Triassic Park: 230 year old insects found in amber

A 230 year old insect in 230 million year old amber, is indeed impressive! The only explanation must be time travel. :D
In my early 20's, I did quite a lot of reading about OOPArts (our of place artifacts) - gold lockets and spark plugs found in lumps of coal etc - and this thread sounds like an OOPArt! :D

But seriously though, can dinosaur DNA be extracted from these insect a-la the Jurassic Park novel?
 
But seriously though, can dinosaur DNA be extracted from these insect a-la the Jurassic Park novel?
might be hard given that the mites are gall mites (plant parasites) and although the type of fly isn't named in the article it is unlikely to have been a sanguinivore.
 
might be hard given that the mites are gall mites (plant parasites) and although the type of fly isn't named in the article it is unlikely to have been a sanguinivore.

What we need then, is some mosquitoes! :D

A flamboyant and immensely rich mining magnate here in Australia was rumoured to be funding the cloning of a t-rex dinosaur. He has since denied the claims, and has instead ordered a mechanical one from China. :D
Clive's going Jurassic with DNA | Offbeat | Weird News, Odd and Freaky Stories in Sunshine Coast | Sunshine Coast Daily
 
nanoboy said:
Oh really? Hmm .... 65 million years then? Any chance at all of finding a mosquito with dinosaur blood?
not if it's a male mosquito (as in the Jurassic Park movie) :D
 
based on genetic evidence, fly and mosquito ancestors diverged around 220 million years ago. The oldest actual preserved specimens of mosquitoes (e.g. in amber) are much much younger than this (in tens of millions of years). Not all mosquitoes feed on blood - and only females feed anyway - but yes there were plenty of mosquitoes around in the dinosaur days.

I don't really know the likelihood of dinosaur blood actually surviving intact within the stomach of a mosquito preserved in amber though. I should think it would be pretty remote.
 
relating to nanoboy's questions above:
DNA dating study kills off Jurassic Park - Yahoo!7 News
10 October 2012

Reconstructing dinosaurs from ancient DNA has been dealt a blow with a new study finding genetic material can only last 1 million years.

An international team of researchers reached the finding after analysing DNA extracted from bones of the extinct New Zealand moa.

They found that while short fragments of DNA could possibly survive up to 1 million years, sequences of 30 base pairs or more would only have a half-life of around 158,000 years under certain conditions.

Lead author Dr Morten Allentoft from Murdoch University's Ancient DNA lab in Perth says their results contradict earlier studies which claimed to have extracted DNA fragments several hundred base pairs long from dinosaur bones and preserved insects, claims which underpinned the storyline of the 1993 movie Jurassic Park.

"What we show here with the decay rate of DNA is that this is never going to be possible," Dr Allentoft said.

"It may be that you can have extremely short fragments of DNA, only a few base pairs that persist for maybe a million years, maybe even longer."

Dr Allentoft says the earlier findings may have been due to contamination with human DNA.

Rate of decay

The latest study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, also establishes a DNA decay rate which could help identify specimens likely to yield useful genetic material.

It might also one day enable DNA to be used to date bones and teeth or even be used for forensic investigation of human remains.

Dr Allentoft says the idea was first hinted at in 1970s, but subsequent studies have failed to pin it down.

"One of the reasons is because there is so much environmental noise, different temperatures, different soil conditions in different places," he said.

The researchers overcame this hurdle by using "a lot of material from the same small area".

The moa bones were excavated from three adjacent sites within a five-kilometre radius in North Canterbury, New Zealand.

According to Dr Allentoft, the next step is to explore how environmental factors affect the rate of decay, which he hopes will lead to a more accurate and more comprehensive model of DNA decay.
 

Thanks for posting this. Hmmm..... in the old days (like for police forensics) they needed larger quantities of higher quality material that contained DNA. With time, however, their techniques improved and their equipment got more sensitive, and now they need only tiny, poor quality samples.

I foresee the same progress being made with ancient DNA retrieval methods as a half life is merely natural 'decay' over time, and there will always be a tiny amount present. So don't count out T-rex walking the earth again just yet. :D
 
Back
Top