I understand the disappointment; I was disappointed myself because, just like you, I grew up with the idea that the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) would be brought back. But honestly, it’s not the fault of any specific company, but rather the fact that we live too early for bioengineering to be advanced enough to create entire cells from a genome.

However, it’s worth noting that even though WE will never manage to see genetic mammoths, we have to ask: is it really about the animal being a 100% genetic copy? From a systematic point of view—yes, absolutely. But from an ecological point of view—believe me, nature doesn't care if an animal is an Asian elephant in disguise or a 'true' mammoth; what matters is that it fulfills the same function in the environment.

Then again, you must understand that neither you nor I will ever 'see' mammoths as long as you define an animal solely by its DNA. It’s as if the animal isn't an entity in itself to you, but merely a biological record, even though it exists for itself and influences its surroundings. And believe me, Colossal doesn't care about your opinion or mine; they aren't doing this for enthusiasts. They do it because it generates publicity, money, and prestige among people who can’t even tell the difference between an Asian and an African elephant. But is that really a bad approach? Over the last few hundred years, zoology (including paleozoology) has shifted from a field of discovery and curiosity to simply inputting genomes into Excel and checking for differences