dinosaurs back to life? :O
- Thread starter EvilKittie
- Start date
Cos inside, all of us want a Jurassic park!
EvilKittie
Well-Known Member
changing the dNA structure of chickens
Sorry to disappoint those booking trips to costa rica, but this whole idea is seriously flawed. With a little help from the web, I shall attempt to explain the problems with the Jurassic Park scenario.
As explained in the film, DNA strands tens (even hundreds) of millions of years old are full of gaps. This could, perhaps, be overcome by mixing a number of different strands, but the mixing would be haphazard at best (imagine putting a chicken in a blender - what comes out is not what you put in). This is not to mention the enormous amount of electricity that would be needed to power gene sequencers capable of such feats.
Even if you managed to get a usable strand, recreating prehistoric DNA with that of a chicken (or a frog in the film) would be very difficult indeed. It would have to be homologous (ie. have a similar charicteristics) with the chicken DNA - something I am very dubious about.
However, supposing we did have a full DNA strand, what then? In order to make a baby dinosaur, you would have to inject the strand into the fertilized egg of a dinosaur's close relative. But, the development of an embryo is regulated by hormones in the egg and the environment, so the host used would have to recognise the particular bits of dinosaur DNA, this is currently impossible. So, even if this does end up giving us some dino DNA, we would not necessarily be able to create a dino.
As we do not currently (and will not for some time) have the ability to over-come these flaws, Jurassic Park will remain (for now at least) solely on the big screen. We must also remember, that even once we overcome these obstacles, there would be the issue of ethics, would scientists be allowed to bring back dinosaurs? Not to mention the issue of financing the project (probably in the region of billions).
Funnily enough, the article does not mention any of these obstacles
. As Meg-T says, stories like this crop up every few years but will likely never come to fruition.
As explained in the film, DNA strands tens (even hundreds) of millions of years old are full of gaps. This could, perhaps, be overcome by mixing a number of different strands, but the mixing would be haphazard at best (imagine putting a chicken in a blender - what comes out is not what you put in). This is not to mention the enormous amount of electricity that would be needed to power gene sequencers capable of such feats.
Even if you managed to get a usable strand, recreating prehistoric DNA with that of a chicken (or a frog in the film) would be very difficult indeed. It would have to be homologous (ie. have a similar charicteristics) with the chicken DNA - something I am very dubious about.
However, supposing we did have a full DNA strand, what then? In order to make a baby dinosaur, you would have to inject the strand into the fertilized egg of a dinosaur's close relative. But, the development of an embryo is regulated by hormones in the egg and the environment, so the host used would have to recognise the particular bits of dinosaur DNA, this is currently impossible. So, even if this does end up giving us some dino DNA, we would not necessarily be able to create a dino.
As we do not currently (and will not for some time) have the ability to over-come these flaws, Jurassic Park will remain (for now at least) solely on the big screen. We must also remember, that even once we overcome these obstacles, there would be the issue of ethics, would scientists be allowed to bring back dinosaurs? Not to mention the issue of financing the project (probably in the region of billions).
Funnily enough, the article does not mention any of these obstacles
. As Meg-T says, stories like this crop up every few years but will likely never come to fruition.redpanda,
Affirmative.
I suppose the notion of mtDNA and nuclear DNA, genes, alleles and genetics as subject matter is totally lost on Daily Mail journalism looking for a publishable story.
Curious though that a scientist quips: QUOTE ["‘I have to admit that I’ve certainly imagined walking up on a stage to give a talk, and having a little dino chicken walk up behind me,’ he says.
‘That would be kind of cool.
‘There is now nothing to stop us bringing back dinosaurs but ourselves.
'People who don’t believe it don’t know much about evolution.’
Pausing for a second, he adds: ‘Whether it is a good idea or not is another ...'] UNQOUTE
The whole discovery route is information gathering and science-driven, being critical to developing further our knowledge base and understanding of evolutionary forces and evolution. The area of a discussion on ethics and moral validity should not be discounted within the discipline as not within the realm or remit of scientists to delve into. At the end of the day us scientists are products of our time and we do have to take the ethical and philosophical debate into account. In this there is no room for religious, political or other personal bias, it must be an objective judgemental driven debate that should define our sphere of research and its limits.
Whereas I do see some validity of possibly using ancient DNA to re-surrect some of our "lost and extinct species from the Pleistocene era onwards", I do have serious reservations re. resurrecting a Living with Dinosaurs lab.
Affirmative.
I suppose the notion of mtDNA and nuclear DNA, genes, alleles and genetics as subject matter is totally lost on Daily Mail journalism looking for a publishable story.
Curious though that a scientist quips: QUOTE ["‘I have to admit that I’ve certainly imagined walking up on a stage to give a talk, and having a little dino chicken walk up behind me,’ he says.
‘That would be kind of cool.
‘There is now nothing to stop us bringing back dinosaurs but ourselves.
'People who don’t believe it don’t know much about evolution.’
Pausing for a second, he adds: ‘Whether it is a good idea or not is another ...'] UNQOUTE
The whole discovery route is information gathering and science-driven, being critical to developing further our knowledge base and understanding of evolutionary forces and evolution. The area of a discussion on ethics and moral validity should not be discounted within the discipline as not within the realm or remit of scientists to delve into. At the end of the day us scientists are products of our time and we do have to take the ethical and philosophical debate into account. In this there is no room for religious, political or other personal bias, it must be an objective judgemental driven debate that should define our sphere of research and its limits.
Whereas I do see some validity of possibly using ancient DNA to re-surrect some of our "lost and extinct species from the Pleistocene era onwards", I do have serious reservations re. resurrecting a Living with Dinosaurs lab.
When reading my short essay, I meant exactly that ... no bringing back those species from extinction that have completed a natural extinction crisis (as in the geological/climaticological cycle since Earth's first appearance 4,6 billion years ago).
With Pleistocene I meant all current life forms after the last natural extinction in the Eocene/Miocene and for which mankind is primarily accountable (po'ouli, dodo, Tasmanian wolf .... the list is somewhat expansive I am afraid!!).
Funnily enough, the article does not mention any of these obstacles
It's the Daily Mail, they are pretty notorious for their shoddy journalism...
When reading my short essay, I meant exactly that ... no bringing back those species from extinction that have completed a natural extinction crisis (as in the geological/climaticological cycle since Earth's first appearance 4,6 billion years ago).
With Pleistocene I meant all current life forms after the last natural extinction in the Eocene/Miocene and for which mankind is primarily accountable (po'ouli, dodo, Tasmanian wolf .... the list is somewhat expansive I am afraid!!).
So - should we be attempting to save the Tasmanian Devil? Their primary threat these days is a disease that has nothing to do with man.
Hix
So - should we be attempting to save the Tasmanian Devil? Their primary threat these days is a disease that has nothing to do with man.
Hix
One could argue that the tasmanian devil is the island's main predator and that the loss of this vital part of the food chain could result in other extinctions. However, this would not be the case if humans had not hunted the tasmanian tiger to extinction.
So in a roundabout way, you could make a case for tasmanian devil conservation but it's an interesting point.
No time for point scoring ... or making fun of ... extinction is final. So, I was not being funny, nor expecting anyone else to do so. This is serious subject matter here ... My essay related to the (non-)desirability of dinosaur resurrections versus saving current fauna and flora surviving into the present from the late Pleistocene.
As an Australian one should be acutely aware of the long list of extinctions at the hand of man since the 1880's. The above mentioned essay .... well yes it does include Tasmanian devils as they do play a vital role in the ecosystem that makes Tasmania today.
Incidentally, an ecosystem and habitat type which through mega-conglomerate forestry interests have been hell bent on destroying over the last 100+ years for short term profit margins. The wildlife and natural plant ressources in these old growth temperate forests, in other words Tasmanian wolf, Tasmanian devil, swift parrots ... et cetera et cetera deserve all our assistance in surviving the 6th. extinction crisis.
Whether the cancerous melanoma in Tasmanian devils is directly borne out by present human activities is quite irrelevant in the question "should they be saved or not".
I was not trying to score points or be funny (if I was there would be a "
" in the post). Perhaps the scenario that I presented was a little far-fetched, but I don't see how it detracted from your essay or the issue of the current extinction crisis. However, if it did then I apologise, it was not my intention.Regarding this post; are you saying that if humans had not chopped down the forest, tasmanian devils would not be at low enough numbers to be threatened with extinction by this disease? I'm not meaning to be rude, but unless I misunderstood isn't this similar to what I tried to do?
Hi redpanda,
Sorry that it may have seemed misconstrued, but the criticism was not directed at you (I was meaning Australian as in Australian). I just wanted to ad on to your remarks to respond to Hix's short quip (which I found not funny and little bittish off-the-mark). So, I re-explained the essence of my angle/philosophy on this.
Regards,
K.B.
Sorry that it may have seemed misconstrued, but the criticism was not directed at you (I was meaning Australian as in Australian). I just wanted to ad on to your remarks to respond to Hix's short quip (which I found not funny and little bittish off-the-mark). So, I re-explained the essence of my angle/philosophy on this.
Regards,
K.B.
My take on it is that if Aboriginals had not introduced the dingo there may have been a high enough population of Devils and Thylacines on the mainland to maintain a poulation elsewhere to Tassie.
I understand. It was about mid-night when I read your post which probably explains my confusion!
Here, Here.........I wouldn't believe ANYTHING printed in the Daily Mail ESPECIALLY anything to do with Science, they have totally fabricated stories (including non-exisitent 'experts') on a number of occasions (and relating to scientific issues far more important than this).
Makes a nice story though, and no doubt the Discovery programme will be interesting but as many of you have pointed out, DNA or not, it ain't gonna happen.
Wasn't meant to be funny, or a quip. But you have answered my question so I am satisfied.
Hix