LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIs it true that scientists have discovered soft tissue that didn't fossilize within a T. Rex bone?If so, would it be possible to extract DNA from that sample of soft tissue and use it to clone a T. Rex?
September 8th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Is it true that scientists have discovered soft tissue that didn't fossilize within a T. Rex bone?If so, would it be possible to extract DNA from that sample of soft tissue and use it to clone a T. Rex?
Doubtful. But, although I'm WAY out of my expertise, I wouldn't be surprised if we develop good enough genetic models and ability to manipulate genes well enough to produce (or create..just for fun--because it's a god skill) something like them before the end of the century.
I read an article that talked about birds still having their dormat dinosaur genes that could be turned back on to kind of reverse their current genetic makeup back to their dinosaur past. Anyway that sounded kind of cool to me. Nothing like having a bunch of blood thirsty little raptors running around.Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
"Since dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us that the world is not 6000 years old, I doubt there was any DNA at all", said the priest to the little boy.
Yes to the soft tissue, no to the cloning from it. The tissues wa actually, basically reconstituted from a slightly mineralized state, and while still having protein structure they did not have DNA
I recently heard that there is a special protein that prevents mutations caused by UV radiation. The gene that produces this protein seems to be absent in humans, certain bacteria and viruses and chickens...There may be a possibility that a certain type of dinosaur evolved into a modern day chicken due to mutations caused by long term exposure to UV radiation over many generations... If this process could be reversed, we may have one species of dinosaur resurrected...I read an article that talked about birds still having their dormat dinosaur genes that could be turned back on to kind of reverse their current genetic makeup back to their dinosaur past. Anyway that sounded kind of cool to me. Nothing like having a bunch of blood thirsty little raptors running around.
If it could be done with a chicken, I can think of a whole list of more interesting birds to work with.I recently heard that there is a special protein that prevents mutations caused by UV radiation. The gene that produces this protein seems to be absent in humans, certain bacteria and viruses and chickens...There may be a possibility that a certain type of dinosaur evolved into a modern day chicken due to mutations caused by long term exposure to UV radiation over many generations... If this process could be reversed, we may have one species of dinosaur resurrected...I read an article that talked about birds still having their dormat dinosaur genes that could be turned back on to kind of reverse their current genetic makeup back to their dinosaur past. Anyway that sounded kind of cool to me. Nothing like having a bunch of blood thirsty little raptors running around.
Is it possible with today's technology to devolve a chicken back to its dinosaur ancestors?
If not, will that technology be available within a decade or a century?
I would hesitate to say they could do it today, but with the advances being made in the field of genetics now it wouldn't be long before they might be able do it and don't think saying sometime in the next 20 years is to unreasonable.
We can't unravel genetic changes to a previous state. Mother nature wasn't as insightful as, say, a computer programmer in terms of backing up her data before overwriting it.
Is it possible to view DNA in a graphic way, making it possible to analyze several batches of DNA from the same creature and bring the pieces together, maybe even create a computer program that does so automatically?
Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | KQED QUESTWe can't unravel genetic changes to a previous state. Mother nature wasn't as insightful as, say, a computer programmer in terms of backing up her data before overwriting it.
Can't we count fossils as data backups then? We just need the correct decryption code to make it work.We can't unravel genetic changes to a previous state. Mother nature wasn't as insightful as, say, a computer programmer in terms of backing up her data before overwriting it.
I don't fully understand this question, but i'll give it a go.
We can look at DNA visually.. but this doesn't add anything to the picture. Seeing ATGC doesn't make me spark anything about how something works.
DNA in a system interacts with all other DNA in a system, we have about 10.000 genes, with about 1200 codons each, consisting out of 3 basepairs, what is only 5% of the total amount of DNA. Then add that all DNA can interact with all other DNA. The results from each and every basepair is unpredictible yet. Then there is methylation, histones, ancesteral remains, mitochondria, environmental influences, dieet, availability of substances, etc.
10^100000000 * 10^(100000000*100000000) * 10^(100000000*100000000*100000000) * Unknown but above 1 =.... A HECK of a large number of possibilities. No computer can grasp this all..
at one point I got excited about that possibility and started googling it. I gave up after I kept finding them say that no dna would have survived all that time to be in good enough condition to bring back dinosaurs as they existed before.
I don't know that I would consider genetically mutating a chicken's features to be "devolving" them.Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | KQED QUESTWe can't unravel genetic changes to a previous state. Mother nature wasn't as insightful as, say, a computer programmer in terms of backing up her data before overwriting it.
It would be "evolving" them, and then only if the features stayed for enough generations to result in genetic drift from the root chicken stock
Do we still apply the term "evolution" to forced genetic changes? It seems slightly disingenuous.
why not? The simple definition of evolution is "a change in alleles over time".
Seems like it might convolute the issue as genetic manipulation becomes more commonplace. Just a thought.
if the byproduct of the genetic manipulation is a group that is not able to breed with the parent population, then its evolution which was facilitated by humans.
Right. I was just wondering if we would continue to use the word evolution to describe genetic offshoots created by humans.
If we are trying to reverse engineer genetic evolution, I don't see how we can avoid using the word. But if we are only trying to make genetic changes without regard to very old genetic configurations, then no it shouldn't be used.
Why shouldnt it be used? We already use it when talking about domesticated animals.
Anyone aware of any new studies or research done about this topic?
This video pretty much summarizes everything:
Didn't watch the video but I remember reading that DNA has an expiration date of 500 years or so. So, even if we found a completely preserved dinosaur in ice there would be no dna as it would have "rotted" away.
DNA has a 521-year half-life : Nature News & Comment
Not an expiration date of 500 years, A half-life, which is notably different.
How so? I thought at the "half life" there wasn't enough of the DNA left to clone? did I misread?
You mis understand. A half-life is the time period it takes half the original material to decompose/change so at ~500 years you will have 1/2 the amount of DNA that you had originally, in another 500 years you will have 1/4 the original material etc
Alright, thank you. Good to know
Looks like there is a little progress being made in transforming chickens back to dinosaurs:
Here's a chicken wearing a prosthetic tail to walk like a dinosaur
Just saw that this thread has recived over 1000 views. For me, its like reaching an important and personal milestone. Thanks to everyone who has so far contributed to this thread and I hope to see this thread getting more discussions and views in the future!
| « The Measurement of Time | Perforating LCD displays » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
