Total Pageviews

Friday, 17 February 2017

"Let's Create A 'Mammophant' -We've Nothing Better To Do With Our Time!"

Natural History Museum, London/SPL

This article in The Guardian online was interesting. Interesting in how misleading it is.  I would really LOVE to see a mammoth but I'm not going to. A few simple notes.

Your milk.  How and why do you keep getting milk?  Because of cows.  There are a lot of cows but why?  Because dairy farmers only want "breeders and milkers" -male cows are killed straight away.

Like your eggs? Lots of chickens -why?  Because chicks are sexed after being born and if it ain't a hen its killed. Not very nicely.

So what has this to do with reviving or "de-extincting" (which is not even a real word fer cripes sake) mammoths?  Simple.  If you try to create certain traits in cats, dogs or any animal what you do is breed the ones with the traits you want. The offspring without those traits are killed (sorry "euthenised").  The ones with some of the traits are kept alive to breed until the exact traits show.  

Ahh, those Russian bred foxes. "Selectively bred" over the years. Which means, of course, that  any pup NOT looking like what the breeders wanted were killed.  The survivors kept in cramp cages and bred and bred -and don't think the breeding foxes survived after they could no longer breed. It can all be shown and read about in very sanitized ways:  http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

So where am I going with this?  Say they manage to do what they want? However, it's "not quite right"? That 'success' would be euthenised, dissected and lessons learnt.  Then they succeed and get what they want.  But what about the successes that are not quite what they wanted?  Practice in wildlife parks and zoos is to kill these off as "excess stock" but might these unsuccessful successes be sellable to zoos as attractions to make money until the "real thing" is available?

You see, most will be interested in the visitors such an animal can draw in and the money that makes.  Who wants to see half a non-mammoth when another zoo has the real thing? And then, once bred where will these animals go? 

As shown in the article, there are questions as to how regular elephants would treat a “mammophant” because elephants are social how will a “mammophant” live? You would need to have a male and female for a breeding pair and then you are in the endless cycle of breeding to establish a herd and there would be the question of "excess stock" because you may have too many males or even females unable to breed. Sell them off so they can live a lonely life in a park or zoo?

There is also the fact that this would not be a real mammonth.  Mammoths varied in size, according to the remains found, from 4 m (13.1 ft) at the shoulder and weights of up to 8 tonnes (8.8 short tons) and more, though others could be the sized of a modern Asioan elephant at 2.5 m to 3 m high at the shoulder, and rarely exceeding 5 tonnes.

We are talking about a domesticated freak show species.  Imagine they were bred to a degree that allowed them to be introduced into the wild.  They won't last long because, illegal or not, some rich dentist will want to shoot one -and if they developed huge tusks....

News items tend to not mention the big problems -or, to them, the "little ones".  They go by press releases.  Space fillers.

Perhaps we should be putting all the money into breeding and saving the rhino and elephants that are already flying toward endangered species level and extinction?

Wolves and other predators, and non predators, have been saved from the brink of extinction yet, right now, Humans are legally killing them in high numbers and not just making established groups extinct but pushing the species to the limit -and ignorance, money and business is the main factor in "why?"  And the same applies to whales, dolphins and other sea species.

To create a new species without a well thought out and explained/monitored long term plan while other species are being killed off is, morally wrong.

Now, onto the sanitized fluff.

Wikipedia

User:FunkMonk - Based on shoulder heights given in: Lister, A.; Bahn, P. (2007). Mammoths - Giants of the Ice Age (3 ed.). London: Frances Lincoln. ISBN 978-0-520-26160-0. This file was derived from: Woolly mammoths.jpgMammuthus columbi Sergiodlarosa.jpg Southern Mammoth Mammuthus meridionalis.jpg Mammuthus trogontherii122DB.jpg Mammuthus exilis.jpgPioneer plaque humans.svg

Size comparison of mammoth species. M. primigenius (3.4 m), M. exilis (1.8 m), M. columbi, M. trogontherii, and M. meridionalis (4 m).

Now, onto the sanitized fluff.


Woolly mammoth on verge of resurrection, scientists reveal Scientist leading ‘de-extinction’ effort says Harvard team could create hybrid mammoth-elephant embryo in two years
The woolly mammoth vanished from the Earth 4,000 years ago, but now scientists say they are on the brink of resurrecting the ancient beast in a revised form, through an ambitious feat of genetic engineering.
Speaking ahead of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston this week, the scientist leading the “de-extinction” effort said the Harvard team is just two years away from creating a hybrid embryo, in which mammoth traits would be programmed into an Asian elephant.
“Our aim is to produce a hybrid elephant-mammoth embryo,” said Prof George Church. “Actually, it would be more like an elephant with a number of mammoth traits. We’re not there yet, but it could happen in a couple of years.”
The creature, sometimes referred to as a “mammophant”, would be partly elephant, but with features such as small ears, subcutaneous fat, long shaggy hair and cold-adapted blood. The mammoth genes for these traits are spliced into the elephant DNA using the powerful gene-editing tool, Crispr.
Until now, the team have stopped at the cell stage, but are now moving towards creating embryos – although, they said that it would be many years before any serious attempt at producing a living creature.
“We’re working on ways to evaluate the impact of all these edits and basically trying to establish embryogenesis in the lab,” said Church.
Since starting the project in 2015 the researchers have increased the number of “edits” where mammoth DNA has been spliced into the elephant genome from 15 to 45.
“We already know about ones to do with small ears, subcutaneous fat, hair and blood, but there are others that seem to be positively selected,” he said.
Church said that these modifications could help preserve the Asian elephant, which is endangered, in an altered form. However, others have raised ethical concerns about the project.
Matthew Cobb, professor of zoology at the University of Manchester, said: “The proposed ‘de-extinction’ of mammoths raises a massive ethical issue – the mammoth was not simply a set of genes, it was a social animal, as is the modern Asian elephant. What will happen when the elephant-mammoth hybrid is born? How will it be greeted by elephants?”
Church also outlined plans to grow the hybrid animal within an artificial womb rather than recruit a female elephant as a surrogate mother - a plan which some believe will not be achievable within the next decade.
“We hope to do the entire procedure ex-vivo (outside a living body),” he said. “It would be unreasonable to put female reproduction at risk in an endangered species.”
He added that his lab is already capable of growing a mouse embryo in an artificial womb for 10 days - halfway through its gestation period.
“We’re testing the growth of mice ex-vivo. There are experiments in the literature from the 1980s but there hasn’t been much interest for a while,” he said. “Today we’ve got a whole new set of technology and we’re taking a fresh look at it.”
“Church’s team is proposing to rear the embryo in an ‘artificial womb’ which seems ambitious to say the least – the resultant animal would have been deprived of all the pre-birth interactions with its mother,” said Cobb.
The woolly mammoth roamed across Europe, Asia, Africa and North America during the last Ice Age and vanished about 4,000 years ago, probably due to a combination of climate change and hunting by humans.
Their closest living relative is the Asian, not the African, elephant.
“De-extincting” the mammoth has become a realistic prospect because of revolutionary gene editing techniques that allow the precise selection and insertion of DNA from specimens frozen over millennia in Siberian ice.
Church helped develop the most widely used technique, known as Crispr/Cas9, that has transformed genetic engineering since it was first demonstrated in 2012. Derived from a defence system bacteria use to fend off viruses, it allows the “cut and paste” manipulation of strands of DNA with a precision not seen before.
Gene editing and its ethical implications is one of the key topics under discussion at the Boston conference.
Church, a guest speaker at the meeting, said the mammoth project had two goals: securing an alternative future for the endangered Asian elephant and helping to combat global warming. Woolly mammoths could help prevent tundra permafrost from melting and releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
“They keep the tundra from thawing by punching through snow and allowing cold air to come in,” said Church. “In the summer they knock down trees and help the grass grow.”
The scientists intend to engineer elephant skin cells to produce the embryo, or multiple embryos, using cloning techniques. Nuclei from the reprogrammed cells would be placed into elephant egg cells whose own genetic material has been removed. The eggs would then be artificially stimulated to develop into embryos.
Church predicts that age-reversal will become a reality within 10 years as a result of the new developments in genetic engineering.

"Do You Even Science?"

Before "established" sciences there were alchemists and naturalists.

Then you could not be considered serious as a researcher of any type unless you had qualifications from a university.

This entailed accepting a great deal of biased dogma from some very stuffed stiff shirts.

Because you cherished your degrees and qualifications and did not want to go against your old teachers who were part of the Establishment you continued spouting dogma -or facing their wrath and ridicule.

This I have seen in many fields.

People submit material along with proof but because it goes against dogma and the over-stuffed, stiff shirts never discovered it (because they were too comfortable in those plush armchairs) it was "wrong"/"unproven" and disputable.

When/if later proved to have been correct then "We never said it was incorrect just required more work to prove it correct" and they'll accept all the kudos for their former pupil.

A (an astronomer with years of experience): "There are very weird, inexplicable lights moving in the sky above the conference centre -quick, come and see!!"

Collective Idiots: "Calm yourself.  It'll be aircraft lights or astronomical."

Next day they will explain to the Press just how everyone is uneducated and cannot be trusted to observe accurately things flying above the conference centre they were in but never moved from to look for themselves.

A (a zoologist with years of experience including working with and studying puma in the field):
"I couldn't stop in the traffic but I saw it for 30 seconds some 3 metres away -every diagnostic feature of a puma except it was melanistic"

Selective Idiots (mainly armchair types with little field work): "No. There are no such things as black pumas.  You actually saw a black leopard in every likelihood."

A ( naturalist of 40 years): "I saw it with the naked eye out to see and then with field glasses of high power: It was larger than an Orca and had a long neck with squat head.  Perfect viewing conditions, too!"

A Selective idiot of any rank: "Distance and conditions -the eyes play tricks.  Probably a seal or several in a long line.  I was standing right next to the fellow but I wasn't going to turn to look at some optical illusion!"

This is not science.  Scientists and academics (do not get me started on them) are human.  They are not Mr Spock looking solely at evidence impartially.  They are full of their own personal beliefs and often over-inflated ego (try referring to one in a conversation as "Mr" rather than "Dr" or "Pofessor" -blood vessels almost pop out of their necks!).

Dogma has no place in science.

The more incredible a report sounds you do not say "idiots" you go and check it out and gather as much evidence as you can to say "Yay"/"Nay" or "Not proven but very interesting". Open minds is what science is about and not worrying that your university grant might be less this year if you even consider looking at something "strange".  You might be laughed at?  Get out of science because you belong on TV or radio or a public library and are not a scientist.

Here:

Who is Arthur Kornberg?  A Nobel Prize winner for one:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1959/kornberg-bio.html

"You are not an academic nor do you have a university accreditation!"

I hear that a lot -from people that don't check, to boot.

I am a naturalist.  Have been since a wee lad.  I have studied and specialised in native and non native fauna in the UK, particularly felids and canids -I was a consultant to UK Police Forces regarding this from 1977-2007.  I've contributed to papers for conference and written several books, fully referenced.  I've been into astronomy since a teen not to mention weather phenomena, psychology, aeronautics blah blah blah.  I am actually more qualified than some academics I've met (who had to filch knowledge from me -uncredited).  I am nothing special.  In fact, "established science" is based almost entirely on the work of jack-of-all-interests like me, many thousands of them, over the centuries.

Universities were about education but for more than a century they have been about building reputations to get more money -you are paying huge fees for pieces of paper because of what you think that paper will mean to you or earn for you.  I once asked a very high-up university professor how he had achieved his position?  "Arse-licking. Arse-licking and never stepping out of line or rocking the boat -otherwise I'd be scraping a living teaching yobs!"

Why is it that some naturalists and even -gods help us!- newspapers and magazines of the 18th/19th centuries realised that "the sea serpent" appeared at specific times of the year and at specific locations -in other words, migratory routes- yet stuffed professors seated in plush chairs said "Poppy-cock!  Old sailors tales and stories from the ill educated!!"

Here is one thing I never understood: that old dismissal line of "tales from old sea-dogs/sailors!"  You see, if you spent 30-40+ years sailing the sea you would expect to see whales (even some of those accounts dismissed until the species was later identified), seals, sharks, octopusses, squids and so on. Spend 24 hours a day on voyages that took months or even years then you would be familiar with "the usual" and really notice the unusual.  Able seaman, captain, first officer whatever -all 'misidentifying' common animals or waves in the water.

Right.

In no occupation do you work and observe something day-in and day-out, 364 days of the year and then note something unusual, refer to it and get called "ill educated" or miss-observing.  

With natural history it is known, though.

Reports of hairy, man-like beasts in Africa? Ignorant native superstition!  Then Friedrich Robert von Beringe gets his patrol to machine-gun a group of these creatures while on routine patrol and...the gorilla is discovered!  And for his, uh, 'scientific bravery', his name gets to be attached to theirs. In fact, this new species, commonly called "eastern gorilla", was later determined to consist of two sub-species: the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) and the eastern lowland gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri).

And how is this celebrated today? With a very sanitized Wikipedia entry -the full story can be found in Some More Things Strange And Sinister.

A true contributor to science!

In fact, peoples as well as naturalists describing seeing animals that were unknown at the time were accused of all types of things including outright fraud when the duckbill platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinuswas presented!  There is a very long history of such things.

These days, if one of these self-important stiff shirts accuses me of silliness because I actually get off my arse and do field work and investigate the strange and unusual (that they should be doing) and "not taking science seriously" I send them the perfect meme (I am endorsing no one by-the-way):



AOP Face Book page

Yes, the AOP FB page is still there but it seems no one wants to interact on any postings but it does get periodically up-dated.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/467983846696626/


NASA Scientists Find Organic Compounds On Ceres...but not Life

This ought to confuse the hell out of people. Press reports make you think this is about life of some kind being found.  It isn't.  There may be microbial life on Ceres but these are very early days and there is much more work to do yet!

Above: Ceres' Occator Crater in false colors
*********************************************************************************************

Ceres harbors homegrown organic compounds

Data hint dwarf planet may have had habitable environment

BY 
2:58PM, FEBRUARY 16, 2017


Dwarf planet Ceres contains the necessary ingredients for life, new data suggest.

NASA’s Dawn spacecraft has detected organic compounds on Ceres — the first concrete proof of organics on an object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This materialprobably originated on the dwarf planet itself, the researchers report in the Feb. 17 Science. The discovery of organic compounds, the building blocks of life, adds to the growing body of evidence that Ceres may have once had a habitable environment.

“We’ve come to recognize that Ceres has a lot of characteristics that are intriguing for those looking at how life starts,” says Andy Rivkin, a planetary astronomer at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md., who was not involved in the study.

The Dawn probe has previously detected salts, ammonia-rich clays and water ice on Ceres, which together indicate hydrothermal activity, says study coauthor Carol Raymond, a planetary scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.   

For life to begin, you need elements like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, as well as a source of energy. Both the hydrothermal activity and the presence of organics point toward Ceres having once had a habitable environment, Raymond says.

“If you have an abundance of those elements and you have an energy source,” she says, “then you’ve created sort of the soup from which life could have formed.” But study coauthor Lucy McFadden, a planetary scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., stresses that the team has not actually found any signs of life on Ceres.

Evidence of Ceres’ organic material comes from areas near Ernutet crater. Dawn picked up signs of a “fingerprint,” or spectra, consistent with organics. The pattern of wavelengths of light absorbed and reflected from these areas is similar to the pattern seen in hydrocarbons on Earth such as kerite and asphaltite. But without a sample from the surface, the team can’t say definitively what organic material is present or how it formed, says study coauthor Harry McSween, a geologist at the University of Tennessee.

The team suspects that the organics formed within Ceres’ interior and were brought to the surface by hydrothermal activity. An alternative idea — that a space rock that crashed into Ceres brought the material — is unlikely, the researchers say, because the concentration of organics is so high. An impact would have mixed organic compounds across the surface, diluting the concentration.

Detecting organics on Ceres also has implications for how life arose on Earth, McSween says. Some researchers think that life was jump-started by asteroids and other space rocks that delivered organic compounds to the planet. Finding such organic matter on Ceres “adds some credence to that idea,” he says.

above: Nasa -Ceres bright spots