Mammoths (Link in Description). news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/30/perfect-preserved-mammoth-carcass-with-possible-cloneable-material-found-in-arctic/. Researcher ice age
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (271)
[ 271 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
83 comments displayed.
#3 - snakefire
Reply +269
(06/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture

#226 to #3 - oneandonlynigger
Reply +12
(06/01/2013) [-]
#13 - muchasmarcos
Reply +153
(06/01/2013) [-]
Now clone it and open a mammoth farm!
#46 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
I hope they taste delicious
#63 to #13 - spankcakes
Reply +10
(06/01/2013) [-]
I suppose this guy is going to supervise it...
#19 to #13 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +28
(06/01/2013) [-]
We are actually quite close to do this.
#28 to #19 - vladhellsing
Reply +3
(06/01/2013) [-]
#233 to #19 - hillbillypowpow
Reply +2
(06/01/2013) [-]
Here's that wallpaper size if anyone wants it.
#222 to #19 - jovanlisac
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
i read in news they are trying to clone it
#74 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
We can already do this by putting in the mammoths DNA into an elephant egg. The problem is just the ethics.
#285 to #74 - clockworkphysicist
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Um...I would like to know how that would be unethical.
Um...I would like to know how that would be unethical.
#76 to #74 - truekiller
-20
has deleted their comment [-]
#82 to #76 - keiishiyama
Reply +12
(06/01/2013) [-]
How much do you know about reproduction? Even human females have eggs.
#193 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
I really, really hope you're joking.
Hahahahahaha
#148 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
you should feel stupid right now.
#80 to #76 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Did I say they lay them? You can still take the egg out of the elephant and put in the DNA...
#20 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Lel, No.

Mammoths:
Might not see one for several years
Farm:
Lol, a farm of mammoths? You and me will have worms crawling through our decayed nutsack before that happens.
#35 to #20 - hellfiazz ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Why is it so unlikely/improbably?
#178 to #35 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Did I say it's unlikely?

He said "we're quite close to doing this"

Mammoth farms = Tons of mammoths -> Mammoths reproducing which would take a very long time.

Very long time is NOT = Quite Close
#85 - B taggers
Reply +113
(06/01/2013) [-]
Clone it, Raise it, Breed it, Farm it, Work it, Sell it, Exploit that ****!
Clone it, Raise it, Breed it, Farm it, Work it, Sell it, Exploit that ****!
#118 to #85 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Makes us. Harder
Better
Faster
Stronger
#198 to #85 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
reminds me of daft punk:

Work It Make It Do It Makes Us Harder Better Faster Stronger

i keep saying your comment in this melody
#246 to #198 - iamnecessary **User deleted account**
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#276 to #85 - crewbie
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
I thought you were going in this direction...I was disappointed
#278 to #85 - rokkarokkaali
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
all the daft punk gifs except for this one
all the daft punk gifs except for this one
#312 to #278 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
ok
ok
#313 to #312 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#314 to #313 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#315 to #314 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#316 to #315 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
one of their best songs imo... i could listen to it for days on repeat!
one of their best songs imo... i could listen to it for days on repeat!
#317 to #316 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#318 to #317 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#319 to #318 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#320 to #319 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#321 to #320 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#322 to #321 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#323 to #322 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#324 to #323 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#325 to #324 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#326 to #325 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
too cute
too cute
#327 to #326 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#328 to #327 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
th-th-tha... thats all f-folks!
th-th-tha... thats all f-folks!
#281 to #85 - TheAnonymousOne
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Clone-logic
#296 to #85 - regularmexican
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#311 to #85 - comanderspy
Reply 0
(06/02/2013) [-]
techno logic... techno logic... techno logic
techno logic... techno logic... techno logic
#299 to #85 - wreckandroll
Reply +1
(06/02/2013) [-]
I think this version of gif may look better if you want.
I think this version of gif may look better if you want.
#140 to #85 - jinxter
Reply +5
(06/01/2013) [-]
Technologic!
#97 to #85 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +20
(06/01/2013) [-]
#98 to #85 - zortaz
Reply +29
(06/01/2013) [-]
dude...
#92 to #85 - bladeboy
Reply +52
(06/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#11 - gemleonn
Reply +63
(06/01/2013) [-]
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but this is pretty old news science wise. I remember in the 8th grade being psyched because we watched a movie about them possibly in the near future reproducing mammoths by taking the DNA from it, injecting it into an elephant whom, and making like a 1/50 part Mammoth/elephant. Eventually, after breeding and breeding (probably decades of elephant sex) They could make like a 99/100 Mammoth.
#91 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
They also found T-Rex skeletal remains with soft tissue attached and possibly usable DNA...I'm not sure what happened with it but here's a link for anyone who likes this kind of ****. [url deleted]
#225 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
I think you missed the point here. The reason Mammoths haven't been cloned already is because they have never found such a well preserved specimen that would be worth even trying to clone. Cloning Dolly took hundreds of tries even with live specimens. The idea is old news, but this breakthrough is very exciting.
#145 to #11 - JEFFFFFFF
Reply +2
(06/01/2013) [-]
whom did the elephant inject into? im sorry im a bastard
#39 to #11 - jessieqwertyu
Reply +3
(06/01/2013) [-]
Look up Dolly the sheep. Im pretty sure they could just clone it
#188 to #11 - blakehill
Reply +5
(06/01/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Womb*
#31 - mankey ONLINE
Reply +41
(06/01/2013) [-]
#32 - shutupmegthesecond
Reply +33
(06/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#1 - xblthatguy
Reply +28
(06/01/2013) [-]
That's seriously awesome.
#2 - snakefire
-23
has deleted their comment [-]
#5 to #2 - gogazo
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
#10 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
but what about the picture of the blood.
#12 to #10 - snakefire
Reply -1
(06/01/2013) [-]
I didn't say the blood would be gone. I just said it would be useless
#25 to #12 - swiftykidd **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#36 to #2 - hellfiazz ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
The half-life of frozen DNA is up to 50,000 years.

So shut the **** up.
#37 to #2 - bakajack
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
you'd be correct if it were a dinosaur, however I believe we can safely recover anything below 75,000 years (source is national geographic a few months ago)
#24 to #2 - qazsa
Reply +3
(06/01/2013) [-]
I think you accidentally chemistry your biology.
#8 to #2 - themongoose ONLINE
Reply +27
(06/01/2013) [-]
What?    
   
Half-Life refers to the amount of time that it takes half of the radioactive atoms to decay into a stable element (the same one or a transmuted one). It means they are throwing off alpha, beta, or gamma particles because of the instability. If blood is insanely radioactive, sure it would have  a half life. But that's not a thing. And even if it did, the blood and flesh wouldn't evaporate into nothing (a banana might be a different story because the potassium 40 turns into argon 40 which is a gas. But even then, there is not enough potassium in a banana to completely vanish because of radioactive decay).
What?

Half-Life refers to the amount of time that it takes half of the radioactive atoms to decay into a stable element (the same one or a transmuted one). It means they are throwing off alpha, beta, or gamma particles because of the instability. If blood is insanely radioactive, sure it would have a half life. But that's not a thing. And even if it did, the blood and flesh wouldn't evaporate into nothing (a banana might be a different story because the potassium 40 turns into argon 40 which is a gas. But even then, there is not enough potassium in a banana to completely vanish because of radioactive decay).
#14 to #8 - asasqw
Reply +18
(06/01/2013) [-]
And since we know the Half-Life of most elements we can put a date on near anything we find by examining the carbon in it. The only Half-Life we don't know is 3.
#33 to #8 - wiredguy ONLINE
Reply +5
(06/01/2013) [-]
Actually, he just has his words and terminology mixed up.   
   
While "half-life" does usually refer to radioactive decay, it just generally means the time in which it takes the count of a certain type of particles in a system to half, through any means.   
For example - we often hear about the "half-life" of toxins in the body, even though they aren't radioactive, and are simply being metabolised into smaller, harmless molecules.   
   
Lots of biological substances, especially DNA, do have relatively short half-lives within their own, enclosed systems. I was reading a while ago about some ants that had been preserved in amber, but which couldn't be cloned, because their DNA had degraded somewhat.   
   
Though I couldn't say this exactly for the mammoth, since the actual experts seem to have hope they will be able to find cloneable material, I'm just saying that you aren't entirely accurate in your correction.   
   
Have a source, too.   
www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
Actually, he just has his words and terminology mixed up.

While "half-life" does usually refer to radioactive decay, it just generally means the time in which it takes the count of a certain type of particles in a system to half, through any means.
For example - we often hear about the "half-life" of toxins in the body, even though they aren't radioactive, and are simply being metabolised into smaller, harmless molecules.

Lots of biological substances, especially DNA, do have relatively short half-lives within their own, enclosed systems. I was reading a while ago about some ants that had been preserved in amber, but which couldn't be cloned, because their DNA had degraded somewhat.

Though I couldn't say this exactly for the mammoth, since the actual experts seem to have hope they will be able to find cloneable material, I'm just saying that you aren't entirely accurate in your correction.

Have a source, too.
www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
#38 to #33 - themongoose ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/01/2013) [-]
He said the blood would be unrecoverable, i.e., implying that you couldn't get that amount in a test tube. Then specifically used radioactive decay. For his comment, the correction was perfect.   
   
"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."   
   
This is taken from the link you posted. Our mammoth friend was probably frozen in ideal preservation temperature (or below) only 10,000 years ago. So his DNA has about 1.49 million years to go before it's unreadable. When you freeze something, the things that cause decay (enzymatic activity, microbes, temperature, and oxygenation) almost come to a halt.    
   
I think his double might be walking around again soon.
He said the blood would be unrecoverable, i.e., implying that you couldn't get that amount in a test tube. Then specifically used radioactive decay. For his comment, the correction was perfect.

"The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

This is taken from the link you posted. Our mammoth friend was probably frozen in ideal preservation temperature (or below) only 10,000 years ago. So his DNA has about 1.49 million years to go before it's unreadable. When you freeze something, the things that cause decay (enzymatic activity, microbes, temperature, and oxygenation) almost come to a halt.

I think his double might be walking around again soon.
#40 to #38 - wiredguy ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
One, this
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4616480/Mammoths+Link+in+Description/12#12

Two, I never said myself it would be unusable. In fact, I said exactly the opposite, so I don't know exactly why you're trying to push your opinion onto me when I already agree with it.

And it would almost definitely have died longer than 10000 years ago.
Mammoths went extinct around 4.5 thousand years ago, but first became a recognisable species around 5 million years ago. To assume that this individual specimen was one of the last mammoths ever is pretty unlikely.
Though, in fairness, that is indeed what the article says, ten thousand years, and that is why we're so lucky to have found her.

Only time will tell. The cloning itself will probably be one of the harder elements of the operation anyway.
#9 to #8 - decay ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/01/2013) [-]
You mentioned my name!
#17 to #9 - LolYourAjew
Reply 0
(06/01/2013) [-]
Lucky you, I never seem to get it
#239 - bigfootluke
Reply +8
(06/01/2013) [-]
does nobody else think this is a bad idea after watching Jurassic Park?
#240 to #239 - xXMAQXx
Reply +23
(06/01/2013) [-]
i think its a great idea especially after watching jurassic park
#243 to #240 - bigfootluke
Reply +4
(06/01/2013) [-]
i just thought of a new market. instead of attack dogs, why not attack dinosaurs?
#255 to #243 - uptightmonkey
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#269 to #255 - jacksipian
Reply +1
(06/01/2013) [-]
patent* im sure Patton wouldnt give two ***** about it lol
#272 to #269 - uptightmonkey
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#275 to #272 - jacksipian
Reply +1
(06/01/2013) [-]
lol, alright
#244 to #240 - warzon
Reply +2
(06/01/2013) [-]
I think we'd lose lawyers.

I think its a great idea.
#260 - konradkurze
Reply +22
(06/01/2013) [-]
preserved blood you say?

lets build an island with tons of genetically engineered mammoths

spared no expense