69 replies to this topic

[Nunc]

Susceptibilities to viruses affect only the Mammoth host. As do genetic diseases.

Your claim that bringing back an extinct species is bad because it goes against evolution is a blatant example of the Appeal to Nature- a fallacy of relevance.

[Waser Lave]

Just look at the australian rabits, ain't them a good example about why we shouldn't do stuff like this?
That's a great thing for science, and it would be awesome to see a mammoth alive, but only if it would be in a cage (which wouldn't be that great, I mean, for the mammoth. It wouldn't be nice to bring an animal to life just so we can see it behind a cage).
Besides the australian rabits, I have tons of other examples on why animals that doesn't belong to a place shouldn't be brought to it...

The Australian rabbit example isn't the best to compare to mammoths because rabbits breed like well...rabbits. In comparison the mammoth would probably be close to that of the elephant which is around a 2 year gestation period.

[Nunc]

Rabbits destroyed Australia's ecosystem for two reasons: They have extremely high reproduction rates, and are small (therefore hard to keep track of). Mammoths, if we use elephants and Suharev's law as a guide, have at least a 22-month pregnancy, most likely more. That means a single baby of the Elephantidae takes around 2 years simply to be born, and many more to reach sexual maturity. And all Elephants have a very small brood. QED Mammoths would reproduce and replenish very very slowly. Also, they are frankly colossal, and keeping track of their numbers and locations would be easy as pie. And scientists would most likely implant them with GPS devices or tracking chips- they'd be valuable cargo, each costing many millions to create and upkeep.

EDIT: Beat to posting by a few seconds

Edited by Nunc, 17 January 2011 - 11:46 AM.

[Gen]

The Australian rabbit example isn't the best to compare to mammoths because rabbits breed like well...rabbits. In comparison the mammoth would probably be close to that of the elephant which is around a 2 year gestation period.

Rabbits were just like the first example I had in my mind lol. Even though, they would probably eat the same thing as other animals that would live in the same place, and start a competition, or destroy things around them while walking.
Once a guy brought a snail to Brazil, the problem is that it started to reproduce kinda quickly and it had no predators, so yea, plague. Pigeons are a plague in many places too, because they don't have predators. Even the seas are infested with species being brought from different places because of naval activity.
Again, great for science, not really good for nature...

[Warriors]

Susceptibilities to viruses affect only the Mammoth host. As do genetic diseases.

Your claim that bringing back an extinct species is bad because it goes against evolution is a blatant example of the Appeal to Nature- a fallacy of relevance.

Ah yes, because viruses and pathogens never transfer over to different species. Even it's closest relative, the elephant.

And I never said it goes against evolution. I simply state that extinctions now are due to humans mostly...The Mammoth either died, to make way for humans as the top predator or simply they could not adapt to the world warming up...

I never said that mammoths being back are either "good" or "right" or either "natural" or "unnatural." A lot of crap humans do are unnatural..sanitation for example. This does not make it bad or wrong.

We are dealing with the facts..I am not trying to make any moral mandate out of biological facts.

[Ziz]

Susceptibilities to viruses affect only the Mammoth host. As do genetic diseases.

Not really. Ebola and VIH affects gorillas as well as humans (and it's believed that it came from gorillas).
Also influencia mutated to infect different species.

I just say that it is possible that it could bring back some viruses, not that it will.

[Nunc]

I just say that it is possible that it could bring back some viruses, not that it will.

Viruses are not embedded in the genetic code of the organism. Susceptibility (i.e. their resistance or lack thereof regarding such viruses) may be, but nonetheless there is no way for a new virus to arise from the cloning of mammoths. Anytime in the next century at least.

[Ziz]

Viruses are not embedded in the genetic code of the organism. Susceptibility (i.e. their resistance or lack thereof regarding such viruses) may be, but nonetheless there is no way for a new virus to arise from the cloning of mammoths. Anytime in the next century at least.

Not a nwe virus, but maybe an old one that was not very propagated could become more succesful.
Not that we have to fear about that if a Mammoth gets cloned, just an possibility.

[Tigerzz]

Lol not sure what to think of this, maybe there trying to bring them back to help save us stay alive through out the earths next ice age

[Sweeney]

It terrifies me, literally, that Nunc is serving as a voice of reason in this topic.

[Nunc]

It terrifies me, literally, that Nunc is serving as a voice of reason in this topic.

I'm pretty sure you're only saying that because I agree with you

Thank you nonetheless.

[Propitiatory]

I can understand the "Because I can" and money reasons... /nod...

I'd rather see a mamoth than an indricotherium -- it just looks bizarre to me based on the pics on google..

[redlion]

It terrifies me, literally, that Nunc is serving as a voice of reason in this topic.

Yeah, that fallacy - appeal to nature shit was pretty good. It's like watching a kindergardener curse.

[Warriors]

Yeah, that fallacy - appeal to nature shit was pretty good. It's like watching a kindergardener curse.

I sucked at logic..rarely paid attention in class..but that certain fallacy I thought only applies when a moral objectivity, "good/bad" "natural/unnatural" is applied, not to biological facts.

[Sweeney]

I sucked at logic..rarely paid attention in class..but that certain fallacy I thought only applies when a moral objectivity, "good/bad" "natural/unnatural" is applied, not to biological facts.

True... but I can't see much in the way of biological fact in your posts.

[Warriors]

True... but I can't see much in the way of biological fact in your posts.

not that Earth/Nature crap, but rather normal extinction vs. human-sped up extinction.

Its a fact that mammoths either died out due to either two factors, they made way for humans to take up the apex after the ice age or they could not adjust to the world warming up after the ice age...

Sped up extinctions are those extinctions happening now at a way faster rate than ever before in the history of this planet..

As for mammoths, I can see bringing them back since this individual specimen will live alone caged away separated from the environment. But, if it were for re-instituting this old species into Siberia or wherever then there could be problems.