Jurassic Park...Is it possible?

[Total_Warrior]

Well now that im into Jurassic Park and Dinosaurs again I ask you this.What if they find a masquito that lived for over 65 million years and was trapped in the sap on a tree?Would it be possible to extract the DNA and clone dinosaurs?Because when i saw that scene I was wondering is it possible?

 

[The_Taxidermist]

welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Right Now No
Distant Future Maybe
Eventually Yes

thx4playing

 

[brad.dude03]

Read the books. Complex systems like that are impossible to maintain and eventually order will break down entirely. The Park itself would never work, even if we could manage the cloning bit.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Even if you looked into the DNA of the blood sucked from a mosquito, it would be too broken up to work with. Jurassic Park tried to find a solution to this by filling in the gaps with frog DNA, but that wouldn't exactly create a dinosaur. The first step in making Jurassic Park possible would have to be saving up a lot of dinosaur DNA in order to create a "big picture". However, it would be rather hard to even tell what dinosaur DNA would look like, as there are no present day dinosaurs to compare it with.

 

[Zombie]

Resurrecting dinosaurs could work in the far future, when human cloning becomes an everyday thing, they might manage to clone a dinosaur. Even then, I'm not sure if it will be possible. I don't think it's possible to create dinosaurs with the method that was in Jurrasic park. Also, I think bringing back dinosaurs is totally pointless.

The Jurrasic park will be impossible to create/operate/keep under control, and totally pointless.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Short answer No with a But

Long answer Yes with an if

 

[Masiah]

Not yet.

 

[brad.dude03]

Like MSBB said, even if we do perfect cloning, there's still the matter of cloning something that hasn't lived for 65 million years or more. Trying to first gather enough genetic material, and trying to basically guess what the big picture looks like, and then even if we managed that, adapting the creatures to the present day, would all prove near-impossible tasks.

 

[Eleandor]

Doubtfully. All DNA info would already be gone, no matter what kind of "preservation" was used. The chance to find a dinosaur with useful DNA is near zero. Equally near zero than the chance that I could beat gravity tomorrow...

 

[Volvox]

I voted yes just because nobody else voted yes. Anything is possible. Correction, anything crappy is possible.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

As a matter of fact, I read in Discover that they found a dinosaur bone under like aeons of clay, and it contained preserved soft tissue and DNA. I'm not sure of the condition the DNA was in, but it had DNA.

 

[Volvox]

Well, expecting a useful DNA would be like standing in the rain and hoping that no drops will hit you.

 

[Grim]

It is possible.
Although Myspacebarbroke said that the DNA would be too broken up... I don't understand what he means by that. The coding of the DNA (TCGA) will always be the same for the living organism and it is impossible for the DNA strands to change during later life. It is possible as an embryo (as an embryo these are I believe called mutations). Later mutations in life such as cancer is not a sudden change in the DNA - it's just an issue reading it to put it into some basic context. Basically I'm trying to say, DNA cannot change or be broken up - every cell in that living organism contains EXACTLY the same information.

moving on.... I say it is possible because I am not sure of the properties of sap.
I feel rather preserving the mosquito it would rather slowly kill the mosquito and its contents. But then again i'm not sure - a living organism does not decay if there is no oxygen available around it... and I think sap is slightly oxygenated - so i think it would decay.

Ideally, they would want a creature perfectly preserved within ice. even a small section of the creature would enable them to clone the DNA (Kinda like what they did with dolly the sheep). Using a surrogate mother etc.

Cloned creatures do not live for long, they are much more prone and immune to illness. Also, to even think producing more of that creature they would require both a female and a male version of it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The DNA would be literally broken into pieces. No way to piece it back together in the proper order.

 

[Volvox]

Exactly. Complex organic molecules are definitely not stable, our lifetime is (ironically) the living proof of it.

 

[Grim]

Actually, I've just done a few searches and....

The DNA can be repaired: Science breakthrough explains how cells repair broken DNA

 

[Volvox]

Yeah, one Croatian scientist also worked on that so I've heard of it but those proteins are not like magic potion. You can't just dive DNA into them and pull it our completely renewed. They function only inside a living cell. Unless you have a living dinosaur cell in your pocket, they're quite useless. Dough there could be a way to add dino DNA into bacteria and get them to repair it, it could take years before that will be made possible.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It's possible to insert foreign DNA into a living cell right now, as a matter of fact. The question is whether the DNA is or isn't too fragmented to restore itself, which it probably would be.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Actually, I've just done a few searches and....

The DNA can be repaired: Science breakthrough explains how cells repair broken DNA

You're asking someone to repair a car when all you have is a window and the keys, and we wouldn't even know the window belonged to the car you want to make in the first place, because none of us have ever seen the car before.

 

[Volvox]

Not to mention that the keys are broken.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The relevancy of your addition to the discussion flabbergasts me. No, really, I'm speechless. If you're ever feel like expanding on someone else's statement again, you may want to actually contribute something useful.

 

[Byaku]

I think no

 

[Volvox]

The relevancy of your addition to the discussion flabbergasts me. No, really, I'm speechless. If you're ever feel like expanding on someone else's statement again, you may want to actually contribute something useful.

Maybe you didn't get what i wanted to say. Maybe you just had nothing better to say. Either way, objection denied.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Aside from the fact that our metaphorical keys are in the best shape they've ever been in, MSBB's metaphor was sufficient and didn't need any help.

 

[Volvox]

That's your opinion. Next time keep your discrete insults for yourself when they are based on nothing but opinion. Now back on topic, shall we?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The metaphorical keys are what would get the vehicle (dinosaur) to start, metaphorically. That would be the technology to clone it, which is in the best condition in known human history. Also, I wasn't insulting you, I was snapping at you for boosting your post count with spam. You're free to feel insulted if you'd like, I could use the ego boost.

 

[Gausslander]

As far as recreating Jurassic Park is concerned, that is quite impossible (and unintelligent, think about it. It's like if you saw everything that happened in the past 7 years and decided to go start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan again. Stupid). I do believe, however, that it will be possible to clone dinosaurs in the far future, thus I voted possible.

 

[Hakeem]

Complex systems like that are impossible to maintain and eventually order will break down entirely. The Park itself would never work, even if we could manage the cloning bit.

We have zoos. All we need for dinosaurs are bigger zoos.
The most we cage at present is elephants, but I'm sure we could handle dinosaurs, given time.

As a matter of fact, I read in Discover that they found a dinosaur bone under like aeons of clay, and it contained preserved soft tissue and DNA. I'm not sure of the condition the DNA was in, but it had DNA.

I saw something like that. Someone decided to dissolve regular dino fossils in acid, and they ended up with soft tissue. I don't know if they found DNA, but I also saw this thing about a dino "mummy". It had intact skin patterns. Imagine what kind of soft tissue we could find in that.


I don't think you'll have much luck, if any, at reconstructing dino DNA. If it rots, it rots. Of course the dino "mummy" mentioned earlier didn't exactly rot now did it?

Mosquitoes eat blood. What happens to that blood in their body I can only guess, but I don't have high hopes for the DNA in the blood cells.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

As far as recreating Jurassic Park is concerned, that is quite impossible (and unintelligent, think about it. It's like if you saw everything that happened in the past 7 years and decided to go start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan again. Stupid). I do believe, however, that it will be possible to clone dinosaurs in the far future, thus I voted possible.

Zoos must have been a pretty stupid idea too, at first.
"Let's take all the animals of the world and put them in front of innocent families. It'd be exciting."
Technology improves. By the time we found a way to clone dinosaurs, we should have found a way to contain them.

EDIT: Hakeem, you suck.

 

[DarkIron Dwarf]

Why would we want to there just mindless eating machines?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Why would we want to there just mindless eating machines?

...You don't get out much, do you?

 

[Kimbo]

If dinosaurs came back im sure they would all die from the temperature change and the damn dirty pollution, they wouldn't also be welcomed the by zoonotics.

 

[DarkIron Dwarf]

...You don't get out much, do you?

No i do not.

 

[brad.dude03]

If dinosaurs came back im sure they would all die from the temperature change and the damn dirty pollution, they wouldn't also be welcomed the by zoonotics.

That's what I was sort of reffering too. Mind you, they already thought of this, as Costa Rica is similar to the tropical climate that covered the Earth when they were alive, but none the less, the ecosystems have changed in the near hundreds of millions of years that dinosaurs have been gone for. We have all sorts of bacteria and viruses, not to mention humanity, all this shit that wasn't around back when they were. And nobody can predict how they will react to it.

All complex systems will fail eventually at some point or another, as witnessed by zoos, who regularly have to deal with escapes animals. This time, the animals are much more dangerous. They would need to be carefully contained. It's not like other animals, where they can be found outside of zoos, dinosaurs on the mainland/free in the wild would have disasterous results, as Jurassic Park (the novel anyway) expresses.

 

[Linaze]

I have to agree with brad on this. If we somehow were able to 'recreate' dinosaurs, some questions will rise. Primarily, will they adjust themselves to how the world has changed over the millions of years they have been gone, will they be able to handle all new bacteria diseases etc. that did not exist when they did. Another question that popped into my head when reading previous posts is why. Why would we want to bring back dangerous animals from millions of years ago. If we did, it would surely be for people to profit from it. I dont know about you, but I dont think i'd find watching dinosaurs to be amusing at all. All in all, it could be possible, but I dont see why we should even bother trying.

 

[DarkIron Dwarf]

Even if we tried we would waste a lot of resources.

 

[Lightskin]

cientific way:

they actually already found a mosquito in the "blood" of a tree which it was big and very very old of course

the DNA is dead, so they can't ressurrect it, but in a close future they will can and there will be jurassic zoo's which might cost your soul and your son's souls to enter maybe xD!

cientifics say: yes, it is posible.

 

[Hakeem]

the ecosystems have changed in the near hundreds of millions of years that dinosaurs have been gone for.

Well even if we don't have the ideal climate and food they were fine tuned for, life is not so fragile as one might think, they would likely be able to live, but it might come with decreased health.

We have all sorts of bacteria and viruses,

Well there's that. I wonder how much bacteria and viruses have evolved in millions of years...

All complex systems will fail eventually at some point or another, as witnessed by zoos, who regularly have to deal with escapes animals.

"Hmm. Now where did I put that T-rex?..."
"Be on the lookout for a T-rex..."
"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Dinosaurs on LSD! Go to http://www.youtu..."
"T-rex Hired For Godzilla Remake..."
"T-rex Plugs Dam, Saves City..."
"T-rex Dead at Age 26..."

 

[Volvox]

The inner organ systems of dinosaurs are probably not much different than the ones of today's reptiles and reptiles rarely get sick(not much viruses/bacteria targeting them) so i think they actually could withstand diseases but when it comes to climate, it killed them once, it sure could do it again.

 

[brad.dude03]

Wrong, today's reptiles still exist BECAUSE they've evolved to cope with the changing environment, etc. The dinosaurs would be evolved enough to deal with the dangers of their time, not ours. Furthermore, Dinosaurs are mammals, so they really don't apply to the standard 'reptiles' rules. Warm blooded. Closer to birds than reptiles. Some had feathers.

 

[Lightskin]

sharks, aligators and chickens is said they are evolutioned dinosaurs.

chickens seems fun but check it's feet, it looks like a pterodactyl one.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Sharks aren't evolved from dinosaurs, they're evolved from ancient sharks. Same with alligators.

 

[Masiah]

Didn't the dinosaurs evolve into birds?

 

[DarkIron Dwarf]

Some did.

 

[Volvox]

Wrong, today's reptiles still exist BECAUSE they've evolved to cope with the changing environment, etc. The dinosaurs would be evolved enough to deal with the dangers of their time, not ours. Furthermore, Dinosaurs are mammals, so they really don't apply to the standard 'reptiles' rules. Warm blooded. Closer to birds than reptiles. Some had feathers.

Dinosaurs were NOT mammals nor were they warm blooded because it takes 4part heart for homeothermy and that first appeared with the modern crocodile, the highest level of reptile evolution. When the climate changed, smaller dinosaurs and bird-like ones managed to adapt to the change but the larger ones, the ones who needed large amounts of food got finished off by hunger. I advise you some heavy research into this.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Dinosaurs were NOT mammals nor were they warm blooded because it takes 4part heart for homeothermy and that first appeared with the modern crocodile, the highest level of reptile evolution. When the climate changed, smaller dinosaurs and bird-like ones managed to adapt to the change but the larger ones, the ones who needed large amounts of food got finished off by hunger. I advise you some heavy research into this.

/facepalm
So humans are evolved from ancient crocodiles instead of ancient monkeys? Does that mean people that eat alligators and stuff in Louisiana are cannibals?

Small mammals (that were presumably warm-blooded, and not evolved from enormous prehistoric alligators) were around during the time of the dinosaurs. I advise you some heavy research into this.

 

[Volvox]

I did some heavy research, unlike you, obviously. Did i ever mentioned mammals in my post? And are you sure you want to claim that dinosaurs were warm-blooded mammals? If yes, please write it in your next post so i can take a screenshot of it and show it around. Oh and don't twist my words again, it's just too pathetic for this forum.

 

[brad.dude03]

Dr. Robert Bakker dealt a lot with this area. It's been hotly debated one way or the other.

Studies on modern animals seem to show that metabolic rate is proportional to maximum rate of locomotion. Dinosaurs were built to move fairly quickly, so they must have had high metabolic rates.

Ecological studies suggest that today's endotherms (mammals and birds) generally outcompete ectotherms in their area. Dinosaurs evolved alongside mammals, so they must have been endotherms in order to compete with mammals adequately for the 170 million years that they coexisted.

Dinosaurs and modern endotherms both had/have erect posture (weight-bearing limbs oriented directly below the body rather than sprawling out to the sides). Dinosaurs must have been endotherms; an erect posture must be indicative of endothermy.

Some large dinosaurs had erect posture and a vertical distance between the heart and head to require a high blood pressure, like the giraffe. This had to have required a four-chambered heart to separate the high pressure blood going to the body from the low pressure blood going to the lungs.

Dinosaur bone is more similar to mammalian or avian (bird) bone in cross section than it is to typical ectothermic "reptilian" bone. This bone structure similarity shows that dinosaurs were endothermic.

None of this evidence is incontravatertible, but it certainly proves that there is evidence both ways.

Source: Dinobuzz

 

[Volvox]

True about that, i read about it a lot on wikipedia and whoever wrote it seems to believe that they have been ectothermic but also mentiones the possibility that some larger ones had systems of maintaining their body heat. I do not know what you meant about dinosaur and bird bones being simmilar but bird bones are hollow inside(to reduce weight for flight) and i doubt that dinos had hollow bones. Maybe you were referring to non flying birds?

 

[brad.dude03]

It refers to the structure of the skeleton, not the actual make-up. I've read the Wikipedia article as well and it doesn't even bring up the possibility of Dinosaurs being endothermic, which is rediculous, as it's been an ongoing thing for decades.