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.

 

Jurassic Park a reality?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
If this was posted b4 my apologies.


www.calacademy.org...
Paleontologists Found a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago. In order to fit the bone into the transport helicopter, they were forced to break it in two. Breaking the bone resulted in an amazing discovery, they found Soft Tissue that somehow resisted fossilization. The Tissue incuded blood vessels, and they are hoping to find blood cells in the tissue! The amazing thing is that the Tissue was still flexible.
[...]
Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.



Tissue aged at 70 Million years, once the proteins are isolated they might find the
bridge between birds and dinosaurs.

[edit on 10/1/2006 by a1ex]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Title spelling edit

[edit on 1-10-2006 by masqua]
[edited ex tags -nygdan]

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Oh cool and intresting, I just can't wait if we could clone a T-Rex and be petting it in the future



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
This is discovery is from more than a year ago, btw. Interesting topic though!

FWIW, they had to treat it with chemicals to dissolvve the fossil matrix and what was left was a soft material that was made up of the remains of tissues, not fresh tissue.

Dr. Schweitzer had also previously found biomolecules preserved in dinosaur tissues, as have other researchers. She does not expect to find red blood cells or the like.

As far as the link between birds and dinosaurs, the issue is pretty much settled, that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, birds, in a sense, are dinosaurs, just highly modified ones.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Similar article here:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

With Video Apparently this was posted March 28 2005, I cannot beleive I missed something like this.


Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs’ original molecular material may still be present.


So there is another theory that the earth is not as old as we think it is, could this
be used as proof?

Now what scares me is: what if bacteria or a virus is still in the tissue? we could bring back an epidemic that existed back then....



[edit on 10/1/2006 by a1ex]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex
So there is another theory that the earth is not as old as we think it is, could this
be used as proof?


Not really. This tissue could be unique in terms of where it was fossilised, the age of the dinosaur or any number of other factors.




Now what scares me is: what if bacteria or a virus is still in the tissue? we could bring back an epidemic that existed back then....


Some people may say that any prehistoric bug will be unable to hurt us. Our predecessors obviously survived it and may have passed the immunity down to us.
I, on the other hand, have no idea what would happen.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Well I don't know about this, because if they said they can clone the tasmanian tiger, but weren't allowed to do it due to the law, then how in the world are they going to pull off this one? I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to have T rex rampaging around the neighborhood.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I would love to die by T-Rex!

Just think about it. As I was crunched into a pulp, I'd exclaim my joy at being devoured by a creature that died before we even had thumbs!



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I thought they abandoned the attempt to clone the Thylacine because it simply could not be done - at least not with today's technology.

But if that could not be done, I seriously doubt dinos will ever be cloned simply because there will never be enough genetic material available, though I suppose they could try and fill it in with genes from similar animals - birds would be better than frogs as in the movie.

Would be cool, though, to see a t-rex or raptor in the flesh - then we would know whether or not t-rex had feathers as some paleontologists believe.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Well done bone diggers! Nice find Bone diggers (forgot the proper term
) and thread starter.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Was kinda funny to read this topic title when I recently heard that Microsofts Flight Simulator X, which will be released in a few weeks, has the Jurassic Park islands in it, with high detail scenery and layout directly from the movie studios.

Up to now, Microsoft Flight Simulator has only featured real life locations and topology.

Makes you wonder, should we wait and see where exactly this is in Flight Simulator and then go check out that location? I don't understand why Microsoft would put a fictional island in Flight Simulator when that game is all about reality and realism.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I thought Isla Nublar was a fictional Island? Prob in the flight simulator as a game cheat?

Off we go with Google satellite....



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Nope, by default.

Thats what I find so peculiar, MS has always pushed the realism factor in FS, especialy so with FSX, they've done alot of work on the ATC's and other AI aspects of the Sim.

Only reason I see for them to put the Jurasic Park islands in if they have some sort of deal with the film studio's because a new Jurassic Park film is in the works.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I hope this finding is 100% Real and not a "Million Dollar Hollywood Publicity Stunt" that will end up making billions in the future



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

So there is another theory that the earth is not as old as we think it is, could this be used as proof?

I'd say no, the material could be preserved on an 'old earth'. There are other instances of preservation of biomolecules.



Now what scares me is: what if bacteria or a virus is still in the tissue? we could bring back an epidemic that existed back then

There are actually, disturbingly enough, occasions where very old bacteria are infact recovered and revived. I think something from teh age of the dinosaurs wouldn't be as much of a problem though, something that is specialized in infecting reptiles might not have much of an effect on humans.


Schrecken Licht
I seriously doubt dinos will ever be cloned simply because there will never be enough genetic material available,

Indeed. There is no genetic material at all from any of these organisms. Dr. Schweitzer has twice made a discovery like this, and other researchers have found biomolecules in fossilized bone of similar age, but never genetic material.


a1ex
I hope this finding is 100% Real

Its 100% real. Dr. Schweitzer is a well respected paleontologist and she's published these results in scientific journals.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Nygdan:

Dr. Schweitzer mentioned here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now see:
www.meas.ncsu.edu...

from there we have this:



Can we use the tools of molecular paleontology to detect biomarkers not only in fossils but also in extraterrestrial samples? Did life never evolve on other planets? Did it evolve then go extinct? Or is it thriving now?


Is this the person you are refering to?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
i believe that this subject was beaten to death when jurasic park came out i guess you might have misssed it, the point is that there is no DNA left to clone dino's recombining DNA would not produce a dyno it would only create a man made monster



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
When you mention there is no DNA left, does that mean:
No DNA left that we know of

or ....

No DNA left according to facts and evidence (proven until today oct 14 2006) ?



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by razor1000
i believe that this subject was beaten to death when jurasic park came out i guess you might have misssed it, the point is that there is no DNA left to clone dino's recombining DNA would not produce a dyno it would only create a man made monster


Considering this thread is about an article where they found soft tissue inside a dino bone, which could contain DNA, your argument is a bit hinky.

This tissue could well still have viable DNA in it.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
couldn't say that better myself!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join