×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNA of Woolly Mammoth Fully Sequenced

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 44 years ago | from the jigsaw-puzzle-addicts-anonymous dept.

Science 175

jd writes "Scientists have decoded the mitochondrial DNA of the Woolly Mammoth. According to the article: 'the Mammoth was most closely related to the Asian elephant rather than the African Elephant. The three groups split from a common ancestor about six million years ago, with Asian elephants and mammoths diverging about half a million years later.' This work is tied into efforts by researchers to use DNA to analyze other extinct species, such as the cave bear, the Haast eagle and the American lion. The novel aspect of this latest work is that it involved stitching together almost 50 fragments of mtDNA in order to obtain the sequence as a whole."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

Great... (2, Funny)

}InFuZeD{ (52430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306434)

It's always good to know that humans are second to mammoths in genetic research :)

Easily explained (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306553)

Human DNA is a mammoth problem, right? Which means mammoth DNA must be a human problem.

Re:Easily explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306953)

if i wasn't sick and in such a shitty mood, i would mod that as funny. but with this flu or whatever, i just realized i have no sense of humor. what a drag.

sorry for not giving you a +1 funny...

now i gotta go puke

Re:Great... (1)

blank89 (727548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307020)

Of course people are more interested in "Raising the Mammoth" then curing their own cancer.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307237)


 
You make it sound as if resources were diverted from cancer research to the mammoth genome project: "Hey, lets stop working on this boring cancer project and lets go chase mammoth sequence for a change!". What are you using, Fox News Logic?

Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306437)


DNA? Evolution? Never happened! Mammoths were on the Ark with Noah!

---

For the ID kooks out there who are probably speaking in tongues and convulsing on the floor after today's spanking in court I offer an interesting letter to the editor.

Some don't need vaccine

Recent news about the avian flu virus has raised concerns from main street to the White House. There is the possibility, even likelihood, that the virus will mutate into a form that can more easily infect humans.

As the president pointed out, a vaccine cannot be made until this evolution occurs.

This raises the concern that it may be impossible to create enough vaccine fast enough to protect all our citizens. But there is hope.

Gallup polls tell us that up to 45 percent of Americans don't believe in evolution. Since random mutation is the engine of evolution, these same people must believe that the virus cannot mutate.

Therefore, there is no need to waste vaccine on folks who believe there is no possible threat to themselves -- thus leaving a sufficient supply for the rest of us. Perhaps the president, given his doubts about evolution, may wish to demonstrate his leadership by foregoing vaccination.

This approach has added benefits. Polls also tell us that disbelief in evolution is more pronounced among the less educated, the poor and conservatives. If the anti-evolutionists among these groups were to opt out of vaccination then, through immediate deaths and natural selection, we would reduce poverty, raise educational attainment and become a more progressive society.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306500)

DNA? Evolution? Never happened! Mammoths were on the Ark with Noah!

You are such a nut case. It was not evolution. The Mammoths would still be around if it was not for global warming from the burning of fossil fuels in SUVs!! The polar bears are next.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (2, Interesting)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306851)

A portion of the creationists (I use this henceforth to refer to everyone who beleives in some sort of ID nonsense) came up with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to compensate for this. According to those who beleive it (It's hard to tie it into Creationism itself, because I dont think even two different Creationists agree on what happened), evolution DOES happen on a very small scale, like changing charactoristics in fruit flies, or a mutating virus, but that it's impossible for evolution to change things to the point of there being two totally different species. Of course, such a thing would take a long time to happen in real evolution, which is why their faulty logic is firmly cemented, they can't be proven wrong with a simple explination of "We've seen it happen".

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (2, Insightful)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307011)

The funny thing is, they have been proven wrong. Look at dogs and wolves. Or a much better example. If you take a certain species of squirrel from Pennsylvania and mate it with one in Ohio, fertile offspring will be produced. Take this same squirrel and mate it with one of the same species from California and no fertile offspring will be produced. This species is literally on the border of speciation and there are plenty of other species of animals to reference as well. Unfortunately I can't think of the squirrel's species name off the tope of my head, but if you google around you'll find examples.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307247)

I can't think of the squirrel's species name off the tope of my head

Hey! My head doesn't have a "tope", you insensitive clod. Those of us who have not yet evolved to your level would appreciate it if you'd just quit bragging, ok?

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (1)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307250)

And exactly how does this prove macro evolution? All it proves is that if there is sufficient genetic difference between two species, even if reproduction is possible, the offspring may be unfertile.

So unless there is evidence to indicate that these two sub-species of squirrels acquired these genetic differences that prevent successful inter-breeding in recent recorded history, this does not prove macro-evolution.

Man has been inter-breeding animals between different species for thousands of years (Eg: mules). Hybrid varieties of plants have been used for thousands of years as well.

Also, the fact that even within a single species there can be wide difference in physical attributes has been known for eons. Take humans; the Caucassians, Africans and Orientals all look very different from each other - different eye colours, skin colours, hair colours, the average build and height etc. But humans are considered a single species.

No one is disputing micro-evolution - there is sufficient evidence to indicate that, but macro-evolution is still debateable.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (2, Informative)

Bertie (87778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307646)

Erm, right.

There are various criteria by which you can judge what constitutes a species, and to be honest it does get slightly woolly round the edges, but one good rule of thumb is that if two animals can mate to produce fertile offspring, they're both of the same species. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, which is infertile. Likewise, these two squirrels cannot produce fertile offspring. Therefore it could be argued that by this measure, they are two different species, even though at first glance they look exactly the same. Come back in, I dunno, fifty thousand years, and they might look or behave very different from one another, which presumably would make it easier for the more simple-minded to claim that they're two different species (and doubtless that they always were).

Of course, if they've no reason to chance appearance, why should they? on the other hand, things can happen the other way - some external factor puts enough pressure on a local group of animals to cause a significant change in a short space of time. I remember seeing in a documentary some mice who lived in and around freezers, and had developed shaggy coats and stronger teeth to bite through the frozen food. Natural selection in action, baby. Now, this has to have happened very quickly indeed, and it may follow that they will eventually become a separate species. Who knows?

Anyway, point is, this stuff happens in different ways, the definition of a species is sometimes a slightly subjective thing, and idiot creationists will use this fuzziness to try to claim that it what they call macroevolution doesn't happen at all, and that science has got it all wrong, and so on. It's just sophistry aimed at simpletons.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307832)

A portion of the creationists (I use this henceforth to refer to everyone who beleives in some sort of ID nonsense) came up with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to compensate for this.

What is amazing is that such people can compartmentalize evolution in this way and do so in a poor attempt to defend their unsupported beliefs.

When I build a computer programme, I do it a handful of lines at a time until the program is complete. Sometimes I even modify existing lines and others I cannibalize code I already have for other tasks. The net result of all this "micro" programming is a fully fledged computer program. I might consider a program that runs to be a generation, so that after dozens or hundreds of generations my program is actually quite sophisticated and functional. Even then I will still fix bugs as they arise and improve the program in an incremental fashion. So my "macro" program is really just a bunch of incremental changes.

Obviously the analogy only stretches so far since evolution has no end goal in mind and can't rewrite code wholesale but mutation and selective pressure still incrementally add up especially with massive concurrent "development". A thousand generations later and the changes are quantifiable. I think that creationists know this obvious truth but they will do anything including lie to suppress any logical disconnect it causes in their own minds. Hence "micro" and "macro" evolution with "micro" evolution allowing them to squirm out of observable evolution in bacteria, insects, mice etc. and "macro" evolution being something that can't possibly happen (to them) despite fossil evidence that proves otherwise.

Well unfortunatly (1)

alfrin (858861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306869)

Those were one of those creatures he forgot.

Re:Well unfortunatly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307183)

i think you got something wrong... Macro-evolution is not the same as Microevolution. And even Christians believe in Microevolution (evolution inside a Species ex. wolves -> dogs) but not in Macroevolution (Amoeba -> Human) theres a huge difference.

Re:Well unfortunatly (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307753)

The only difference is time, besides which I'm fairly sure that we have observed animals diverging into seperate species.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307096)

Your approach would be horrible because it is the presence of ignorant, fact-disbelieving people like that that allows the rest of us to make a comfortable living.

Re:Mammoths evolve? wait a sec... (2, Informative)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307204)

Where did you get this idea that ID supporters do not believe in micro-evolution? What ID supporters do not believe is macro evolution such as reptiles gaining wings to become birds, ape becoming man etc.

Micro-evolution, hybrids etc are all considered perfectly valid by IDers.

Mitochondrial DNA! (5, Informative)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306441)

The title is somewhat misleading as it should be noted that mitochondrial DNA is not genomic DNA from a cells nucleus. It is a much smaller genome from the mitochondrion that evolutionarily is thought to be descended from bacteria and is much easier to sequence from a total work perspective. Although the information that can be extracted from the analysis of mitochondrial DNA can be more informative as to lineage and evolutionary cladistics.

Come on folks, this is junior high biology.....

I plead innocent (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306508)

Or the fifth. One of them, anyway. I'm pretty sure I submitted the title with mtDNA, not just DNA, but I could have missed that off. Either way, the paragraph of text does specify that it is mitochondrial DNA (which is still DNA - not my fault if someone else thinks nucleic).

Re:I plead innocent (2, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306574)

Perhaps I am a little slow on the uptake, but I just realized that we are all simple pawns in the evil scheme of the Slashdot editors. We submit articles for publication on Slashdot, the editors screw with our submission to get all of us all fired about how crummy the editing is, or how stupid we think the submitters are or merely to pontificate on how smart we think we happen to be. But here is the deal.....it all drives traffic . Sometimes I feel so stupid......why did I not see this before? :-)

Re:I plead innocent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306723)

Well you appear to have been intelligently designed (live in the bible belt). Just because your creator was intelligent, doesn't mean he wished his creations to be (in fact, he appears to punish those who are a bit too clever for him, such as the Tower of Babel workers).

Now those of us who have evolved have aquired intelligence over time and continue to strive towards being more intelligent. We don't have some pansy ass creator trying to keep us down.

Re:Mitochondrial DNA! (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306555)

yes. Although it should be noted that the mtDNA comes solely from the mother (like Y chromosome comes solely from the father) so it is much better than regular DNA for comparing lineage.

I think I saw an article a couple days ago postulating on resurrecting a Wolly Mammoth based on the mtDNA sequencing...

Re:Mitochondrial DNA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306925)

I think I saw an article a couple days ago postulating on resurrecting a Wolly Mammoth based on the mtDNA sequencing...

hummm. Either you misread the article, or somebody is pulling your leg.

Re:Mitochondrial DNA! (2, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306813)

Although the information that can be extracted from the analysis of mitochondrial DNA can be more informative as to lineage and evolutionary cladistics.

Sentence fragment.

Come on folks, this is junior high biology.....

And that was grade school English. ;-)

Re:Mitochondrial DNA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306988)

What's more, the mammoth mitochondrial genome is a fair bit bigger than 5 kbp. Every mammal I know of has a mito genome over 16kbp, and checking the paper confirms that - the mammoth mito genome is 16770 bp.

The 5000 base pairs mentioned in the paper is from sequencing at another independent lab to verify their results.

So all the news items are getting it wrong :)
As a mitochondrial biochemist, that's kinda annoying, but not unexpected :)

Incorrect title (again) (5, Informative)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306443)

Contrary to the title, the Wooly Mammoth DNA has not been fully sequenced. The Mitochondrial DNA [wikipedia.org] has, but that's nowhere near the amount of DNA in the neucleus. So don't worry, we won't be seeing Jurasic park any time soon.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (1)

Caydel (851013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306482)

The DNA that has actually been sequenced constitutes only .2% of the complete genome; However, with new techniques they may be able to do it completely over the next few months...

Re:Incorrect title (again) (4, Interesting)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306484)

For comparison (in humans) the mitochondrial DNA comprises approximatly 16,500 base pairs to the Neucler DNA's 3 billion. At that rate the Mitochondrial DNA is equal to ~0.00055% the ammount of Neuclear DNA.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306706)

For comparison (in humans) the mitochondrial DNA comprises approximatly 16,500 base pairs to the Neucler DNA's 3 billion. At that rate the Mitochondrial DNA is equal to ~0.00055% the ammount of Neuclear DNA.
The correct spelling, of course, is nukular.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307037)

even if i wasn't sick and feeling like shit, i don't think i would mod that as funny. nice try though.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (1)

Chreo (694625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307507)

And according to the link (I have to check the Nature paper to be sure) not even the full mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) was sequenced. Only 5000 nucleotides which is nice enough but not even half the genome. If they claim it is then they are waaay off.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306485)

we won't be seeing Jurasic park any time soon.

In this case, that would be Pleistocene Park.

Re:Incorrect title (again) (2, Funny)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306702)

Which raises an odd problem... can mammoths eat lawyers? If not, why bother?

Re:Incorrect title (again) (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306830)

This is nothing to sneeze about. I certainly am afraid of Wooly Mitochondria with long tusks. They are sure to cause one helluva bad cold...

Re:Incorrect title (again) (1)

willutah (556976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307665)

Ah, but then how did it get on the menu at Sizzler?: [citysearch.com]
Comfortable family restaurant serves up grilled steaks, seafood and a mammoth...

Embryos (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306444)

I'm not sure if mammuth sperm [wikipedia.org] would be capable to fertilise elephants.. but could they produce embryos [wikipedia.org] from the dna, and ultimately make those sweet hairy babies with asian elephants?

I wanna have my Furry Park!

Re:Embryos (3, Interesting)

Caydel (851013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306465)

I was reading about that this morning. It would take apparently nearly 50 years to get an 88% mammoth if they could do this. Problem is, they have not found any wolly mammoth sperm from which they could obtain the needed DNA.

Mammoth Sperm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306835)

...mammoth sperm...
Move over, jumbo shrimp. Behold the birth of a new oxymoron!
My insides hurt just thinking about "mammoth sperm".

I for one... (0, Redundant)

Rellik66 (596729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306453)

Welcome our newly cloned mammoth overlords



Wait, they haven't started cloning them yet?

Now if only.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306455)

...someone could decode Bill Gates' DNA and see if he is decended from weasels. Better yet, we need to confirm once and for all if Ballmer is really a "monkey-boy."

http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html [ntk.net]

Ok...I'm whoring to the anti-microsoft crowd with this one. At least I'm posting as an AC. :)

Yes, but... (1)

Richard Frost (18848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306468)

...what about the owlbear? Is it the ancestor of both owls and bears, or the missing link between the two?

Step away from the AD&D Monster Manual.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307322)

...and step into the real world.

The "owlbear" is a fictional creature. Grow up.

Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... (2, Funny)

majjj (644070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306490)

Remember the plot... somehow they used the DNA sequence of existing lizards and filled in the new sequence to fertilize Dianosaur egg.
:-) I think the scientists must be trying to regenerate a Mammoth out of a current age elephant.

The book... (1)

mickyflynn (842205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306550)

I remember in the book, there was something about hammond having created pygmy elephants that could be kept as house pets in order to demonstrate the technology to get further funding or something. but it's been years since i read it, and the movie had precious little to do with the book (although far more than the Lost World movie had to do with the book. Jurassic park III was just offensive).

Re:The book... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306735)

Yeah, but he only had one - it was a genetic fluke that he couldn't reproduce despite promises to investors, and it was psycho besides.

Re:The book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306742)

I heard that there was a species of dwarf mammoth that lived on Wendell Island until 600 years ago. Eskimos found the island, immeidately developed a complete mammoth-centric culture where all tools and housing was built out of mammoths, ate them all, and died out or maybe figured out how to be eskimos again.

I could see myself in a career as an Alaskan mammoth rancher. I'd have to amputate their trunks at birth, of course, so they couldn't take the lasso off them at roundup time.

Re:Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... (2, Informative)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306621)

Remember the plot... somehow they used the DNA sequence of existing lizards and filled in the new sequence to fertilize Dianosaur egg. :-) I think the scientists must be trying to regenerate a Mammoth out of a current age elephant.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they used frogs for some stupid reason.

Re:Can Jurrasic Park be a reality... (2, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306727)

Because otherwise the dinosaurs wouldnt have been able to grow dicks, the chaos maths guy would have been wrong and the whole point of the story would suddenly vanish.

Title is a little misleading (0, Redundant)

FS1 (636716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306495)

They sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of the Wooly Mammoth, not the actual DNA of the Wooly Mammoth. Mitochondrial DNA is located outside of the cell's nucleus in your cell's mitochondria (power plants). You only inherit your mitochondrial DNA from your mother. It also mutates at a measurable rate, so it is perfect for tracking species across time.

What nerdy kids will want for Christmas... (2, Funny)

bluethundr (562578) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306564)

Instead of the word pony, you'll hear the whiney phrase "Mommy, Daddy, can I have a fully sequenced Woolly Mammoth for Christmas?"

DNA of Woolly Mammoth Fully Sequenced! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306566)

(Except for the nuclear DNA)

Yes, boss. I'm finished with that software. I just have the design and coding left to complete.

tasty (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306603)

mmmm...BBQ mammoth

BBQ Mammoth wouldn't work. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306850)

They have enough trouble deciding whether BBQ sauce should have ketchup in it or not for pork. Besides, the hairs would singe.

Re:BBQ Mammoth wouldn't work. (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307225)

Besides, the hairs would singe. Ehm. Like with buffalos, you don't eat the hairy part nor the tusks. The wool should make pretty decent sweaters. The tusks, of course, are used for the ivory. Which makes me think reviving mammoths is a bad idea -- They'll be hunted down for the ivory and go extinct again in no time. Still, a dose of spare ribs would be quite a feast :)

Very misleading title . . . (0, Redundant)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306786)

Saying "DNA of Woolly Mammoth Fully Sequenced" is pretty misleading, the reality is nothing close to that. In fact it's only the mitochondrial DNA which has been sequenced. And while mtDNA is useful for determining when a certain species diverged from another, or whether a certain person shares an ancestor with another, it won't allow for any Jurassic Park typ e scenarios. Mitochondrial DNA doesn't include the vast majority of DNA which actually codes for protiens and such . . .

bogus: diverging about half a million years later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306840)

... diverging half a million years later is based on that "just a theory, not a fact" called evolution. Everyone knows that the earth is really only 6009 years old (that is when the "intelligent designer" made it poof into existence).

The woolly mammoth... (3, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306841)

as intelligently designed by an intelligent designer, according to the Kansas School Board.

Mitochondrial Count (3, Funny)

wizardguy (245100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306842)

How much is the Mitochondrial Count ? Is it higher than Yoda ? Is it higher than Anakin ?

So the force is strong in him but I sense great fear in the Woolly Mammoth , and fear leads to extinction.

Time for a Mammoth Clone (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14306858)

Looks like they've moved beyond sheep and fictitious homosapiens. You'll note, however, that It's Already Been Done [damnednice.com][Preferred Link]!

Relief (4, Funny)

eniu!uine (317250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306877)

What a relief. This will bring us one step closer to our goal of identifying mammoth diseases before we lose any treatment options. My prediction: Due to this new research not a single mammoth will die in 2006.

How many bytes... (2, Funny)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306888)

would it take to store a human genome's worth of DNA? Are we talking sub-gig if we use SVCD or divx-like encoding?

Re:How many bytes... (2, Informative)

indrax (939495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307019)

The human genome will fit on a CD.
You can download [gutenberg.org] The human genome project files from project gutenberg and see for yourself.

Project gutenberg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307611)

I'm surprised they have it. Out of curiosity, what made you think to look there for genetic sequence data? I would have tried genbank first, or tigr.

ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/genomes/ [nih.gov]

Re:How many bytes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307223)

Yeah, let's use destructive compression and see what mut(il)ations occur. ;-)

Ted Turner is going to make out like a bandit! (2, Funny)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306982)

Original Recipe Flintstones(TM) Wooly Mammoth ribs!

Mmmmmmm........ ribs!

Mommy, can we go there? (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14306997)

Right. It's not exactly Jurassic Park, nut good enough for me. When does the mammoth theme park open?

This Story Is Missing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307059)

Very weird... this story has dissapered from the main page, but it is still accesible via my bookmark. Damn government censors!

Might Mammouth DNA reveal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14307265)

what is the air speed velocity of an unladen elephant?

Re:Might Mammouth DNA reveal... (1, Funny)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307679)

what is the air speed velocity of an unladen elephant?

What do you mean? Hurled from a Catapult or a Trebuchet?

When can we bring them back from extinction? (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307316)

We have preserved mamoths, and we have elephants that can be artificially inseminated. Now I've heard that just to produce a cloned cat or dog still takes dozens or hundreds of tries, but are researchers close to reducing that number? How soon until mastodons can be reborn and live at a zoo or preserve in Vancouver or Anchorage?

Re:When can we bring them back from extinction? (2, Informative)

core plexus (599119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307425)

Mastodons are not mammoths. Related, "but the mastodons were shorter in height, longer in length and more heavily built. [acnatsci.org]"

It would be nice, however, to let maggie [alaskazoo.org] go someplace warmer, and have something more suitable to our colder Alaskan climate. They might be tasty, and one sure would fill the deep freeze with meat for the winter.

Alaskan man dies of autoerotic asphyxiation among 1,000 marijuana plants worth $2,000,000 [suvalleynews.com]

mammoth burgers (1)

pxuongl (758399) | more than 8 years ago | (#14307342)

personally, i can't wait until they clone these bad boys so i can have myself some mammoth burgers
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...