Guest Sydsnapsidin Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 According to this page it seems virtually impossible. Is it really? http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/jp_qanda.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Assuming we could create dinosaurs in the way that the books suggest, which is not totally beyond the realms of possibility but still very tricky, the biggest problem we would have is constructing a suitable habitat for them (especially the herbivores). The trial and error aspect would be very expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inamorata Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Not withstanding the fact that we would first need some decent genetic sequence.... and a surrogate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Not withstanding the fact that we would first need some decent genetic sequence.... and a surrogate... Yes and even then it wouldnt be 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treadstone Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 The trial and error aspect would be very expensive lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 According to this page it seems virtually impossible. Is it really? [url']http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/jp_qanda.html[/url] The problem is, amber or no amber, the OLDEST possible DNA extraction was done on a specimen of about 50 thousand years old and that was mainly due to the luck of the draw as to where the fossils were found. Dyno's go back millions of years ago, which present a problem with such an extraction, and since No one has done it thus far, it may indeed be impossible to get a hold of their genetic materiel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolecularMan14 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 what was it that they took DNA from, from 50 thousand years ago? Mammoths? Didnt they find one older than that? Sry if this sounds stupid, but I havnt been keeping up with the news on ancient genetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Some paleontologist did manage to extract some DNA from a bone, which he claims is from a dinosaur. It's only 174 bases long. Since this is like one millionth the amount of nucleic acids in a genome there isn't much chance of making a T-Rex from it. There is only so much hardened amber around from the dinosaur era. There is only so much amber that contains blood-sucking parasites. There is only so much DNA that we can extract from this amber. Until we dig up some huge pit of dinosaur DNA it is impossible to recreate Jurassic Park. http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/dnadino.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I very much doubt anyone has found dinosaur bones, never mind dino DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I very much doubt anyone has found dinosaur bones, never mind dino DNA. The bone was preserved in a peat bog and only partially fossilized. He supposedly found bone fragments inside it. Some scientists think that the DNA that he found was really human DNA contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 what was it that they took DNA from, from 50 thousand years ago? Mammoths? Yes it was. The reason was due to it being found in an ice block, and anything that was ice cubed, will have lots and lots of DNA. Didnt they find one older than that? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 too bad dinos were cold blooded. That may not be true. Some or all may have been warm blooded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 The bone was preserved in a peat bog and only partially fossilized. He supposedly found bone fragments inside it. Some scientists think that the DNA that he found was really human DNA contamination. How long do peat bogs last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Not 80 million years. The peat bog had already turned to coal but the stunted decomposition process from the bog left pockets of organic material within the fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Not 80 million years. The peat bog had already turned to coal but the stunted decomposition process from the bog left pockets of organic material within the fossil. Sounds a bit dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Some paleontologist did manage to extract some DNA from a bone' date=' which he claims is from a dinosaur. It's only 174 bases long. Since this is like one millionth the amount of nucleic acids in a genome there isn't much chance of making a T-Rex from it. There is only so much hardened amber around from the dinosaur era. There is only so much amber that contains blood-sucking parasites. There is only so much DNA that we can extract from this amber. Until we dig up some huge pit of dinosaur DNA it is impossible to recreate Jurassic Park. http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/dnadino.htm[/quote'] interesting article, I looked at the link you gave and found this: ---quote from dnadino.htm----- Amber may turn out not to be the only potential source of dinosaur DNA. While most fossilized bones no longer contain any biological material there maybe rare cases where organic material has survived the fossilization process. Scott Woodward, of Brigham Young University, has reported finding DNA in bones recovered from an underground coal mine. Woodward knew that carcasses found in peat bogs were often well preserved for long periods of time. He also knew that ancient bogs became modern coal veins. Getting a hold of some bone fragments found in a coal mine Woodward decided to look for DNA. As Woodward had hoped the bone wasn't completely fossilized and portions were "waxy, like hard soap." Microscopic examination of the bone showed that the cell structures were still preserved, so he began to look for DNA. One gene segment, 174 base pair long, was found. It didn't look like the same gene from any living animal, a strong indication it wasn't the result of laboratory contamination. (how sure can they be about that?) Though Woodward cannot say for sure that the bone fragments found in coal were from a particular dinosaur, he does know that whatever animal it was large and lived some 80 million years ago during the Certaceous. A dinosaur seems like a good candidate. If Woodward can show he actually has dinosaur DNA his technique may be extremely useful for learning more about extinct creatures. Unlike with insects in amber, getting DNA right from dinosaur bone would allow a specific DNA sequences to be associated with specific dinosaur species. Paleontologist Jack Horner and graduate student Mary Schwietzer had already been trying to isolateTyrannosaurus Rex DNA from bones even before Woodward started his work. ----end quote--- that means looking out for Scott Woodward (Brigham Young Univ.) to see if more comes out of this, or if it is confirmed by other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flak Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 The prehistoric animals that could be recreated again could be the recent exting ones like smilodons and mastodonts, since fair conserved ones was found. However in case this is done you are not making they back to life. About dinosaurs, this is not posible with some dinosaurs. For example forget about do it with sauropods, ceratopsians, tireforos, etc. However with theropods this could be posible, since the birds comes from them. However as described on the link posted before this is not easily posible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_Phoenix87 Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 couldnt we fill the empty areas of DNA with other DNA of a closely matched DNA sequence? as it is only like 1 in 100 genes are different between a human and a chimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 do you not need stem cells to make other parts of the dinosaur, unless you just want to spend millions on some sort of dino-black pudding...... So does a mosquito not have to eat bone marrow or an umbillical cord to make dinosaurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 No. Don't be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 explain to me how u get DNA from blood cells that have no nucleus?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 What has that got to do with whether or not mosquitos eat organs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 what i meant is that to make a complete dinosaur you need every organ a dianosaur has you either need stem cells or a sample of every cell yes? hence cloning humans is controversial as it requires stem cells from embryos (or bone marrow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Ah, I see where you are going now. You're thinking that human cells only contain the genetic information needed to make copies of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 that is as far as i understand the biology of cloning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now