One year ago today, scientists discovered a 99-million-year-old dinosaur tail preserved in amber. Do you think scientists will be able to use preserved samples to 'recreate' dinosaurs in your lifetime (a la Jurassic Park)?
Pure movie fantasy🤪❗️
I never underestimate Science to do so. Is not a Wise decision. Science is evolutionary a continuum discoveries.
Maybe, but if it was really 99 million years old, how it it survive? I am sure the discovery amazed scientist.
Tissue can be preserved that long under the right circumstances but DNA can’t. So it would be unreplicable
From frog DNA. No.
Prove it is that old. If you cannot prove it, it is just a belief.
I seriously doubt Jurassic Park is realistic in my lifetime. While I am not a DNA expert, I am certainly informed on DNA.
Carbon dating should do the trick.
How familiar are you with carbon dating?
Me personaly, not much at all. Why?
You don’t know much about carbon dating, but use it as an answer.
You have an uninformed belief that anything existed millions of years ago.
Okay let's say I'm incorrect.
How do you know how old the Earth is?
I believe it to be about 6000 years old.
What method do you use to come up with that?
That is the timeline that the Bible gives us.
I have yet to come across anything that credibly contradicts that.
Well im sorry. I disagree.
Heres a blurb for carbon dating.
Carbon-14 dating, also calledradiocarbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon(carbon-14). ... Because carbon-14 decays at this constant rate, an estimate of the date at which an organism died can be made by measuring the amount of its residualradiocarbon.
Seams (at least in my eyes) more creditable then a book that has been traslated several times beforw you and i have read it. Ei the bible.
I have studied carbon dating well beyond that basic definition.
The Bible has been translated numerous times, but not enough to affect the integrity of it.
If that’s all you can bring to the table, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
That's better for me.
It is against my religion to challenge your religion.
Agreeing to disagree.
What is your religion?
Pagan Open wing.
Well you have your beliefs I have my beliefs.
If you want to believe anything existed millions of years ago, that’s up to you.
I used to believe the same thing.
When we know that the earth existed longer than 6000 years it is not a belief, it is fact. If your believe otherwise then you are wrong.
Explain how you know this for a fact.
You don’t “know” anything using radiometric dating. You believe what you were told about radiometric dating.
Well, as a geologist I believe what I was taught and studied about it in university.
If you are in fact a geologist (no offense, but, we don’t know each other and this is the Internet), you would not be the first geologist that I have had a disagreement with.
That's not surprising.
I would argue that both ages are correct.
The basis that both the scientific body of knowledge and the creationists body of knowledge are both observational fact of different planes of existence.
While I am not a geologist, I am all studied on various areas so that I can bring something to the table.
I am actually pretty well studied on radiometric dating.
I have particularly studied a lot on radiometric dating because the age of the earth tends to be a big topic when it comes to the Bible.
DNA doesn’t last long enough regardless of how well something is preserved. No, it won’t happen.
My hero on the subject of ancient DNA (and the person who probably still knows more about it than any other human being), Svante Pääbo, says no, although he does leave the door open a tiny crack:
"Pääbo is careful to temper enthusiasts who dream about cloning extinct organisms or sequencing dinosaur DNA. 'One doesn't really know what may come in the future, but cloning an organism from a genome fragmented into small pieces of DNA will probably always be impossible, he says, 'and from what we know about the chemical stability of DNA, sequence retrieval will always be on this side of a million years ago, so dinosaur DNA is beyond our reach.'" (www.pnas.org/content/103/37/13575.long)
And even if the nuclear DNA (chromosomes) could be adequately sequenced, that's not at all the end of the problem.
In order to go from chromosomes (let's say we can jump from DNA sequences right to making functioning chromosomes) to a living dinosaur, we would have to use an existing female critter of some kind as a surrogate mother. We'd have to use an egg cell from that critter to house the dinosaur chromosomes (removing the egg's own chromosomes from its nucleus). The critter would have to be biologically compatible with the dinosaur embryo/fetus, and *so would its egg cell have to be compatible with the chromosomes.* That's all a *very* tall order.
One extremely tall part of that very tall order is this: Most cells in eukaryotic organisms (those in which most cells have a nucleus) have organelles outside the nucleus called mitochondria. Mitochondria are the energy-producing centers of cells and have some other critical functions. They also contain a small amount of DNA with a handful of critical genes. We almost surely wouldn't have been able to recover this DNA.
Instead, we would have to depend on the mitochondria of the surrogate critter's egg cell for mitochondrial DNA - not just in the egg cell, but, as that cell divided, so would the mitochondria multiply and the mitochondrial DNA would duplicate and divide inside them, while forming every cell of a (hypothetical) fetal dinosaur. And the likelihood that critter's mitochondrial DNA would communicate well with the nuclear (chromosomal) DNA is thought to be very small.
Even assuming the embryo/fetus of the dinosaur was compatible enough biologically with the critter to be carried to birth, there are other issues that might be encountered after birth.
Animals interact with their environment via microbes on body surfaces as well as inside the body (their microbiome) in complex ways that we're only beginning to understand. Microbes that live inside the gut affect the digestion of food and sometimes add their own digestive products to the body's nutrients. (For example, animals need vitamin B12, and for many animals, it is produced by bacteria that live in their gut, and is absorbed into the body through the blood like other nutrients in their food.)
Would a cloned dinosaur encounter adequate gut microflora in the present day environment? For that matter, would the find an adequate diet? Or adequate parenting, from surrogate critters?
I don't think we really know the answers to those questions.
I read about him. Intriguing.
If we are talking about to then someone has done it in some lab trust me
Considering it’s impossible I doubt it’s been done. DNA doesn’t last long enough
Maybe a realistic simulation
Actual dinosaurs can’t live on todays earth. They would need the much richer oxygen atmosphere that existed in their day.
Oxygen rich air like that could be created in a controlled/ enclosed environment, could it not?
Elephants don’t seem to have a problem... and the vast majority are smaller than an elephant.
But it’s impossible anyways because dna decays to quickly
Life will find a way
I hope not. They went extinct for a reason.
Because a meteor hit the earth in the right place and time?
Earth, as it is now, is no place for dinosaurs. To bring a few back, for our curiosity or amusement, is cruel.
Ok so they didn’t go extinct for a reason you’re just happy they are
I guess you could say I’m happy they’re gone. Civilization, as we know it wouldn’t exist if they weren’t.
That’s for sure!
They went extinct because the atmosphere changed.
Because of a meteor yes
We know that there was a worldwide atmospheric event.
We don’t know it was a meteor.
We’re pretty positive.
Believing and knowing are two different things.
I’m pretty positive you’re wrong.
No shit believing and knowing are two different things...
And the evidence points towards meteor. So I’m not sure what you’re point is
Oh wow, we’re breaking out the four letter words.
I used to study the crap out of this crap. Sorry, but I don’t agree.
Yea you said something obvious so I said no shit.
And you’ve said you’ve done research into many topics and then upon discussion of them you didn’t know what you were talking about at all. So I’m gonna go ahead and not believe you on this either. Especially because you aren’t saying why just repeating yourself.
“And you’ve said you’ve done research into many topics and then upon discussion of them you didn’t know what you were talking about at all.”
Thank you for your opinion.
Not an opinion. You got many basic things wrong with several topics.
Anyways still no actual reason? So you commented JUST to disagree with me?
Again, thank you for your opinion.
Yes, I disagree with you. You made a claim and I disagree.
And it’s clear now you did so for no reason. Have a good day
The discussion wasn’t even about what caused the change. The discussion was about whether or not dinosaurs could live on the earth. We agreed that they could not with the current atmospheric conditions.
Unfortunately, you’re acting like little snowflake that can’t handle sticking on topic. In short, i’m not here to discuss whether not it was a meteor.
We agreed that a change took place. We disagree on what caused the change.
Put your big boy pants on and get over it.
The atmospheric conditions that caused the to die out (caused by the meteor) was temporary. But it did give mammals long enough to become the dominant group on the planet. Likely they could live in our atmosphere now because it doesn’t contain millions of tons of ash like it did after the meteor stuck.
And I never left the topic you are the one that won’t answer any direct questions and then you insult me for it?? Unbelievable.
I’m kind of surprised that you are still hopping on this.
I never saw your reply until now. And being insulted for something I didn’t do and that you actually did didn’t sit right
It intrigues me that you care so much to keep commenting.
It intrigued me that I could explain why I commented and you didn’t read it and just asked the same question again
I just reviewed the thread and saw that I disagree with you and I had planned to just leave at that. You got upset because I wouldn’t pursue. Oh well.
Yes you disagreed without explaining anything. Once again proving you cannot answer a direct question
I disagree without explaining anything, because I had no intention of getting into it.
Do you not understand that?
Yea because you don’t have any actual points to make. Or evidence to back them up. You just repeat “you’re wrong” over and over again with out explaining why you think their evidence isn’t evidence. You just say “I’m well informed in _____” like that makes it true...when in reality if you try discussing it it becomes clear you have only read creationist rhetoric counterpoints if you read anything
You cannot answer a direct question with any sort of logical response.
You have quite a soapbox going there.
There are times when I am very open to having a debate, this is not one of them.
Just accept that I don’t agree with you and move on.
Not directly, probably, as that is a very long time for it to remain good as new. But as a guide for rolling back the evolution of a close living descendant, a chicken or ostrich, for example, hopefully yes. For the record, I'd go with the smaller bird. A chicken-sized Dromaeosaurid is a problem; an ostrich-sized Dromaeosaurid is a freaking nightmare.
Haven't even done a mammoth yet.
And a mammoth would be theoretically possible. A dinosaur would not be
Surely scientists must have something better to do with their time, like maybe combatting the issue of climate change that they all seem to find so pressing.
Climate change, bwahahahaha
We're driving so many species to extinction now that it would be a good ability to possess. Think of the potential cures being lost through habitat destruction and extinction. We can walk and chew gum imo.
Dinosaurs though? What about monkeys? They’re at least smart enough to be useful.
I guess I'm saying the technique is worth pursuing. But yeah I would live to see a live dinosaur!
I have bad news for you....scientists can’t do jack shit about climate change
No dinosaur eggs? No dinosaurs.
So disappointing to see multiple people try to claim the earth is 6,000 years old instead of 4.54 billion. I do not care what your book says, that's wrong.
Its sad that so many people still believe that in 2017.
I never thought we would be seeing people that legitimately believe that the earth is flat in 2017, and yet here we are
How long ago waz that thing written though? A
I read that DNA can’t survive that long, though...?
It can’t so the answer is no lol
Yes, because those specimens are no more than ~6000 years old.
You have any evidence for that claim? The Bible is not evidence.
Oh c'mon T
The science is there, but the technology isn't yet.
No, but I in my 60’s. Maybe my grandchildren’s life.
DNA doesn’t last long enough for it to happen. All that precious Dino DNA is lost to us forever
All the people saying yes are more hopeful than they are scientific.
The actual answer is no. DNA doesn’t last anywhere close to that long.
I didn't know that, but even though it's preserved in amber?
Yep still would only last about a million years
Will they be able to? Yes, probably. Will they do it? Doubtful.
No, this is only a fantasy in the movies.
They’re doing now.
They’re creating dinosaurs? I doubt it considering the DNA only would’ve lasted about a million years. Not long enough I’m afraid
99 million years? What a joke! Try 6000 years old!
I hope you’re kidding
the world isnt older than 10,000 years
if “scientists” cant even figure that out, there is no WAY they can recreate dinosaurs
they cant even figure out how our own brains work for goodness sake!
Brains are one of the most complicated structures in the universe. Cut some slack
Well there’s your problem, your brains are made of waffles
More liberal biased science dinosaur BS. The Bible says the earth is 6000 years old not 99 million. Dinosaurs are libtard BS!
I agree about the age of the earth but I also believe dinosaurs did exist but when they were actually around, who knows.
My comment was satire.
Poe’s law at work
Also the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. That is not really up for debate. By all means believe whatever you want but its wrong
Sure! All those movies turned out great for the people at the parks, right?
It wasn’t a documentary
Would have been a boring movie if things didn’t go to shit
I think one day we will figure it out. Whether we should? Idk
DNA doesn’t last long enough for it to work unfortunately (or fortunately lol)
Why in the hell would you try and recreate dinosaurs, I don’t want to be stepped on while I’m shopping for groceries
I doubt that their primary customer would be grocery stores who want to make them step on their customers...
It’s was a joke lol...
DNA has a half life. There are no known natural ways to preserve DNA. I doubt it's possible.
What is the half life for DNA? I've been a scientist most of my life and never heard this. I'm honestly interested.
The half life is 521 Year’s. So it would last about 1 million years before it was totally useless
Thanks. I would prefer corroboration by another group to confirm the findings of the first. Half life is usually used to reference radioactivity and duration of pharmaceuticals. To apply it to DNA is an interesting approach. Of course, we should also perform the study with actual DNA in various stages of preservation. Many viruses survive inclement environmental conditions. Is it safe to assume that DNA could as well?
Half life just refers to the amount of time it takes for something to break down. It can be used for dna.
And it would be difficult to try to preserve it for a million years to test it haha
And I don’t think we’ve found viruses anywhere close to a million years old but maybe I’m wrong
You realizing the point I'm trying to make. There's no guarantees that carbon dating guarantees something is hundreds of thousands of years old. We are still guestimating it based on our own limited testing tools.
Uhh yes carbon dating is accurate. And we have several more types of dating to go back even further.
I’m still not quite sure what your overarching point is
Carbon dating is theoretically accurate. It's never been proven with a control because we haven't the means.
It’s been proven. I’m not sure what your point is
Diogenes is right. The only way to properly cross-check carbon dating would be to do a longitudinal study for however millions of years your carbon dating result is, and compare carbon levels. Obviously, that is impossible.
It does yield very consistent results that are in-line with corroborating geological stratification. It's probably accurate...but we have no way of being completely sure.
Well carbon dating only goes back about 20,000-50,000 years I believe. We have other dating methods for longer back.
And no you don’t need to do that at all. As long as it always degraded at the same rate it’s pretty simple math to prove it. For instance if you have 100g of carbon-14 you can just watch it degrade for any amount of time and that will tell you how long it lasts.
All you need is a known amount of material over any set amount of time (that is large enough to measure the degradation)
Measure the degradation) and it is simple to figure out the half life and how long it’s been there
But when is Half Life 3 coming out?
When it's ready!
That's the rub, though...we have no way of knowing for sure if the rate of decay stays constant...we just interpolate based on what we've seen of it. I agree that carbon dating...and other forms based on elemental decay rates...are almost certainly at least good approximations...but we're not 100% positive that it's accurate. In Science, nothing becomes a Law unless you have that level of certainty.
We do know that radioactive materials decay at constant rates over time.
Yes we do based on our terrestrial observations.
How? We know what rate we've seen it decay at in our lifetimes, and as far back as our written history goes, but after that it's just very educated speculation. Again, I think we all agree that it's probably accurate...we're just saying that we're not positive beyond any doubt.
Glad you agree with me now
You literally cannot be positive beyond all doubt about anything. So that statement is irrelevant
I agreed with you about the rates of radioactive decay. I still have questions about the so called DNA half life. But I wouldn't be a scientist if I didn't.
What area of science are you in out of curiosity?
And it works the same way. DNA degraded over time. The half life is just an explanation that every 500 years or so there is half of what there was at the start