Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Possible to clone Dinosaurs?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    jonas16

jonas16

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2006
  • Location:Somewhere

  • I'm 17

Posted 24 September 2007 - 12:29 PM

Something i have been thinking on. Is it possible to actually clone a dinosaur. Like Velociraptor or Giganotosaurus etc. It would be awesome if they cloned a Velociraptor, and then followed by the other species!


#2    Siara

Siara

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 24 September 2007 - 02:50 PM

Quote

Something i have been thinking on. Is it possible to actually clone a dinosaur. Like Velociraptor or Giganotosaurus etc. It would be awesome if they cloned a Velociraptor, and then followed by the other species!


One problem is that the conditions that preserve bodies tend to destroy DNA.  They can't get good genetic samples from the people they find in sphagnum bogs, for example, because the acidity of the water destroys DNA.  I assume you'd have to use a dinosaur that had been preserved under special conditions.  

There was an article a while ago about a woman who found intact genetic matter inside the bones of a T. Rex( !!! ).  I THINK she just found strings of amino acids.  But it was enough to test the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  So you never know... maybe some day someone will clone a dinosaur.

I'm hoping that someone clones a mammoth in my lifetime.  Actually, I hope they clone at least three since they were herd animals.



#3    AmazingAtheist

AmazingAtheist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • 'Where knowledge Ends, Religion Begins -- Benjamin Disraeli

Posted 24 September 2007 - 03:50 PM

I'm ok with a mammoth but ..


Not something like T-Rex lol ..

Waaaaaaaaay too scary ..

It is usually
When men are at their most religious
That they behave with the least sense
And the greatest cruelty.

--Ilka Chase


<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...tml#good_to_all</a>

Go to link to see the "Original" God Yahweh ..


Theory-- A logically coherent model well supported by evidence.

Evolution isn't just science, It's life. -- Joshua McLean

#4    War-Junkie

War-Junkie

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:where my ars hit the couch

Posted 25 September 2007 - 09:05 PM

Im pretty sure there was more oxygen or something like that when they roamed thats the reason why they were so big.
I doubt that they could survive now without messing with there genes.


#5    Jack_of_Blades

Jack_of_Blades

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albion, Hero's Guild

  • "There's no earthly way of knowing. Which direction they are going! There's no knowing where they're rowing, Or which way they river's flowing!."

Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:21 AM

1. Scientists are having trouble cloning alive animals let alone extinct ones. original.gif

2. You would have to have a surrogate mother for the dinosaur, what would you
use? The main reason we can't clone the Dodo is that it's closest living relitive is
the pidgeon (much too small to mother a Dodo).

3. The most likely of clonable (extinct) animals are: the mammoth (elephant mother),
the wooly rhino (rhino mother), the moah and the elephant bird (ostridge mother)

4. The lifespan of a cloned dinosaur would be vary short (6 months to 5 years)
because of cloning defects and "new" diseases that there immune system would
be weak against.

5. It may be possible in the future (next 100 years or so) to clone smaller dinosaurs
useing large bird eggs as the surrogate mother. The DNA of the dinosaur would have
to be extracted from a fossil as useing amber is too randomized.


#6    thevocalist

thevocalist

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined:04 Sep 2007

Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:27 AM

Quote

Im pretty sure there was more oxygen or something like that when they roamed thats the reason why they were so big.
I doubt that they could survive now without messing with there genes.

Right, it's my understand ing it was the very high Oxegon on the earth at the time, that allowed Dinasours to survive and get so large. Even id cloning was succesful. it would have to be done in an controlled environment.

An uneducated opinion, is just that!

#7    Shaftsbury

Shaftsbury

    Transitional Fossil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined:13 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:34 PM

Quote

Right, it's my understand ing it was the very high Oxegon on the earth at the time, that allowed Dinasours to survive and get so large.


I don't really buy that, dinosaurs spanned the entire range of sizes sometimes within the same family (I'm using the word "family" loosely here).

I don't think you can narrow it down to a single reason.

"He hath need of his wits who wanders wide,
aught simple will serve at home;
but a gazing-stock is the fool who sits
mid the wise, and nothing knows."

from the Elder or Poetic Edda

The Isles of Aledeon - Roleplay World

#8    Jiatao

Jiatao

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2007 - 06:26 PM

Quote

Something i have been thinking on. Is it possible to actually clone a dinosaur. Like Velociraptor or Giganotosaurus etc. It would be awesome if they cloned a Velociraptor, and then followed by the other species!


It might be possible, but it wouldn't be right, because we are separated by 65,000,000 years of evolution, and there will be predators that the dinosaur hadn't been evolved to fight, and if it's a carnivore it would starve because they also haven't been evolved to eat these animals.


#9    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 29 September 2007 - 06:48 PM

Quote

I don't really buy that, dinosaurs spanned the entire range of sizes sometimes within the same family (I'm using the word "family" loosely here).

I don't think you can narrow it down to a single reason.



Don't buy it, because that is not why dinosaurs were able to get big. There is a whole branch of physiology that address that, thevocalist should read up on it.


To the OP. It is not possible to clone dinosaurs at this point (or probably ever). Cloning is done by removal of a nucleus from an egg. An intact nucleus is then placed in the egg. Not only do you need intact Dino DNA, but you need a nuclear envelope, nuclear proteins (which must be manufactured by a living cell), and many other components that simply do not exist. Baring time travel, the dinosaurs are gone from this earth forever.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#10    Princess Serenity

Princess Serenity

    ✻ Qᴜᴇᴇɴ Eʟsᴀ

  • Member
  • 8,397 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Moon Kingdom

  • "There's nothing to fear but fear itself." Franklin D Roosevelt.

Posted 01 October 2007 - 12:47 PM

Quote

I'm ok with a mammoth but ..
Not something like T-Rex lol ..

Waaaaaaaaay too scary ..


Mammoths are okay to clone. Plus they would have to be cloned to be adjusted to the climate.

Seriously. I don't think anyone wants to clone of one those.


#11    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 02 October 2007 - 02:18 AM

Don't want to sound cynical here but you think people have watched too many reruns of Jurassic Park Trilogy Collector's Edition?

I mean come on....


#12    Technopath

Technopath

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 128 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2007

Posted 09 October 2007 - 12:53 AM

Quote

1. Scientists are having trouble cloning alive animals let alone extinct ones. original.gif


That's what they've been telling us.
But considering the moral and ethic implications of cloning (which I don't really care about, since I'm a scientifically curious person and not really a religious person) they're probably doing it "underground" or I've watched too many episodes of "Surface", lol.


#13    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 09 October 2007 - 02:45 AM

Quote

That's what they've been telling us.
But considering the moral and ethic implications of cloning (which I don't really care about, since I'm a scientifically curious person and not really a religious person) they're probably doing it "underground" or I've watched too many episodes of "Surface", lol.



There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with cloning animals for research as far as science is concerned. The problem of successful cloning is real however. Its a very touch and go process, when a somatic nuclear envelope is placed in an egg, certain factors must be introduced to "trick" the egg into dividing. The failure rate at this point is immense.

Gamete cells also contain better proof reading mechanisms for DNA replication and repair. Obviously, this serves an important role; making sure your offspring are ok a the genetic level. Somatic cells lack the proof reading system of gamete cells (This is why you see cancer arise in the body, you don't see cancer occur in sperm cells however). Because of this "sloppy replication", there is a large likely hood the DNA will become too damaged during divisions and the cell will head down the lonely road of apoptosis. If this occurs too often in an embryos development, spontaneous abortion is sure to follow. Or the mothers body simply reabsorbs the embryo.

So not only do you have these problems, but it gets worse.

At the ends of your DNA are extensions known as telomeres. Throughout your life, many types of your bodies cells reproduce through mitosis. Every time they replicate, the telomeres at the end of the DNA shorten. When they get to a certain length, the cell recognizes this, and will not divide any further. Thus, the end of the line for that cell. As you age this occurs in more and more cells, making it harder for your body to run normal repair mechanisms (like if you were cut, when you are old it takes much longer to heal due to the fact less cells are capable of dividing to "fill" the cut). Eventually, loss of repair causes death (or worse, cancer).  

So what does this have to do with cloning?
When you take a nuclear envelope from a somatic cell, it already has shortened telomeres. Lets say you wanted to clone an animal that lives for 5 years. You took your nuclear envelope from an animal that was 2.5 years old.  After inserting this envelope into a 'empty' egg, the egg with the new nucleus would conclude that it was 2.5 years old already. So your clone is going to have a dramatically shortened life span, along with any hammy-down DNA errors occurred over the original nucleus' life span.

Edited by camlax, 09 October 2007 - 02:48 AM.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#14    WraithGod

WraithGod

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kingston, ON, Canada

  • "There have been tens of thousands of sightings and experiences... if only one is true the entire case, the non-reality, falls apart."

Posted 15 October 2007 - 09:54 PM

The post above covers the cloning issue very well.

However, in the far future, might it not be possible to "create" a creature that is dinosaur-like in appearance?  Technically all living things consist of the same molecules at a genetic level.  That's very far-future stretching-it sci fi, but what would be the barriers to that, beyond technology?

"'But the Devil, when he purports any evil against man, first perverts
his mind.''
Posted Image
"Whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad."


#15    Ins0mniac

Ins0mniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tassie, Australia

Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:50 AM

Quote

It might be possible, but it wouldn't be right, because we are separated by 65,000,000 years of evolution, and there will be predators that the dinosaur hadn't been evolved to fight, and if it's a carnivore it would starve because they also haven't been evolved to eat these animals.


Um, yeah. I don't think they would be releasing them into the wild any time soon. If they did clone them.

And I would think the security in real life would be a little better than in the Jurassic Park movies.

Edited by Ins0mniac, 16 October 2007 - 05:52 AM.

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea." - Douglas Adams




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users