Science Officially Stomps All Hope of Dinosaur Cloning

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Froggy Slayer:

The Plunk:

Mike Kayatta:

That's true - we've already started guiding ancestral evolutionary traits in chickens to reverse engineer them into dinosaurs. Still, Chickenosaurus Rex will just never be quite the same. And no, the JP methodology wasn't quite nonsense, which leads me to this:

Yes, we can!! Mammoths have only been extinct for about 10,000 years, so their DNA is still in perfectly workable condition. This post is a bit old, but we've recently made great strides in this exact experiment. We haven't gotten started on Smilodons yet (to my knowledge), but since they disappeared only 12,000 years ago, they're technically possible as well.

According to Wikipedia, mammoths went extinct 4,500 years ago. I did some maths and worked out that this means that the most recent mammoth fossil will only have approximately 0.2% of its original DNA still remaining. Is that enough to clone with?

The thing about mammoths is that we're finding much more intact, frozen ones Which means that the DNA is more intact. It still might be difficult to create a mammoth from these, but it's in the 'possible' category.

We also have Asian elephant which is closely related genus, along other species of elephant to help us determine a good part of the DNA. Basically the task of mostly to determine how to make a Asian elephant woolly and with giant tusk.

Impossible? No. Too early to say.

Our very understand of DNA is still in it's infancy. While I'll agree that we cannot "clone" the current samples, we could replicate it by filling in the missing pieces with what we know if computer technology evolves.

Decoding D.N.A is still a fairly complex and costly process with margin errors.

From Jurassic Park (the book published 1991)

"We are talking about western attitudes that are five hundred years old. They began at the time when Florence, Italy, was the most important city in the world. The basic idea of science that there was a new way to look at reality, that it was objective, that it was rational that idea was fresh and exciting back then. It offered promise and hope for the future, and it swept away the old medieval system, which was hundreds of years old. The medieval world of feudal politics and religious dogma and hateful superstitions fell befor science. But, in truth, this was because the medieval world didn't really work anymore. It didn't work economically, it didn't work intellectually, and it didn't fit the new world that was emerging."

"But now, science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old. And, like the medieval system before it, science is starting to not to fit the world any more. Sciencehas attained so much power that its practical limitsbegin to be apparant. Largely through science, billions of us live in one small world, densely packed and intercommunicating. But science cannot help us decide what to do with that world, or how to live."

"At the same time, the great intellectual justification of science has vanished. Ever since Newton and Descartes, science has explicitly offered us the vision of total control. Science has claimed the power to eventually control everything, through its understanding of natural laws. But in the twentieth century, that has been shattered beyond repair. First, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle) set limits on what we could know about the subatomic world. Oh well, we say. None of us lives in a subatomic world. It doesn't make any practical difference as we go through our lives. Then Gödel's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) set similar limits to mathematics, the formal language of science (http://xkcd.com/435/). Mathematicians used to think that their language had some special inherent trueness that derived from the laws of logic. Now we know that what we call 'reason' is just an arbitrary game. It's not special, in the way we thought it was."

"And now chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) proves that unpredictability is built into our daily lives. It is as mundane as the rainstorm we cannot predict. And so the grand vision of science, hundreds of years old, the dream of total control, has died, in our century. And with it much of the justification, the rationale for science to do what it does. And for us to listen to it. Science has alkways said that it may not know everything now but it will know, eventually. But now we see that it isn't true. It is an idle boast. As foolish, and as misguided, as the child who jumps off a building because he believes he can fly."

"We are witnessing the end of the scientific era. Science, like other outmoded systems, is destroying itself. So what will happen? a change, but all major changes are like death. You can't see to the other side until you are there."

Damn shame, but science is still going to give us jet packs and hover cars right?

rhizhim:

Nasrin:

This makes me pretty sad. Now I won't be able to get that Compsognathus I've always wanted T.T

fear not! we still have the arts of robotics.
in 10 years you will look out the window and think:

wow these times we live in are pure
image
because your mind will be blown...

I love Robots,don't you?

Well I guess this means our only choice is to use Mad Science to genetically engineer our own damn dinosaurs.

mad825:
Impossible? No. Too early to say.

Our very understand of DNA is still in it's infancy. While I'll agree that we cannot "clone" the current samples, we could replicate it by filling in the missing pieces with what we know if computer technology evolves.

Decoding D.N.A is still a fairly complex and costly process with margin errors.

The article is not talking about decoding DNA but the much simpler sequencing of DNA. In 521 years half of the polypeptide bonds that form the double helix of DNA would have broken. Seeing that each strand of DNA will not have all broken in the same place, its possible to work out what the original sequence was. After 6.5 million years the fragments of DNA are to small to reconstruct the original order that adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases came in. After 65 million years all that would be left would the individual bases, it would like trying to reconstruct a sand castle after driving a bulldozer over it. All the bits are there but they have lost all organisation so you cant fill the missing pieces from another source.

In that case they should get started on prehistoric mammals instead.

I'll have a mastodon please. Though I would settle for a giant sloth.

The Random One:
Well, you just wait, science! When we invent time travel we'll get dino DNA straight from- wait you disproved time travel as well didn't you? WHY

Well, time travel isn't necessarily disproven. It is not possible within our understanding of space-time, but we can't understand everything of it yet, maybe we will never. Basic problem of modern science. Maybe there's still a way to clone a dinosaur JP style, we just know from experimenting that DNA half-life is somewhat above 500 years. Maybe at the end of the year, Cthulhu will come through a portal from the border of the universe, or another dimension and enslave earth, you can't say it's impossible, just because the chance is extremely small and we wouldn't know how.

cynicalsaint1 has it right, and this was discussed in the original Jurassic Park (The 1990 book by Michael Crichton) between Hammond and Dr. Henry Wu that the process of extrapolating dinosaur DNA by filling in the blanks from other species (mostly frogs) doesn't create authentic dinosaurs, but a Frankensteinian approximation. We can't be sure that any given feature of a species is from its dinosaur ancestry or from the borrowed genes.

Wu even suggests modifying the dinos to make them more manageable, the way they added their lysine dependence to keep them from successfully escaping the park.

Similarly, Dr. Lewis Dodgson from Biosyn discusses the current monopoly Ingen has on cloned dinosaurs, and extrapolates the idea selling modified dinosaurs as pets. Of course, these wouldn't be actual unaltered dino species but a modified and domesticated version (because real, wild animals are dangerous). We might as well also make them require Ingen's special patented dino-chow blend of feed. Say, because of that lysine dependence.

The point is, we'd never have been able to truly acquire true dinosaurs anyway, but we will be able to design from the ground up some critters that look very much like dinosaurs, and convey to the public an "authentic dinosaur experience" or as much of one as they'd want anyway. With or without feathers as you prefer.

So, true dinosaurs like from the Cretaceous period weren't a likely thing anyway. But who cares. We'll get our dinosaurs and then some, and customize them to consumer perfection.

238U

Andy Shandy:

Nasrin:

This makes me pretty sad. Now I won't be able to get that Compsognathus I've always wanted T.T

I'll join in on that.

image

It is truly a sad day, when my dreams of riding a T-Rex to work are doomed.

These epic gifs!

Keep em coming, I need moar bookmarks!

catpcha: 'brush your teeth'

well that was rude..

brilliant, some dick was like; RUINING CHILDHOODS, FOR SCIENCE!

Mike Kayatta:
but not enough to survive the trip from Cretaceous Period to the Age of Honey Boo Boo.

This got a damn good laugh out of me. :)

As for the topic at hand...what can I say that Bender hasn't already said?

Mike Kayatta:
(who I'm sure are perfectly nice, and probably didn't mean to suck the wind from our dino sails like some sort of joy-sucking vacuum monster)

That made me chuckle.

I don't know if its been mentioned but they have had results in genetic engineering. They were actually able to create a chicken embryo with teeth and a tail... granted thats a far cry from the Cretaceous mega Hyena that is T.Rex.

chimpzy:
In that case they should get started on prehistoric mammals instead.

I'll have a mastodon please. Though I would settle for a giant sloth.

They are apparently doing this as we speak. Its in northern Europe to so hopefully none of that ethics nonscence.

Mike Kayatta:

That's true - we've already started guiding ancestral evolutionary traits in chickens to reverse engineer them into dinosaurs. Still, Chickenosaurus Rex will just never be quite the same. And no, the JP methodology wasn't quite nonsense

Im glad im not the only one who watched that documentry, no one ever bloody knows what im talking about.

Scorpid:
Can we at least get a wooly mammoth or a sabertooth tiger as a consolation prize?! ='(

It may be too late if the half-life of DNA really is 521 years...on the plus side, we could potentially see Tasmanian Tigers or, Dodos return...possibly...

gardian06:
Newman!!!!

image

OT: Well that kinda blows. We can still try for woolly mammoths though, right?

Strange. I should feel relieved. I'm instead disappointed beyond belief. I didn't realize I felt this way.

This is almost as bad as the time someone told me "You know a Portal Gun is impossible, right?"

On the upside, as Mike was saying in this thread, we might well be able to farm Smilodons and mammoths, within our lifetimes. Oooh, or maybe we can start the process for miniaturization of animals, and we can have shoulder mounted ones!

Did we not know this already, like, a few years ago? I could swear I was in primary school when I heard this first.

But yeah, damn. I guess genetic engineering is our only way. Hey, an iguana-bear would be just as good as a dinosaur as far as I'm concerned.

That's not exactly true. This just disproves one method of cloning dinosaurs.

What if there was Dinosaur DNA that somehow got propelled near the speed of light and ended up in modern day? Then we'd have dinosaur DNA.

This is news? I've know cloned Dinosaurs were never going to happen since grade 8 when a guide at the Royal Terrel Museum in Drumheller pretty much said as much because the DNA just can't survive that long.

We'd probably have to update them dramatically enve if we did have intact DNA. The oxygen levels in the modern atmosphere are much lower, I think, than the dinosaurs were adapted for. We could probably rebuild some of them (at least in an approximate sense) with DNA from living descendants, but let's settle for re-makiung some of the megafauna that probably only died out because we ate 'em all.

Wait, so we could still clone other recently extinct and near extinct species? because I want a pet dodo!

Science do me proud.

wow, 1 study and suddenly it's impossible? I remember a time when they thought cloning was impossible or sequencing genetics.... and look at us now. in the realm of sciences, you can usually spot the "junk science" when they use words like "never" or "impossible".

that said, it's just going to be much HARDER for us to do it... not impossible. sure, most dna will decay, but there may be circumstances where just a few segments survive... find enough... and well... you get the idea. in science, nothing is impossible... it's just a new challenge!

"Science Officially Stomps All Hope of Dinosaur Cloning"
For now.
Most people don't really see this, but humanity has a tenacity about us.

Man can't survive aquatic conditions, man learns to swim.
Man can't swim an Ocean, man creates Boat.
Man can't fly, man creates Airplanes.
Man can't survive outer space, man creates Spaceship.

Science proves a lot of things, Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, hell, there was a small point in history where science proved that since space doesn't have atmosphere, we wouldn't be able to propel ourselves through it. This is why we have scientists, to take what is considered impossible and find a way.
Friggin' nay-saying scientists saying something's impossible. Nothing but my disdain.

Welp.

Shit happens.

Now let's get back to solving problems that actually matter, then in a couple of years just genetically engineer our own dino's.

...And reality continues to crush my dreams.

Starik20X6:

gardian06:
Newman!!!!

image

"Frankly, Science, I'm a little disappointed."
"You're not a little anything, Newman."

This matters not. If we cannot reproduce them, we can RECREATE them. Stronger. Faster. Smarter. More likely to subvert our half-thought-out containment procedures and eat us.

Phooey.

Guess we'll just have to make them from scratch then.

Froggy Slayer:
Eh, we can still probably genetically engineer some dinosaurs, it just means that the JP method is unscientific nonsense. Which most scientists knew anyways.

Even JP dinosaurs used like frog or toad DNA. They weren't even true clones. Science will just have to use Alligator and Elephant DNA to create some hybrid dino-like creature. Plus there is always Time Travel. Clone Dinos in the past, then create them in the future. Part of my new Video Game: "George Washington: Dinosuar Hunter"

lame, but not really. i remember hearing that awhile ago, the guy that confirmed it is still a bastard though

Meh... as nice as it would be to see a real dinosaur, I guess you can't have everything...

I'd still like to see a real smilodon/woolly mammoth, though.

Fossil fuel comes primarily from ancient plankton, algae & peat.

The introduction of even a single species of cloned dino would screw ecology over, unless it was very small & lived on something plentiful like mice, crickets, grass, or maple leaves. Set a few loose in the wild & they start competing with other animals for food sources or become predators that wipe out a species that kept pests no other animal would eat in-check. Maybe they start eating cats & dogs. Maybe they starve to death because they'll only eat a type of plant that doesn't exist anymore.

Okay, I just created the script to a genre of horror movie that hasn't been done to death.

I'm honestly surprised it could last even that long in ideal conditions.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 64770)