Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by god0fgod » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:17 pm

Organic should mean good animal welfare too like Free Range meat. Organic is better because the land must be organic (No fertilisers and pesticides) and the animals aren't given things like growth hormones. People say Organic produce tastes better and it's gives us piece of mind that there are no toxins on our food.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:33 am

kzone wrote:Have you ever been to a slaughter house? I have been to one and it is not pretty(IMO).
Wikipedia wrote:
Cattle are rendered unconscious by applying an electric shock of 300 volts and 2 amps to the back of the head, effectively stunning the animal,[10] or by use of a captive bolt pistol to the front of the cow's head (a pneumatic or cartridge-fired captive bolt). Swine can be rendered unconscious by CO2/inert gas stunning.
In my books, the above quote fit well as a good definition of cruelty.
If the cattle are quickly rendered unconscious before being killed, why is that cruelty? If that's cruelty, then what do you call, say, the treatment of veal, or chickens raised in tiny cages for their entire lives?

ToonArmy
Former Team Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Name: Chris Smith
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by ToonArmy » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:05 am

god0fgod wrote:Organic should mean good animal welfare too like Free Range meat. Organic is better because the land must be organic (No fertilisers and pesticides) and the animals aren't given things like growth hormones. People say Organic produce tastes better and it's gives us piece of mind that there are no toxins on our food.
Well yes I expect a farmer who goes to the lengths to be organic will probably care well for his cattle, but not necessarily worse than a farmer who doesn't have organic certification. It still has nothing to do with how the animal is slaughtered, which still involves rendering the animal concious and then cutting their veins so they bleed out.
Chris SmithGitHub

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by god0fgod » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:29 pm

The method used is supposed to be almost painless for the animals.

sammiefields2512
Registered User
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:43 pm
Location: United States
Name: Sammy Fields

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by sammiefields2512 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:32 pm

Interesting thought, I'm sure the same thought was going through everyone's mind when they watched Jurassic Park - would it be possible? It's definitely worth looking into, I'm no expert on genetics, but I don't see why not - if they can produce clones like Dolly the sheep, I'm sure they can find a way to use dinosaur DNA to make real dinosaurs. But wasn't Dolly born via IVF? Where they insert the modified embryo into a female sheep's womb? I'm not too sure on that one. Since they don't have the womb of a dinosaur available, I'm not sure they have the capacity to achieve this atm.

User avatar
KevC
Support Team Member
Support Team Member
Posts: 69452
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by KevC » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:34 pm

The difference is that Dolly was sheep DNA in a sheep cell put in to a sheep for gestation.

What you can't do is take bits of DNA from different species (in this case a t-rex and a frog), stick them together in some order and expect it to them 'make' a dinosaur.
-:|:- Support Request Template -:|:-
Image
Cheap UK Hosting
"In the land of the blind the little green bloke with no pupils is king - init!"

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by god0fgod » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:21 pm

That's an interesting idea. We should mix monkey and banana DNA and see what happens.

User avatar
Phil
Former Team Member
Posts: 10403
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:11 am
Name: Phil Crumm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by Phil » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:58 am

god0fgod wrote:That's an interesting idea. We should mix monkey and banana DNA and see what happens.
Most likely, nothing. DNA doesn't work like that.
Moving on, with the wind. | My Corner of the Web

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by god0fgod » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:47 pm

I think I read somewhere that humans have 97% (or close) banana DNA.

User avatar
KevC
Support Team Member
Support Team Member
Posts: 69452
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by KevC » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:56 pm

But it depends how you class a similarity. You could say they both have a particular gene but the similarity of the DNA sequence within that gene can be very different and so the resulting function can be very different too.
-:|:- Support Request Template -:|:-
Image
Cheap UK Hosting
"In the land of the blind the little green bloke with no pupils is king - init!"

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by god0fgod » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:35 pm

I'm pretty sure it said DNA and not genes.

I was wrong, anyway. We share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees and 50% with bananas - http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

The link still shows that only a small amount of DNA is used to create largely noticeable changes.

Green Light
Registered User
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by Green Light » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:29 am

iWisdom wrote:
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.
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.
The benefit would be charging customers to come and see a dinosaur.. Which I doubt will be as low of a charge as the zoo.
As long as it's private funded and not my tax money I'm okay with it.

User avatar
KevC
Support Team Member
Support Team Member
Posts: 69452
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by KevC » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:51 am

god0fgod wrote:I'm pretty sure it said DNA and not genes.

I was wrong, anyway. We share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees and 50% with bananas - http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

The link still shows that only a small amount of DNA is used to create largely noticeable changes.
Genes are 'made' of DNA. You can massage the numbers is a variety of ways. For a start the overall genome sizes are different so you can't do a direct 1 for 1 comparison. It will be a rough figure based on some key genes. But you couldn't take a bit of a banana chromosome responsible for a key gene, put it in a human and expect that person to be ok.
-:|:- Support Request Template -:|:-
Image
Cheap UK Hosting
"In the land of the blind the little green bloke with no pupils is king - init!"

Green Light
Registered User
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by Green Light » Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:58 pm

Kevin Clark wrote:
god0fgod wrote:I'm pretty sure it said DNA and not genes.

I was wrong, anyway. We share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees and 50% with bananas - http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

The link still shows that only a small amount of DNA is used to create largely noticeable changes.
Genes are 'made' of DNA. You can massage the numbers is a variety of ways. For a start the overall genome sizes are different so you can't do a direct 1 for 1 comparison. It will be a rough figure based on some key genes. But you couldn't take a bit of a banana chromosome responsible for a key gene, put it in a human and expect that person to be ok.
No one said this type of thing would be completed tomorrow.
I do believe it will be possible, it'll just take time. As someone else already stated in a few decades computer processing would evolve to greater levels, new tech will emerge.. etc. etc.

User avatar
KevC
Support Team Member
Support Team Member
Posts: 69452
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park, is it possible?

Post by KevC » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:08 pm

The functionality of critical genes and proteins is conserved through evolution in many species but on a DNA or amino acid level the make up is generally only conserved in very key areas. But although the gene has the same function it can't operate properly in another species as there are many complex levels of interaction not only within the same chromosome but also with regions on other chromosomes. The level of complexity to get another species gene (just one!) to work would be extraordinary. It can't look 'a bit' like the real one. It has to be the same or it won't work correctly.
-:|:- Support Request Template -:|:-
Image
Cheap UK Hosting
"In the land of the blind the little green bloke with no pupils is king - init!"

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”