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

[SomethingToPonder]

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...

I don't think it is nonsensical at all. In fact who is to say that it couldn't happen.

What part of what i suggested is nonsensical actually? could you please quote a specific sentence or paragraph please.

 

I was asking if it could happen and stating what i thought might be a possibility. I dont recall stating i was correct at any point.

 

though instead of dismissing what you say i shall look up evolutionary theory and study it some more to gain a better of understanding.

though may i just point out that what i said might be correct. It is called evolutionary THEORY for a reason. While im not trying to disprove darwin or anybody else, It still is only a theory, While it may be thought of by many a lot smarter than myself as correct it could still be wrong and you would be closed minded to dismiss what i say as "nonsensical" because it dosen't fall in line with what you currently believe.

[pwagen]

though may i just point out that what i said might be correct. It is called evolutionary THEORY for a reason. While im not trying to disprove darwin or anybody else, It still is only a theory,

May I suggest you also look up the definition of "scientific theory" while you're at it?

 

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

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[SomethingToPonder]

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?

Random changes, would that mean technically anything could happen?

 

for example. A triceratops could have grown its horns just for the sake of it? I know that in that example it is not the case and it's probably a very bad example. but basically any animal could develop in a certain way randomly? without effect from the ecosystem , Climate or predators?

 

 

 

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...

That is only speculation technically. Many people believe otherwise and there are arguments to support both sides.

We as humans can really only speculate, You cannot say your reasoning is correct without a doubt because we cant ever know exactly why animals develop the way we do.

We can speculate and make educated guesses at most. Some which are very reasonable and could well be the correct reason but you cannot say that is correct.

[Ophiolite]

though may i just point out that what i said might be correct. It is called evolutionary THEORY for a reason. While im not trying to disprove darwin or anybody else, It still is only a theory,

Oh dear. Oh deary me! The old 'it is only a theory argument'. It is difficult to avoid deep feelings of frustration that could boil over into anger and contempt. I'll do my best to hold these in check.

 

Theory in science is as good as it gets. Nothing trumps theory. Theory is the end product of the scientific method. Theory is the goal of science. Theory is a combination of hypothesis and observation and experiment and validation and confirmation, the latter done multiple times, in diverese ways, by different individuals, until it is clear that the theory offers a sound, solid, detailed explanation of a phenomena. It is called evolutionary theory because two centuries of observation, experiment, validation, questioning, consideration, argument, debate, analysis, prediction and the like have led to a comprehensive, deep, integrated, insightful, well substantiated explanation, that supercedes, or subsumes all previous explanations and does so with a conviction and a finess that no other hypothesis can offer.

 

Until you understand and accept that your observations will be treated much as they deserve to be.

[SomethingToPonder]

May I suggest you also look up the definition of "scientific theory" while you're at it?

 

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

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Well i take that back. I apologize i obviously had that wrong. But maybe you knew what i was getting at? theory's have been disproved many times. and in order to be a theory they must have been repeatedly tested with experiments. But even after that, they are disproved, So technically a theory could be wrong, Without a doubt.

 

but i completely agree i used that out of context.

[pwagen]

The thing with evolution though, is how ridiculously massive the evidence for it is. While you're right that theories are sometimes abandoned due to new evidence etc, this won't happen with evolution. At best (worst?) our understanding of it will change minuscule details in it, but it's not going to change in any major way. Evolution happening is a fact.

 

At the same time though, the process of evolution via natural selection is often misunderstood. Ironically, how it works is often misunderstood by its loudest proponents. But regardless of all that, you're definitely doing the right thing in looking it up and trying to get a better understanding, instead of simply dismissing what Moontanman said.

[SomethingToPonder]

Oh dear. Oh deary me! The old 'it is only a theory argument'. It is difficult to avoid deep feelings of frustration that could boil over into anger and contempt. I'll do my best to hold these in check.

 

Theory in science is as good as it gets. Nothing trumps theory. Theory is the end product of the scientific method. Theory is the goal of science. Theory is a combination of hypothesis and observation and experiment and validation and confirmation, the latter done multiple times, in diverese ways, by different individuals, until it is clear that the theory offers a sound, solid, detailed explanation of a phenomena. It is called evolutionary theory because two centuries of observation, experiment, validation, questioning, consideration, argument, debate, analysis, prediction and the like have led to a comprehensive, deep, integrated, insightful, well substantiated explanation, that supercedes, or subsumes all previous explanations and does so with a conviction and a finess that no other hypothesis can offer.

 

Until you understand and accept that your observations will be treated much as they deserve to be.

Excuse me i am just after apologizing for that. maybe you didn't see that as i just recently posted it. I did look up the links i was given and thank you for pointing out my errors.

 

But are you really trying to say here that a Theory could not be proven wrong? because if that is the case then im afraid you are wrong.

I do get that a theory is as good as it gets and many are most likely, Not even most likely, Il go as far as to say probably correct. However that does not mean that because it is classed as a theory that it is definitely to be believed. If this was the case we would have many ideas from years and years ago that are very very wrong indeed.

 

I understand what you are saying, But i disagree with you saying " Until you understand and accept that your observations will be treated much as they deserve to be." I should not have to accept anything and it is scientific nature to question things.

However if your referring to accepting your definition of theory then yes, I was wrong,which i have apologized for and you are correct.

And i would say that FACT trumps theory any day.

 

 

The thing with evolution though, is how ridiculously massive the evidence for it is. While you're right that theories are sometimes abandoned due to new evidence etc, this won't happen with evolution. At best (worst?) our understanding of it will change minuscule details in it, but it's not going to change in any major way. Evolution happening is a fact.

 

At the same time though, the process of evolution via natural selection is often misunderstood. Ironically, how it works is often misunderstood by its loudest proponents. But regardless of all that, you're definitely doing the right thing in looking it up and trying to get a better understanding, instead of simply dismissing what Moontanman said.

Your probably right about evolution theory, It is most likely to be correct on the most part if anything is incorrect.

 

That is ironic actually. Thank you, i would be very closed minded just to dismiss what he said , I don't agree with that at all and it gets people nowhere.

[Ophiolite]

And i would say that FACT trumps theory any day.

I understand that is what you would say. Can you give me an example of a fact?

[SomethingToPonder]

I understand that is what you would say. Can you give me an example of a fact?

I knew you would respond with something similar to this.

Yes a fact would be that gravity exists, decent enough? Or that humans cant breathe underwater. I understand that it would be immensely harder to prove a scientific theory but even so, a fact does trump theory.

 

could you explain to me how you understand that is what i would say please?

[Moontanman]

I knew you would respond with something similar to this.

Yes a fact would be that gravity exists, decent enough? Or that humans cant breathe underwater. I understand that it would be immensely harder to prove a scientific theory but even so, a fact does trump theory.

 

could you explain to me how you understand that is what i would say please?

 

 

A theory in science is a body of knowledge consisting of facts, laws and observations, the theory explains how they work... get a clue...

[SomethingToPonder]

I can tell the direction this thread is going in and i really do not want to get into any prolonged unnecessary arguments. I understand i made a mistake with the definition of theory and i did apologize for that and researched the links provided to me. So i got a clue and I am still trying to get a better understanding of what you have said and am researching it all Moontanman as you would have seen if you had read my one or two threads stating that. here's a quote from what pwagen said above. " you're definitely doing the right thing in looking it up and trying to get a better understanding, instead of simply dismissing what Moontanman said."

could we please maybe get back on topic to the original point. remember i did ask this question on here because i know there are a lot of very intelligent people on here who might have some great insight. Not for any other reason.

[Moontanman]

I can tell the direction this thread is going in and i really do not want to get into any prolonged unnecessary arguments. I understand i made a mistake with the definition of theory and i did apologize for that and researched the links provided to me. So i got a clue and I am still trying to get a better understanding of what you have said and am researching it all Moontanman as you would have seen if you had read my one or two threads stating that. here's a quote from what pwagen said above. " you're definitely doing the right thing in looking it up and trying to get a better understanding, instead of simply dismissing what Moontanman said."

 

could we please maybe get back on topic to the original point. remember i did ask this question on here because i know there are a lot of very intelligent people on here who might have some great insight. Not for any other reason.

 

 

 

 

No, you said a fact trumps theory, that means you have failed to get a clue...

[zapatos]

But are you really trying to say here that a Theory could not be proven wrong? because if that is the case then im afraid you are wrong.

It is possible for any theory to be proven wrong, but as more observations are found to support the theory, and the theory is further refined, the probability that a theory will be found wrong decreases. Some theories have a relatively small amount of support and other theories have a great deal of support. Theories that have a great deal of support, such as the theory of evolution, are so unlikely to eventually be found wrong, that they are the equivalent of what lay people would call 'facts'. It is quite probable that the theory of evolution will be further refined, and that some aspects of it may be found to be wrong, but the overall concept is as close to a 'fact' as you are likely to find anywhere.

I do get that a theory is as good as it gets and many are most likely, Not even most likely, Il go as far as to say probably correct. However that does not mean that because it is classed as a theory that it is definitely to be believed. If this was the case we would have many ideas from years and years ago that are very very wrong indeed.

I agree. But I'll also say that any theories that have been simply thrown out eventually, did not have the support found for them as you find for the theory of evolution.

 

Random changes, would that mean technically anything could happen?

 

for example. A triceratops could have grown its horns just for the sake of it? I know that in that example it is not the case and it's probably a very bad example. but basically any animal could develop in a certain way randomly? without effect from the ecosystem , Climate or predators?

A change is random, which means many different things could happen. It is possible for an animal to develop a new trait unaffected by the environment, but is it uncommon. The reason it is uncommon is because if it confers no benefit to the animal, yet costs the animal in some way, the animal is unlikely to out compete its rivals. Using the triceratops example, a lot of energy would have to go into the growth and maintenance of those horns. And if it attracted no more females, did not provide defense or the easier gathering of food, then what you have is a net loss for the animal. Greater energy requirement and no added benefit. Therefore its rivals would likely out compete it and the trait would disappear.

 

One way a trait might remain in the species even with no added benefit, is if it happens to occur in tandem with another trait that did provide a benefit. For example, if an animal gains a trait that allows it to better mate, at the same time it develops a trait that is useless, it may keep the useless trait because it shows up with the useful trait.

[lightburst]

The way I see it, Theory is something that tries to explain things with proof. The proof part bumps it up from hypothesis. The proof is simply 'reasonable reasons to believe so'. So, there are theories that are less factual and conclusive than others. Much like string theory is, as far as I know, based off mathematical arguments rather than empirical/physical data. Whereas the theory of gravity and electromagnetism is very much demonstratable. Both are 'theories' but vary in how true people perceive them to be. And then there are the theories in fields like psychology which aren't always true but are nevertheless fair because they have data to support the argument.

 

'Facts', as people know it, are just things we've seen to occur without the observer being out of their mind (drunk, high). If you stretch it out from things mundane like 'he stole a car' and into natural phenomena, then 'facts' are just things that have occurred so often we assume it's going to happen to the end of time.

 

It's not fair to compare 'facts' a theory because theories only try to explain things using the information given to it as proof; they are different things. On the other hand, if you disregard theory as a set of ideas some old fool thought of (which I'm sure a lot of people think of, particularly for evolution) and only look at the data THEN you can compare the 'theory' with being 'fact'.

 

Of course, you can view the data in different ways much like gravity can simply be particles or a wave or even rubber strings connecting everything that has mass (which are things I'm not trying to suggest as true, but for the sake of argument), but the point is that IT'S THERE. If you line up the human ancestors scientists 'claim to be', then you'd see that evolution is such an obvious thing you'd be half crazy not to believe in it, and then the scientists' 'claim' becomes so conclusive and we live happily ever after.

 

So, theory can both be 'theory' and fact. Give or take a vantage point.

[Dovahkiin]

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.

Geneticists have already said they cannot bring back the Dinosaur because there is no DNA to follow. But they will be able to bring back Mammoths, Sabertooth Tigers, Dodo's and a few others. Dinosaurs are lost because we have a certain amount of time to be able to bring something back (for lack of better term). I think it is about 50,000 years or so which still leaves the option of many animals. The only thing I see bad about it is that once we do bring back some species like mammoths, they will become extinct again anyway through the climate changes on our planet or through hunting. Who the heck would not want a Wooly Mammoth blanket?!?!

[SomethingToPonder]

No, you said a fact trumps theory, that means you have failed to get a clue...

I hardly see how. Why do you never offer explanations? It seems to me you just have turned this into an argument between me and you which i dont want, I actually do enjoy reading some of your posts and in no way think im better than you, though i suspect you think you are better or smarter than me.

 

How does a cold hard fact not trump a theory? It makes no sense whatsoever. I learned the proper meaning of scientific theory with links provided to me because i obviously had it wrong, And with that in mind i definitely think fact trumps theory, Actually i think it's blatantly obvious.

 

You think a theory trumps a fact then? sounds to me like you have no clue.

 

 

It is possible for any theory to be proven wrong, but as more observations are found to support the theory, and the theory is further refined, the probability that a theory will be found wrong decreases. Some theories have a relatively small amount of support and other theories have a great deal of support. Theories that have a great deal of support, such as the theory of evolution, are so unlikely to eventually be found wrong, that they are the equivalent of what lay people would call 'facts'. It is quite probable that the theory of evolution will be further refined, and that some aspects of it may be found to be wrong, but the overall concept is as close to a 'fact' as you are likely to find anywhere.I agree. But I'll also say that any theories that have been simply thrown out eventually, did not have the support found for them as you find for the theory of evolution.

 

A change is random, which means many different things could happen. It is possible for an animal to develop a new trait unaffected by the environment, but is it uncommon. The reason it is uncommon is because if it confers no benefit to the animal, yet costs the animal in some way, the animal is unlikely to out compete its rivals. Using the triceratops example, a lot of energy would have to go into the growth and maintenance of those horns. And if it attracted no more females, did not provide defense or the easier gathering of food, then what you have is a net loss for the animal. Greater energy requirement and no added benefit. Therefore its rivals would likely out compete it and the trait would disappear.

 

One way a trait might remain in the species even with no added benefit, is if it happens to occur in tandem with another trait that did provide a benefit. For example, if an animal gains a trait that allows it to better mate, at the same time it develops a trait that is useless, it may keep the useless trait because it shows up with the useful trait.

Thanks for pointing that out, I found a good few points there and i agree especially with what you said about the support of a theory and you are right evolution is without a doubt probably correct. Iwould also like to say i was never trying to say the theory of evolution was wrong. I was only asking if something else could happen. I think it was something to do with if say the brought back a dinosaur that was only a few generations away from evolving if you will, could it then transform upon it being brought back within a few generations or something along the lines. I was never trying to disprove evolution or anything like that.

 

[Moontanman]

I hardly see how. Why do you never offer explanations? It seems to me you just have turned this into an argument between me and you which i dont want, I actually do enjoy reading some of your posts and in no way think im better than you, though i suspect you think you are better or smarter than me.

 

Insulting insinuations only serve to make your argument look bad...

 

 

How does a cold hard fact not trump a theory? It makes no sense whatsoever. I learned the proper meaning of scientific theory with links provided to me because i obviously had it wrong, And with that in mind i definitely think fact trumps theory, Actually i think it's blatantly obvious.

 

You think a theory trumps a fact then? sounds to me like you have no clue.

 

 

 

 

 

No, a theory is a body of knowledge made up of facts and sometimes laws, the theory explains how the facts are connected. As in evolution, it's a fact that mutations occur, it's a fact that organisms reproduce, it's a fact that mutations affect the offspring of organisms, it's a fact that various influences determine what effects those mutations have on an organism. The theory of evolution explains how those facts are connected and result in the bio diversity we see around us today...

Edited April 19, 2013 by Moontanman

[SomethingToPonder]

Insulting insinuations only serve to make your argument look bad...

 

 

No, a theory is a body of knowledge made up of facts and sometimes laws, the theory explains how the facts are connected. As in evolution, it's a fact that mutations occur, it's a fact that organisms reproduce, it's a fact that mutations affect the offspring of organisms, it's a fact that various influences determine what effects those mutations have on an organism. The theory of evolution explains how those facts are connected and result in the bio diversity we see around us today...

I see what you are getting at now. Yes a theory is made up of facts, However Theory's themselves are proven wrong in some situations, While the laws or facts that are included in them remain correct. Which is why im arguing that fact trumps theory.

 

do you see my side of the argument?

 

And just for the record, I was not insulting you, or making any insinuations, i was only telling you what i suspected. however from now on i will keep my suspicions to myself as i can see how it may diminish the strength of my argument.

Edited April 19, 2013 by SomethingToPonder

[sogam01]

i think the jurasic park is gonna wake up and we all gonna be french fries for them