And here come the dinosaurs!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html wrote:Deep inside the dusty university store room, three scientists struggle to lift a huge fossilised bone.
It is from the leg of a dinosaur.
For many years, this chunky specimen has languished cryptically on a shelf.
Interesting but useless — a forgotten relic of a lost age.
Now, with hammer and chisel poised, the academics from Montana State University in America gather round.
They are about to shatter this rare vestige of the past.
Why would they do such a thing?
Dinosaurs from When Dinosaurs Roamed
Lost age: Scientists now believe it is possible to resurrect the dinosaur after the discovery of DNA relics in the wings and beaks of regular chickens
The answer is that they believe that this single fragment of a beast which stalked the earth untold millions of years ago could hold the key which will unlock the secrets of the dinosaurs.
Extraordinarily, they contend that it could lead to a real life Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs are once again unleashed on the world by scientists.
For just like in the hit Steven Spielberg movie, these men and women are intent on cracking the genetic code of the dinosaurs and opening the possibility of bringing them back to life.
<snip>
HA!!! You know the whole thing about getting the DNA from the mosquitoe? DNA only lasts only a few years. Not "millions and millions". I personally don't believe that evolution is accurate, even if it were, the noses on the dinosaurs were the size of the nose on an horse, it would die on site.EXreaction wrote:Of course it will be. Genetic engineering has come a very long ways in the past few decades and if it keeps going as fast as it is I don't think a Jurassic Park would be out of the possibilities in another decade or two.
You write about some "BS reason" to stop it. Why would someone want it? I don't think "awesome" is a reasonable argument.EXreaction wrote: Now the question will be whether a few of the more outspoken groups go and attack people working on this through media, etc, and try to make laws stopping this for whatever BS reason they can think of. That would be the only thing stopping it.
If you read the book, you would know that in Jurrasic Park they filled in the holes by using DNA from related creatures. They say that the human genome is more than 99% identical to that of Great Apes. They would fill in the gaps by using DNA from modern birds or reptiles.Kevin Clark wrote: You don't know what's in the bits that are missing.
Did you actually see the movies?EXreaction wrote:Now the question will be whether a few of the more outspoken groups go and attack people working on this through media, etc, and try to make laws stopping this for whatever BS reason they can think of. That would be the only thing stopping it.
Yup. In Jurassic Park they used bits from a poisonous toad and were surprised they ended up with a poisonous dinosaur.Kevin Clark wrote:You'd be surprised.
I've done a 23 species comparison of the alpha globin cluster. Yes large parts are 'similar' but you can't necessarily drop in random bits from other species.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A964958260weatherkid wrote:HA!!! You know the whole thing about getting the DNA from the mosquitoe? DNA only lasts only a few years. Not "millions and millions". I personally don't believe that evolution is accurate, even if it were, the noses on the dinosaurs were the size of the nose on an horse, it would die on site.
but it makes for a good movie
That is not an argument against science. If people thought like that you would never have a computer or any of the modern amenities.A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:You write about some "BS reason" to stop it. Why would someone want it? I don't think "awesome" is a reasonable argument.
I don't see what you are trying to go after here, but yes, I've seen them, and within the last month again.Techie-Micheal wrote:Did you actually see the movies?
Then you would see that they aren't stupid reasons for people not wanting it to happen.EXreaction wrote:I don't see what you are trying to go after here, but yes, I've seen them, and within the last month again.Techie-Micheal wrote:Did you actually see the movies?
It's ironic (to me, at any rate) that science is now telling us that all these "amenities" may not be sustainable. We're even down to calculating the environmental impact of a Google search.EXreaction wrote:That is not an argument against science. If people thought like that you would never have a computer or any of the modern amenities.
Actually, DNA lasts for a very long time. (conceivably infinitely depending on where it is obtained from).weatherkid wrote:DNA only lasts only a few years. Not "millions and millions".
What is your foundation for this?weatherkid wrote:I personally don't believe that evolution is accurate,
Erm, how do these correlate at all...weatherkid wrote: the noses on the dinosaurs were the size of the nose on an horse, it would die on site.
Agreed, that being said, however, "because we can" (in my eyes, anyway), isn't enough to warrant the amount of funding that would be necessary for this, were there to even be any benefit from it.SamG wrote: Science does not merit, just because it's science, a blank check -- financially, ethically, or whatever. An argument against cloning dinosaurs is, in itself, nothing more than an argument against cloning dinosaurs. To spread out such an argument like some sort of "BS" assault on science and then taking the liberty to dismiss it as such isn't a very rigorous approach to the argument.