If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mashable)   The bad news is that we won't be able to have Jurassic Park. The good news is that we can still snag Ivan the Terrible   (mashable.com) divider line 29
    More: Interesting, Ivan the Terrible  
•       •       •

2847 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-12 11:54:35 AM
This pretty much shuts down those "clone Jesus" nutjobs too, doesn't it.

I wonder, does hard-freezing it in arctic ice make a difference? If they find a frozen T-Rex in Sweden somewhere, can I still live to see that low-grade-godzilla dream come true?
 
2012-10-12 12:27:54 PM
To find out more about why one of our childhood dreams has been just a delusion, and about this important scientific discovery check out the video above.

lol
 
2012-10-12 12:29:43 PM
Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.
 
2012-10-12 12:30:49 PM
Bull. Jurassic Park will uhhhh find a way.
 
2012-10-12 12:35:46 PM
Wasn't Rasputin on ice from the get-go?

Ba-dum-SHHH



/ok, after the brownies and the pistol shots
 
2012-10-12 12:41:42 PM

jazz710: Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-12 12:51:53 PM
Jack Horner mentioned this last year during his TED talk.

Pretty interesting regarding the challenges of DNA reconstruction and alternatives of how they'd recreate a dinosaur through "atavism activation", which is basically suppressing or activating "ancestral characteristics" that are still present in the genes during development. Basically changing that part in human infancy to re-allow that monkey tail to continue to grow. Chickens apparently have quite a bit of it still in them.
 
2012-10-12 01:07:20 PM

CygnusDarius: jazz710: Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x326]


Caught that on TV a couple months ago. And that movie is farked the hell up.
 
2012-10-12 01:07:22 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

www.sensesofcinema.com

/ ok.
 
2012-10-12 01:20:31 PM

jazz710: Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.


Just like Doctor Mindbender envisioned.
 
2012-10-12 01:22:21 PM
 
2012-10-12 01:29:23 PM
If it's physically possible for a dinosaur to exist, then we can eventually create one. Modifying bird DNA to work our way backwards would be a start. I recall seeing a documentary about work being done in this field.


unlikely: This pretty much shuts down those "clone Jesus" nutjobs too, doesn't it.


I don't think that THIS is what shuts the nutjobs down. If the half-life is 500 years like this article says, then assuming a healthy chunk of DNA was properly preserved 2000 years ago, 6.25% of it would still be usable today.

(100% at 0 AD, 50% at 500 AD, 25% at 1000 AD, 12.5% at 1500 AD, 6.25% at 2000 AD)
 
2012-10-12 01:31:38 PM

Fano: jazz710: Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.

Just like Doctor Mindbender envisioned.


Is that...a Serpentor reference? GI Joe may not be obscure, but the origin story of the late season antagonist leader is pretty close.
 
2012-10-12 01:33:29 PM
Does fark have a "tragic" tag? This headline needs it
 
2012-10-12 01:49:10 PM

Lanadapter: Does fark have a "tragic" tag? This headline needs it


they could've at least used the sad tag
 
2012-10-12 01:52:55 PM

someguy945: If it's physically possible for a dinosaur to exist, then we can eventually create one. Modifying bird DNA to work our way backwards would be a start. I recall seeing a documentary about work being done in this field.


unlikely: This pretty much shuts down those "clone Jesus" nutjobs too, doesn't it.

I don't think that THIS is what shuts the nutjobs down. If the half-life is 500 years like this article says, then assuming a healthy chunk of DNA was properly preserved 2000 years ago, 6.25% of it would still be usable today.

(100% at 0 AD, 50% at 500 AD, 25% at 1000 AD, 12.5% at 1500 AD, 6.25% at 2000 AD)


Soooo.....

100% = 65m bc
50% = 32.5m bc
25% = 16025m bc
12.5% = 8.1m bc
6.25% = 4m bc
3,125% = 2m bc
1.56% = 1m bc
????
Jesus
????

Bingo! Dino DNA! = 2012ad

The mathematics is irrefutable! Irrefutable I say!
 
2012-10-12 01:56:59 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Fano: jazz710: Not true. You can easily extract DNA from multiple specimens and create a composite genome. This is truly a lazy-man's analysis. We can already print genomes for bacteria. There's no reason we couldn't do the same for a eukaryote with enough research to show us how.

Just like Doctor Mindbender envisioned.

Is that...a Serpentor reference? GI Joe may not be obscure, but the origin story of the late season antagonist leader is pretty close.


All we need are the remains of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Attila the Hun, Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Grigori Rasputin, Montezuma, Geronimo, and Egyptian general Xanuth Amon-Toth. Sun Tzu would be preferable to that dimwit Sergeant Slaughter.

And keep Fred VII safe.
 
2012-10-12 02:48:45 PM

someguy945: If it's physically possible for a dinosaur to exist, then we can eventually create one. Modifying bird DNA to work our way backwards would be a start. I recall seeing a documentary about work being done in this field.


unlikely: This pretty much shuts down those "clone Jesus" nutjobs too, doesn't it.

I don't think that THIS is what shuts the nutjobs down. If the half-life is 500 years like this article says, then assuming a healthy chunk of DNA was properly preserved 2000 years ago, 6.25% of it would still be usable today.

(100% at 0 AD, 50% at 500 AD, 25% at 1000 AD, 12.5% at 1500 AD, 6.25% at 2000 AD)


So that gives a guy that would be at most 6.25% Jesus, right? What use is that? He can walk in the shallow end of the pool and change water into grape drink?
 
2012-10-12 03:08:33 PM
For some reason I read the headline as Ivan the Tribble and thought, "that's not what they named the tribble, ist it" ?
 
2012-10-12 03:34:01 PM
Bacteria have been extracted and cultured after being trapped in salt crystals for tens of thousands of years, and not in a cold climate either. Surely that means that their DNA did NOT break down over that time?
 
2012-10-12 03:48:20 PM
Well, since the dinosaurs were killed off in the Great Flood 5000 years ago, I don't see how we might not be able to scrap together enough DNA to recreate one.
 
2012-10-12 04:23:59 PM
What about a frozen Wooly Mammoth?
 
2012-10-12 05:40:50 PM
You could still have Jurassic Park by just randomly trying out plausible gene combinations until you reach something that matches a known dinosaur closely enough where you can say it is basically a dinosaur.
 
2012-10-12 05:44:34 PM
Giant Moa birds from New Zealand were killed off just a few hundred years ago. They'd do for a start. Stick em in an ostrich egg. Simple as that.
 
2012-10-12 06:46:56 PM
Well we just have to find a way to infer what the sequence was.

/nano paleontology?
 
2012-10-12 06:59:13 PM

IC Stars: Well we just have to find a way to infer what the sequence was.

/nano paleontology?


Leave us paleontologists out of it. That's work for genetecists and engineers.
 
2012-10-12 11:42:08 PM
Boring.. I'm more interested in the process of creating a Gheep being applied to make Human/Chimpanzee hybrids.

I like to call them... Humpanzees.
 
Skr
2012-10-13 08:14:32 AM
A lot of the dino genes are still probably within current living specimens of animals. Might be hard to start off with something so far removed in the past, so beginning with reverse engineering animals to recreate the less distant things like "Arctodus simus" "Diatryma" "Ptilodus" "Notharctus" "Hyracotherium" might be the first steps. All of those have some rather obvious decendants that should have at least part of the code. Chimera might be born along the process, but that just a risk that needs to be taken.
 
2012-10-14 07:11:49 AM

Skr: A lot of the dino genes are still probably within current living specimens of animals. Might be hard to start off with something so far removed in the past, so beginning with reverse engineering animals to recreate the less distant things like "Arctodus simus" "Diatryma" "Ptilodus" "Notharctus" "Hyracotherium" might be the first steps. All of those have some rather obvious decendants that should have at least part of the code. Chimera might be born along the process, but that just a risk that needs to be taken.


Listen buddy. We're trying to intelligently design something here, not prove a false theory. Got it?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report