Jurassic Park -- Completely impossible?

[Guest Sydsnapsidin]

According to this page it seems virtually impossible. Is it really? http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/jp_qanda.html

[Sayonara]

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.

[inamorata]

Not withstanding the fact that we would first need some decent genetic sequence....

 

and a surrogate...

[Wolfman]

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.

[Treadstone]

The trial and error aspect would be very expensive

 

lol

[admiral_ju00]

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.

[MolecularMan14]

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.

[LucidDreamer]

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

[Sayonara]

I very much doubt anyone has found dinosaur bones, never mind dino DNA.

[LucidDreamer]

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.

[admiral_ju00]

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.

[john5746]

too bad dinos were cold blooded.

 

That may not be true. Some or all may have been warm blooded.

[Sayonara]

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?

 

[LucidDreamer]

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

[Martin]

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

[Flak]

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.

[Ice_Phoenix87]

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

[ed84c]

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?

[Sayonara]

No. Don't be ridiculous.

[ed84c]

explain to me how u get DNA from blood cells that have no nucleus?!

[Sayonara]

What has that got to do with whether or not mosquitos eat organs?

[ed84c]

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)

[Sayonara]

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.

[ed84c]

that is as far as i understand the biology of cloning.