Resurrecting dinosaurs will remain a Jurassic Park dream
8 replies, posted
[img]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/amber6-640x557.jpg[/img]
Contrary to earlier reports, DNA doesn't survive even decades in tree sap.
[quote]While the premise of the film—that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from the guts of a preserved mosquito that had recently dined on one—seems reasonable, the fragile nature of DNA and the huge expanse of time that has passed have led many experts to doubt claims to have extracted any DNA that old—including DNA from the insect itself.
David Penney, a palaeontologist and expert in amber-preserved spiders and insects at the University of Manchester, carried out experiments to try to confirm once and for all whether DNA could be extracted from creatures fossilized in amber. With Terry Brown, an ancient-DNA expert also at the University of Manchester, they used the latest “next generation” DNA extraction and sampling techniques to avoid DNA contamination.
...
[b]The results were pretty conclusive: “In the oldest specimen we found no viable DNA,” Penney said. “In the newer sample, we found various bacterial and other DNA, but nothing that was certifiably from the bee.”[/b][/quote]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/resurrecting-dinosaurs-will-remain-a-jurassic-park-dream/[/url]
So it looks like I'll never get to ride a Tyrannosaurus Rex... [sp]I want to believe.[/sp]
I'm sorry, contrary to belief I'm sure one decade we'll figure it out.
[QUOTE=pentium;42179802]I'm sorry, contrary to belief I'm sure one decade we'll figure it out.[/QUOTE]
On a long enough timeline of scientific progression, sure we'll figure something out, but it appears that the Jurassic Park-method of extracting DNA is pretty much off the table.
Of course, whatever we figure out that proves to be successful at biologically creating these creatures will raise a hugely similar question to what was raised in the major school(s) of thought established in the novel. That is to say, "Are these things we cultivated [i]actually[/i] dinosaurs, or simply something that greatly represents them?"
even in Jurassic park it was mentioned that they're not 100% dinosaur, they had to use other animal's DNA to fill in the gaps, giving them certain traits of other animals.
Maybe not Dinosaurs, but I remember us finding usable Mammoth DNA a couple years ago. Whatever happened to the plans of cloning a Mammoth?
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;42180299]Maybe not Dinosaurs, but I remember us finding usable Mammoth DNA a couple years ago. Whatever happened to the plans of cloning a Mammoth?[/QUOTE]
I cloned a mammoth once. It was okay
This isn't exactly new though.
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555[/url]
Stop reminding me.
Reverse engineer it! Start with bird DNA! Invoke mutations! DNA is a code, understand it and write your own creatures. It'll happen. Say hello to Neo-T-Rex.
Well Dinosaurs are out, for now, it seems...
but at least there's still hope in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene]Pliocene[/url] for that Woolly Mammoth!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.