Re: Will Woolly Mammoths walk the Earth again?



MacP wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:10:36 -0600, Deirdre <finch.enteract@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:

> >Well, assuming they do manage to isolate the chromo-
> >sonal DNA and produce such a creature you've a bit of
> >a problem from the standpoint of population genetics...
> >it would either be but a single animal or multiple animals
> >with a single genotype...no genetic variability, aye? How
> >could the population sustain itself? How could they breed?
> >You can't rely on sport mutations alone and only one gene-
> >tic weakness/lack of resistance would kill off the entire
> >herd (this is assuming the DNA wasn't isolated from an
> >animal which had died due to lack of environmental fitness
> >in the first place).
>
> I'm aware of all that - popular beeding practice suggests that for
> ruminants a breeding stock of 36 animals is the minumum number
> required to create a healthy herd. That was exactly the number of
> survivors left and used to restore the bison in Yellowstone.

Hard to believe given that a census was taken of
the animals in 1889 (following the bill introduced
to protect them in 1874) indicated there was an
estimated 1100 animals remaining in the wild (the
census was exclusive of those on private lands)...
I can't find any reference to that 36 number, are
you sure you don't mean whooping cranes?

> >But there's also the problems of needing migratory routes
> >and a breeding ground (assuming a breeding population can
> >be constructed), changes in indigenous vegetation which their
> >digestive systems may not be able to process owing to the
> >possible extinction/evolution of symbiotic partners, evolu-
> >tionary mutations in parasites and pathogens their immune
> >systems aren't equipped to contend with...the list is all but
> >endless.
>
> The last mammoth died 4,000 years ago.

Again, I can't find a source for that number...what
I am finding are estimates of extinction between
6000-10,000 years ago...in keeping with the end
of the Wisconsin Ice Age.

> Do you think Man has undergone
> any particularly unviable changes in that time? Or anything else for
> that matter, apart from viral sports in central Africa?

Man? Men are not mammoths...despite what they
might wish one to believe. And, the key point, is
that man has been here...and evolved with the
ecosystem, mammoths have not. Were the situa-
tion different...if you were to bring back one of
our ancient ancestors, the rhonovirus which gives
you the sniffles might very well kill them.

We have evolved, but in very minor, all but unnotice-
able ways...and we've done so in tandem with our
pathogens. Mammoths, should they return, will
have immune systems geared (based on the iso-
lated chromosonal DNA) for a world which no longer
exists and not adapted to the one which does...
adaptation takes time, they won't have that luxury.

> I am aware of all this. Norwithstanding, it can be done. From Pere
> Davide deer to Przewalski horses, animals have been brought back from
> the brink of extinction and have survived and thrived.

There is a considerable difference between the
"brink" of extinction and actual extinction. Those
populations which have recovered had the time
needed for adaptation to occur...they were always
here, albeit in reduced numbers...it's not the same
scenario at all.

> look at how the Poles bred back to
> the Aurochs by simply selectively breeding cattle with the most
> favourably aurochs-like characterstics.

Those aren't Aurochs, they merely _look_ like
them...the genome of the ancient animal (if 1600s
qualifies as "ancient") and the modern one are dif-
ferent. They bred to a phenotype, not a genotype,
not unlike my Mau cat...she _looks_ like the old
Egyptian wall paintings of cats, even down to the
spots, but her DNA is that of a Siamese and a
small African wild cat...she's _not_ the same ani-
mal that the Egyptians mummified, she merely
resembles one.

> >My gut level feeling is that the reintroduction of the
> >species would devastate an already fragile ecosystem,
> >possibly beyond repair.
>
> The introduction of the American way of life has already done that.

Well, you're free to not make use of American
products and turn your back on their way of
life...although you might be surprised at how
uncomfortable things get when you do.

> As
> they clearly donl;t care who dies ior what is destroyed in the mad
> rush to suck every resource on the planet dry, why can't we play
> around to see what we can do,

Because one would like to hope that they've
given the world a good example of the down-
side of attempting to play God.

> >The only place a mammoth could live would be in a zoo
> >as a living fossil and curiosity...not a fate I think I'd be
> >inclined to wish upon it.
>
> It would be no worse off than the average shut-in that we all so
> carefully ignore.

It would probably be _better_ off, which is not
to say being a zoo curiosity is the optimum life
for any animal.

> Well, no doubt we shall see. Given the American propensity for having
> other species do the dirty work, as was seen with their dolphin
> suicide bomber program experiments; I have no doubt that a Woolly
> Mammoth would make an ideal suicide bomber for destroying power
> stations around Harbin and other parts of China's winter wonderland.

I can't imagine why...large animals, be they bison,
yaks or the resurrected mammoth, aren't going
to be permitted easy access to large installations
and if the creatures are re-introduced, I'd expect
a new niche market in "Mammoth fences" to sud-
denly emerge...electricity in large quantities (which
one would assume a power station has access to)
tends to stop most organic life in its tracks.

Deirdre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Death of Megafauna
    ... >> used for cutting the throats of sacrificial animals. ... The mammoth in the Old World survived ... Humans like other predators were dangerous to very young and very old ... to extinction in a time were mammoth bones a scarce in human settlements? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Will Woolly Mammoths walk the Earth again?
    ... >>>herd (this is assuming the DNA wasn't isolated from an ... >> ruminants a breeding stock of 36 animals is the minumum number ... I also think that the Mammoth died out because of human ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Death of Megafauna
    ... >> non-migratory animals start to feed all year round on what is ... >> supposed to be the winter feeding grounds of lets say mammoth, ... But who would have hunted for the rest of the humans, ... >> single cause for the extinction. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Death of Megafauna
    ... and the decline in megafauna falls the appearance ... > animals start to feed all year round on what is supposed to be the winter ... > feeding grounds of lets say mammoth, what can mammoth do but starve? ... > to extinction in a time were mammoth bones a scarce in human settlements? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: weapons and Megafauna
    ... > Mammoth were animals of the cold steppe, ... Since this culture is an inland hunting culture, ... > You seem to have missed out the mammoth, or the extinction of ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading