Is Global Warming or Ivory Trade Uncovering More Mammoth Secrets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discovery
AI Thread Summary
The recent discovery of a well-preserved four-month-old baby woolly mammoth in Siberia, attributed to melting permafrost due to global warming, is set for advanced testing at the University of Michigan. This find highlights the potential for further discoveries from the ice age as climate change continues to expose ancient remains. However, the discussion also reveals concerns about ivory poaching in the region, where local collectors prioritize profit over preservation, impacting archaeological sites. The baby mammoth, estimated to be around 30,000 years old, raises questions about its life and death, and there is interest in the possibility of extracting DNA from its remains, which could lead to significant scientific advancements.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
About the most recent http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/25/news-from-alaska/baby-mammoth-undergoes-tests/, the little baby:

mammoth1.jpg


it is said:

Global warming may expose even more secrets of the ice age. The well-preserved remains of a four-month-old baby wooly mammoth recovered from melting permafrost in Siberia last spring will now undergo sophisiticated testing and analysis at University of Michigan for testing.

However, if you go there, the first thing that comes into mind is not 'global warming' that has increased the recent mammoth finds as http://www.nature.com/nature/links/041021/041021-8.html are roughly comparable to the 1940s, it's simply business. Ivory.

A few years ago http://www.american.edu/ted/elephant.htm[/URL] swarmed the areas and they are are collecting tons of tusks, with very mixed feelings of the paleontologists, since they ruin the finding places but they also do spectacular discoveries like this, in places in which previously nobody was interested in. There is a lot more to be expected.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/290/5499/2062 tells me that this particular mammoth baby is about 30,000 years old. Waiting for the scientific publication.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
Andre said:
About the most recent spectacular mammoth find, the little baby:
Cute little calf, oh but what mysteries will she reveal?

That's very sad about the ivory profiteers of Siberia. So for them, it's somewhat like a cash cow , a means to put food on their table. They don't feel any shame or guilt in plundering the remains of animals from antiquity.
 
Very interesting, Andre! How soon do the baby males begin to develop tusks?
 
According to Michio Kaku of String Theory fame, mammoth and dinosaur bones contain soft tissue suitable for DNA extraction. Incredibly the DNA is much better preserved in bones that it is in hair and the like. So be weary if you hear about a rash of breakins into dinosaur museums. Jurassic park here we come!
 
Its so tiny, I wonder how it died.
 
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...

Similar threads

Back
Top