth”. It was a documentary that followed a Russian scientist in the 90’s and how they found a full grown mammoth under ice. Called the Jerkoff mammoth or something. They talked about how it still has DNA and how it can be cloned. Very interesting documentary and highly recommend watching it. I’m now in my mid 20’s and still no mammoth
@@akashsuresh1369 it’s probably not spelled like that but yes Jerkof probably. It was named after the guy who found it I believe a native Russian reindeer herder if my memory serves me right. It’s a foreign word so it sounds strange
@@akashsuresh1369 The Jarkov Mammoth (named for the family who discovered it), is a woolly mammoth[1] specimen discovered on the Taymyr Peninsula of Siberia by a nine-year-old boy in 1997. This particular mammoth is estimated to have lived about 20,000 years ago. It is likely to be male and probably died at age 47. 😂
@@hector_2999 ok there you go Jarkov and it was named after a boy not the herder. Still sounded just like Jerkoff to me lmao Edit: th-cam.com/video/RF3ApYMxRlU/w-d-xo.html Still sounds like Jerkoff 0:42
I guess it's a Mammoth 🦣 task to bring them back. I also notice that one of the reasons they haven't managed to breed them using elephants is because, they were in fact cash cows all along.
I’ve always wondered about genetic diversity. Say someone finds the perfect mammoth cells and proceeds to clone dozens or hundreds of mammoths. What’s stopping the mammoths from dying out of disease or serious genetic defects later down the lineage?
If some survived, they will develop the genes later on to adapt to the diseases. Like every animal who have survived till now. Now if there is a natural disaster then there is nothing u can do about it. Even we human dies from it.
What’s to stop that from happening with any species whose population has dwindled to extremely endangered? What’s to stop poachers from killing the mammoths for their tusks? Remember the White Rhino?
My main concern about bringing mammoths back is: how would the species (wolves, bears, cougar) adapt to having mammoths in their ecosystem? I know they all can bring down prey bigger than themselves, but having a 10-14 ton mammal that the predators aren't adapted to killing wouldn't go so well, at least I wouldn't think so?
they lived at the same time as mammoths and its not like a handful of (look what we made) animals are going to be replacing their food sources (which also existed at the same time as mammoths). don't forget mammoths died off not that long ago geologically speaking *in fact the pyramids predate the extinction of mammoths*. So the world today in some parts isn't too different. The main predators of mammoths were mainly humans anyway. Its not unlike modern elephants, its not like lions or tigers in their respective ecosystems (African and Indian elephants) are hunting adult elephants anyway.
My guess is that they would target the birthing cows, young, and the sick like predatory mammals (lions, hyenas, wild dogs, etc.) around larger megafauna do in Africa and parts of Eurasia today. I still believe reviving them is risky since there's still no guarantee that the northern predatory species would know how to adapt to mammoths after thousands of years of them being extinct. Though, mammoths have not REALLY been extinct for THAT long when you think about it... so there is a chance that the niche they left open when they went extinct (that is still open) can still be safely refilled by them themselves. Very iffy animal to reintroduce... Certainly not any Yellowstone wolf or Mexican macaw. If we ever do reintroduce them, we would have to keep a very close eye on them.
I feel most predators are smart enough not to attack something that much bigger than them. I think it would have a bigger negative effect on the herbivore population as they would likely have compete with the Mammoths for food and be displaced from their territory.
Predators will have less of an issue as long their main pray is ok. The main issue are territory & enough food for the Mammoth & others herbivores. An elephant needs tons of food to keep their body weight. Today’s there is less territory available than thousands of years ago. Europe is pretty overpopulated & doesn’t have a reserve long enough to keep this animals that most likely walked long distances for food. North America does have more large reserves & unpopulated areas but there’s the issue of how could affect the ecosystem. Wild Horses are being killed & captured for more territory. I don’t see the purpose of bringing this large animals back. They would be here only for entertainment & possible for food at best.
When mammoths were alive on earth, the ecosystem was different. Since they died out, the ecosystem has adjusted. Whatever benefits the mammoths were providing is now being met by other animals or methods. Introducing animals that big can be very dangerous for animals, humans, and cruel. We know little about this animal's life. They (male and female) will be the only ones of their kind. Cloning mammoths. How is Dolly the sheep doing? How did that work out?
@@VSMOKE1 yeah i was born in 88... they definitely stagnated technology intentionally.... basically the only thing thats advanced the past 30 years are computers... everything else is pretty much the same lol
as exciting as this is...I really want the dino-chickens they keep going on about. I want a flock of chickens with teeth, claws, and tails running around.
I do remember that. I was mesmerized as a child when that was on tv.. and now I feel like their experiments never were a true thing but instead a fiction of what it could be if they actually did that. Maybe they can now with gene editing tech. Hopeful. I wouldn’t mind them being Reah either hehe
@@_Chessa_ from what I understand there is some ethics committee thing preventing them from letting an embryo fully develop and can only experiment to a certain point to express genes before terminating the embryo.
Not necessarily preserving the tundra, but transforming barren tundra into a mammoth steppe, which is more biologically productive. It should help with preserving permafrost though.
I remember this whole thing and how it started. It's entire purpose was "Well, the mammoths dig. The tundra and permafrost is kinda not doing what it's supposed to, and is getting drastically warmer. But, if we end up messing with it, and digging and upsetting it, it re-freezes and gets colder. IE: Release mammoths into places with failing permafrost, let them do their thing, and that'll combat global warming by literally making everything colder again." this was also an idea conceived by a russian man and a friend or two who took an old tank and drove it around in Siberia and then tested to see if it made things colder, and it did. That's the main goal of the whole thing. The points of "Oh! It can bring back other creatures also!" is just one of it's net positive selling points. And yes, it would have to be a herd which would need to be protected, but it would combat global warming extremely well. Also funny mammoth hours in a frozen wasteland making it less of a wasteland by letting shrubbery and the such be able to exist because there would be actual frozen earth it could exist in, and all that jazz.
Yes it was about the permafrost opening and releasing crazy amounts of gasses into air but mammoths eating the vegetation would help it. Something like that was the crux of the idea.
I think its more about moving the snow because the snow is like a blanket and because the world is getting warmer grazing animals dig the snow aside to eat whatever vegetation they can and exposing the ground keeps the permafrost cold I think
I have seen a documentary about this a while ago. I think it is totally worth a try. The melting of the permafrost must be stopped and we should consider every possibility.
Think I've read that the packing down of snow/ice by Large grazing animals on the steppe was a big part of keeping temps down too. Packed snow melts slower and stays colder than freshly fallen
@@anarchorepublican5954 i think the reason that the methane produced by Cattle is an issue is because there's just soooo many of them, like legit a billion. Natural herds of mammoth would never get to those numbers, the only reason theres that much cattle in the world is because we make it so (but people gotta eat and im not going vegetarian so it is what it is)
@@anarchorepublican5954 My guess is that it that it would simply take too long. Cows only take 9 months to give birth, elephants take almost 2 years. It'd take forever to breed them to a point where they're docile enough to domesticate and control. Also elephants (and likely mammoths) are very intelligent, which would make them more valuable as work animals like dogs and horses.
@@JNMFNFnMNH ..⫙ 🍔over a Million BC served ...the raw tonnage of grade A minced Meat will make up for the gestation...send a troop loose on an evasive shrub or tree..BLM "free grazing" land ...🌱🌲🦣🌳🦣
I read a book called elmer the elephant and it's kind of similar to this. Elmer was a freak and the herd rejected him but then his personality turned out to be really cool and the herd changed their opinion
From what I heard, they're planning on removing the tusk genes in these mammophants to prevent poaching. As for the impact, it'd probably be quick because when Pleistocene Park managed to turn that same shrubby tundra into a productive grassland within ten or so years, and that was with bison and horse. Mammophants would just speed up the process that the formers species do already..
Not just tusk but there are hunters out there who jump at the chance to bring down a Mammoth. Its for sport for hunters. I say we should not bring them back.
Exactly. Recently (within the past decade) or soon to be extinct species should be the priority. When more experience is gained, we can move on to species that have been extinct longer.
It's because large animals capture the imagination of the funders .....little things don't We call them charismatic megafauna Everyone is captivated by whales and turtles but nobody is interested in the unique parasites they have evolved with
because of the long pregnancies it would take a really long time to do a trial and error experiment, theres also the risk of killing the mother, even if you managed to have a birth with some mammoth traits and were going to use it for breeding it would take a really long time for it to reach sexual maturity......
Such an entertaining video. Laughed out loud several times. Hope they figure out the mammoth thing in our lifetime, even if just to try it -- the impact on the tundra could be great!
There is no hold up. However, if you want a viable population, you need a short-paced evolution. If you remember the Chinese elephants migrating north last year and look at their slightly higher foreheads and larger size, you may surmise that for the past twenty years somebody edited a variety of mammoth genes into Chinese elephant embryos and implanted them. From there, natural selection will mix and activate the mammoth genes. The north migration was a very mammothy thing to do.
From watching things about elephants over the years, it seemed they had to eat , eat, eat all day and most of the food just runs right through them. Do they have some kind of digestion problem? If such were the case I wondered if some mammoth DNA might give them a little more ' genetic help ' and maybe give back something they were missing.
They probably need some mammoth mitochondria. I see the distinct possibility that elephant mitochondria cannot produce enough energy for an icy habitat.
@@zeideerskine3462 the problem is, I don't think the habitat they find the frozen carcasses in was always frozen and cold. After all, I hear they are found with ' tropical vegetation ' in their stomachs and mouths. They always show mammoths wandering around bleak, frozen landscape but I bet they are really warm weather animals. Just because they have fur coat doesn't mean they are eskimos.
There were both tropical and arctic mammoths. The tropical ones tended to be bigger and hairless while the arctic ones are woolly and smaller. The ones that we have DNA of and the we are trying to clone are the arctic woolly mammoths. Outright cloning individuals may be problematic because you need to clone fifty females and fifty males to start a viable population that will not die out from inbreeding right away. So, the best approach is to take the most northern Asian elephants and Crisper in snippets of mammoth DNA into ova, artificially inseminate, and then let them sexually and environmentally select for the best cold adaptation. However, that will leave the new species with mitochondria that are not adapted to producing enough energy for survival in an arctic environment. I hope this will be fixed or they have to regularly give them Methylene Blue injections to make up for it.
They didnt live very long if i recall. We tried to put the mammoth embryos into elephants mamas and thats the farthest success ive heard of. We have better luck cloning sheep.
Two people have said this to me "Jurassic Park is a cautionary tale that we shouldn't do that" My response to that is, that's like saying that 20000 Leagues Under the Sea is a cautionary tale that you shouldn't build a submarine because there's a scary octopus down there. No it's a work of fiction meant to inspire. Stories need to have antagonist and conflict to be interesting. I had this argument with my brother's girlfriend just last week about whether or not recreating dinosaurs was a good idea. Her position was we shouldn't Because they would destroy the environment, they couldn't be contained and dinosaurs are scary monsters. My position was that they wouldn't destroy the environment certainly not more than dumping billions of tons of trash into the ocean every year. They absolutely could be contained, I work at a cattle ranch part of every year I can tell you, animals absolutely can be contained. And finally dinosaurs are animals not monsters.
They would devastate and take over any natural ecosystem they’re introduced too. A lot like invasive species in Florida. That’s what the new Jurassic park is about. Jurassic park would only be sustainable on the moon.
@@calebblack1420 yes it's a risk but it's not enough of a risk to justify not doing it. Let's say if for example if Velociraptor escaped which is what everyone seems to be so afraid of I would argue that they would cause less ecological damage than house cats already do. It is possible to contain animals especially if you create them in limited numbers. Dr. Hammond or whatever his name was had the right idea in keeping them on a remote island
Indeed. But even if we had the technology to clone dinosaurs we must consider that modern flora & fauna are so different to their original environments that they could not adapt in time & mother nature would guarantee they soon went extinct all over again...
You may say that, but we don't know tbh, what if cloning any of these can cause elemental or environmental damage, not extinction level, but something that may cause drastic affect, so yeah
@@VictorianTimeTraveler Homie I think you should glance at the Jurassic Park novel before commenting on the topic. Because what you're saying is picked apart relentlessly by the contents of the novel. Or listen to the audiobook fuck. Just know what you're talking about. 1. The dinosaurs created by InGen are more akin to genetically engineered theme park monsters like the Fly in Jeff Goldblum's adaption of the fly than they are to scientifically accurate dinosaurs. 2. They should be classified as Novosaurs, dinosaur like creatures, spliced together with bits of modern creatures DNA to fill in the blanks. 3. John Hammond was a madman. The end goal was always financial success of the park, never the 100% safe containment of the creatures. 4. The dinosaurs escaped off the island. Quite a few of them. Raptors and pterosaurs. and they possess the ability to reproduce asexually thanks to a certain amphibian gene. And the ability to devastate and natural modern ecosystem. Do read the book though, it's very good.
To see one or two would be cool and of some the tec involved could also be used to help elephant endangerment. If they need to hang with a herd and be social I think the elephants will take in their furry friends. They are not as shallow as people can be
Unlike you, I hardly know elephants' minds. And regardless, I think I'd say- keep questioning. We've all seen the Jurrasic movies. There's something to take with you from those.
Mammoth’s went extinct fairly recently if we’re looking at the big picture not to much really change up in Russia…..and for protecting them we would have to double up anti poaching but with cloning I think we never really have to think about extinction agin(except for dinosaurs and such)
Anti-poaching is a key thing people aren't considering. If they bring back mammoths some people *will* want to kill them for sport. Others will want to kill them for their ivory. Yet others, perhaps, for "medicinal" purposes.
Cloning a Mammoth is highly problematic. This is a very expensive long term endeavor. Amonng the challenges are where will Mammoths live once you have one. I would love to see a Mammoth. But the challenges are overwhelming against Mammoth. Sad as this is. I do not see this ever happening. Let's spend our time and money protecting the Elephants we have.
They would likely be moved to the Pleistocene park preservation in Siberia, where there's currently an ongoing study to track how existing megafauna can transform the tundra into a steppe grassland like they did back in the Pleistocene. However, barring that(since right now Russia would need to calm down before they cooperate with other countries), there can be a similar area set up in Alaska or northern Canada. Plus, this has a way to directly help out living elephants. The endeavor would have to involve boosting conservation for elephants so we can better understand their reproductive cycle and nutrients needed for their young. Before we clone a mammoth, we need to be able to clone an elephant. However the biggest downsides to all of this is the time it would take to get to that point, and the fact that elephants and mammoths are very social so we'd need a herd right away
@@CrownofMischief exactly my man! I hope that helps George cause it helps me learn stuff from his comment. Im being serious im not trying to be mean or anything.
@@CrownofMischief That study alone is ethically ambivalent. It involves purposeful environmental destruction based on one man's belief that Tundra is an inferior biome that needs to be replaced.
@@TheWoollyFrog just curious, are you also against the project aiming to halt the desertification of the growing Sahara desert? Are you upset at the impact caused by reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone? Those are also biomes transformed by human intervention, whether passively by reintroducing new species or actively by technological means. Are you saying neither should happen because we should not prioritize one biome over another?
@@CrownofMischief The "expansion" of the tundra was/is not anthropogenic. And no, we didn't invent tundras by spearing every large herbivore in the northern hemisphere. And even if we did, the decline of the mammoth steppe also gave rise to boreal forests, temperate forests and temperate steppes. Yet, it is tundras today that are at risk due to climate change destroying the permafrost. Great choice for terraforming. /s There is also no connection to food security efforts in the Sahara. The natives of Northern Siberia have been hunter-gatherers that have historically relied on the animals and plants provided by this biome. You also can't compare Pleistocene Park to Yellowstone as the reintroduction of wolves didn't require the government to clear-cut entire forests in order to make room for a future cross continental ecosystem from 12000 years ago. They were simply rehabilitating an area. Surely you must have realised by now that you bought the sales pitch of an eccentric self-interested scientist with a god complex. If you want to see the actual last remnants of the mammoth steppe, there is a national park on the border between Mongolia and Russia. It survived all this time even though there are no mammoths there. Curious.
That classic line. Just because we can, should we??? On reflection.. No! The Mammoth had its time. To bring it back now, would be to force it into a massively changed world. A world completely different to which the Mammoth *evolved* in. .. Great work as always my Friend 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
On reflection, we can’t know either way. It is better to live in strife than to simply be dead forever. I’m sure if the mammoths could advocate for themselves they would appreciate a chance at life again. It also wouldn’t be that damaging to ecosystems. They aren’t as fragile as people make them out, and mega fauna aren’t what breaks an ecosystem. Animals frequently venture out of the area they evolved in and break into new ecosystems they “didn’t evolve in,” that’s normal. They had their time, and it was cut short by things beyond its control, it was cheated into extinction. And it was largely our fault. We owe the mammoths a second chance, even if it wasn’t easy.
Its been proven that mammoths would fix the attic environment and create there own grass lands which helps create more permafrost we are drastically losing due too much snow. Snow keeps the cold from reaching the permafrost which doesn't melt it but blocks it's growth. So we are just losing it and not gaining any back. Mammoths would eat tree roots and many similar things our current elephant do. They have a key roll in our environment. Our environment problem started very very long ago when we were killing our largest animals and causing mass extinction world wide and we are the sole reason our environment is dying now. We aren't talking about bringing back dinosaurs but animals we are selfs as a species have caused to go extinct which caused a bolling ball effect of global environmental change. This would just one step twords fixing our climate. We have the idea that we need trees but that only applies to places like south America and other jungle areas. In artic's those forest are just filling in the gaps, they serve no real environmental purpose other then helping heat up the artic but blocking cold from reaching it. We would benefit by adding large animals back to the artic and we need something large enough to manage our trees.
I'd really like to see them do something with white rhinos, considering that that is the animal that inspired unicorns. a white, horse-like animal with a single long horn on the front of its head from the north of Africa where exploring Europeans would've encountered them? white rhinos are unicorns.
That’s what Marco Polo called them. For a long time people thought he wasn’t credible and making stuff up because he talked about unicorns. Even though he called them ugly.
they kinda of did. not cloning but they did manage to harvest sperm from the last male before he died and used it to fertilize harvested eggs from the remaining females. they were looking for a suragate mother they could use to carry the embryos to term. then covid hit and i stopped keeping tabs. think they ended up with 5-10 sucessful emryros.
On the topic of ivory, I saw a proposal once to just release elephants in the wild on the Great Plains. The idea was that one of the reasons poachers were willing to risk severe penalties was because of the huge value of even a single tusk compared to their income. While there is certainly poverty in the U.S. the levels and the bottom income is a lot higher, which tips the cost benefit analysis of poaching a bit, plus, in the U.S. we have more resources to protect game than other countries. Of course, maybe a better solution would be to grow ivory in a peach tree dish (sorry, political pun, but an actual idea). Lab grown petri dish ivory, if it could be produced cheaply and sold, with some laws in place allowing it to be sold as ivory without any disclaimers, might be able to create a sustainable market for ivory that could collapse the market for poached ivory.
Mammoth Ivory is dropping out of the Siberian tundra by the metric fuck ton. I doubt poaching would be an issue when you can walk around and pick it up everywhere on the ground. Its easy to buy Mammoth ivory jewelry right now likely easier than elephant ivory.
@@GreasusGoldtooth It’s a running theory. There are supposed ‘sightings’ with eye witness, camera traps and stuff that you can search up. To me, I think we should have hard DNA evidence before we judge. It’s on the same status with the Japanese wolf, does it still exist? Idk. Are there photos? Yeah. Is it a dog or different species? Maybe.
@@samuraijackoff5354 The prey species of thylacines are flourishing. So if thylacines were still around, we would see them beginning to expand again too. But we aren't. All we have are murky photos and some sightings that are probably wild dogs.
@@GreasusGoldtooth Hey Greasus, Tasmanian here who has worked in wildlife sanctuaries and is currently a dog trainer, I applaud your skepticism especially as it's the tool to a scientific mind and a sign of intelligence. I do believe I've seen a thylacine and I do believe I can easily tell the difference between a large marsupial and a dog due to my experience working with animals both domestic and native however I'm not going to try to convince you of what I believe I've seen. Rather I'd like to offer you some counter possibilities of why thylacine populations, if they exist which is more than understandable to disagree with, may not be recovering. The first focus would be the fact if they managed to survive, as I believe they did due to my experiences, their population would have become incredibly low, this would result in high amounts of inbreeding resulting in shared genetic similarity thus high prevalence of recessive gene disorders and the possibility of cancer transplantation between individuals that managed to survive, similar to the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor disease. The high prevalence of gene disorders would result in fatal abnormalities and problems with developing fetuses, keeping possible surviving population numbers incredibly low and doomed to die out due to these factors. The possibility of cancer transmission between highly related individuals is also something that should not be ruled out, especially proven by what's happening with Tasmanian devils, and while that is a 'long shot' it could provide another reason why thylacine populations, if they still exist, are so incredibly low.
Elephants in Africa are less endangered than most people think as the face of the WWF along with pandas. other species like giraffes are far more critical and even closer to extinction elephants are starting to lose their tusks as a genetic trait they've developed presumably in response to the stress of poaching
I suppose the real question is "Would they survive if we brought them back?" About 5 million years ago the megafauna started to die out and that continued as far as we know until the modern times. One could say the Elephant and the Rhino are pretty much the only megafauna species left. It's often said that man and hunting wiped out these species but that's far from certain. In Australia for example we know that many of the megafauna died out even when there were no human tribes in the area. Nature says that the time of the megafauna is over and who thinks we can beat nature? At the same time mankind has always enjoyed a challenge. (And I'd really like to see a Mammoth.)
Depends on how you define megafauna, but I'd say hippos, giraffes, gaurs, the two species of bison and perhaps the moose also count as surviving megafauna. And while the full cause of the extinctions ten thousand or so years ago are not fully clear, it is clear that the main issue megafauna have had since then is humans rather than nature. Let's also not downplay the number of living megafauna species, it's not "the" elephant and "the" rhino, as there are three species of living elephants and five species of rhinos.
@@Ryodraco I know what you mean, but how many species of each were around 1 million years ago? My point is that the megafauna started dying out well before humans even evolved and perhaps the few we see today are just the dregs, the few versions that are left over. This must have happened many times before as one type of animal was replaced by another type. (Except the dinosaurs of course) But this is the first time it's been observed. So if the world is no longer conducive to megafauna, would they survive if brought back? There seems to be a pattern that the largest animals are getting smaller. The largest mammals a few million years after Chixulub were far larger than anything alive today. The largest dinosaurs were bigger than them and the largest pre dinosaurs were bigger again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the preservation of these animals, but will they die out anyway?
@@JohnJ469 hard to say, one also has to consider that for all the number of species of some megafauna in the fossil record, how many actually existed at the same time in a given area? The number may have been far lower than you may expect. If nothing else, the megafauna diversity of Africa and southern Asia has remained largely the same for many thousands of years (one theory being that they were better able to handle hunting from early humans, and/or climate change effected them less than on other continents). As for the post last ice age world not being conductive to megafauna, from what I've read megafauna have always been prone to extinction events due to the downsides of large size making them vulnerable to changes in food supply. However, they would in turn always be replaced eventually by subsequent megafauna developing. Hence why humans are thought to have induced a unique situation when our spread after the last ice age induced complete extinction of so many lines of megafauna instead of the "decline and subsequent rebound" that happened repeatedly before we were around. And if nothing else, we should keep in mind that the modern world has the largest known animal in history, the blue whale. As for your last question, provided they have proper food and habitat (and we know to some degree what woolly mammoths required), I don't see why they couldn't in theory survive, at least with human management.
@@Ryodraco If you can understand that we shouldn't downplay the number of species, let's also understand that almost every extinction event is the result of a unique convergence of causes. In every other conversation about extinction this seems to be understood, but with these it seems that peoples' need to have a pissing contest about human nature gets in the way of actual scientific understanding.
I could make a video named, "What will I have for breakfast tomorrow?" I will talk about different kinds of breakfast foods I have eaten and could eat. And then I can reveal that I often don't eat breakfast at all. And maybe I could say some people think breakfast is bad for you. And ultimately I would publish the video before tomorrow, so you never know what I had for breakfast, or if I even had breakfast.
@@mondaysinsanity8193, I mentioned mules. I’m not sure how the results of breeding down aggressive African elephants with more tame Indian elephants worked. I’ll have to check if those offspring were sterile.
@@andrewsmith9174 i mean coy dogs are coyote and domestic dog mixes that arent only viable but actually thrive endangering coyotes. Supposedly some are mixed with wolves aswell but thats unconfirmed
Mammoth hybrids are a long-term solution towards climate change, interestingly enough. Though it'd take a long time, a sizeable population of these hybrids would act as natural deforesters in the Siberian tundra, where the absence of trees allows for the permafrost beneath the ground to become colder and unable to melt, avoiding more CO2 and methane emissions.
There is this idea that money being spent on trying to clone a mammoth should be used to save the threatened African and Asian elephants, its as if both go hand in hand in an easily transferable pool of money. That may not be the case, those funding the cloning of a mammoth through private funds may be doing so out of the thrill and curiosity of recreating a mammoth and may have no interest at all in funding the conservation of the African or Asian elephants. It would be like someone dictating that you need to fund Elephant conservation rather than getting Solar panels for your home.
We may not have Mammoth Clones, but we do have Task Rabbit video editors with access to really boring stock footage, I'm glad you have at least one of these...
Wouldn't it be easier to bring back recently extinct animals that played a really crutual role in our ecosystem first and then tackling the hard stuff like mammoths and sabertooths
I remember watching that when I was a kid. Back when Discovery had really interesting shows, like bringing up the Titanic, and digging up mammoths. I miss late 90's early 2000's Discovery.
I agree 100%! The Discovery Channel, and TLC is not what they once was. Nowadays the Discovery Channel has got stupid shows on it like Naked and Afraid, Ghost Adventures, Street Outlaws, Diesel Brothers, BattleBots, and Growing Belushi. TLC has got stupid shows on it like Match Me Abroad, 90 Day Fiance, Dr pimple popper, 7 Little Johnstons, You Me and My Ex, Doubling Down with the Derricos. Where have all the shows gone that they're supposed to be known for? For example Archeology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Nature shows describing the plants and animals, Dinosaur shows (that tell the truth about the extinction), Underwater shows showing the coral reef and talking about the underwater animals. Planet Earth type shows (that tell the truth about global warming). It seems to me that these channels are very guilty of trying to dumb down their viewers. Especially TLC! I don't see how I'm supposed to learn anything important from that channel.
Its hard to clone mammouths because they been deceased for so long, that the few rare occational dna samples they manage to get, is partly destroyed. And I guess, they probably thought they would have the tech to restore the dna within a few years, considering how fast other tech advances happened. But it was a harder task than what they thought
The famous Admiral Byrd that explored Antarctica wrote in his journals that while flying over Antarctica , himself and his flite crew looked down and saw what looked like an Elephant . To me I think what they may have seen was a Wooly Mammoth . Also in our present time period there are people alive that are the indigenous natives of Siberia that have once seen a Wooly Mammoth . There should be the return of Mammoths , a lot of us would welcome them .
I actually side with the argument against it, HOWEVER, I definitely think that there’s enough plausible reason for the sake of science and data to to attempt this. Perhaps not for the wild, but zoological research. I mean, it’s not a dinosaur, just an ancient elephant. Perhaps 5 or so for community bonding.
there would be no value too brining them back at this point. they are too far removed. save something like a passanger pigeon or something else humans have killed off that would help an eco system now.
@Rill bruh we are talking about a giant tundra elephant that call the attention of every one, of course people will hunt them slowing down the growth of the species, it will he impossible to let them live in the wild
I love your video. I pretty much agree with you and the points you bring to the table. I think scientists are stroking their own egos and wasting millions on cloning when they can really help the current animals living with the money they have. The point of extinction means that it's forever. And that we should cherish the animals we have today.
Now I've heard everything. Just what do you think won't combat climate change? Maybe we can make 20,000 new mammoths. Oh yes, I forgot, mammoths would defecate 50 times more greater than cows. Oh my gosh, there goes the climate again.
I can't believe they were able to raise such serious cash for this when there are so many far more serious questions and challenges for science to tackle.
The bad thing about cloning is you still use a cell that is the same age as the original organism so you would have had to have used the DNA from a very young mammoth so the amount of very young mammoth found are very very rare
Cloning hasn't worked out as well as planned. Dolly the sheep turned out to have some significant health issues related to the idea of cloning and passed on to that great pasture in the sky quite young by sheep standards. That put a damper on any more cloning.
I think the main issue here is that the technology is just a little bit short for this to truly be accomplished. For example, we're only just now getting artificial wombs that are effective, but even so the babies that are being developed in them don't survive to birth. Also, it's more than likely that before long, we'll be able to print DNA strands, meaning that you would no longer need to deal with living hosts. Just look at the DNA of extinct animal samples, and then print them out at the chemical level, filling in the needed gaps with related code from similar species.
The problem is: Having the DNA is not enough. You also need an egg which was produced by a species very very close to the "target species". You see, the egg is not just a container only. It is the eggs chemistry which controls the development of the fetus. If it is not correct, then all you get is a pile of cells which - if you are lucky - divdes and reproduces. But that's it. The eggs chemistry is responsible to guide the devlopment such that cells which were identical in the beginning specialize and form all the different cell types (muscles, brain, organs, ....) which are needed for a functional organism. Needless to say, that science is only at the first steps of understanding how all this works. Having the DNA is just having the blueprint. But you also need the "workers" which are capable to read that blueprint, put it into action and do this with the right timing. Unfortunately, this "procedure" and requirements seem to be a little bit different for each species. A number if years ago, I bought a book "The Science of "Jurassic Park" and the "Lost World": How to Build a Dinosaur" which talks in detail about all those issues. Although the book is older, I highly recommend it, if you are interested in this subject.
@@kallewirsch2263 You know, if you have the technology to print something as intricate as a strand of DNA, you can also print the eggs to fertilize. I mean, we've just printed a human ear. With the coming century we'll be able to just keep getting more and more delicate and intricate with what we can produce.
@@robertgronewold3326 You didn't pay attention. The chemistry and how it interacts with the cells is largly unknown right now. Producing strings of DNA is done since a number of years. Watch "PRODUCING DNA FRAGMENTS- Methods to produce DNA fragments for A-level recombinant DNA technology" - method 3, the Gene Machine.
Why should we bring them back in the first place? "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
We should start with Tasmanian tigers they are a recently extinct species and their gestation time is far smaller.
their --go back to school or clone yourself.
I think they're still around.
Last time I checked there arent many frozen tasmanian tigers around...
@Oil tank Or he's one of the many people that frequently claim to see a random wild one still lurking around. Obviously, they're extinct, but that doesn't stop people from being hopeful they're still out there somewhere.
@@leonardotheuseless4188 but they have some specimens preserved.
I think it would probably be easier setting up a selective breeding program of asian elephants as long hair accross most of their body is an observed trait. would take *a while* but any "rejects" from said program in the first generations would only server to strengthen the asian elephant population, which goes with any conservation programs that may currently exist already
Stupid idea
It will only create a monstruous hairy elephant, not a mammoth
They are in fact very different in some aspect to elephant
Yes they share 99% DNA,
And we share 98% with chimpanzee so every gene count.
It will be bad for asian elephant since a lot of the individual would be at some point not pure asian wild elephant and not mammoth either and it will take a lot of generations (120-200) or even more
Did you know how slow elephant are to reproduce, breed, give birth and mature or how hard it's to kept them well in captivity, only 3 generation would take a entire human life
Let's focus on helping asian elephant first
Whaat purpose this insult to nature would have except our enjoyment of seing a poor disformed intelligent animal in a zoo.
The only way to have a mammoth is by cloning and gene editing
You take mammoth dna, if not completed use asian one and hope you get the 1% difference right
Wait several years of trying to inseminate a asian elephant with the little embryo you made and hope she give birth (wich is already difficult with elephant so it will be nearly impossible)
And hope the baby survive, grow and doesn't catch a modern disease that it's immune system can't fight or can process food with elephant bacteria and not mammoth bacteria and that your clone is viable and fertile (most clone are not viable and have short lifespan)
And put it in a zoo
Useless, we can create a sustainable population with only 4-8 material sources you will have incredibly poor generic pool
Inbreeding will kill the specie in few decades
You'll need at least 50 individual to be able to make a "viable population" that will be on the Line of inbreeding issue even with top human management
And at least 500 individuals that are not related to have a viable population on long term
So you will have to clone mammoth and edit genes with elephant one (not the 1% difference) and hope it don't mess to much with the future mammoth (wich is incredibly risquy)
Chance of having a mammoth in the next three decade are pretty much 0
In the end of the century maybe, if we are still alive, or if tundra still exist and did not melt.
Elephants will probably be extinct or near extinction and have the priority over mammoths.
So except if you have decoded and know all the elephant and mammoth genome and can manipulate it with no secondary effects
That you have at least 20-40 years of advance in cloning technology and knowledge
That you have the complete dna of at least 50 differents unrelated specimens of mammoths.
Or a time machine
We won't see any mammoth helping against climate change and preserve permafrost in the toundra of Siberia and reste of Russia, or in zoos.
It's more than just long hair. They need other traits exclusive to the mammoth as well.
long hair isnt only it. plus that will take too long before you reach a hairy mammoth, compared to a woolly mammoth, elephants are hairless!
Hard to do with such a slow breeding animal with a long time to breeding age.
@Purple Emerald yes!
I remember LIFE magazine talking about how scientists would be doing this with one of the next frozen specimens found, way back in the 70's.
That's when we were headed toward a new ice age, remember? Then they switched to "Global Warming." Turns out that's not really happening so now it's simply "Climate Change", a nebulous, unprovable concept as the climate is ALWAYS changing. But lately it's become a "Climate Emergency" as the global elites make their final big push for their new totalitarian global regime. Are we really just gonna sit back and let them do it?
that's insane. it's been five decades and we're still not even an inch closer to cloning the mammoth.
@@JonJon-vg2nv CRISPR was a huge jump. Still won`t be enough though.
@@JonJon-vg2nv We dream to reach to moon for even longer before it happen. Transform an idea into a reality can be harder that we first though. Also, maybe it is impossible, there is a possibility that we cannot success in creating mammoth.
They’ve been working to salvage enough dna, and have been perfecting their cloning by cloning peoples pets for a price.
if we can bring them back, we would have a new way to prevent the extinction of current animals.. which is a big big deal. what we learn from trying could be really important.
I want the extinct bison brought back.
@@anpowicasta2135 arent there still some at yellowstone? thought i saw something abt them making a comeback now
@@anpowicasta2135 the plains bison is thriving in North America, sadly the slightly larger sub species still has extremely small numbers and can only be found in Canada and Alaska. Efforts are being made to bring back a strong population
Just don’t release them into the wild 🙄
@@Mobystopmotion why not?
Just like everything else in life, the problem is more complicated than initially anticipated.
hear at Mammoth burger 🍔 we di not see it that way
....and it particular, microbiology life science keeps going more complicated....see Dr. James Tours
Very wise words. What could go wrong?
I had a book when I was 7 that talked about cloning mammoths from frozen remains. I'm now 55.
bruh
Rich f**ks have been cloning there dogs and children and spouses for years. Not sure why you would want a exact clone of your wife though, one of her is unbearable as it is.
Damn
Do you still have the book?
Ai will likely end up doing it for us.
the algorithm has blessed this video
Has any multi thousand year dead animals been brought back?
Praise be the algorithm
May you and your family be blessed with the algorithm of good fortune!
@@samasiaskipperable just one, but it tasted terrible 🤮
I stopped watching when he said 4 ft 9meters tall. He can't even get his measurements right lol
I remember finding a VHS tape my dad brought home. It was called “Raising The Mammoth”. It was a documentary that followed a Russian scientist in the 90’s and how they found a full grown mammoth under ice. Called the Jerkoff mammoth or something. They talked about how it still has DNA and how it can be cloned. Very interesting documentary and highly recommend watching it. I’m now in my mid 20’s and still no mammoth
Jerkoff??
@@akashsuresh1369 it’s probably not spelled like that but yes Jerkof probably. It was named after the guy who found it I believe a native Russian reindeer herder if my memory serves me right. It’s a foreign word so it sounds strange
@@akashsuresh1369 The Jarkov Mammoth (named for the family who discovered it), is a woolly mammoth[1] specimen discovered on the Taymyr Peninsula of Siberia by a nine-year-old boy in 1997. This particular mammoth is estimated to have lived about 20,000 years ago. It is likely to be male and probably died at age 47. 😂
The jeroff should be able to supply sperm
@@hector_2999 ok there you go Jarkov and it was named after a boy not the herder. Still sounded just like Jerkoff to me lmao
Edit: th-cam.com/video/RF3ApYMxRlU/w-d-xo.html
Still sounds like Jerkoff 0:42
I guess it's a Mammoth 🦣 task to bring them back.
I also notice that one of the reasons they haven't managed to breed them using elephants is because, they were in fact cash cows all along.
Also the fact Elephants arent mammonths
Cloning is difficult ...when they cloned dolly the sheep the resulting things didn't live very long ....it has its hurdles
It was difficult 20 yrs ago
@@randallECTRIC plants clone easily, cloning an animal isn't somehow 'easy' today
It's still difficult and has it's hurdles
look argentinas clone polo horses
This is low key a GREAT question for anyone who grew up in the 90s and early 2000s...
I’ve always wondered about genetic diversity. Say someone finds the perfect mammoth cells and proceeds to clone dozens or hundreds of mammoths. What’s stopping the mammoths from dying out of disease or serious genetic defects later down the lineage?
If some survived, they will develop the genes later on to adapt to the diseases. Like every animal who have survived till now. Now if there is a natural disaster then there is nothing u can do about it. Even we human dies from it.
mutations and separation of groups would lead to genetic diversity
Who cares, just bring them back again. Or have them be specimens in zoos or for study, they don't need to repopulate the earth.
What’s to stop that from happening with any species whose population has dwindled to extremely endangered? What’s to stop poachers from killing the mammoths for their tusks? Remember the White Rhino?
@@PuckCld nah they wouldn’t happen fast enough, look up genetic drift
ive always wondered about this. as a kid i remember seeing the same things.
me too.
My main concern about bringing mammoths back is: how would the species (wolves, bears, cougar) adapt to having mammoths in their ecosystem? I know they all can bring down prey bigger than themselves, but having a 10-14 ton mammal that the predators aren't adapted to killing wouldn't go so well, at least I wouldn't think so?
they lived at the same time as mammoths and its not like a handful of (look what we made) animals are going to be replacing their food sources (which also existed at the same time as mammoths). don't forget mammoths died off not that long ago geologically speaking *in fact the pyramids predate the extinction of mammoths*. So the world today in some parts isn't too different. The main predators of mammoths were mainly humans anyway. Its not unlike modern elephants, its not like lions or tigers in their respective ecosystems (African and Indian elephants) are hunting adult elephants anyway.
My guess is that they would target the birthing cows, young, and the sick like predatory mammals (lions, hyenas, wild dogs, etc.) around larger megafauna do in Africa and parts of Eurasia today. I still believe reviving them is risky since there's still no guarantee that the northern predatory species would know how to adapt to mammoths after thousands of years of them being extinct.
Though, mammoths have not REALLY been extinct for THAT long when you think about it... so there is a chance that the niche they left open when they went extinct (that is still open) can still be safely refilled by them themselves. Very iffy animal to reintroduce... Certainly not any Yellowstone wolf or Mexican macaw. If we ever do reintroduce them, we would have to keep a very close eye on them.
I feel most predators are smart enough not to attack something that much bigger than them. I think it would have a bigger negative effect on the herbivore population as they would likely have compete with the Mammoths for food and be displaced from their territory.
Predators will have less of an issue as long their main pray is ok. The main issue are territory & enough food for the Mammoth & others herbivores. An elephant needs tons of food to keep their body weight. Today’s there is less territory available than thousands of years ago. Europe is pretty overpopulated & doesn’t have a reserve long enough to keep this animals that most likely walked long distances for food. North America does have more large reserves & unpopulated areas but there’s the issue of how could affect the ecosystem. Wild Horses are being killed & captured for more territory. I don’t see the purpose of bringing this large animals back. They would be here only for entertainment & possible for food at best.
When mammoths were alive on earth, the ecosystem was different. Since they died out, the ecosystem has adjusted. Whatever benefits the mammoths were providing is now being met by other animals or methods. Introducing animals that big can be very dangerous for animals, humans, and cruel. We know little about this animal's life. They (male and female) will be the only ones of their kind.
Cloning mammoths. How is Dolly the sheep doing? How did that work out?
They said a lot of stuff in the 90s... like we'd have Moon and Mars bases by now or that the ice caps would be completely melted by 2020 lol
Is someone that was born in the late 80s where is are flying cars they stagnated technology
@@VSMOKE1 yeah i was born in 88... they definitely stagnated technology intentionally.... basically the only thing thats advanced the past 30 years are computers... everything else is pretty much the same lol
as exciting as this is...I really want the dino-chickens they keep going on about. I want a flock of chickens with teeth, claws, and tails running around.
I do remember that. I was mesmerized as a child when that was on tv.. and now I feel like their experiments never were a true thing but instead a fiction of what it could be if they actually did that. Maybe they can now with gene editing tech. Hopeful. I wouldn’t mind them being Reah either hehe
@@_Chessa_ from what I understand there is some ethics committee thing preventing them from letting an embryo fully develop and can only experiment to a certain point to express genes before terminating the embryo.
@@TheRhuen Well I could see them getting around the ethics by using a simple garage or backyard.. >_
canadian geese are bad enough... dunno about all that haha
Chicken with teeth - sounds scary.
I have heard that bringing back megafauna could help preserve the tundra.
Yes , and LSD opens the gate to another dimensions.......
@@theMPrints Do some reading on the subject.
Not necessarily preserving the tundra, but transforming barren tundra into a mammoth steppe, which is more biologically productive. It should help with preserving permafrost though.
People will want to hunt them once the numbers are over a certain amount
@@oftin_wong so?
I remember this whole thing and how it started. It's entire purpose was "Well, the mammoths dig. The tundra and permafrost is kinda not doing what it's supposed to, and is getting drastically warmer. But, if we end up messing with it, and digging and upsetting it, it re-freezes and gets colder. IE: Release mammoths into places with failing permafrost, let them do their thing, and that'll combat global warming by literally making everything colder again." this was also an idea conceived by a russian man and a friend or two who took an old tank and drove it around in Siberia and then tested to see if it made things colder, and it did.
That's the main goal of the whole thing. The points of "Oh! It can bring back other creatures also!" is just one of it's net positive selling points. And yes, it would have to be a herd which would need to be protected, but it would combat global warming extremely well.
Also funny mammoth hours in a frozen wasteland making it less of a wasteland by letting shrubbery and the such be able to exist because there would be actual frozen earth it could exist in, and all that jazz.
Yes it was about the permafrost opening and releasing crazy amounts of gasses into air but mammoths eating the vegetation would help it. Something like that was the crux of the idea.
I think its more about moving the snow because the snow is like a blanket and because the world is getting warmer grazing animals dig the snow aside to eat whatever vegetation they can and exposing the ground keeps the permafrost cold I think
Thank you I couldn't find someone mentioning this lol
Yeah, I've been waiting a very long time for Mammoth clones to be alive and roaming somewhere
I have seen a documentary about this a while ago. I think it is totally worth a try. The melting of the permafrost must be stopped and we should consider every possibility.
I’d like to see a hybrid clone of a mammoth!
I want to see a hybrid clone of a human X mammoth!!!
Think I've read that the packing down of snow/ice by Large grazing animals on the steppe was a big part of keeping temps down too. Packed snow melts slower and stays colder than freshly fallen
...what about all the extra Methane such huger ruminating herds of that size would produce?..🌡.🐘💨🐘💨🐘💨🐘💨
@@anarchorepublican5954 i think the reason that the methane produced by Cattle is an issue is because there's just soooo many of them, like legit a billion. Natural herds of mammoth would never get to those numbers, the only reason theres that much cattle in the world is because we make it so (but people gotta eat and im not going vegetarian so it is what it is)
@@JNMFNFnMNH ...🦬Bison is real good 🥩🍔...why not 🦣Mammoth as well?
@@anarchorepublican5954 My guess is that it that it would simply take too long. Cows only take 9 months to give birth, elephants take almost 2 years. It'd take forever to breed them to a point where they're docile enough to domesticate and control. Also elephants (and likely mammoths) are very intelligent, which would make them more valuable as work animals like dogs and horses.
@@JNMFNFnMNH ..⫙ 🍔over a Million BC served ...the raw tonnage of grade A minced Meat will make up for the gestation...send a troop loose on an evasive shrub or tree..BLM "free grazing" land
...🌱🌲🦣🌳🦣
I read a book called elmer the elephant and it's kind of similar to this. Elmer was a freak and the herd rejected him but then his personality turned out to be really cool and the herd changed their opinion
From what I heard, they're planning on removing the tusk genes in these mammophants to prevent poaching. As for the impact, it'd probably be quick because when Pleistocene Park managed to turn that same shrubby tundra into a productive grassland within ten or so years, and that was with bison and horse. Mammophants would just speed up the process that the formers species do already..
LOL! If they are brought back...and that is saying something, they will be contained in zoo's not in parks or preserves.
@@jakearmitage7811 Actually, it's already planned for the first mammoths to be taken to pleistocene park.
Too bad it’s in Russia.
@@kathyl9222 Why? The Russian steppe is their homeland. You got a problem with that? And it's a Russian guy doing it. You some kind of racist?
Not just tusk but there are hunters out there who jump at the chance to bring down a Mammoth. Its for sport for hunters. I say we should not bring them back.
Instead of focusing on extinct megafauna cloning, we should consider something smaller, something recently extinct.
Exactly. Recently (within the past decade) or soon to be extinct species should be the priority. When more experience is gained, we can move on to species that have been extinct longer.
Both? Both. Both is good.
It's because large animals capture the imagination of the funders .....little things don't
We call them charismatic megafauna
Everyone is captivated by whales and turtles but nobody is interested in the unique parasites they have evolved with
White Rhino’s, Taur’s and Tasmanian wolves would be nice! :)
Maybe Hoplodactylus delcourti, the two foot Gecko
-Leopard Gecko Owner
because of the long pregnancies it would take a really long time to do a trial and error experiment, theres also the risk of killing the mother, even if you managed to have a birth with some mammoth traits and were going to use it for breeding it would take a really long time for it to reach sexual maturity......
Such an entertaining video. Laughed out loud several times. Hope they figure out the mammoth thing in our lifetime, even if just to try it -- the impact on the tundra could be great!
Glad you enjoyed it!
That's so funny I stumbled upon this video. I remember hearing this as a kid too and happened to be wondering what happened yesterday lol
I clicked on this video to fall asleep to, and now I'm subscribed and still awake. Awesome content!
Awesome! Thank you!
I’ve always had the same question after geeking out over this idea as a kid
There is no hold up. However, if you want a viable population, you need a short-paced evolution. If you remember the Chinese elephants migrating north last year and look at their slightly higher foreheads and larger size, you may surmise that for the past twenty years somebody edited a variety of mammoth genes into Chinese elephant embryos and implanted them. From there, natural selection will mix and activate the mammoth genes. The north migration was a very mammothy thing to do.
From watching things about elephants over the years, it seemed they had to eat , eat, eat all day and most of the food just runs right through them. Do they have some kind of digestion problem?
If such were the case I wondered if some mammoth DNA might give them a little more ' genetic help ' and maybe give back something they were missing.
They probably need some mammoth mitochondria. I see the distinct possibility that elephant mitochondria cannot produce enough energy for an icy habitat.
@@zeideerskine3462 the problem is, I don't think the habitat they find the frozen carcasses in was always frozen and cold. After all, I hear they are found with
' tropical vegetation ' in their stomachs and mouths.
They always show mammoths wandering around bleak, frozen landscape but I bet they are really warm weather animals. Just because they have fur coat doesn't mean they are eskimos.
There were both tropical and arctic mammoths. The tropical ones tended to be bigger and hairless while the arctic ones are woolly and smaller. The ones that we have DNA of and the we are trying to clone are the arctic woolly mammoths. Outright cloning individuals may be problematic because you need to clone fifty females and fifty males to start a viable population that will not die out from inbreeding right away. So, the best approach is to take the most northern Asian elephants and Crisper in snippets of mammoth DNA into ova, artificially inseminate, and then let them sexually and environmentally select for the best cold adaptation. However, that will leave the new species with mitochondria that are not adapted to producing enough energy for survival in an arctic environment. I hope this will be fixed or they have to regularly give them Methylene Blue injections to make up for it.
I like the line you used " natural selection will mix and activate the mammoth genes."
How come the elephants couldn't get those genes by themselves?
They didnt live very long if i recall. We tried to put the mammoth embryos into elephants mamas and thats the farthest success ive heard of. We have better luck cloning sheep.
Two people have said this to me "Jurassic Park is a cautionary tale that we shouldn't do that"
My response to that is, that's like saying that 20000 Leagues Under the Sea is a cautionary tale that you shouldn't build a submarine because there's a scary octopus down there.
No it's a work of fiction meant to inspire. Stories need to have antagonist and conflict to be interesting.
I had this argument with my brother's girlfriend just last week about whether or not recreating dinosaurs was a good idea.
Her position was we shouldn't Because they would destroy the environment, they couldn't be contained and dinosaurs are scary monsters.
My position was that they wouldn't destroy the environment certainly not more than dumping billions of tons of trash into the ocean every year.
They absolutely could be contained, I work at a cattle ranch part of every year I can tell you, animals absolutely can be contained.
And finally dinosaurs are animals not monsters.
They would devastate and take over any natural ecosystem they’re introduced too. A lot like invasive species in Florida. That’s what the new Jurassic park is about. Jurassic park would only be sustainable on the moon.
@@calebblack1420 yes it's a risk but it's not enough of a risk to justify not doing it.
Let's say if for example if Velociraptor escaped which is what everyone seems to be so afraid of
I would argue that they would cause less ecological damage than house cats already do.
It is possible to contain animals especially if you create them in limited numbers.
Dr. Hammond or whatever his name was had the right idea in keeping them on a remote island
Indeed. But even if we had the technology to clone dinosaurs we must consider that modern flora & fauna are so different to their original environments that they could not adapt in time & mother nature would guarantee they soon went extinct all over again...
You may say that, but we don't know tbh, what if cloning any of these can cause elemental or environmental damage, not extinction level, but something that may cause drastic affect, so yeah
@@VictorianTimeTraveler Homie I think you should glance at the Jurassic Park novel before commenting on the topic. Because what you're saying is picked apart relentlessly by the contents of the novel. Or listen to the audiobook fuck. Just know what you're talking about.
1. The dinosaurs created by InGen are more akin to genetically engineered theme park monsters like the Fly in Jeff Goldblum's adaption of the fly than they are to scientifically accurate dinosaurs.
2. They should be classified as Novosaurs, dinosaur like creatures, spliced together with bits of modern creatures DNA to fill in the blanks.
3. John Hammond was a madman. The end goal was always financial success of the park, never the 100% safe containment of the creatures.
4. The dinosaurs escaped off the island. Quite a few of them. Raptors and pterosaurs. and they possess the ability to reproduce asexually thanks to a certain amphibian gene. And the ability to devastate and natural modern ecosystem.
Do read the book though, it's very good.
Now these are the questions!
To see one or two would be cool and of some the tec involved could also be used to help elephant endangerment. If they need to hang with a herd and be social I think the elephants will take in their furry friends. They are not as shallow as people can be
Unlike you, I hardly know elephants' minds. And regardless, I think I'd say- keep questioning. We've all seen the Jurrasic movies. There's something to take with you from those.
Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should.
Mammoth’s went extinct fairly recently if we’re looking at the big picture not to much really change up in Russia…..and for protecting them we would have to double up anti poaching but with cloning I think we never really have to think about extinction agin(except for dinosaurs and such)
Anti-poaching is a key thing people aren't considering. If they bring back mammoths some people *will* want to kill them for sport. Others will want to kill them for their ivory. Yet others, perhaps, for "medicinal" purposes.
I think Russia can protect them. Also Alaska. Most poachers like it warm. Not likely going to go into these areas.
I DEMAND FULL MAMMOTHS NOW
Cloning a Mammoth is highly problematic. This is a very expensive long term endeavor. Amonng the challenges are where will Mammoths live once you have one. I would love to see a Mammoth. But the challenges are overwhelming against Mammoth. Sad as this is. I do not see this ever happening. Let's spend our time and money protecting the Elephants we have.
They would likely be moved to the Pleistocene park preservation in Siberia, where there's currently an ongoing study to track how existing megafauna can transform the tundra into a steppe grassland like they did back in the Pleistocene. However, barring that(since right now Russia would need to calm down before they cooperate with other countries), there can be a similar area set up in Alaska or northern Canada.
Plus, this has a way to directly help out living elephants. The endeavor would have to involve boosting conservation for elephants so we can better understand their reproductive cycle and nutrients needed for their young. Before we clone a mammoth, we need to be able to clone an elephant. However the biggest downsides to all of this is the time it would take to get to that point, and the fact that elephants and mammoths are very social so we'd need a herd right away
@@CrownofMischief exactly my man! I hope that helps George cause it helps me learn stuff from his comment. Im being serious im not trying to be mean or anything.
@@CrownofMischief That study alone is ethically ambivalent. It involves purposeful environmental destruction based on one man's belief that Tundra is an inferior biome that needs to be replaced.
@@TheWoollyFrog just curious, are you also against the project aiming to halt the desertification of the growing Sahara desert? Are you upset at the impact caused by reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone? Those are also biomes transformed by human intervention, whether passively by reintroducing new species or actively by technological means. Are you saying neither should happen because we should not prioritize one biome over another?
@@CrownofMischief The "expansion" of the tundra was/is not anthropogenic. And no, we didn't invent tundras by spearing every large herbivore in the northern hemisphere. And even if we did, the decline of the mammoth steppe also gave rise to boreal forests, temperate forests and temperate steppes. Yet, it is tundras today that are at risk due to climate change destroying the permafrost. Great choice for terraforming. /s
There is also no connection to food security efforts in the Sahara. The natives of Northern Siberia have been hunter-gatherers that have historically relied on the animals and plants provided by this biome. You also can't compare Pleistocene Park to Yellowstone as the reintroduction of wolves didn't require the government to clear-cut entire forests in order to make room for a future cross continental ecosystem from 12000 years ago. They were simply rehabilitating an area. Surely you must have realised by now that you bought the sales pitch of an eccentric self-interested scientist with a god complex. If you want to see the actual last remnants of the mammoth steppe, there is a national park on the border between Mongolia and Russia. It survived all this time even though there are no mammoths there. Curious.
That classic line. Just because we can, should we???
On reflection.. No!
The Mammoth had its time. To bring it back now, would be to force it into a massively changed world. A world completely different to which the Mammoth *evolved* in.
..
Great work as always my Friend 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
On reflection, we can’t know either way.
It is better to live in strife than to simply be dead forever.
I’m sure if the mammoths could advocate for themselves they would appreciate a chance at life again.
It also wouldn’t be that damaging to ecosystems. They aren’t as fragile as people make them out, and mega fauna aren’t what breaks an ecosystem.
Animals frequently venture out of the area they evolved in and break into new ecosystems they “didn’t evolve in,” that’s normal.
They had their time, and it was cut short by things beyond its control, it was cheated into extinction. And it was largely our fault. We owe the mammoths a second chance, even if it wasn’t easy.
Do it do it
😁😁😁😁
10k years not that much. It's not the same as bring back dinosaurs (which is not possible)
Its been proven that mammoths would fix the attic environment and create there own grass lands which helps create more permafrost we are drastically losing due too much snow. Snow keeps the cold from reaching the permafrost which doesn't melt it but blocks it's growth. So we are just losing it and not gaining any back. Mammoths would eat tree roots and many similar things our current elephant do. They have a key roll in our environment. Our environment problem started very very long ago when we were killing our largest animals and causing mass extinction world wide and we are the sole reason our environment is dying now.
We aren't talking about bringing back dinosaurs but animals we are selfs as a species have caused to go extinct which caused a bolling ball effect of global environmental change. This would just one step twords fixing our climate. We have the idea that we need trees but that only applies to places like south America and other jungle areas.
In artic's those forest are just filling in the gaps, they serve no real environmental purpose other then helping heat up the artic but blocking cold from reaching it. We would benefit by adding large animals back to the artic and we need something large enough to manage our trees.
I'd really like to see them do something with white rhinos, considering that that is the animal that inspired unicorns.
a white, horse-like animal with a single long horn on the front of its head from the north of Africa where exploring Europeans would've encountered them? white rhinos are unicorns.
That’s what Marco Polo called them.
For a long time people thought he wasn’t credible and making stuff up because he talked about unicorns. Even though he called them ugly.
You wouldn't want to play leapfrog with one of them.
they kinda of did. not cloning but they did manage to harvest sperm from the last male before he died and used it to fertilize harvested eggs from the remaining females. they were looking for a suragate mother they could use to carry the embryos to term. then covid hit and i stopped keeping tabs. think they ended up with 5-10 sucessful emryros.
Ive followed this news for more than 20 years, love this video
On the topic of ivory, I saw a proposal once to just release elephants in the wild on the Great Plains. The idea was that one of the reasons poachers were willing to risk severe penalties was because of the huge value of even a single tusk compared to their income. While there is certainly poverty in the U.S. the levels and the bottom income is a lot higher, which tips the cost benefit analysis of poaching a bit, plus, in the U.S. we have more resources to protect game than other countries.
Of course, maybe a better solution would be to grow ivory in a peach tree dish (sorry, political pun, but an actual idea). Lab grown petri dish ivory, if it could be produced cheaply and sold, with some laws in place allowing it to be sold as ivory without any disclaimers, might be able to create a sustainable market for ivory that could collapse the market for poached ivory.
Mammoth Ivory is dropping out of the Siberian tundra by the metric fuck ton. I doubt poaching would be an issue when you can walk around and pick it up everywhere on the ground. Its easy to buy Mammoth ivory jewelry right now likely easier than elephant ivory.
real question tho... what is ivory even used for???? que balls and pianos already use plastic nowadays, what is ivory used for now???
@@kingpotato7183 We have glass and plastic any color, shade, look one can think of... why do we still use gemstones?
@@seditt5146 i'm not talking about esthetics i'm talking about practical uses, what are the practical uses of ivory????
@@kingpotato7183 Thats my point you should be talking about asthetics. That and rarity are why its used.
Forget the Mammoths
Can we clone some Politicians that actually tell the truth and don't waste all our $$$ on frivolous nonsense?
We should bring back animals driven extinct by humans. I want to see thylacines and dodo birds back.
Thylacines are still alive
@@arthurmorgan7086 I find that hard to believe.
@@GreasusGoldtooth
It’s a running theory. There are supposed ‘sightings’ with eye witness, camera traps and stuff that you can search up. To me, I think we should have hard DNA evidence before we judge. It’s on the same status with the Japanese wolf, does it still exist? Idk. Are there photos? Yeah. Is it a dog or different species? Maybe.
@@samuraijackoff5354 The prey species of thylacines are flourishing. So if thylacines were still around, we would see them beginning to expand again too. But we aren't. All we have are murky photos and some sightings that are probably wild dogs.
@@GreasusGoldtooth
Hey Greasus, Tasmanian here who has worked in wildlife sanctuaries and is currently a dog trainer, I applaud your skepticism especially as it's the tool to a scientific mind and a sign of intelligence.
I do believe I've seen a thylacine and I do believe I can easily tell the difference between a large marsupial and a dog due to my experience working with animals both domestic and native however I'm not going to try to convince you of what I believe I've seen.
Rather I'd like to offer you some counter possibilities of why thylacine populations, if they exist which is more than understandable to disagree with, may not be recovering.
The first focus would be the fact if they managed to survive, as I believe they did due to my experiences, their population would have become incredibly low, this would result in high amounts of inbreeding resulting in shared genetic similarity thus high prevalence of recessive gene disorders and the possibility of cancer transplantation between individuals that managed to survive, similar to the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumor disease.
The high prevalence of gene disorders would result in fatal abnormalities and problems with developing fetuses, keeping possible surviving population numbers incredibly low and doomed to die out due to these factors.
The possibility of cancer transmission between highly related individuals is also something that should not be ruled out, especially proven by what's happening with Tasmanian devils, and while that is a 'long shot' it could provide another reason why thylacine populations, if they still exist, are so incredibly low.
I think the first Jurassic Park did a good job answering that question, they probably shouldn’t. scientist should take the Hippocratic oath 😅
Elephants in Africa are less endangered than most people think as the face of the WWF along with pandas. other species like giraffes are far more critical and even closer to extinction elephants are starting to lose their tusks as a genetic trait they've developed presumably in response to the stress of poaching
The Dwarf one at 1 meter tall sounds like a good idea.. I think we should clone that one first!
I suppose the real question is "Would they survive if we brought them back?" About 5 million years ago the megafauna started to die out and that continued as far as we know until the modern times. One could say the Elephant and the Rhino are pretty much the only megafauna species left. It's often said that man and hunting wiped out these species but that's far from certain. In Australia for example we know that many of the megafauna died out even when there were no human tribes in the area.
Nature says that the time of the megafauna is over and who thinks we can beat nature? At the same time mankind has always enjoyed a challenge. (And I'd really like to see a Mammoth.)
Depends on how you define megafauna, but I'd say hippos, giraffes, gaurs, the two species of bison and perhaps the moose also count as surviving megafauna. And while the full cause of the extinctions ten thousand or so years ago are not fully clear, it is clear that the main issue megafauna have had since then is humans rather than nature. Let's also not downplay the number of living megafauna species, it's not "the" elephant and "the" rhino, as there are three species of living elephants and five species of rhinos.
@@Ryodraco I know what you mean, but how many species of each were around 1 million years ago?
My point is that the megafauna started dying out well before humans even evolved and perhaps the few we see today are just the dregs, the few versions that are left over. This must have happened many times before as one type of animal was replaced by another type. (Except the dinosaurs of course) But this is the first time it's been observed.
So if the world is no longer conducive to megafauna, would they survive if brought back? There seems to be a pattern that the largest animals are getting smaller. The largest mammals a few million years after Chixulub were far larger than anything alive today. The largest dinosaurs were bigger than them and the largest pre dinosaurs were bigger again.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the preservation of these animals, but will they die out anyway?
@@JohnJ469 hard to say, one also has to consider that for all the number of species of some megafauna in the fossil record, how many actually existed at the same time in a given area? The number may have been far lower than you may expect. If nothing else, the megafauna diversity of Africa and southern Asia has remained largely the same for many thousands of years (one theory being that they were better able to handle hunting from early humans, and/or climate change effected them less than on other continents).
As for the post last ice age world not being conductive to megafauna, from what I've read megafauna have always been prone to extinction events due to the downsides of large size making them vulnerable to changes in food supply. However, they would in turn always be replaced eventually by subsequent megafauna developing. Hence why humans are thought to have induced a unique situation when our spread after the last ice age induced complete extinction of so many lines of megafauna instead of the "decline and subsequent rebound" that happened repeatedly before we were around.
And if nothing else, we should keep in mind that the modern world has the largest known animal in history, the blue whale.
As for your last question, provided they have proper food and habitat (and we know to some degree what woolly mammoths required), I don't see why they couldn't in theory survive, at least with human management.
@@Ryodraco If you can understand that we shouldn't downplay the number of species, let's also understand that almost every extinction event is the result of a unique convergence of causes. In every other conversation about extinction this seems to be understood, but with these it seems that peoples' need to have a pissing contest about human nature gets in the way of actual scientific understanding.
I dare nature to do something bout it 😈
I could make a video named, "What will I have for breakfast tomorrow?" I will talk about different kinds of breakfast foods I have eaten and could eat. And then I can reveal that I often don't eat breakfast at all. And maybe I could say some people think breakfast is bad for you. And ultimately I would publish the video before tomorrow, so you never know what I had for breakfast, or if I even had breakfast.
A question of hybrids: often time the hybrid from cross breeding is infertile. Could that be the same problem?
depends alot on compatibility
@@mondaysinsanity8193, ligers, mules, etc. all infertile. Gene editing may be the way to go. It worked with the Mongolian steppe ponies.
@@andrewsmith9174 mammoths are more closely related to elephants than lions and tigers.
It could be more similar to coydogs
@@mondaysinsanity8193, I mentioned mules. I’m not sure how the results of breeding down aggressive African elephants with more tame Indian elephants worked. I’ll have to check if those offspring were sterile.
@@andrewsmith9174 i mean coy dogs are coyote and domestic dog mixes that arent only viable but actually thrive endangering coyotes. Supposedly some are mixed with wolves aswell but thats unconfirmed
It would be cool to see them that is for sure.
As much as Id love to see one, no I dont think we should. This to me is just more examples of how blind the money is at times.
Yeah, I would also love to see a mammoth but perhaps the money could be spent on more effective ways to combat climate change.
Mammoth hybrids are a long-term solution towards climate change, interestingly enough. Though it'd take a long time, a sizeable population of these hybrids would act as natural deforesters in the Siberian tundra, where the absence of trees allows for the permafrost beneath the ground to become colder and unable to melt, avoiding more CO2 and methane emissions.
Do it absolutely !! Bring back all the ancient animals, heck make up new ones!
There is this idea that money being spent on trying to clone a mammoth should be used to save the threatened African and Asian elephants, its as if both go hand in hand in an easily transferable pool of money. That may not be the case, those funding the cloning of a mammoth through private funds may be doing so out of the thrill and curiosity of recreating a mammoth and may have no interest at all in funding the conservation of the African or Asian elephants. It would be like someone dictating that you need to fund Elephant conservation rather than getting Solar panels for your home.
We may not have Mammoth Clones, but we do have Task Rabbit video editors with access to really boring stock footage, I'm glad you have at least one of these...
Wouldn't it be easier to bring back recently extinct animals that played a really crutual role in our ecosystem first and then tackling the hard stuff like mammoths and sabertooths
I remember watching that when I was a kid. Back when Discovery had really interesting shows, like bringing up the Titanic, and digging up mammoths. I miss late 90's early 2000's Discovery.
I agree 100%! The Discovery Channel, and TLC is not what they once was. Nowadays the Discovery Channel has got stupid shows on it like Naked and Afraid, Ghost Adventures, Street Outlaws, Diesel Brothers, BattleBots, and Growing Belushi. TLC has got stupid shows on it like Match Me Abroad, 90 Day Fiance, Dr pimple popper, 7 Little Johnstons, You Me and My Ex, Doubling Down with the Derricos.
Where have all the shows gone that they're supposed to be known for? For example Archeology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Nature shows describing the plants and animals, Dinosaur shows (that tell the truth about the extinction), Underwater shows showing the coral reef and talking about the underwater animals. Planet Earth type shows (that tell the truth about global warming).
It seems to me that these channels are very guilty of trying to dumb down their viewers. Especially TLC! I don't see how I'm supposed to learn anything important from that channel.
Its hard to clone mammouths because they been deceased for so long, that the few rare occational dna samples they manage to get, is partly destroyed. And I guess, they probably thought they would have the tech to restore the dna within a few years, considering how fast other tech advances happened. But it was a harder task than what they thought
The genome has at least been sequenced, that was a feat.
Wow I guess you should've done the video ya fucken expert
"Yea,you were so preoccupied whether or not you could that you didnt stop to think if you should."
The famous Admiral Byrd that explored Antarctica wrote in his journals that while flying over Antarctica , himself and his flite crew looked down and saw what looked like an Elephant . To me I think what they may have seen was a Wooly Mammoth . Also in our present time period there are people alive that are the indigenous natives of Siberia that have once seen a Wooly Mammoth . There should be the return of Mammoths , a lot of us would welcome them .
Nice! This is the question we've All been wanting to ask
I actually side with the argument against it, HOWEVER, I definitely think that there’s enough plausible reason for the sake of science and data to to attempt this. Perhaps not for the wild, but zoological research. I mean, it’s not a dinosaur, just an ancient elephant. Perhaps 5 or so for community bonding.
I remember the documentary, Raising the mammoth. Always been wondering what happened after that.
there would be no value too brining them back at this point. they are too far removed. save something like a passanger pigeon or something else humans have killed off that would help an eco system now.
Interesting point, thanks for your comment.
@Rill bruh we are talking about a giant tundra elephant that call the attention of every one, of course people will hunt them slowing down the growth of the species, it will he impossible to let them live in the wild
Your videos are so well done, son i hope you become huge.
I appreciate that! Thank you :)
This is what i have been thinking about since it came out thanks
I was born near a steppe mammoth fossil site, I’d love to someday see one in the wild for myself.
I just remembered them talking about it in the early 90s which is why I looked and found this video.
We need to prove capable of taking care of what little wildlife we have today
They also though we’d have hoverboards and nuclear fusion… decades ago.
Oh, and bases on the moon and mars.
This was super interesting, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
well you've got my subscription for a single, first video!
Wow, thank you!
@@wildworld6264 so well deserved!!! I'm just happy to have found you.
That bit at the end about poachers brought out the nihilist in me.
I never thought about the dozens of species that die everyday, whenever I think about bringing 1 singular animal back.
Its 3 am how the hell i end up here i will never know but good video.
I'm not so sure global warming and a giant hairy beast would mix.
I love your video. I pretty much agree with you and the points you bring to the table. I think scientists are stroking their own egos and wasting millions on cloning when they can really help the current animals living with the money they have. The point of extinction means that it's forever. And that we should cherish the animals we have today.
This definitely revealed a dormant memory in my brain as a kid being excited that they will create mammoth clones.
Threatened means they're close to being endangered but don't meet all the criteria for being classed as endangered officially.
Now I've heard everything. Just what do you think won't combat climate change? Maybe we can make 20,000 new mammoths. Oh yes, I forgot, mammoths would defecate 50 times more greater than cows. Oh my gosh, there goes the climate again.
I can't believe they were able to raise such serious cash for this when there are so many far more serious questions and challenges for science to tackle.
good question, been waiting since Discovery Channel's "Raising the Mammoth" (2000)
Isn’t it just incredible how we as humans are making our own species at this point in history
what species would that be? we havent "made" anything.
They keep telling me new species can be cloned but they’ve not delivered on a single one
Yeh this mans videos are being blessed by the algorithm. One video will be 400k and another will be like 5.6k
Just like quicksand, I assumed mammoths were gonna be a bigger part of my adult life.
lmao i was just thinking this few days ago, TH-cam reads my mind all the time i swear
The bad thing about cloning is you still use a cell that is the same age as the original organism so you would have had to have used the DNA from a very young mammoth so the amount of very young mammoth found are very very rare
The beginning story was literally my experience too thats why im here now lollll i feel betrayeeed where is my mammoooth😂😂
Yes and after that bring back the Sabretooth Tiger.
I didn't know 1 meter tall mammoths had existed. That's cute
They haven't done it. Because they can't do it. End of story. Let's save the animals that are endangered. Instead of bringing back extinct ones.
Cloning hasn't worked out as well as planned. Dolly the sheep turned out to have some significant health issues related to the idea of cloning and passed on to that great pasture in the sky quite young by sheep standards. That put a damper on any more cloning.
I'm still waiting for my Mammoth clones. I feel ripped off.
I think the main issue here is that the technology is just a little bit short for this to truly be accomplished. For example, we're only just now getting artificial wombs that are effective, but even so the babies that are being developed in them don't survive to birth. Also, it's more than likely that before long, we'll be able to print DNA strands, meaning that you would no longer need to deal with living hosts. Just look at the DNA of extinct animal samples, and then print them out at the chemical level, filling in the needed gaps with related code from similar species.
The problem is: Having the DNA is not enough. You also need an egg which was produced by a species very very close to the "target species".
You see, the egg is not just a container only. It is the eggs chemistry which controls the development of the fetus. If it is not correct, then all you get is a pile of cells which - if you are lucky - divdes and reproduces. But that's it. The eggs chemistry is responsible to guide the devlopment such that cells which were identical in the beginning specialize and form all the different cell types (muscles, brain, organs, ....) which are needed for a functional organism. Needless to say, that science is only at the first steps of understanding how all this works.
Having the DNA is just having the blueprint. But you also need the "workers" which are capable to read that blueprint, put it into action and do this with the right timing. Unfortunately, this "procedure" and requirements seem to be a little bit different for each species.
A number if years ago, I bought a book "The Science of "Jurassic Park" and the "Lost World": How to Build a Dinosaur" which talks in detail about all those issues. Although the book is older, I highly recommend it, if you are interested in this subject.
@@kallewirsch2263 You know, if you have the technology to print something as intricate as a strand of DNA, you can also print the eggs to fertilize. I mean, we've just printed a human ear. With the coming century we'll be able to just keep getting more and more delicate and intricate with what we can produce.
@@robertgronewold3326
You didn't pay attention. The chemistry and how it interacts with the cells is largly unknown right now.
Producing strings of DNA is done since a number of years. Watch "PRODUCING DNA FRAGMENTS- Methods to produce DNA fragments for A-level recombinant DNA technology" - method 3, the Gene Machine.
We should definitely prioritize the 1 meter tall mammoths.
Idc I wanna see a mammoth so damn badly that would be insane
Why should we bring them back in the first place?
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
"In the pursuit of great, we forgot to do good" - Viktor. Arcane Netflix show.