Cloned mammoth in the offing. Perhaps Neanderthals next.
Robert Clark
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: November 19, 2008
Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of
resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a
realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be
regenerated for as little as $10 million.
The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from
which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which
went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for
DNA.
...
"The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably
driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe
some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the
mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for
Neanderthals.
"But the process of genetically engineering a human genome into the
Neanderthal version would probably raise many objections, as would
several other aspects of such a project. “Catholic teaching opposes
all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the
laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically
acceptable in humans,” said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Dr. Church said there might be an alternative approach that would
“alarm a minimal number of people.” The workaround would be to modify
not a human genome but that of the chimpanzee, which is some 98
percent similar to that of people. The chimp’s genome would be
progressively modified until close enough to that of Neanderthals, and
the embryo brought to term in a chimpanzee.
“The big issue would be whether enough people felt that a chimp-
Neanderthal hybrid would be acceptable, and that would be broadly
discussed before anyone started to work on it,” Dr. Church said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?_r=1&ref=science
Though Neanderthals were undoubtedly thinking creatures, the ethical
questions about cloning humans might be muted somewhat by recent
studies that suggest that Neanderthals were genetically distinct from
modern humans:
Neandertals Not among Our Ancestors, Study Suggests.
By Sarah Graham
May 14, 2003 in Archaeology & Paleontology
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=neandertals-not-among-our
[abstract]
For info on the capabilities of the Neanderthals see:
Once We Were Not Alone.
by Ian Tattersall
Paintings by Jay H. Matternes
Scientific American, January 2000
http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/earlyhominids.pdf [free full text]
Another reasoning creature to interact with might provide us clues
about how to communicate with other intelligent species in the SETI
search.
Bob Clark
Brian Davis
more so in some of these groups]
On Nov 21, 12:23 pm, Robert Clark wrote:
> “Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production
> of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this
> could be ethically acceptable in humans,”...
Talk about an out-of-context quote. At least I'm assuming it's out of
context, becasue if it's in context it makes even less sense - most
humans, after all, do not follow Catholic doctrine, so determining
ethics based on catholicism is... well, somewhat out of touch with
reality. There may be perfectly valid ethical issues here - but
referencing the catholic church isn't any of them.
> The workaround would be to modify not a human genome but that
> of the chimpanzee, which is some 98 percent similar to that of people.
'Course, that's one nice thing about having a doctrinal approach to
ethics... you can get around them fairly easily in some cases. I
wonder if you took out 2% of the human genome (mostly junk) and
replaced it with different junk (or nothing at all) if that would
render the resulting lifeform "soulless" in the eyes of the Catholic
church?
> Another reasoning creature to interact with might provide us clues
> about how to communicate with other intelligent species in the SETI
> search.
Not this one. Pick a species that is actually different from us if you
want to do that, not just happens to be distinct in an evolutionary
sense. Communicating with Homo Neanderthal would be simple (same
environment, nearly the same abilities, and raised in a human culture
because there is no other suitable surrogate culture). Try talking to
dolphins, elephants, etc. If you want something that similar to try to
communicate with, go for chimps or bonobos... both are significantly
easier to raise from a fertilized egg than a neanderthal.
--
Brian Davis
dlzc
On Nov 21, 10:23 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> Another reasoning creature to interact with might
> provide us clues about how to communicate with
> other intelligent species in the SETI search.
There are women which are significantly different than men.
Additionally autistics provide a big challenge to communication.
The problem is not "where" to look for attempts at communication. We
cannot detect our own emissions at much beyond the nearest stars, and
all we "can" afford to announce to the Universe about our existence is
incidental losses. Given a positive detection, I suspect we are
plenty smart enough to translate and start communicating.
Our "ears" are simply not big enough.
David A. Smith
A.G.McDowell
s.com>, Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> writes
>Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
>By NICHOLAS WADE
>Published: November 19, 2008
>Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of
>resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a
>realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be
>regenerated for as little as $10 million.
>The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from
>which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which
>went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for
>DNA.
>...
domestic animal (I really don't think they'd want them running free in
anything like their previous numbers, and it might be that nothing short
of that would be self-sustaining in the wild).
--
A.G.McDowell
Dan Goodman
> > “Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production
> > of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this
> > could be ethically acceptable in humans,”...
>
> Talk about an out-of-context quote.
Note that the quote is from someone associated with the Roman Catholic
Church.
> At least I'm assuming it's out of
> context, becasue if it's in context it makes even less sense - most
> humans, after all, do not follow Catholic doctrine, so determining
> ethics based on catholicism is... well, somewhat out of touch with
> reality. There may be perfectly valid ethical issues here - but
> referencing the catholic church isn't any of them.
--
Dan Goodman
.sig under reconstruction
Brian Davis
>> Talk about an out-of-context quote.
>
> Note that the quote is from someone associated with the Roman
> Catholic Church.
I realize that. I'm not saying the quote was stripped from the larger
context of the speaker. I'm saying the speaker is out of the context
of the original problem (science), in a sense.
--
Brian Davis
WaltBJ
picked up a copy of National Geographic. Inside was an article wherein
a forensic sculptor had recreated a replica of a typical Neanderthal.
I looked at the pictures and my immediate thought was 'I know people
who look like that. I played football right beside a guard who could
have been that replica's brother.' The image showed a fairly stocky
person with a straight nose and a face that you could find on any
street.
What happened to the Neanderthals? They crossbred with Cro-Magnon and
thus they are with us today.
Walt BJ
Wayne Throop
: What happened to the Neanderthals? They crossbred with Cro-Magnon and
: thus they are with us today.
That turns out not to be the case.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Dan Goodman
> : WaltBJ <walt...@mindspring.com>
> : What happened to the Neanderthals? They crossbred with Cro-Magnon
> and : thus they are with us today.
>
> That turns out not to be the case.
Probably; but some experts still believe it is.
And there's the possibility of new evidence for crossbreeding.
Martha Adams
news:492724c0$0$90350$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
Seems to me, the Catholic idea that their system represents
"all humans" is characteristic of these Middle East religions.
Which seem to model the whole universe on a single-male human
family and then assume their faith-based system applies to
all people everywhere. It's pretty bad -- read up on details
of how Giordano Bruno was killed to find out how "nice" these
people really are.
I think if we want to know what practical limits are on human
experimention, let's look and see how nature does it. The
limits are right there for anyone to see, but being human
we can do it nicer than nature does. Then let's move on
with the lab work, since that's where all the good things
we know came from. Reality-based science.
Titeotwawki -- mha [rasfs 2008 Nov 22]
Luke Campbell
> I'd like to see them bring back the passenger pigeon, perhaps as a
> domestic animal (I really don't think they'd want them running free in
> anything like their previous numbers, and it might be that nothing short
> of that would be self-sustaining in the wild).
>
It was reported that passenger pigeons would not breed if not in huge
colonies. Whether modern animal husbandry techniques could
accommodate this is unknown, but it may preclude the resurrection of
this particular species.
Perhaps the Carolina parakeet would be a better choice for an American
native bird to bring back - by all accounts an adaptable critter that
was wiped out primarily by human persecution, and while habitat loss
may have played a part, the eastern seaboard of the United States has
been significantly reforested since the 19th century.
There is also the possibility that cloning long dead individuals could
save existing species. Some species such as the cheetah and Tasmanian
devil are in peril because of a lack of genetic diversity. Cloning
animals from these species that come from genetically distinct
populations could help them.
Luke
Carey Sublette
"Luke Campbell" <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1755886e-cacc-44b5...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 12:12 pm, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd like to see them bring back the passenger pigeon, perhaps as a
> domestic animal (I really don't think they'd want them running free in
> anything like their previous numbers, and it might be that nothing short
> of that would be self-sustaining in the wild).
>
It was reported that passenger pigeons would not breed if not in huge
colonies. Whether modern animal husbandry techniques could
accommodate this is unknown, but it may preclude the resurrection of
this particular species.
Perhaps the Carolina parakeet would be a better choice for an American
native bird to bring back - by all accounts an adaptable critter that
was wiped out primarily by human persecution, and while habitat loss
may have played a part, the eastern seaboard of the United States has
been significantly reforested since the 19th century.
******
The Carolina Parakeet (and the Passenger Pigeon, and Bachman's Warbler) were
dependent on canebrakes for breeding habitat - these were dense stands of
river cane (American bamboo) that covered floodplains and river bottoms.
There are at least six counties in low lying areas in the southern United
States named Canebrake in honor of this former distinguishing natural
feature. Clearing land for agriculture and settlement in the 19th century
and flood control almost completely eradicated this habitat and was the
probable primary cause of the population crashes these species suffered.
Canebrakes have not undergone extensive restoration yet, though some
restoration has occurred. Cane grows very quickly though, so once an areas
is returned to the natural seasonal flooding pattern and the can
reintroduced it should re-establish quickly as well.
Carey Sublette
> Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> : WaltBJ <walt...@mindspring.com>
>> : What happened to the Neanderthals? They crossbred with Cro-Magnon
>> and : thus they are with us today.
>>
>> That turns out not to be the case.
>
> Probably; but some experts still believe it is.
>
> And there's the possibility of new evidence for crossbreeding.
There is at least one gene - of recent origin in the human population but
which spread rapidly - that has been offered as a candidate import from the
Neandertal lineage.
But the genomic evidence on hand is already quite strong that any Neandertal
genetic inheritance is very small, if it exists at all.
So we can discount already the assertion that "they are with us today", i.e.
a substantial part of modern human ancestry is Neandertal, and that we are
substantially a Cro-Magnon/Neandertal hybrid species. This definitely does
not mean that there was no cross-breeding at all, and that there are no
isolated genetic artifacts from the Neandertal.
Bluuuue Rajah
b4bc-bcb...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> Cloned mammoth in the offing. Perhaps Neanderthals next.
Can we find DNA from other hominids, like homo erectus?
Matt Giwer
> Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
> By NICHOLAS WADE
> Published: November 19, 2008
> "The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably
> driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe
> some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the
> mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for
> Neanderthals.
Don't we have enough neo-cons already?
--
American Jews are more jewish than Israeli Jews.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4079
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Matt Giwer
> [sci.astro trimmed as it's really off-topic their... only marginally
> more so in some of these groups]
> On Nov 21, 12:23 pm, Robert Clark wrote:
>> “Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production
>> of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this
>> could be ethically acceptable in humans,”...
> Talk about an out-of-context quote. At least I'm assuming it's out of
> context, becasue if it's in context it makes even less sense - most
> humans, after all, do not follow Catholic doctrine, so determining
> ethics based on catholicism is... well, somewhat out of touch with
> reality. There may be perfectly valid ethical issues here - but
> referencing the catholic church isn't any of them.
Other than "EEEK! It's new!" one has to wonder which words of Jesus they
twisted into this teaching.
--
Abraham was such a great con artist he sold his wife to kings many times
over and convinced the world god gave him Palestine.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4063
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Matt Giwer
> [sci.astro trimmed as it's really off-topic their... only marginally
> more so in some of these groups]
> On Nov 21, 12:23 pm, Robert Clark wrote:
>> “Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production
>> of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this
>> could be ethically acceptable in humans,”...
> Talk about an out-of-context quote. At least I'm assuming it's out of
> context, becasue if it's in context it makes even less sense - most
> humans, after all, do not follow Catholic doctrine, so determining
> ethics based on catholicism is... well, somewhat out of touch with
> reality. There may be perfectly valid ethical issues here - but
> referencing the catholic church isn't any of them.
Besides that, I thought ethics was a subject based upon experience. A thing
is ethically unacceptable because of what it has lead to in the past. It is
not possible to have experience with things which have not occurred. One would
expect rational people to review the consequences of "production of humans in
the laboratory" before passing judgment on it.
Is it just me or do I see a conflict with the doctrine of a human is created
at the moment of inception? In vitro fertilization is in the laboratory and
that is where the human is produced.
Now that I think about it, it is good to see the RCs have no moral problem
with it.
--
Hodie nono Kalendas Decembres MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Matt Giwer
Unlikely. Neanderthal remains are much more recent and were found in cave
conditions likely to preserve bits of organic material inside the long bones
if I remember correctly from the "are we related" tests. No bones from Africa
have been found in such conditions and not many long bones for marrow. Now if
they made it to SE Asia and we get lucky there might be something. The
"hobbits" from that Pacific island might be a better shot.
--
When you see the film of the World Trade Center building falling you see
nearly 3000 people dying in seconds. When you see the film of the Hiroshima
bomb you see twenty times as many people dying in a fraction the time.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4071
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
cryptoguy
> In article <cc4cce9e-f288-4381-b4bc-bcb6d1035...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroup
> s.com>, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes>Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
> >By NICHOLAS WADE
> >Published: November 19, 2008
> >Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of
> >resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a
> >realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be
> >regenerated for as little as $10 million.
> >The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from
> >which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which
> >went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for
> >DNA.
> >...
>
> I'd like to see them bring back the passenger pigeon, perhaps as a
> domestic animal (I really don't think they'd want them running free in
> anything like their previous numbers, and it might be that nothing short
> of that would be self-sustaining in the wild).
If we're going to resurrect an extinct species, lets do the obvious
one:
BRING BACK THE DODO!
Peter Trei
Richard Burke
<0a9739cd-2b95-427b...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we're going to resurrect an extinct species, lets do the obvious
> one:
>
> BRING BACK THE DODO!
The Great Auk would be cool, too.
WizWom
> On Nov 21, 3:12 pm, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <cc4cce9e-f288-4381-b4bc-bcb6d1035...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroup
> > s.com>, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> writes>Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
> > >By NICHOLAS WADE
> > >Published: November 19, 2008
> > >Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of
> > >resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a
> > >realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be
> > >regenerated for as little as $10 million.
> If we're going to resurrect an extinct species, lets do the obvious
> one:
>
> BRING BACK THE DODO!
Heh, yeah, it would be nice to have totally FABULOUS feathers for our
hats again!
Damien Valentine
woolly mammoth, Neanderthal man, etc.?
Also, remember that the dodo was killed for meat by sailors, and its
eggs and chicks were eaten by stowaway rats and cats. The feathers
were worthless, for hats or anything else.
John F. Eldredge
On the other hand, the dodo was the first species whose extinction became
common knowledge, leading to the proverbial expression "dead as the
dodo". So, resurrecting that species would attract extra attention.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Mike Williams
>What makes the dodo a more "obvious" choice than the passenger pigeon,
>woolly mammoth, Neanderthal man, etc.?
The first extinct species that was chosen for an attempt at cloning was
the Tasmanian Tiger. The Thylacine cloning project started in 1999 at
the Australian Museum in Sydney. In 2005, the director of the museum
announced the closure of the project, saying that the DNA was too badly
degraded. Professor Mike Archer still continues to work on the project
at his new post at the University of South Wales.
The Tasmanian Tiger actually seems to be a pretty poor choice for
cloning, because it doesn't have a sufficiently close surviving relative
that could be used as the host mother.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Carey Sublette
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
news:6p6h05F...@mid.individual.net...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:03:09 -0800, Damien Valentine wrote:
>
>> What makes the dodo a more "obvious" choice than the passenger pigeon,
>> woolly mammoth, Neanderthal man, etc.?
>>
>> Also, remember that the dodo was killed for meat by sailors, and its
>> eggs and chicks were eaten by stowaway rats and cats. The feathers were
>> worthless, for hats or anything else.
>
> On the other hand, the dodo was the first species whose extinction became
> common knowledge, leading to the proverbial expression "dead as the
> dodo". So, resurrecting that species would attract extra attention.
The Dodo is sort of the "panda" of recently extinct animals, a creature
still popular in the public imagination (though for the Dodo due to its
peculiar and silly appearance, not so much for cuteness).
And its resurrection would be much easier than the Neandertal or the
mammoth, which are difficult simply due to their being large mammals with
slow reproduction. Also the genetic material is much older (10,000 years or
more), while bone from the 17th century is available for the Dodo. Working
out the cloning mechanics for a Dodo would mean working with pigeons, which
are cheap and easy to maintain and breed quickly.
A Passenger Pigeon would be similarly obvious, and easy, but much less
intriguing since it is a rather ordinary looking songbird by comparison.
Since we have feathers that have spent their entire existence indoors the
genetic material would be the best of course.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>On the other hand, the dodo was the first species whose extinction became
>common knowledge, leading to the proverbial expression "dead as the
>dodo". So, resurrecting that species would attract extra attention.
Not counting dinosaurs.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
George W Harris
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If we're going to resurrect an extinct species, lets do the obvious
>one:
>
>BRING BACK THE DODO!
I vote for the quagga.
>Peter Trei
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
David M. Palmer
<44196511-79b8-4335...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
One word for Thanksgiving: Doturducken
Because a turducken is just too small to stuff directly into a ostrich
without an intermediate-sized bird.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Madalch
> One word for Thanksgiving: Doturducken
>
> Because a turducken is just too small to stuff directly into a ostrich
> without an intermediate-sized bird.
But they taste bad. Dodos were fed to pigs for the most part.
Better clone a moa.
"Please sir, I want some moa."
Martha Adams
news:492a1aad$0$4913$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
The thread is interesting, as it outlines vague faith-based
logic against cloning Neanderthals and other near-human
beings out of our planetary past.
I can't see any reality-based logic against this cloning.
Indeed, I'd like to see it happen. We *need* the greater
genetic variety this resource would give to us. I hope for
great advances over coming years in the technology by
which researchers can proceed from DNA databases to
the beings they define. ...Any progress on *mitochondrial*
DNA? ??
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.astro.seti 2008 Nov 27]
Michael Ash
> In article
> <44196511-79b8-4335...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What makes the dodo a more "obvious" choice than the passenger pigeon,
>> woolly mammoth, Neanderthal man, etc.?
>>
>> Also, remember that the dodo was killed for meat by sailors, and its
>> eggs and chicks were eaten by stowaway rats and cats. The feathers
>> were worthless, for hats or anything else.
>
> One word for Thanksgiving: Doturducken
>
> Because a turducken is just too small to stuff directly into a ostrich
> without an intermediate-sized bird.
If we're bringing extinct animals back for this purpose, it seems that the
ultimate goal should be for the outermost animal in the whateverturducken
to be a T. Rex. Not sure how you'd cook such a contraption.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Michael Ash
Par
> > Because a turducken is just too small to stuff directly into a ostrich
> > without an intermediate-sized bird.
>
> If we're bringing extinct animals back for this purpose, it seems that the
> ultimate goal should be for the outermost animal in the whateverturducken
> to be a T. Rex. Not sure how you'd cook such a contraption.
I wonder how a terror bird would taste? If nothing else it would bring
back the 4 and 8 gauge shotguns...
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Interestingly, most Unix utilities have a command line option which will
cause the system to rip the user's legs off and beat them to death with the
soggy ends. This is often the default behaviour. -- Bruce Murphy
Edward Green
> Recently at my dentist's office awaiting 'the moment of truth' I
> picked up a copy of National Geographic. Inside was an article wherein
> a forensic sculptor had recreated a replica of a typical Neanderthal.
> I looked at the pictures and my immediate thought was 'I know people
> who look like that. I played football right beside a guard who could
> have been that replica's brother.' The image showed a fairly stocky
> person with a straight nose and a face that you could find on any
> street.
> What happened to the Neanderthals? They crossbred with Cro-Magnon and
> thus they are with us today.
Don't know about that, but I agree with you otherwise: I've seen
"Neanderthals" in daily life also. One female was sighted riding the
NYC subway with her smaller and very Walter Mitty-ish mate. I'm not
making this up. Maybe a doctor would simply call it a slight case of
cranial hyperostosis.