It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

how possable was Jurrasic Park ? Really

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
How far off was the movie Jurrasic park and how possable or impossable would it be to bring back prehistoric animals. I believe they are breeding an elephant with mammoth genes now aren't they? Maybe a real live T-rex is possable huh




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Well in theory this could work if you had a really good DNA sample. In Jurassic Park they even had to work with a poor sample and then fill in the missing sections with Frog DNA. I dont know why they would use Frogs Birds would be the clear choice.

But that filling in missing holes in a DNA sample is pure fantasy with current tech it cant be done.

We have right now a preserved Tasmanian tiger and the DNA is already too degraded to work with using current tech. We need perfect or near perfect DNA to work with.

In say 50 years who knows this technology may advance a great deal and we will be able to work with DNA we once considered unworkable.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
DNA fragments over time. Even if a complete genome of a dinosaur was ever found, it'd be in so many pieces I doubt it could ever be reassembled into a viable DNA strand.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Cant find a viable strand MAKE it.
The object recreat a dino (never accutly Be a dino) just look like one .
so you gather enough DNA a pice here a pice there mape it then taking Living DNA change it untill it matches the dino DNA . insert into egg and wala shake and bake dinos.
Just one problem who in there right minds would do this?
It takes over 20 pounds of meat a day to keep a lion healthy .
and Trex is 50 times that size . so were talking Whole cows here .every day. and it takes 40 pounds of vetation a day to keep an elephent healthy.
and a brachiosaurus is 50 times that size .



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
DNA strands from dead cells get degraded over time, usually over 175 years the DNA extracted is overly contaminated and it is unusable. So ya getting dino DNA from a mosquito trapped in tree amber 200 milion years ago would be virtually impossible.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Cant find a viable strand MAKE it.

I think that will just turn into a blob of random flesh



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   


Cant find a viable strand MAKE it.


well by that logic why stop or restrain ourselves to making dinosours, you could make virtually anything that doesnt defy physics and be limited to only ur imagination, chimeras a griffith, or some of the most randomn creatures imaginable. To bad the tech for this is 20-45 years away, hopefully we wouldnt have destroyed ourselves or enough of our infrastructure to set us back a few more decades, with war.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It would be easy IF they found a dna strand frozen in time, like in the artic, like the wooly mammoth they found. Otherwise, well, just ablob


TPL

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
From what i once heard on TV, and bear in mind this was a while ago, i believe that we'd be mostly likely only be able to clone animals from the Mammoth and Sabre-Tooth Tiger era.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Well that's because that is the closest different time period to ours AND the DNA strand is most likely frozen in time, as WolfofWar said
anyway, anyone think about cloning extinct animals that humans killed?



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Just one problem who in there right minds would do this?
It takes over 20 pounds of meat a day to keep a lion healthy .
and Trex is 50 times that size . so were talking Whole cows here .every day. and it takes 40 pounds of vetation a day to keep an elephent healthy.
and a brachiosaurus is 50 times that size .


Well that really depends if they were Cold blooded or warm blooded. The examples you use Lions and Elephants are both warm blooded and require much more food energy then cold blooded animals. If T-rex was cold blooded it would only require a fraction of the food it would need if warm blooded.

Ill try to find it but I seen studies of how much plants the large saurapods would need to eat a day if they were warm blooded and it bordered close on the impossible having them to be eating nearly all the time just to survive. Leaving no time to mate, sleep or have babies. It was made even worst because of the quailty of plants around at the time most of which had a nutritional value close too newspaper. There was no high quality plants like Grass around yet.

Its hard to say if dinosaurs were cold or warm blooded. Right now it looks like some were cold other warm but its hard to say.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I dont think these big dinosaurs are viable on todays earth, back then the composition of the atmosphere had a higher % of oxygen, thus allowing such huge land-straddling animals to exist. I presume elephant size is as big as it can get now.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The sauropod design is just as viable today as 65 million years ago in terms of physics. Dinosaurs flourished at a lower oxygen rate then we have today. a steady 10 percent – the level at which dinosaurs flourished – the oxygen percentage rose to 17 percent 50 million years ago and then to 23 percent by 40 million years ago.

We are at about 20 percent today I believe.
link

If your talking about the giant Bugs that lived hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs you would be correct though. But thats really has more to do with the way bugs breath with their "book lungs"

[edit on 25-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
But that filling in missing holes in a DNA sample is pure fantasy with current tech it cant be done.

Sure it can. The problem is more about knowing what to fill in, not filling it in at the right spots.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
It would be easy IF they found a dna strand frozen in time, like in the artic, like the wooly mammoth they found. Otherwise, well, just ablob

This is viabel with creatures that lived not so long ago, like a Mammoth. Something that lived million of years ago wont have any useable DNA. It had to be frozen at 0 Kelvin for that to work.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If we get to star trek type tech it would be easy-

first find a strad of dna then save it into a digital format do it can be preserved forever (unless you get a virus or hit by an EMP.)

Then you could use a replicator (whihc for some reason they never do on tv but it should really be quite simple if they can replicate other things.)



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Just learned this last week in entomology. The family of insects that mosquitos belong to did not exist prior to 60 million years ago....5 million years after the extinction of dinosaurs. Thus the origin of the park and the extraction of DNA is just another hole in the work of fiction.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm currently doing my term paper for Forensic Science on future DNA tech, though not in the context that you guys are looking for. I'm writing it on our future capabilities to identify DNA evidence for criminal cases, though identifying is half the battle.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Well, in response to the first post (by ironjello), in this day and age recreating a dinosaur would not be possible. Actually, the only reason they're even able to come close to recreating a partial mammoth is due to the fact that they've found a mammoth "frozen in time," so to speak, from the ice age many months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was in Russia. Mammoth's existed only thousands of years ago. The last known existance of dinosaur's being known to exist in any variety was approximately 65 million years ago. That's quite the time difference. In the future, however, with advances in technology a "recreation" of what might be called a dinosaur (not in fact being a dinosaur), may be possible. In order to do something to this extent though would require a much larger scaled research in the "Genetic Engineering" field. Not only would we have to gather a full DNA strand of a "specific" dinosaur, but we would have to spend countless man-hours on cloning and splicing the genes in order to make a viable species. We've just cracked the surface of the human genome, so the idea of being able to recreate a species that we've barely had a chance to research the genetics on seems, IMO, impossible for quite some time. Human beings are more interested in wanting to the know the answer to the question "Where do we come from," rather than, "Can we recreate some giant prehistoric creatures which existed millions of years ago?" This would serve no purpose than entertainment. Hope this answers your question.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by N3Point0 This would serve no purpose than entertainment.


I am sure the DoD of the US would object.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Actually, after hearing that last reply, it got me to thinking. Creation of Dinosaurs could infact be an "interesting" idea for military use, if not for the dangers involved in having to keep them under control, and countless other factors that would count against this being realistic option. The fact of the matter is that technology such as: Directed Energy weapons and Unmanned Aircraft are going to be much more efficient and less costly than anything else to use in war. Not to mention less casualties. Of course, dinosaurs for military use is a good fictitious idea, the reality of it is that that's exactly what it is and will always be. Not to mention, if you created dinosaurs for military purposes you'd have to worry about animal rights activists and so on. The U.S. DoD I could almost guarantee would not even consider dinosaurs over technology. That would be ridiculous.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join