Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 9th, 2017 4:46pm

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)?

50 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Wyoming4178 Selma Indiana
12/10/17 12:53 pm

I never underestimate Science to do so. Is not a Wise decision. Science is evolutionary a continuum discoveries.

drself Gated Community
12/10/17 7:46 am

Maybe, but if it was really 99 million years old, how it it survive? I am sure the discovery amazed scientist.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:15 am

Tissue can be preserved that long under the right circumstances but DNA can’t. So it would be unreplicable

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 6:15 am

Prove it is that old. If you cannot prove it, it is just a belief.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 6:22 am

I seriously doubt Jurassic Park is realistic in my lifetime. While I am not a DNA expert, I am certainly informed on DNA.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 6:51 am

Carbon dating should do the trick.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 6:52 am

How familiar are you with carbon dating?

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 6:53 am

Me personaly, not much at all. Why?

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 6:56 am

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.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 6:58 am

Okay let's say I'm incorrect.

How do you know how old the Earth is?

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 7:00 am

I believe it to be about 6000 years old.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 7:01 am

What method do you use to come up with that?

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 7:03 am

That is the timeline that the Bible gives us.
I have yet to come across anything that credibly contradicts that.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 7:08 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 7:11 am

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.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 7:14 am

That's better for me.
It is against my religion to challenge your religion.

Agreeing to disagree.

Thank you.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 7:18 am

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.

Axl752 NY
12/10/17 10:09 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 10:11 am

Explain how you know this for a fact.

Axl752 NY
12/10/17 10:49 am

Radiometric dating

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 11:03 am

You don’t “know” anything using radiometric dating. You believe what you were told about radiometric dating.

Axl752 NY
12/10/17 11:15 am

Well, as a geologist I believe what I was taught and studied about it in university.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 11:20 am

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.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/10/17 11:25 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 11:28 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 11:50 am

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.

ParaguasPato Columbus GA
12/10/17 3:23 am

DNA doesn’t last long enough regardless of how well something is preserved. No, it won’t happen.

susanr Colorado
12/09/17 10:46 pm

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.'" (


susanr Colorado
12/09/17 10:58 pm

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.


susanr Colorado
12/09/17 11:14 pm

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.


susanr Colorado
12/09/17 11:53 pm

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.


him420 California
12/09/17 9:54 pm

If we are talking about to then someone has done it in some lab trust me

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:12 am

Considering it’s impossible I doubt it’s been done. DNA doesn’t last long enough

12/09/17 9:05 pm

Actual dinosaurs can’t live on todays earth. They would need the much richer oxygen atmosphere that existed in their day.

12/09/17 9:24 pm

Oxygen rich air like that could be created in a controlled/ enclosed environment, could it not?

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:13 am

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

EarlyBird Portland
12/09/17 6:40 pm

I hope not. They went extinct for a reason.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 7:25 pm

Because a meteor hit the earth in the right place and time?

EarlyBird Portland
12/09/17 7:29 pm

Earth, as it is now, is no place for dinosaurs. To bring a few back, for our curiosity or amusement, is cruel.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 7:31 pm

Ok so they didn’t go extinct for a reason you’re just happy they are

EarlyBird Portland
12/09/17 7:36 pm

I guess you could say I’m happy they’re gone. Civilization, as we know it wouldn’t exist if they weren’t.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 7:37 pm

That’s for sure!

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 6:20 am

They went extinct because the atmosphere changed.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/10/17 8:11 am

Because of a meteor yes

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:13 am

We know that there was a worldwide atmospheric event.
We don’t know it was a meteor.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:15 am

Believing and knowing are two different things.
I’m pretty positive you’re wrong.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/10/17 8:19 am

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

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:24 am

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/10/17 8:27 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:29 am

“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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/10/17 8:32 am

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?

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:36 am

Again, thank you for your opinion.
Yes, I disagree with you. You made a claim and I disagree.
Oh well.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/10/17 8:38 am

And it’s clear now you did so for no reason. Have a good day

ptellini Homosuperior
12/10/17 8:44 am

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:22 am

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:23 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/11/17 10:38 am

I’m kind of surprised that you are still hopping on this.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:40 am

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

ptellini Homosuperior
12/11/17 10:42 am

It intrigues me that you care so much to keep commenting.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 10:47 am

It intrigued me that I could explain why I commented and you didn’t read it and just asked the same question again

ptellini Homosuperior
12/11/17 10:53 am

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 11:01 am

Yes you disagreed without explaining anything. Once again proving you cannot answer a direct question

ptellini Homosuperior
12/11/17 11:06 am

I disagree without explaining anything, because I had no intention of getting into it.
Do you not understand that?

Henry123 Connecticut
12/11/17 11:10 am

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.

ptellini Homosuperior
12/11/17 11:23 am

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.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
12/09/17 5:49 pm

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.

Attikai Oregon
12/09/17 4:31 pm

Haven't even done a mammoth yet.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 4:59 pm

And a mammoth would be theoretically possible. A dinosaur would not be

cjrocks9102 New York
12/09/17 2:08 pm

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.

Attikai Oregon
12/09/17 4:33 pm

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.

Attikai Oregon
12/09/17 4:34 pm

Science, bwahahaha.

cjrocks9102 New York
12/09/17 4:35 pm

Dinosaurs though? What about monkeys? They’re at least smart enough to be useful.

Attikai Oregon
12/09/17 4:50 pm

I guess I'm saying the technique is worth pursuing. But yeah I would live to see a live dinosaur!

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
12/09/17 5:08 pm

I have bad news for you....scientists can’t do jack shit about climate change

12/09/17 2:07 pm

No dinosaur eggs? No dinosaurs.

STEVE64 Michigan
12/09/17 2:04 pm

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.

Axl752 NY
12/09/17 3:32 pm

Its sad that so many people still believe that in 2017.

mistah Happy Happy Joy Joy
12/10/17 1:06 am

I never thought we would be seeing people that legitimately believe that the earth is flat in 2017, and yet here we are

ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
12/11/17 5:23 am

How long ago waz that thing written though? A

HERODREAMER Nonbinary person
12/09/17 1:47 pm

I read that DNA can’t survive that long, though...?

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 2:22 pm

It can’t so the answer is no lol

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
12/09/17 1:42 pm

Yes, because those specimens are no more than ~6000 years old.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 2:23 pm

You have any evidence for that claim? The Bible is not evidence.

Axl752 NY
12/09/17 3:21 pm

Oh c'mon T

thfreshprintz Antifa
12/09/17 1:18 pm

The science is there, but the technology isn't yet.

PamGH Washington
12/09/17 12:35 pm

No, but I in my 60’s. Maybe my grandchildren’s life.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 1:01 pm

DNA doesn’t last long enough for it to happen. All that precious Dino DNA is lost to us forever

IEatzCookies Alderaan
12/09/17 11:55 am

All the people saying yes are more hopeful than they are scientific.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 11:55 am

The actual answer is no. DNA doesn’t last anywhere close to that long.

12/09/17 1:41 pm

I didn't know that, but even though it's preserved in amber?

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 1:42 pm

Yep still would only last about a million years

HoyaSaxa Washington, DC
12/09/17 11:33 am

Will they be able to? Yes, probably. Will they do it? Doubtful.

timeout Boston Strong
12/09/17 11:29 am

No, this is only a fantasy in the movies.

cowboy Here and There
12/09/17 11:01 am

They’re doing now.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:03 pm

They’re creating dinosaurs? I doubt it considering the DNA only would’ve lasted about a million years. Not long enough I’m afraid

sb129 Clayton, Ohio
12/09/17 10:31 am

99 million years? What a joke! Try 6000 years old!

chance Sirnotappearinginthisfilm
12/09/17 11:49 am

I hope you’re kidding

WaffleBrainz Indiana
12/09/17 10:31 am

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!

Red4799 Asking the Big Questions
12/09/17 11:33 am

Brains are one of the most complicated structures in the universe. Cut some slack

chance Sirnotappearinginthisfilm
12/09/17 11:50 am

Well there’s your problem, your brains are made of waffles

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 11:55 am


12/09/17 10:28 am

More liberal biased science dinosaur BS. The Bible says the earth is 6000 years old not 99 million. Dinosaurs are libtard BS!

FieryFury America
12/09/17 10:32 am

I agree about the age of the earth but I also believe dinosaurs did exist but when they were actually around, who knows.

12/09/17 10:33 am

My comment was satire.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 11:57 am

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

mcable Lost in Translation
12/09/17 10:24 am

Sure! All those movies turned out great for the people at the parks, right?

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
12/09/17 11:17 am

It wasn’t a documentary

Would have been a boring movie if things didn’t go to shit

RNJen Bay Area USA
12/09/17 9:55 am

I think one day we will figure it out. Whether we should? Idk

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:00 pm

DNA doesn’t last long enough for it to work unfortunately (or fortunately lol)

lilPhoenix The Phoenix Controversy
12/09/17 9:51 am

Why in the hell would you try and recreate dinosaurs, I don’t want to be stepped on while I’m shopping for groceries

Liberty 4,032,064
12/09/17 11:24 am

I doubt that their primary customer would be grocery stores who want to make them step on their customers...

lilPhoenix The Phoenix Controversy
12/09/17 12:15 pm

It’s was a joke lol...

Vietman manhattan
12/09/17 9:51 am

DNA has a half life. There are no known natural ways to preserve DNA. I doubt it's possible.

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 10:48 am

What is the half life for DNA? I've been a scientist most of my life and never heard this. I'm honestly interested.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:01 pm

The half life is 521 Year’s. So it would last about 1 million years before it was totally useless

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 12:21 pm

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?

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:23 pm

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

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:24 pm

And I don’t think we’ve found viruses anywhere close to a million years old but maybe I’m wrong

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 12:27 pm

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:30 pm

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

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 12:33 pm

Carbon dating is theoretically accurate. It's never been proven with a control because we haven't the means.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 12:38 pm

It’s been proven. I’m not sure what your point is

phalnx Ohio
12/09/17 3:50 pm

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.

phalnx Ohio
12/09/17 3:52 pm

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 3:55 pm

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)

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 3:56 pm

Measure the degradation) and it is simple to figure out the half life and how long it’s been there

CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
12/09/17 5:09 pm

But when is Half Life 3 coming out?

phalnx Ohio
12/09/17 6:00 pm

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 6:56 pm

We do know that radioactive materials decay at constant rates over time.

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 6:57 pm

Yes we do based on our terrestrial observations.

phalnx Ohio
12/09/17 6:59 pm

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 7:01 pm

You literally cannot be positive beyond all doubt about anything. So that statement is irrelevant

Diogenes FreeMeBe
12/09/17 7:03 pm

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.

Henry123 Connecticut
12/09/17 7:05 pm

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