Jurassic Park...Is it possible?

[Volvox]

It does actually, in the phisionomy part, but whoever wrote it, says that the 4 chamber heart is only wishfull thinking. And that even if they were endothermic, it was because of their size. Well, maybe we've been reading different articles.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Birds' bones being hollow is actually a common fallacy. They are not in fact hollow, but solid and less dense.

 

[Volvox]

Less dense means hollow you know. Not really straw-like but they haev cavities filled with air.

 

[Masiah]

Nope. Less dense means that the molecular concentration in one point of the material is less than in a denser one. It doesn't mean hallow.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Steel is less dense than mercury, is molten steel hollow? According to Wikipedia though, apparently many birds do actually have hollow bones.

Anyways, your argument about alligators' four-chamber hearts being the pinnacle of reptilian evolution is fallacious because, if our scenario about dinosaurs is true, your scenario about reptiles doesn't matter.

 

[Volvox]

It depends on if you're taking the average or the molecular density of the bone. If you take average, then it's way less if the bone is hollow but yeah, i did state it a bit blurry. About the four-chamber heart... Even if we would recreate dinosaurs, reptiles would still hold higher rank on the evolutionary ladder and the four-part heart would remain the pinnacle of their evolution. Unless we would actually kill one of the dinos, check it's heart and see that it has four chambers. Then it would mean that somewhere in the transition form dinosaurs to reptiles, they have lost their warm-bloodedness.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Mammals coexisted with dinosaurs, and mammals all have four-chamber hearts. The question of the matter is whether dinosaurs were mammals or reptiles. Saying that only the most evolved reptile has a four chamber heart is like if we were arguing about whether cats or dogs are better, and I said that hamsters are kind of cool too. Okay sure, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Volvox]

Well, i do not see the question of dinosaur classification... They are a group for themselves, they have reptilian way of reproduction, mostly their skeletal construction(except the large ones and the bird ones of course), and, as you said, they coexisted with mammals.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

They also coexisted with giant alligators, which were reptiles. I coexist with humans, does that automatically make me something else?

 

[Volvox]

Your logic is immature and not really constructive. Ask yourself, what makes mammal a mammal? Mammary gland. Giving birth to live offsprings. Folicule-based hair. Let's switch back to dinosaurs. Mammary glands, right. Imagine a little t-rex feeding that way. He'd probbably bite off half of his mother. Live offsprings. Not really, eggs do not count as live offsprings, not at all. Folicule-based hair. 90% had nothing but skin. Remaining 10% had scales. Some might even looked as fur, but no, those are slender scales too. 0/3 for dinosaurs, they suck at being mammals, sorry.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

So, if a land-based creature isn't a mammal, it's a reptile. Except for birds. Velociraptors had feathers, and, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but don't all those pretty picture books show archeopteryx with feathers too? And aren't birds warm-blooded, and don't they have four-chambered hearts? I know those are only a few dinosaurs, but it opens the possibility for more than them to be avians instead of reptiles. Also, the next time you see any fossil with preserved fur, or feathers, or skin let me know. You can't say anything about the texture and composition of dinosaurs' skin, and having feathers or fur or not, because that doesn't get preserved.

And so you know, hair is keratinized skin cells... effectively, slender scales.

And finally, whose logic is immature and not constructive? I never said that dinosaurs were mammals. You said that mammals have four-chambered hearts. Birds do as well. You said that the pinnacle of reptile cardiac evolution is the alligator, four chambers. I was saying that if mammals had evolved four-chambered hearts at that point, what exactly stops dinosaurs from having four-chambered hearts at that point? Your logic and evidence are incomplete and fallacious.

 

[Mecheon]

Dinosaurs were birds. Mammals evolved from a contingent set of reptiles who were on a completely different line to dinosaurs

Oh, and just because I also spotted this logical error...

Your logic is immature and not really constructive. Ask yourself, what makes mammal a mammal? Mammary gland. Giving birth to live offsprings. Folicule-based hair.

So I guess Platypuses and Echidnas don't count as mammals to you, do they?

While I'm at it, you DO know that several smaller species of dinosaurs had feathers? Mostly the raptors?

And about the hair thing, Pterosaurs, a somewhat unrelated line of most definetly reptiles, had hair as well

 

[Masiah]

Ephy is right this time. Just two things: velociraptors with feathers (as far as I know) is a theory made popular by the Jurassic Park III movie, but hasn't been actually proven to exist.
The other... why the heck is brad.dude editing Mecheon's post?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

No, they found some imprints of feathers in fossils for I believe velociraptors. I know they found a really good one that had fossilized feathers around the entire dinosaur.

 

[Masiah]

Oh, well. I have learned something today.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, I believe in JP3 the raptors were still leather-skinned. It was a fairly recent discovery anyway, and though some of the information presented in the movies and novels is fact, most of it is fiction based on a well-researched background. Raptors were not human sized, that was only an addition for the movie to make them seem like the anti-humans. They were 5 foot tall, and could only run as fast as a cheetah for 5 or 6 seconds. They also could definitely not jump as high.

But all of the information presented about pack hunting and their amazing intelligence is (to my knowledge) true. Michael Crichton always researched the hell out of his topic before writing a novel, and he really just stretches fact rather than fabricating things entirely.

Speaking of which, if any of you haven't read Jurassic Park, do it now. It's amazing.

 

[Total_Warrior]

woah 60 something posts and i havnt looked at this thread for a while
anyways im on i think pg 53 or something and i think the book is good as soon as i saw the name dennis nedry instantly in my mind i pictured that bastard from the movie who shut down jurassic parks power

May contain spoilers(MOVIE)

Good thing nedry died from the dilophosaurus he got what he deserved

 

[nicomon]

technically speaking, dino fossils should contain some D.N.A. from the dino, so some scientist would just have to clone a new dino off of that.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

technically speaking, dino fossils should contain some D.N.A. from the dino, so some scientist would just have to clone a new dino off of that.

The DNA is generally literally washed away, or irreparably poor shape.

 

[nicomon]

Yes, but no matter how poor shape the DNA is in, it is still there, rending it possible.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Yes, but no matter how poor shape the DNA is in, it is still there, rending it possible.

DNA is a very, very long sequence created only from only 4 nitrogenous bases. You can't just make the rest of it based only on a few pieces, especially considering you haven't even seen the end product before.

 

[Hakeem]

Yes, but no matter how poor shape the DNA is in, it is still there

Actually, no.

 

[nicomon]

Actually, no.

Prove it. please.

 

[brad.dude03]

Oh, please. Alright. Think of the fossil as a puzzle. The fossil is the image. Now think of DNA as the puzzle pieces. If you don't have the box for the puzzle, you have no idea how to put the puzzle together, or what it should look like in the end.

All the proof you need?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Try building the Nirvash_typeZERO spec3 out of Lego. It's a roundish, white mecha thing with a bulb on its back. You aren't allowed to look up what it looks like further than what I've told you. It would be like that, except in the case of dinosaur DNA, scientists couldn't look up what it looked like if they wanted to.

 

[Devine]

How bout making a dinosaur from scratch?

 

[Gausslander]

Jurassic Park... Does it matter?

 

[nicomon]

If you don't have the box for the puzzle, you have no idea how to put the puzzle together, or what it should look like in the end.

But you can take a chance and guess...

 

[Hakeem]

Also, over the millions of years, some puzzle pieces got lost.

Not exactly lost, but they are nowhere to be found.

 

[Masiah]

Also, over the millions of years, some puzzle pieces got lost.

Not exactly lost, but they are nowhere to be found.

The difference being...? something lost can be always found. Or replaced.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

But you can take a chance and guess...

If you "take a chance and guess", you might end up with a virus or jellyfish instead of a Dinosaur.

 

[Mor)L(unE]

NO jurrasic park is the laugh of gen-biotics:
1. A 65 million jear old mosquito, is a mosquito, not a dinosaur.
2. 65 jear old samples don't provide intact DNA to work with (wich you need in order to know what DNA a dinosaur has. unless you wanna guess)

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Jurassic Park... Does it matter?

If you don't care, don't post.

The difference being...? something lost can be always found. Or replaced.

The difference is that something that is nowhere to be found might not still exist anymore.

And of course it can be replaced. But we don't know what to replace it WITH.

DNA is more like lego blocks than puzzle pieces. There are many pieces that could easily fit together. The problem is, those pieces will most definitely not get you a dinosaur.

We don't have dinosaur DNA. We have pieces of it. And we don't even know which pieces of it are actual dinosaur DNA pieces.

 

[Mor)L(unE]

The problem with puzzling with DNA is, you would have billions of pieces, and no picture to make them, its quite impossible