The frozen, intact Woolly Mammoth found in Siberia. Why is there opposition  to having it cloned?
923580
If you have ever seen jurassic park they explained the answer to this. Over time genetic material becomes fragmented losing pieces making it less likely to be viable for cloning. Over time that mammoth has had a lot of its genes damaged. In order to clone the mammoth scientists would have to insert pieces of elephant genes (the mammoths closest relative) into the mammoths genome. This poses problems first because this is not a perfect science yet and its hard to tell what will happen, or if it will even work for that matter. Even if it does work, this mammoth will not be an exact clone of the original but a hybrid of a mammoth and a modern day elephant.
671971
I don't think it is as much bad, as it is unnecessary. A clone is a different person than the original. It would have a different personality and different memories and a different life. Who would want a look alike running around. The only purpose in a clone would be to farm body parts and that is WRONG.
30026
apparently they actually existed during history.  a hand and a tooth ahve been found in some hindu monastary i believe. they were hugh and dna tested.  no matches were found with any currently living and document creature.
523636
check this out.\n\nkeep in mind the info is 5 yrs old.\n\nhttp://www.forbes.com/2001/11/26/1126cloning.html
783092
I think one potential source of your confusion is the fact that there was in fact more than one mammoth species.\n\nThe most famous mammoth is the so called woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), but there were others such as the Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Jefferson's mammoth (Mammuthus jeffersoni), Channel Island dwarf mammoth (Mammuthus exilis), southern mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis), steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii), and the Imperial mammoth (Mammuthus imperator).  And those are just the North American varieties.  There were more in Asia and Europe.\n\nThe woolly mammoth was actually slightly smaller than the Asian elephant (which is actually more closely related to the mammoths than the African elephants are).\n\nHowever other species, like the Columbian mammoth, were much larger.  The largest specimen of the Columbian mammoth from the La Brea tar pits was 12 feet tall at the shoulder and weighed about 10 tons - much larger than the largest African elephants today.\n\nSome species were much, much smaller, especially those that inhabited isolated islands.  The Channel Islands dwarf mammoth  was only four to eight feet tall.  \n\nHopefully this helps to clear up some of the confusion.\n\nUPDATE:\n\nYes, the male African elephant does average about 12 feet at the shoulder.  This is one of the problems with taking just one measuer to determine "size".  The proportions of mammoths and African elephants are slightly different, and the way they hold their heads are different, so a simple shoulder measure, or measure to the top of the head doesn't tell the whole story.  There are also differences in the length of the legs that make a considerable difference when comparing height and weight.  Mammoths tend to have relatively stubby legs, while the African elephants are longer limbed, almost rangy in comparison.\n\nFor a really big elephant, there is also the extinct Miocene proboscideans the Deinotheres, which may have been 15 to 18 feet at the shoulder.
927335
The purpose of a question like this is for YOU to take what YOU know about cloning (and for YOU to do research about it) and then for YOU to extrapolate from what YOU know to what YOU think might happen.\n\nTry watching (or reading) The Island. Just one grim outlook of many about cloning.
1001392
Well, the American bison (Bison bison) is listed as being at Least Risk by the IUCN (the World Conservation Union).  While being virtually extirpated from the United States, there are large and thriving populations in Canada.  Enough so that my local grocery store regularily carries Bison steaks.  Mmmmm... yummy.\n\nThe European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus) is listed as Endangered.  The species was down to less than 20 captive individuals back in the 1920s.  There are programs currently underway to establish refuges for the wisent in Poland, Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia, and there are now as many as 250 animals in the wild.  However genetic diversity issues mean that they are in serious trouble.\n\nMost seals are listed as Least Risk or Vulnerable by the IUCN, however there are some that are Endangered or Critically Endangered.\n\nOne of the most Critically Endangered is the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), which is threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive parasites and pathogens such as toxic algae, ongoing harvesting and hunting, accidental mortality and their own restricted range.  \n\nThe French government twice initiated captive breeding projects, but both times shut down the projects over protests from the international monk seal scientific and conservation communities.  \n\nMany countries have introduced laws protecting the Mediterranean monk seal, but implementation has been less than rigorous.  There are so many countries around the Mediterranean that would all need to agree on conservation measures that it may be too late for this species.\n\nThe related Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) is also Endangered, and the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) is already considered Extinct.\n\nThe Japanese sea lion (Zalophus japonicus) is also considered Extinct, last seen in 1951.\n\nThe walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) is one of the species listed in the IUCN Redlist as being at Least Risk.  There are healthy populations in many northern nations.  Unless something totally unthinkable happens, like global temperatures rising and melting all the Arctic sea ice, then they will probably remain relatively safe.  But that could never happen, right?\n\nIn the grand scheme of things, the extinction of these species probably doesn't mean an awful lot to humans directly.  Most people have probably never heard of a wisent, and probably never knew there was such as thing as a Caribbean monk seal.  However, they are indicators of a disturbing trend of extinctions, and near extinctions, mostly caused by humans.\n\nThose species directly hunted to extinction by man are easy enough to explain, and do not speak well of our ability to work and play nice with others, but it is the species which are indirectly affected by mankind, through habitat loss, pollution, introduced diseases and other factors that should sound a resounding wake-up call to humanity in general.  If we are making the planet uninhabitable for other species, maybe it isn't gonna be so nice for us if we keep it up, eh?\n\nThere is also the possibility that species that we think will have no effect on us if they go extinct are actually vital links in the ecosystem, and will have major impacts when they are gone.  The classic example is the sea otter (Enhydra lutra).  A cute, fuzzy little sea mammal that eats sea urchins and abalones.  It also has thick fur that was very valuable to fur traders.  However, once the little fuzzy sea otters were gone, the sea urchins boomed in population and started eating all the kelp.  Those kelp forests were important habitat for many fish species, and suddenly the fishing industry started hurting.  The sea otter turned out to be very important for the economic needs of a great many fishermen.\n\nIt's easy to become blase about 'oh well, it's just some dumb critter I've never heard of, so why should I care if it goes extinct?  most of the species that have ever existed have gone ext
473558
Cloning should not be legal. My reason is because God made each person unique in there own way, because he did not want people to be the same.Cloning makes an exact replica of a person or an animal, and god does not want that.
728222
I know of no cases in which the DNA of obligate\ntroglobites have been compared with their surface\ndwelling relatives, though such may exist.  There\nare a few intermediate cases known in which the\nsurface and cave living individuals of a given\norganism seem still to be the same species, but\nin most the separation seems to be complete.\n\nThe really cave adapted species can not survive\noutside the cave habitat and are therefore\nisolated almost completely from their surface\nrelatives.  With this isolation, and the strong\nselection pressure exerted by the difficult cave\nenvironment,it is almost certain that the two\npopulations would diverge rapidly to the point of\nbecoming different species.
1136128
No its impossible. The DNA is completely different, and plus cloning was banned by the Geneva Convention a couple of years ago I believe. But if your like the other groups and you want to try it, have at it. But if you do clone it together, dont tell the press or you might just end up going to prison.
143218
Dont mess with nature. \n\nScientists should respect nature more and work within the ethical guidelines.\n\nMany things can go wrong, just like first cloned sheep Dolly. (had immune system problems, and aged faster etc.)
224688
People might have different views about cloning. But  if  organs are cloned for people who cant find any donors ,then its right and should be encouraged.But this technology should be handled with extra care, so that it may not get misused
1064918
First thing you have to realise is that all mules are NOT sterile. Most mules certainly are, but there have been numerous authenticated accounts of mules giving birth to perfectly healthy foals.\n\nNext thing to do is to ignore those people saying that it is because of different or uneven chromosome numbers or because they are different species. Numerous  species are perfectly interfertile despite being far more distantly related than horses and donkeys and having far more widely differing chromosomes numbers. \n\nHorses and donkeys are simply different members of the same genus. Cattle and bison on the other hand produce perfectly fertile calves and are members of DIFFERENT genera. That makes them about as closely related as humans and chimps. They also differ by 3 chromosome pairs IIRC, as opposed to the single pair difference between horses and mules.\n\nSo why are mules sterile? \n\nThat’s pretty complicated and to be quite honest we still don’t know the whole story. The basic problem is that after the ancestors of donkeys and horses split the chromosomes of BOTH species fused and then those fused chromosomes re-split. That has led to a situation where the information originally carried on a single chromosome in the ancestral species is now found on 2 different chromosomes in mules and 2 totally unrelated chromosomes in horses.\n\nNormally a developing foal embryo would receive two copies of each piece of genetic information: one from the mother and one from the father. In the case of a mule foal it receives a random number of copies. It will receive three copies of some pieces of information: 2 from the mule parent and one from the horse/donkey parent, or it will receive only a single copy from the horse/donkey parent.\n\nBecause of that mismatch of genetic material the embryo has a hard time developing. Some traits it will lack sufficient information for since it has only half the required genetic information, while other traits will be overdeveloped because there are 3 or more genes where there should be only two. All mules will get pregnant if mated, but the embryo develops for just a few days and then dies because it lacks the correct genetic instruction to develop further.\n\nAs for why some mules, maybe one in a thousand, are fertile, nobody is quite sure.
758469
Unfortunantly he would not relive his life.  The clone would be his own individual, but would soon die.   DNA can only be replicated so many times.  Each time it is replicated it get cut allittle more.  The end of our DNA is useless and is called telomere. But once you start cutting off the good DNA you start getting cancer.  If you clone right before death, the clone would also have the telomeres wasted and would thus die soon after.\n\nThat sheep that they cloned was an adult, so the clone died around the same time as the original sheep.
1115957
Not with current freezing techniques. Too much cell damage. In the future I think that a process will be possible. Will it be ethical or moral in a rapidly overpopulating world will be the ultimate question.
628849
I'll assume you are talking about cloning of humans, and I'll assume you mean cloning that takes place in a laboratory, not the natural cloning that results in identical twins.  I don't think the idea itself is right or wrong, only the uses to which it is put.  If one clones a person to use as spare parts, of course that's abhorant to most of us.  If a person wanted to have a child exactly like themselves, then that might be a little odd, and maybe a bit warped for the kid, but I'm not sure it would be worse than the way a lot of kids are raised-and at least the parent would understand a lot about the kid.  But, I don't see much use in cloning..unless we as a society wished to clone some great genius, like Shakespeare or Newton, and DaVinci- I could see that as being exciting and possibly as useful to the society as a whole, but I'm not sure how badly that would interfer with the rights of child, and whether they would be happy with it, horrified, whatever...The young princes of England have to deal with constant media scrutiny and a lack of privacy, but nobody suggests the royal family shouldnt have children... It's complex-In the end, I don't think there will be enough of a positive possible outcome to really generate any excitement about doing it that would overcome our natural repulsion of the idea ("we" meaning Western society).  In other societies, though, the variable of the equation might be totally different than what we as Americans and Europeans might feel.\n*edit* I didnt even think about extinct animals- now that would be a *really* interesting debate, that would likely make for some very odd bedfellows and enemies!  Do we bring back the Dodo, the passenger pigeon? Or even the Mammoth?  That might very well generate enough societal excitement to actually get done, if it were possible..
1017150
Nobody has yet been successfully frozen while alive and then brought back to awareness - much less a dead person.  Some people pay a lot of money to have just their heads frozen in liquid nitrogen, apparently on the theory that by the time they can cure what killed them, replacing the rest of the body should be a piece of cake.  I wouldn't bank on it, though - the Egyptians spent awesome amounts of time preserving bodies for eventual resurrection too, and so far as I know none of them have been reconstituted either.