It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yea,thats exactly what they did in "Jurassic Park",became asexual or changed sex.
Originally posted by John_Q_Llama
reply to post by geologist
No, I think you're right about eggs. But I don't think there is a way to avoid DNA problems that arise as a result of inbreeding. The only thing that puzzles me, and this was mentioned in an earlier post, is asexual creatures. Are they exempt from such defects? I'm assuming that DNA works the same for all creatures though. For all we know the dinosaurs, Behemoth included, could have had some other mechanics at work with their reproduction, or perhaps if such a beast was alone or with a small group it would trigger reproductive processes that allow for healthy offspring. also, there have been reports of certain female animals giving birth without being around a male, so I would not be surprised if such a thing happens in nature as a survival mechanism.
In a room within the musky, dimly-lit basement of the J.T. Patterson Laboratories Building, rows of cages containing female Desert Grassland Whiptails line the walls. No males are present, because no males exist.
Former conceptions of societal norms have already been broken by the prevalence of single-parent families. Now, these revolutionary reptiles are redefining gender roles by removing males from the reproductive process entirely.
The Whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus uniparens, is an all-female species that reproduces through a process called parthenogenesis, which results in offspring genetically identical to the mother...
... Because this species reproduces by cloning itself, each member of the species is genetically identical, Crews said.
"They are unisexual, all-female clones," said Crews, who has studied the Grassland Whiptail since 1978. He said only 15 unisexual lizard species exist in nature.
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
The problem with this is, if there is a multi-ton relic dinosaur population knocking around out there, there would be evidence to show it.
Huge piles of droppings, giant non-fossilised bones and carcasses, deforestation and migratory habits, etc etc.
Elephants are not sedentry creatures because they have to eat a lot, due to their massive size. If they stay in one area too long, they annihilate the plant life in the area. A sauropod population would just be worse.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jkrog08
There's also the problem that the Mokole Mbembe, as described, does not mesh with any of the Sauropod dinosaurs, However, it does mesh well with the early 20th-century idea of Sauropods - swamb-dwelling tail-dragging, erect-necked doofuses - which was the influence of the pulp novels that gave rise to the Mokole-mbembe.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxActual sauropods were land-dwelling creatures of open spaces with horizontal necks, for the most part. The brachiosaurids with the erect necks were all immense, and would not be easily missed - We could start by following hte huge swaths of trampled land they would leave in their wake, being herd creatures.
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.