Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mammoths may roam again after 27,000 years
Times Online (U.K.) ^ | 08/15/2006 | Mark Henderson

Posted on 08/14/2006 9:17:59 PM PDT by peyton randolph

BODIES of extinct Ice Age mammals, such as woolly mammoths, that have been frozen in permafrost for thousands of years may contain viable sperm that could be used to bring them back from the dead, scientists said yesterday.

Research has indicated that mammalian sperm can survive being frozen for much longer than was previously thought, suggesting that it could potentially be recovered from species that have died out...

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Japan; Russia
KEYWORDS: breeding; cloning; frozen; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; humangenome; japan; jurassicpark; mammoth; mammoths; mammothtoldme; mouse; pleistocene; pleistocenepark; rewilding; rewildingamerica; russia; science; sperm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last
To: Nathan Zachary
I suppose we're supposed to ignore the fact that your source gives not a single fragment of evidence for the claim that the environment occupied by Pleistocene mammoths was "tropical".

And of course there are volumes of evidence (plants preserved in the mammoths' stomachs, pollen inventories of core samples, isotope ratios, etc) that the environment was arctic and subarctic or alpine, if somewhat different from the same regions today:

However, the Siberian steppes during the last ice age were not covered in ice and snow as they are now, nor was the ground frozen. The reason is that so much of the available water was locked up in the arctic ice pack -- primarily in North America -- that the subarctic steppes were much drier than today. As a result, the Siberian soil thawed to a greater depth and supported a richer variety of plant life. This included nutritious grasses. The stomach contents of preserved mammoths indicate that they fed on such grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and fragments of willow and bilberry. Some rare poppies and buttercups have also been found in addition to small amounts of arboreal material such as larch needles, willows, and tree bark. Such variety indicates the mammoths lived in a variety of climates in Siberia. These ranged from dry and steppe-like to slightly wet to swampy to arctic/alpine.

Mammoth trunk tips were bi-lobed, useful for collecting herbaceous food. Relatively little arboreal material has been found in mammoth stomachs. Modern elephants, in contrast, prefer an arboreal diet, and their trunk tips are of unequal size.

The greater abundance and variety of steppe vegetation during the ice ages explains how the steppes could support large grazing animals like mammoths. The mammoths may also have migrated south in the winter and north in the summer. Modern elephants are great travellers, so possibly mammoths were too.

How old are the frozen mammoth remains from Siberia? They fall into two main groups, one dating from about 45,000 BP to 30,000 BP and the other from 14,000 to 11,000 BP. This does not mean that mammoths were not present in Siberia from 30,000 BP to 14,000 BP. Instead, this indicates the climatic conditions were not right for the formation of frozen carcasses. There are plenty of fossil bones of mammoths from 30,000 to 14,000 BP. This was a period of massive glacial advance, resulting in extremely dry conditions in Siberia. In these dry conditions, mammoth carcasses would tend to rot on the surface and/or be eaten by predators. In times of glacial retreat, when the climate was moister, summer mudflows and floods could rapidly cover carcasses. These covered carcasses would then become permanently frozen as the permafrost layer closed in above them during the following winter.

Was the climate warmer or colder in Siberia at the time the mammoths lived there? Well, both. It appears that at some periods the climate was warmer, at others it was colder. This is inferred by comparing the modern ranges of the plants found in mammoth stomachs as well as by astronomical calculations of temperature similar to those presented at various times in the past in this news group. The mammoths thrived in either case. The determinative factor was the decreased moisture so that the ground did not become permanently frozen as it is today. As a result, the "mammoth steppe" biome, comprised of grasses, succulent herbs, and wormwood, thrived. This biome disappeared around 9000 BP except for some small patches. It was replaced by the current boggy tundra vegetation and permafrost. The mammoths, having lost their source of food, disappeared in Siberia at about the same time. It is possible that predation by man was also partly responsible. The earliest human remains in Siberia date from the end of the last ice age.

source


101 posted on 08/15/2006 11:02:39 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: unlearner; Vaquero
I did not say they do. If we follow the logic (or illogic rather) of Vaquero, then the only explanation for this is that snakes MUST live in cold climates because this feature CAN ONLY occur in order to help conserve heat.

Only if we assumed Vaquero was stupid. As stupid as, say, folks who think mammoths were flash-frozen by some Velikovskiesque catastrophe.

Otherwise we would assume that only comparisons wrt closely related taxa (e.g. NOT SNAKES) would be relevant. E.g. comparing the ears of mammoths to other elephantine mammals would be relevant, with respect to ears and other cold/heat adaptations.

102 posted on 08/15/2006 11:07:44 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

maybe they'll eat kudzu.


103 posted on 08/15/2006 11:30:03 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

"If sperm of extinct mammalian species, for example the woolly mammoth, can be retrieved from animal bodies that were kept frozen for millions of years in permanent frost, live animals might be restored by injecting them into oocytes [eggs] from females of closely related species.”

***
If they oocytes come from a "closely related species" -- which would be what today? -- then it is not the same species, is it?


104 posted on 08/15/2006 11:37:14 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Oh goody. BP and Exxon look out.


105 posted on 08/15/2006 11:39:47 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

...other creatures that we probably don't need and can't deal with.

&&
Those creatures call themselves the "Democratic Party".


106 posted on 08/15/2006 11:40:09 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
"It's a good idea if you don't ridicule others in the thread if you're gonna be making a significant gaffe yourself."

Yeah, when you can show me where I said snakes do have ears of any kind I will gladly retract the following comment:

You are a LIAR.

I called Vaquero on HIS ridiculing of something. If you want your share of it, then keep this up.

Otherwise, quit repeating lies and get over it.
107 posted on 08/15/2006 12:27:56 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
"comparing the ears of mammoths to other elephantine mammals would be relevant, with respect to ears and other cold/heat adaptations."

Do elephant ear size vary in direct proportion to their native climates?

Pick any animal you wish. The claim I am arguing against is a completely unscientific approach. Science does not deal in dogmas, it deals in likelihood. One might argue that small ears contribute to the likelihood of a colder native climate, but that is not the same as saying that it is PROOF of one view and other views are thereby disproved.

That this is your camp's attempt to falsify the hypothesis under debate is a poor example of scholarship, and a good example of dogma-driven desperation.
108 posted on 08/15/2006 12:28:02 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

"creationism/ID are not science in any way shape or form. "

Did I say they were? In fact I am contributing to a document which argues against considering ID science. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to the philosophical basis that most around here use to argue against ID, namely naturalism.


109 posted on 08/15/2006 12:28:09 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
Yeah, when you can show me where I said snakes do have ears of any kind I will gladly retract the following comment:

You are a LIAR.

The combination of coy and snippy doesn't really work too well, but whatever.

No, you didn't literally assert that snakes had ears. But you did so assertion by clear implication. In #64 you said:

Do all animals with tiny ears live in cold climates? Snakes don't have large ears.

Of course not a single word of this makes any sense apart from snakes having some sort of external ear that would have some sort of "size".

110 posted on 08/15/2006 3:19:45 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

updated List of Ping lists vol.III(Get Your Fresh Hot Pings Here!)


111 posted on 08/15/2006 4:24:14 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRios1968
Besides food they also had other, more practical uses:


112 posted on 08/15/2006 5:37:13 PM PDT by mikrofon (Obviously an Orock...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
One might argue that small ears contribute to the likelihood of a colder native climate, but that is not the same as saying that it is PROOF of one view and other views are thereby disproved.

Of course not. Science deals in evidence for and against theories and hypotheses, not "proof". And the anomalously small (compared to other elephants) mammoth ears are only one of a coordinated suite of features consistent with cold adaptation: body size and shape, hair, tusk configuration, etc. The author of your webpage doesn't seem to understand much of the evidence. I don't know if he's right about "erector muscles" on the hairs or not, but that's irrelevant to the mammoth's configuration. The thick, soft woolly underhair traps heat simply by it's fine texture and thickness, and the coarse guard hairs on the outside of the coat keep out the wind and shed moisture.

Fluffing/erecting the hair as the author suggests would not help keep the mammoths warm, as the author suggests. Quite the opposite. It would only perturb the whole system by also disturbing the guard hair layer and opening the lower layers to the environment.

Finally, mammoths aside, the paleobotany (evidence from fossil pollen, plants in the frozen mammoths' stomaches, etc) is TOTALLY out of whack with the author's claim that the animals inhabited a "tropical" climate.

113 posted on 08/15/2006 6:09:29 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Yeah, well you LITERALLY did claim I said it.

Rather than adding insult to injury, you might want to refrain from calling me coy and snippy, as what I said to you was EXACTLY what you deserved.

Do you think anyone on this forum thinks snakes have little ears as opposed to big ones? Try reading comments in context to understand what they are about before jumping in and saying things that are untrue.

The context was that a claim was made that the mammoth's small ears (relative to elephants) can ONLY be explained by being adapted to a cold climate. There are a lot of arguments one could use as a counterpoint to my statement, but claiming I said snakes have ears demonstrates a willingness to fabricate things to win an argument and reveals a desire to evade the real issues in order to chase rabbits.

If I make a mistake I am one of the first around here to admit it, but I also don't let people get away with such fabrications.

If you or someone wants to have an intellectually honest debate, I am open. But if you think that taking cheap shots is the best way to win the debate, be prepared to be called on it.

So why do snakes not have large ears? For many reasons we can agree that it is NOT because they vanished through adaptation to cold climates. If not, why is this the ONLY possible explanation for mammoth's small ears? Personally, I could hardly care less whether mammoths lived in cold or mild climates. My reason for interjecting is that it is plain on the face of it that the detractors are quite disingenuous. Don't just sling mud up on the wall and see what sticks. Don't act so condescending toward anyone who doesn't see things your way, and act as if the only possible explanation is they are stupid.
114 posted on 08/15/2006 6:13:39 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: unlearner; Vaquero
Do you think anyone on this forum thinks snakes have little ears as opposed to big ones?

Yes. I certainly think, beyond any reasonable doubt, that until corrected, you thought snakes had very tiny ears as opposed to none.

What you originally posted:

Do all animals with tiny ears live in cold climates? Snakes don't have large ears.

...makes no sense in any other context. There's no remotely imaginable reason you would have posted that comment if you in fact knew that snakes had no external ears and no ear openings at all.

(Admittedly it makes little sense anyway, as that kind of comparison between members of such widely separated taxa is silly, and has nothing to do with the kind of comparison Vaquero had in mind, namely comparing the small ears of mammoths to the large ears of African elephants, or to the ears of Asian elephants for that matter (smaller than Africans but still far larger in relation to body size than those of mammoths).

You'd do yourself less damage by owning up to a minor boo-boo than engaging in Clintonesque word games: "I didn't actually 'say' what I unmistakably implied!"

115 posted on 08/15/2006 6:28:03 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
So why do snakes not have large ears? For many reasons we can agree that it is NOT because they vanished through adaptation to cold climates.

Reptiles never had ears in the first place. There was no opportunity for something to "vanish" that never existed to begin with. So, as if this was your original point ("I'll make a point of commenting that something that doesn't have ears doesn't have large ears") it's equally uninformed. But then you'll now admit that since you're "one of the first around here to admit [a mistake]". (As if.)

116 posted on 08/15/2006 6:35:31 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Thombo2
Steak?I want one for a pet:)

Me too, but I'd just want it while it was a puppy, then I'd let it go.

117 posted on 08/15/2006 6:37:11 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana (Don't fall for the soft bigotry of assuming all Hispanics are pro-amnesty. www.dontspeakforme.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
Personally, I could hardly care less whether mammoths lived in cold or mild climates.

Then your behavior makes little sense. The webpage you made a point of linking, posting and defending didn't argue that mammoths lived in "mild" climates. Few in fact would argue that the climates they inhabited probably varied (seasonally and/or through migration) between cold and somewhat "mild". Your author argued that mammoths lived in a TROPICAL environment, and were SUDDENLY FROZEN by a global catastrophe of Velikovskian, planets in near collision, proportions.

Defending such a WILD, nutball theory is hardly consistent with someone who "could hardly care less" if it was true or credible.

118 posted on 08/15/2006 6:41:37 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Fairview

Remember to have your Mammoth spayed or neutered, it's for the good of the community.


119 posted on 08/15/2006 6:45:08 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Science deals in evidence for and against theories and hypotheses, not "proof".

Well you are defending comments by someone who appears to think mammoths having large ears is sufficient to constitute a falsification of the author's hypothesis. It would be reasonable to assert that the explanatory power of this hypothesis does not include the large ears which are better explained by adaptation to colder climates. But that is not the assertion I am criticizing.

My main point is how detractors of ID and creationism are often very hypocritical by jumping the gun. I am somewhat skeptical myself as to whether the author is correct, but it is more appropriate to weigh the explanatory power of this theory against the explanatory power of adapting to cold climates. Instead, opponents have a knee-jerk reaction as if the entire theory of evolution is jeopardized by such a hypothesis (and it isn't).

I don't see creationism or ID as science, but they are not necessarily contrary to science either. If God wanted us to find Him by scientific experimentation, all He needs to do is just show up.
120 posted on 08/15/2006 6:46:19 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-130 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson