Bringing Dinosaurs Back To Life - Mutating or "Bringing out" ancient genes.

[SomethingToPonder]

Im sure most of you heard about some of this research some time ago, But i have been looking into it on a more scientific level , And The whole process seems fairly do-able. I think it would take quite some time though to get to the right ancient genes. I for one would love to see it happen, But What consequences do you think it could hold bringing extinct species back to life? Maybe there was a reason reptiles declined from the top of the chain.could there be potential ramifications as humans in the long term, Maybe we would be allowing them a second shot, at life, and therefore allowing them to evolve into creatures with characteristics to survive from predators, (us) But because of our technological advances they would have some pretty nice adaptions. In my opinion no other species apart from the dinosaurs has adapted to survive as often as they did, with all the horns spikes teeth and size changes being very frequent.. I am talking a few thousand years down the line from now though, But it could bing about some major problems for future humans, You never know., Insects that come with them, new diseases etc. I welcome any philosophical points.

heres a few links to some articles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread687251/pg1



It will be interesting to see what everybody thinks. seems to be a debatable topic which i am sure many people will have different views on.

[Ophiolite]

1. We would not be able to revive an extinct species. We could, perhaps, recreate a species that shared many of the features of now extinct species.

2. Why would insects come back with them? That makes no sense.

3. Cockroaches are far more succesful than dinosaurs ever were.

[SomethingToPonder]

1. We would not be able to revive an extinct species. We could, perhaps, recreate a species that shared many of the features of now extinct species.

2. Why would insects come back with them? That makes no sense.

3. Cockroaches are far more succesful than dinosaurs ever were.

 

1. Yes i agree, Reviving was the wrong term I meant recreate. Ti seems perfectly possible due to the things in that article i posted the link to in the OP. If you do some looking into things he mentions you'l see it most likely could be done in the next 50 years,

 

2. I did not say insects would come back with them. I was saying if we did recreate them then a few hundred or even thousand years down the line , Once they are again part of our ecosystem and food chain. Insects would evolve due to them being alive. and my question was, What effects could this have on our ecosystem as these insects were already extinct.

 

3. I would argue dinosaurs were much greater. They adapted to cope with their environments more than any mammal or reptile ever has apart from maybe humans. I dont see cockroaches growing bone like defenses to ward of predators etc. But in all fairness cockroaches have been pretty successful as well but they have not changed or evolved if you will much. Unlike the dinosaurs.

 

Birds come from dinosaurs and a lot of our animals that are alive today do as well.

What has evolved from cockroaches?

 

In many ways dinosaurs trump cockroaches. they just died out due to a catastrophic incident.

[lightburst]

2. I did not say insects would come back with them. I was saying if we did recreate them then a few hundred or even thousand years down the line , Once they are again part of our ecosystem and food chain. Insects would evolve due to them being alive. and my question was, What effects could this have on our ecosystem as these insects were already extinct.

I don't think introducing new animals to the wild is such a good idea, for a start. In order for a particular insect species to evolve due to dinosaurs being alive, the dinosaurs (their prey/host) would have to be common enough in number such that they affect a large enough number of these insects. If the dinosaurs proved to be extra yummier, or if dinosaur blood is poisonous or something. Eitherway, 2-3 dinosaurs being part of the diet of several insects wouldn't cause any concerns.

 

Then again, given a long enough time, a local population can adapt to their new dinosaur diet. But nothing particularly noticeable (bigger, deadlier). New virus/bacterial strains could be possible though.

3. I would argue dinosaurs were much greater. They adapted to cope with their environments more than any mammal or reptile ever has apart from maybe humans. I dont see cockroaches growing bone like defenses to ward of predators etc. But in all fairness cockroaches have been pretty successful as well but they have not changed or evolved if you will much. Unlike the dinosaurs.

 

Birds come from dinosaurs and a lot of our animals that are alive today do as well.

What has evolved from cockroaches?

 

In many ways dinosaurs trump cockroaches. they just died out due to a catastrophic incident.

Current species can trace their roots to dinosaurs. Nothing has evolved from cockroaches because cockroaches are 'current'.

 

Animals evolve because they need to change to adapt. If something has been doing so well, then it doesn't need to evolve because there is nothing to adapt to.

 

Cockroaches are happy being the little nuclear-proof, crush-proof, smelly parasites that they are. There is nothing much to adapt to since they can pretty much eat anything and reproduces like crazy (their eggs are POISON PROOF) and they can fly and they are small so predators wouldn't be too much of a worry.

[zapatos]

Nothing has evolved from cockroaches because cockroaches are 'current'.

How is something going to evolve from cockroaches if cockroaches aren't 'current' (i.e. Dead)?

If I took some cockroaches and put them on an island, you may very well get yourself a different species, even though you still have the 'current' cockroach population on the mainland.

Animals evolve because they need to change to adapt. If something has been doing so well, then it doesn't need to evolve because there is nothing to adapt to.

Animals are always competing to survive. Doesn't matter if it is doing well or not. If an animal gains a trait that let's it compete better against its fellow species, it will likely evolve.

Cockroaches are happy being the little nuclear-proof, crush-proof, smelly parasites that they are. There is nothing much to adapt to since they can pretty much eat anything and reproduces like crazy (their eggs are POISON PROOF) and they can fly and they are small so predators wouldn't be too much of a worry.

They can adapt to different climates, to expand their territory, to out-reproduce their buddies, to deal with global warming, to thrive as building codes change, to adapt to invasive species, to adapt to the creativity of exterminators...

 

How could you bring a dinosaur back if you did not have the mother to carry it? I would assume the environment the mother provides to the embryo is crucial to how the dinosaur develops.

[Moontanman]

 

How could you bring a dinosaur back if you did not have the mother to carry it? I would assume the environment the mother provides to the embryo is crucial to how the dinosaur develops.

 

 

Dinosaurs laid eggs, I would have to assume that an ostrich egg might do the trick...

[SomethingToPonder]

Some very interesting responses, Thanks everyone for weighing in.

By the way i looked it up, There are different types of cockroaches, So somewhere down the line they must have had to change for some reason. Albeit due to weather, building codes, Invasive species as mentioned by zapatos.

Do you really think that fi humans managed to recreate a dinosaur they would stop at a couple? i dont. I reckon we would have a new species that would in some way or another end up in the wild. escape, Insects feeding on the dinosaurs could carry their blood, Birds could steal their eggs and drop them etc. (similar to how some fish end up in waters that are unusual.)

The environment is crucial to birth, But if we were to recreate it then it would be under different circumstances and we may have a slightly different dinosaur but we wouldn't know. the difference.

It would be a scientific achievement, But it could also prove disastrous.

[Moontanman]

Some very interesting responses, Thanks everyone for weighing in.

 

By the way i looked it up, There are different types of cockroaches, So somewhere down the line they must have had to change for some reason. Albeit due to weather, building codes, Invasive species as mentioned by zapatos.

 

Do you really think that fi humans managed to recreate a dinosaur they would stop at a couple? i dont. I reckon we would have a new species that would in some way or another end up in the wild. escape, Insects feeding on the dinosaurs could carry their blood, Birds could steal their eggs and drop them etc. (similar to how some fish end up in waters that are unusual.)

 

The environment is crucial to birth, But if we were to recreate it then it would be under different circumstances and we may have a slightly different dinosaur but we wouldn't know. the difference.

 

It would be a scientific achievement, But it could also prove disastrous.

 

 

Dinosaurs eggs are similar to fish eggs? Birds would drop them? Birds are dinosaurs, the eggs of dinosaurs were like.. bird eggs but for most species much larger and far to fragile to be picked up and dropped and still hatch...

 

Yes there different species of roaches, in fact a great many insects are related to roaches, from termites to mantises, I am unsure of what you are suggesting here but if you are suggesting that there was some ancient cock roach that gave rise to all cock roaches I think that would be a vast over simplification of what really happened. I would suggest an ancient insect ancestral to all the insects that are in that group of insects.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach

 

Cockroaches are insects of the order Blattaria or Blattodea, of which about 30 species out of 4,500 total are associated with human habitats. About four species are well known as pests.^[1][2]

 

Mantodea (praying mantises), Isoptera (termites), and Blattaria are usually combined by entomologists into a higher group called Dictyoptera. However recent genetic evidence strongly suggests that termites evolved directly from true cockroaches, and many authors now place them as an "epifamily" of cockroaches.^[4][5][6]

Historically, the name Blattaria has been used largely interchangeably with the name Blattodea, and this name is used for the order by the current world catalogue, the Blattodea Species File Online. Another name, Blattopterahas come into use for this same paraphyletic group.^[7] These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period 354–295 million years ago. However, these fossils differ from modern cockroaches in having long external ovipositors and are the ancestors of mantises, as well as modern roaches. The first fossils of modern cockroaches with internal ovipositors appeared in the early Cretaceous.

[zapatos]

Dinosaurs laid eggs, I would have to assume that an ostrich egg might do the trick...

I claim complete ignorance on this one. Would an ostrich egg work do you think? Do different types of eggs have different contents? Is what is needed for an ostrich to develop the same thing needed for a dinosaur to develop? If any types of proteins are missing or of the wrong quantity, is that likely to impact development?

 

And just to compare two somewhat similar species for reference, could an orangutan carry a human embryo to term?

 

(I can take this elsewhere if necessary as this certainly isn't a philosophy question.)

[Moontanman]

I claim complete ignorance on this one. Would an ostrich egg work do you think? Do different types of eggs have different contents? Is what is needed for an ostrich to develop the same thing needed for a dinosaur to develop? If any types of proteins are missing or of the wrong quantity, is that likely to impact development?

 

And just to compare two somewhat similar species for reference, could an orangutan carry a human embryo to term?

 

(I can take this elsewhere if necessary as this certainly isn't a philosophy question.)

 

Yes, in fact widely related species have been used to bring embryos to term. It's done in farm animals and in breeding rare wild animals, i see no reason why it wouldn't work in orangutans and humans..

[lightburst]

How is something going to evolve from cockroaches if cockroaches aren't 'current' (i.e. Dead)?

If I took some cockroaches and put them on an island, you may very well get yourself a different species, even though you still have the 'current' cockroach population on the mainland.

Of course. The OP was saying something about 'massive changes' being a sign of 'success'. I'm pointing out that it isn't. Cockroaches has not changed much (If they HAVE existed long before, as they are now) because they are good at what they do.

 

On the other hand, if cockroaches HAVE NOT existed long before as they are now, then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect something completely new evolving from cockroaches because cockroaches are 'current' (no time to evolve yet). Of course, things change even a small amount even for a small period. And an isolated population of roaches can diverge from any mainland specie, but the OP is expecting 'big changes' since he was talking about how our current species draw their roots from dinosaurs. (e.i. Chickens are mini raptors that don't want to eat you)

 

I have no idea whether cockroaches existed, as we know them now, along with the dinosaurs.

Animals are always competing to survive. Doesn't matter if it is doing well or not. If an animal gains a trait that let's it compete better against its fellow species, it will likely evolve.

I'd like to put this in the context of 'big changes', as it was the impression I got from the OP. Big changes occur the heavier the pressure to evolve is. (e.i. not doing well) Cockroaches wouldn't need evolving since there isn't really anything threatening their lives. Their food is easy, they reproduce fast, not a lot hunt them down. Granted, over time, they might gain insecticide immunity and shoe resistance.

They can adapt to different climates, to expand their territory, to out-reproduce their buddies, to deal with global warming, to thrive as building codes change, to adapt to invasive species, to adapt to the creativity of exterminators...

The way we live now as humans, even if we get larger cities and therefore larger territory for cockroaches, the environment will still be the same and there will be nothing new to adapt to. Global warming isn't something I expect roaches to directly fuss over. Though, destroyed earth and therefore no food for us and therefore no food for them would be a problem. I guess I didn't account for how humanity would affect them much.

[zapatos]

Of course. The OP was saying something about 'massive changes' being a sign of 'success'. I'm pointing out that it isn't.

Oh, okay. I see what you are getting at.

[SomethingToPonder]

Of course. The OP was saying something about 'massive changes' being a sign of 'success'. I'm pointing out that it isn't. Cockroaches has not changed much (If they HAVE existed long before, as they are now) because they are good at what they do.

 

On the other hand, if cockroaches HAVE NOT existed long before as they are now, then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect something completely new evolving from cockroaches because cockroaches are 'current' (no time to evolve yet). Of course, things change even a small amount even for a small period. And an isolated population of roaches can diverge from any mainland specie, but the OP is expecting 'big changes' since he was talking about how our current species draw their roots from dinosaurs. (e.i. Chickens are mini raptors that don't want to eat you)

 

I have no idea whether cockroaches existed, as we know them now, along with the dinosaurs. I'd like to put this in the context of 'big changes', as it was the impression I got from the OP. Big changes occur the heavier the pressure to evolve is. (e.i. not doing well) Cockroaches wouldn't need evolving since there isn't really anything threatening their lives. Their food is easy, they reproduce fast, not a lot hunt them down. Granted, over time, they might gain insecticide immunity and shoe resistance.The way we live now as humans, even if we get larger cities and therefore larger territory for cockroaches, the environment will still be the same and there will be nothing new to adapt to. Global warming isn't something I expect roaches to directly fuss over. Though, destroyed earth and therefore no food for us and therefore no food for them would be a problem. I guess I didn't account for how humanity would affect them much.

I actually wasn't saying that "changes" to a species due to evolution is a sign of success. I was merely saying that in my own personal opinion Dinosaurs adapted more to change due to various reasons, And cockroaches have not. Although true, There is no need for cockroaches to develop any defenses as they are not threatened at current. I was not "expecting" anything. My original post was purely about the dinosaurs and being able to re-create them and what implications this might have on us as the dominant species on earth.

 

"big changes" also occur for many reasons, Not just the species not doing well. Such as being the bottom of the food chain for too long,environmental changes, man made disasters ,being hunted by other species too often even if they are nowhere near extinction.

 

I can already tell that this is going to turn into a cockroaches Vs. dinosaurs debate Classic science forums. Let's try and keep it as on topic as possible.

Also if we did decide to re-create giant reptiles, The ecosystem would change, No doubt about it. For all we know we could be making a catastrophic mistake. Dinosaurs could develop in the next hundred thousand years if we did manage it, And develop harder skins and weapons of their own etc. Other dinosaurs would evolve from these and produce different species because there are some around already.

 

If you look at certain species of stingray they have developed "armor" made of the same type of bone as sharks teeth. There is also a scorpion that can survive in up to -30 Degrees. Have a look in this years Guinness world records. There are newly discovered animals and sea life. They are always finding new sea creatures that they hadn't previously known existed. Now were they in our waters for million of years and we didn't know? or did they evolve from something else recently and that's why we are just finding them now.

 

Is everything evolved from something else? probably in some way Yes. But Something had to be the first.How did we get so many different types of creatures from some starting point? It truly is amazing. You could get some new form of insect tomorrow that has not been threatened by extinction in anyway, But because it's species have been around for thousands and thousand maybe even millions of years it is just evolving now, And we get a new creature that we previously did not know about.

 

If we re-created dinosaurs, we would be using the DNA of creatures from millions of years ago who were a certain distance down the evolution line already at the point of extinction. We could bring back a T-rex for example, but what we don't know is that the T-rex had been around for a couple of million years in the Cretaceous and was due to evolve before the dinosaurs were wiped out. Now because we are evolving them from that T-rex's DNA, You could have a T-rex that lays eggs and it would be a new type of Dinosaur or type of T-rex. We would be basically kick starting them off from the position they were in millions of years ago.

 

So it would be plausible if we managed to re-create them that it may only take thousand of years for them to evolve again, even though they were under no threat.

Edited April 16, 2013 by SomethingToPonder

[lightburst]

For one, I think that scientists would have enough foresight to NOT release dinosaurs to the wild. Herbivorous or not. One reason is that somebody like me would just catch a triceratops and keep it as my own.

 

Dinosaurs already wield enough weapons and defenses to not have any reason to add any given our current ecosystems. What they need is stealth, smarts, and the foresight not to go into the cities and streets.

 

Also, they would need to be in significant number (about a hundred per population, IMO) to have them evolve in such a drastic way in a few thousands of years. Better chances for advantageous differences to occur and spread itself.

[michel123456]

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

[SomethingToPonder]

For one, I think that scientists would have enough foresight to NOT release dinosaurs to the wild. Herbivorous or not. One reason is that somebody like me would just catch a triceratops and keep it as my own.

 

Dinosaurs already wield enough weapons and defenses to not have any reason to add any given our current ecosystems. What they need is stealth, smarts, and the foresight not to go into the cities and streets.

 

Also, they would need to be in significant number (about a hundred per population, IMO) to have them evolve in such a drastic way in a few thousands of years. Better chances for advantageous differences to occur and spread itself.

I wasn't saying they would release them into the wild, I was saying that inevitably they would end up there in some way or another There is a million possibilities.

 

As for them having to be a significant number to evolve, What about what i said about in order to bring a species back, you must have some sort of it's DNA. So when they bring back dinosaur "x" it could already be a short while away from evolving and when we bring it back, It's genes are only a generation or 2 away from change. A change that that dinosaur's family were going to make millions of years ago before they were wiped out.

[lightburst]

I don't think evolution works quite like that. Things change when there is continual reason to change. If, say, a particular dinosaur is starting to grow a hard exoskeleton and given a few generations in its dino-era it would have end up having essentially a shell. If we resurrect that particular dinosaur, it wouldn't continue growing that exoskeleton just because it would have grown it anyway in its era simply because the ecosystem is different now and the reasons why its growing a hard shell may not be present anymore. The specie that would have end up being the triceratops wouldn't grow its nice shield face anymore if there weren't any t-rexes to defend against. The ballgame is different now.

[Moontanman]

Somethingtoponder, I suggest you get a better understanding of what evolution is and how it works, so far what you have suggested is nonsensical and has no connection to evolutionary theory...

 

edited due to my own lack of observational skills, sorry lightburst...

Edited April 16, 2013 by Moontanman

[Ophiolite]

Let me expand upon what Mootanman said.

 

You suggest that a triceratops, in the absence of T-Rex, would not grow its 'face shield'. This is incorrect. The genetic programming would lead to the development of the face shield. Over many generations the face shield might diminish and even disappear, but this would be the result of changes in its genetic structure, i.e evolution.

[Moontanman]

As for the roaches, as i pointed out there are 4500 species of roaches, only 4 are pests and we tend to label nearly all of them cockroaches, the roaches of the Permian are not the roaches of our time and termites are evolved from roaches or at least roach like insects as are mantis...

Another thing I would like to point out is that while chickens are thought to be dinosaurs in the same sense that bats are mammals chickens are a part of a specific group of dinosaurs called theropods. Triceratops, while related, evolved after their ancestors split from the ancestors of theropods so chickens could not be used to recreate anything but theropods no triceratops, ankylosaurus, stegosaurus or sauropods any more than Bats could be used to recreate elephants...

Edited April 16, 2013 by Moontanman

[lightburst]

Let me expand upon what Mootanman said.

 

You suggest that a triceratops, in the absence of T-Rex, would not grow its 'face shield'. This is incorrect. The genetic programming would lead to the development of the face shield. Over many generations the face shield might diminish and even disappear, but this would be the result of changes in its genetic structure, i.e evolution.

But that is only if the face shield already exists, no? Surely the im-assuming flat-faced hornless ancestor of the triceratops wouldn't have grown the face shield anyway if t-rexes suddenly disappeared (not necessarily having not existed).

[Moontanman]

But that is only if the face shield already exists, no? Surely the im-assuming flat-faced hornless ancestor of the triceratops wouldn't have grown the face shield anyway if t-rexes suddenly disappeared (not necessarily having not existed).

 

 

Actually some schools of thought say the crest and the horns were a sexual display and only secondarily defensive...

[Ophiolite]

But that is only if the face shield already exists, no? Surely the im-assuming flat-faced hornless ancestor of the triceratops wouldn't have grown the face shield anyway if t-rexes suddenly disappeared (not necessarily having not existed).

By definition it exists, else the frigging animal would not be a Triceratops. Perhaps you are just expressing yourself badly (very badly). The evolutionary trajectory of any line is determined by two things, primarily: genetic character, including random changes in that character; selective processes, contingent upon environment. Do you accept, ot deny this?

[lightburst]

Actually some schools of thought say the crest and the horns were a sexual display and only secondarily defensive...

It would be odd to grow something so useful just to show off to the ladies... But nevertheless.

By definition it exists, else the frigging animal would not be a Triceratops. Perhaps you are just expressing yourself badly (very badly). The evolutionary trajectory of any line is determined by two things, primarily: genetic character, including random changes in that character; selective processes, contingent upon environment. Do you accept, ot deny this?

I wouldn't deny that genetics and natural selection (environment, competition, prey) greatly influence an animal's evolution. I say that only because I didn't formally study biology, or even evolution. (nobody told me 'THESE ARE THE ONLY REASONS')

 

The OP said something about a dinosaur evolving into something, something it would have evolved into eventually in the dino-era, even though it now has been resurrected into our era. Then I said that the triceratops ancestor (without the horn and face shield, or at least underdeveloped and uncool) wouldn't have grown its triceratop features (horn, face shield) had it been resurrected into our modern era because the reasons it would have grown those features wouldn't necessarily exist anymore. Of course, if it is truly only for mating then it would have grown it I suppose but for the sake of argument lets make it something cool (offensive, defensive).

 

I think that genetics does define the sort of roads an animal's evolution can take (possible paths). However, I also think that it is natural selection that drives and influences which road to take. Perhaps in some way, mutation does too. Therefore, my argument is that, if the reasons that compelled the triceratops ancestor to evolve the triceratop features in the dino-era is now gone in the modern era had it been resurrected, then it wouldn't continue/go forth on evolving the triceratop features.

 

I think that because of genetics, the triceratop ancestor would only have the 'potentiality' to evolve a face shield, and without any survival reason to do so then it wouldn't evolve one.

[Moontanman]

It would be odd to grow something so useful just to show off to the ladies...

 

 

 

Deer and Elk, Moose, all of these have horns due to sexual selection, any defensive use is secondary, other animals horns and or tusks are also at least partly driven by sexual selection, ie the male with the biggest horns or tusks is likely to have the most mates...