Log in

View Full Version : Dinosaur flesh discovered!


nbk2000
April 8th, 2005, 07:43 PM
I just saw on MSNBC news that scientists in montana have discovered preserved dinosaur flesh!

I caught just the very end of the segment, but they said it was soft-tissue that was at least seventy million years old, and its still pliant. :o

So if the tissue is still that well preserved, might the DNA be recoverable, and 'Jurrasic Park' a reality?

The other possibility is that this is one of the biggest scientific frauds in history or they found the remnants of a recently dead animal during a dig and got so excited by the idea that they'll be banned from science when it comes back as dead groundhog! :p

nbk2000
April 8th, 2005, 07:43 PM
I just saw on MSNBC news that scientists in montana have discovered preserved dinosaur flesh!

I caught just the very end of the segment, but they said it was soft-tissue that was at least seventy million years old, and its still pliant. :o

So if the tissue is still that well preserved, might the DNA be recoverable, and 'Jurrasic Park' a reality?

The other possibility is that this is one of the biggest scientific frauds in history or they found the remnants of a recently dead animal during a dig and got so excited by the idea that they'll be banned from science when it comes back as dead groundhog! :p

nbk2000
April 8th, 2005, 07:43 PM
I just saw on MSNBC news that scientists in montana have discovered preserved dinosaur flesh!

I caught just the very end of the segment, but they said it was soft-tissue that was at least seventy million years old, and its still pliant. :o

So if the tissue is still that well preserved, might the DNA be recoverable, and 'Jurrasic Park' a reality?

The other possibility is that this is one of the biggest scientific frauds in history or they found the remnants of a recently dead animal during a dig and got so excited by the idea that they'll be banned from science when it comes back as dead groundhog! :p

hereno
April 8th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Other teams have attempted to revive extinct species, with no luck. One team from Japan I believe were trying it on a wooly mammoth, though I'm not sure what that come to. And a team in Australia tried to retrieve DNA from a marsupial "tiger" (http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/C/ChupaTasmanianTiger.jpg) that was preserved in alcohol. The DNA was completely fragmented and unusable.

So, what I'm saying is that there are plently of easier opportunities to revive recently extinct animals, and people have tried failed. The problem of fragmented DNA is a tough problem to overcome, not something current science can do..

hereno
April 8th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Other teams have attempted to revive extinct species, with no luck. One team from Japan I believe were trying it on a wooly mammoth, though I'm not sure what that come to. And a team in Australia tried to retrieve DNA from a marsupial "tiger" (http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/C/ChupaTasmanianTiger.jpg) that was preserved in alcohol. The DNA was completely fragmented and unusable.

So, what I'm saying is that there are plently of easier opportunities to revive recently extinct animals, and people have tried failed. The problem of fragmented DNA is a tough problem to overcome, not something current science can do..

hereno
April 8th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Other teams have attempted to revive extinct species, with no luck. One team from Japan I believe were trying it on a wooly mammoth, though I'm not sure what that come to. And a team in Australia tried to retrieve DNA from a marsupial "tiger" (http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/C/ChupaTasmanianTiger.jpg) that was preserved in alcohol. The DNA was completely fragmented and unusable.

So, what I'm saying is that there are plently of easier opportunities to revive recently extinct animals, and people have tried failed. The problem of fragmented DNA is a tough problem to overcome, not something current science can do..

Silentnite
April 8th, 2005, 10:09 PM
One of the scientists was later found to have dropped a chicken Mcnugget....

But seriously. If the DNA is still viable it would probably be rather elementary to clone the dinosaur. The first few generations wouldn't look like their predecessor, but after they got the process down, I think they could pull it off.

Silentnite
April 8th, 2005, 10:09 PM
One of the scientists was later found to have dropped a chicken Mcnugget....

But seriously. If the DNA is still viable it would probably be rather elementary to clone the dinosaur. The first few generations wouldn't look like their predecessor, but after they got the process down, I think they could pull it off.

Silentnite
April 8th, 2005, 10:09 PM
One of the scientists was later found to have dropped a chicken Mcnugget....

But seriously. If the DNA is still viable it would probably be rather elementary to clone the dinosaur. The first few generations wouldn't look like their predecessor, but after they got the process down, I think they could pull it off.

Jacks Complete
April 9th, 2005, 01:53 PM
The only issue is that the DNA will be fucked totally.

The tissue might be vaguely useful for telling what colour the beastie was, how fast it could run, power-to-weight ratios, what it tasted like, etc. but you won't be able to clone it. DNA just breaks down too quickly without the body's repair systems to look after it.

Damn, I would love to go hunting them things, though!

Jacks Complete
April 9th, 2005, 01:53 PM
The only issue is that the DNA will be fucked totally.

The tissue might be vaguely useful for telling what colour the beastie was, how fast it could run, power-to-weight ratios, what it tasted like, etc. but you won't be able to clone it. DNA just breaks down too quickly without the body's repair systems to look after it.

Damn, I would love to go hunting them things, though!

Jacks Complete
April 9th, 2005, 01:53 PM
The only issue is that the DNA will be fucked totally.

The tissue might be vaguely useful for telling what colour the beastie was, how fast it could run, power-to-weight ratios, what it tasted like, etc. but you won't be able to clone it. DNA just breaks down too quickly without the body's repair systems to look after it.

Damn, I would love to go hunting them things, though!

Bugger
April 9th, 2005, 07:22 PM
If the dinosaur tissue had been preserved in ground which had been permanently deep frozen ever since the dinosaur died and was apparently immediately buried somehow e.g. by a landslide, there might just be a chance of recovering some usable DNA. Otherwise, it would have totally degraded by now, even in the absence of air.

Bugger
April 9th, 2005, 07:22 PM
If the dinosaur tissue had been preserved in ground which had been permanently deep frozen ever since the dinosaur died and was apparently immediately buried somehow e.g. by a landslide, there might just be a chance of recovering some usable DNA. Otherwise, it would have totally degraded by now, even in the absence of air.

Bugger
April 9th, 2005, 07:22 PM
If the dinosaur tissue had been preserved in ground which had been permanently deep frozen ever since the dinosaur died and was apparently immediately buried somehow e.g. by a landslide, there might just be a chance of recovering some usable DNA. Otherwise, it would have totally degraded by now, even in the absence of air.

ressurection joe
June 28th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Other teams have attempted to revive extinct species, with no luck. One team from Japan I believe were trying it on a wooly mammoth,

Yeah they got some mammoth sperm, then fertilized a female elephant with it and got a 50/50 elemammoth (dont know if the Japs got that far) I know they got the sperm.

But that was their plan and keep cross breeding in reverse.

++++

Rapidly improve your grammar or be gone. NBK

Czech Guy
June 29th, 2006, 04:53 AM
It is possiable that if the DNA was usable and someone did try to clone it the end result would not be anying like the dinosaur and if it was it would die rather quickly and be prone to sickness. Just look at dolly the sheep (a sheep that was cloned) a few months later it just suddenly got sick and died. If you look back you can see that alot of clone projects die or have a sickness problem for many generations.

FUTI
June 30th, 2006, 01:59 PM
I read an article about DNA analysis that makes me laugh. Guys sent same sample to several well known labs in the world to analyse ti and give their oppinion about source...there were NO match between them (labs results not samples). To express it in a different matter...I'm supprised they didn't found dinosaurs there.

Q: Mammoth sperm? How in Gods name did they got it? Are you guys making some kind of joke I'm unable to catch? If don't then please post a link so I can see that this is verified thruth. Thanks.

ressurection joe
June 30th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Q: Mammoth sperm? How in Gods name did they got it? Are you guys making some kind of joke I'm unable to catch? If don't then please post a link so I can see that this is verified thruth. Thanks.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news50.htm

Here's a link to a page I found.

Pb1
July 4th, 2006, 01:33 AM
The ancient sperm, if its DNA remains intact, would be used to inseminate an egg cell of a female elephant. The egg would be implanted into an elephant's womb to be carried to full term.
If a female half-mammoth, half-elephant is born and reaches maturity, its egg cells would be collected and fertilized with 100 percent mammoth sperm to create a purer hybrid mammoth.
Over successive generations of impregnating female hybrids, a hairy beast increasingly close genetically to the original woolly mammoth, which stood around 3 meters tall, could be created Goto says.
By this theory, you would start with a 50 / 50 elephant / mammoth hybrid. In the next generation, you would get a 25 / 75, and so forth. Eventually you would get to something that is relatively close to a mammoth.

But wait…Breeding animals with nearly identical DNA causes inbreeding. Lots of inbreeding if most of the DNA came from the same animal, as in this case. After a couple of generations these “mammoths” would be lucky to be able to stand on their own…

So much for that idea.

Jacks Complete
July 4th, 2006, 12:31 PM
It's still a fun idea. And don't forget, the 'error rate' for inbreeding isn't as bad as is made out by the popular press. Expect a 2% birth defect rate as your normal baseline, and you get an additional 2% in the first generation of inbreeding from close relatives. The errors then start to multiply, but you wouldn't really care once you had a load of eggs to choose from, as you would be able to fertilise them and pick the best ones for implantation.

The costs, however, would be incredible. This is something the Sultan of Brunei would be able to do for his private game reserve, or something similar.