Cloning extinct creatures.

[Dogdoctor]

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. It is extremely hard to get any DNA from specimens that old, and mDNA is even worse than nuclear DNA. In any case, the method of cloning, as stated above, is to place nuclear DNA in an existing cell, which will already have its own mitochondria. As far as I know there is no way known of replacing the mitochondria, so even if we could get the DNA from them we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.



Quite possibly. I suppose it depends how closely related elephants and mammoths were. Anyone know?



I think there's more to it than just being a battery, although not being a biologist I'm sure someone can correct me. It could be the difference not between brands of battery but between type of battery. Maybe elephants use AA and mammoths use D. The mitochondria may still work just fine, but they could be giving out the wrong amount of energy at the wrong rate. Combining similar animals of similar size should minimise this sort of problem, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it not being a problem at all.

I will admit this is all speculation however they can get mitochondrial DNA . I know they have methods of splicing genes in DNA and it isn't too far fetched to think they can do something to create a replica of an extinct animals mitochondria using an existing animals mitochondria.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

 

[oakster]

!! NNNmmm

 

[bujin]

Forget whether or not it will be possible. The real question is "should we"? A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.

 

[arthwollipot]

And again, you'd have no more than a small handful of individuals. Unless mammoth DNA survives intact relatively commonly (probably not), you'd probably be trying to make a population out of one or two founders.

Assuming everything is is workable (which it probably isn't), it's doubtful you'd really be able to revive the species.

If you can synthesise enough of the full mammoth genome for one individual, you can easily synthesise enough for a population. The problem is not the availability of DNA, the problem is the availability of variation in the artificial gene pool to allow the species to survive through multiple generations.

 

[Cuddles]

I will admit this is all speculation however they can get mitochondrial DNA . I know they have methods of splicing genes in DNA and it isn't too far fetched to think they can do something to create a replica of an extinct animals mitochondria using an existing animals mitochondria.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

Cool, I didn't realise they'd actually managed to get mDNA that old.

Forget whether or not it will be possible. The real question is "should we"? A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.

By that argument we shouldn't try to conserve anything. Anything that goes extinct does so for a reason. There are valid ethical arguments about cloning exticnt animals, or any animals for that matter, but the "they're supposed to be extinct" argument just doesn't cut it.

 

[Cuddles]

I will admit this is all speculation however they can get mitochondrial DNA . I know they have methods of splicing genes in DNA and it isn't too far fetched to think they can do something to create a replica of an extinct animals mitochondria using an existing animals mitochondria.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

Cool, I didn't realise they'd actually managed to get mDNA that old.

Forget whether or not it will be possible. The real question is "should we"? A few posters in this thread have mentioned the ethical issues. Neanderthals and mammoths had their chance. They went extinct for a reason. We shouldn't bring them back.

By that argument we shouldn't try to conserve anything. Anything that goes extinct does so for a reason. There are valid ethical arguments about cloning exticnt animals, or any animals for that matter, but the "they're supposed to be extinct" argument just doesn't cut it.

 

[bujin]

By that argument we shouldn't try to conserve anything. Anything that goes extinct does so for a reason. There are valid ethical arguments about cloning exticnt animals, or any animals for that matter, but the "they're supposed to be extinct" argument just doesn't cut it.

I disagree.

We'll leave it at that.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I vote we start with Audrey Hepburn.

 

[arthwollipot]

I disagree.

We'll leave it at that.

I'd actually like to explore this a little further, if that's OK?

 

[Cuddles]

I disagree.

We'll leave it at that.

But why do you disagree? In what way are things that went extinct in the past any different from things that go extinct now?

 

[bujin]

I'd actually like to explore this a little further, if that's OK?

Go ahead.

 

[voidx]

Ethics is such an odd thing. Its very gray at times, and varies depending on culture to some extent as well.

Lets start with the basics. What precisely would be "unethical" about bringing forth the birth of a Mammoth through cloning?

I see that the tacit assumption by some is that it is unethical, and I'd like to understand what it is they feel would be unethical about doing so.

Is it in principle unethical? Creating a single animal with no prospect of mating, to live and die for observation?

I'm curious.

To me, the process of cloning carries no aspect of unethical behaviour, but rather whatever is done with the clone once its viable is what would dictate ethical/unethical behaviour.

 

[blutoski]

The only concern I have with a proven success of this technology is that we may become more cavalier about extinctions.

 

[Correa Neto]

Twins can be considered as "natural clones", can't they?

The actual question is why bring back an extinct species? What would we gain from such feat? Repopulate the world with species we contibuted (recently) to their extinction? Make a Pleistonce Park? I don't see to much ethical problems regarding cloning a mammoth (even if just for the park).

But a sentient extinct species could pose indeed pose some problems. First, I think it would be harder to find a reason for such an enterprise. Second, imagine how bad you would feel if you were a cloned neanderthal, the single specimen of your species. Of course, if you could blend in to our society, problems would be smaller.

But what about cloning an Australopithecine? I guess it would be just like cloning a bonobo, no problems here. Then, when we move on towards H. erectus, the line becomes blurred.

 

[Crowlogic]

Ethical to clone Neanderthal? Why not? You're bringing a being to life not killing it. Its the only way to know what Neanderthal was actually like. But if you make one you need to make several it is a cruel existence to be the only one of any kind. But I'd like to see as many of the great creatures that have gone out given another shot.

 

[EGarrett]

"It's still real to me dammit!"

(crosses fingers hoping to one day ride Triceratops)

 

[Graham Jackman]

Ethics is such an odd thing. Its very gray at times, and varies depending on culture to some extent as well.

Lets start with the basics. What precisely would be "unethical" about bringing forth the birth of a Mammoth through cloning?

I see that the tacit assumption by some is that it is unethical, and I'd like to understand what it is they feel would be unethical about doing so.

Is it in principle unethical? Creating a single animal with no prospect of mating, to live and die for observation?

I'm curious.

To me, the process of cloning carries no aspect of unethical behaviour, but rather whatever is done with the clone once its viable is what would dictate ethical/unethical behaviour.

It's not the cloning that raises the ethical problems. The problems lie in what we do if we are successful. While we can argue that developing a technology is not unethical in itself, the uses to which that technology can be put may give rise to serious ethical problems we need to consider. In planning any experiment, it pays to consider the consequences before you start.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ethical to clone Neanderthal? Why not? You're bringing a being to life not killing it. Its the only way to know what Neanderthal was actually like. But if you make one you need to make several it is a cruel existence to be the only one of any kind. But I'd like to see as many of the great creatures that have gone out given another shot.

Of course I (and many other people) would like to see species from the megafauna at a Pleistocene Park. I see little if any ethical problems with this.

However, we must consider that social animals raised outside a social group (herds, clans, etc.) will not be able to learn several key behavioral elements. Would a herd say, of cloned mammoths behave as it would in the Pleistocene, developing a similar social structure? I don't think so.

The problems appear when we start considering cloning specimens of extinct sentient, intelligent beings.

Neanderthals were sentient creatures, not totally unlike us but they were different. They had complex societies; all the cultural aspects that helped define their identity would be lost for a cloned group.

So, cloning a group of Neanderthals would be an ethical thing to do? The purpose may eventually answer this question. If its just to see how they were, I would say probably not, specially because there are other options for this.

 

[kitakaze]

When I see a solar eclipse, like the one I went to last year in Hawaii, I think 'Oh no! Is the moon eating the sun?' I don't know. Because I'm a caveman -- that's the way I think. There is one thing I DO know, cloning Neanderthals is cruel and wrong.

 

[Cainkane1]

If it becomes possible to clone neanderthals then I think it would be ok to do so as long as a viable community can be cloned also. They would lead a priviliged existence and in time may even become true celebrities.