Forum:Cloning dinosaurs

Can we clone dinosaurs? Yes No

This forum thread is used to discuss the process of cloning dinosaurs and Dinosaur DNA. My blog post We CAN create dinosaurs had so much response that it could better be discussed at a forum. MismeretMonk (talk) 21:43, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Just letting you guys know that I've put a link to this forum on the main page slider, so more people see it. Looks like a pretty nice discussion going on in here :) Styracosaurus Rider (Contact me) A mole of moles means what? 16:28, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I added a poll. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:15, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am just going to add a notice here.

Before you say that we will never be able to clone dinosaurs, read the articles linked above. They contain cited articles and information from a variety of sources, including critics of the subject. If you have read the articles AND this forum and still don't believe we can clone dinosaurs, post your criticism here. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:26, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I might add a poll for each section. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:23, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

DNA in Amber
Will we ever find pieces of dinosaur flesh or skin in amber? Yes No

Also, on the subject of DNA in Amber, I found this paper about amber from Cretaceous Alberta: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:10, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Cretaceous amber has been found on the Isle of Wight and Hastings, apparently. Though Hastings amber doesn't contain insects: and  Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:29, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Here is a paper on Burmese amber: Burmese amber has a high biodiversity, so the potential for finding biting insects is high. However, as with all amber cases, it is doubtful whether it would be possible to find dinosaur DNA in there. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:02, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember we don't really need insects for dinosaur DNA. During the dino fights of the Cretaceous it must sometimes really have rained dinosaur. If any dino flesh, blood or feather hits a tree it could have been preserved by amber. And remember, we already found pieces of dinosaur feather in amber! Maybe we'll find more if we look for it. MismeretMonk (talk) 17:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to determine feathers from plant material, though. And then there's the risk of contamination from bacteria, insects, fungi and human DNA. It would be worth a try though. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Here is a 1995 paper about a feather in amber. Apparently, only four specimens have been found. 

Since only 11 and 4 pieces have been found in the Canadian and New Jersey sites respectively, I doubt scientists would try to extract DNA from them. If I had the authority, I would try to extract DNA from at least one well-preserved piece. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 11:39, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know if feathers contain DNA. I think that if we can find Dinosaur feather, we can find pieces of skin or tissue. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Even if we don't know, it would be worth a try. And in fact, I'm kind of surprised that we haven't found any amber specimens with dinosaur skin or tissue. Perhaps we have already found some tissue, but we can't identify it as such because it's such a small piece. Some tissue could also be transparent, and this could blend in with the color of the amber. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Tomozaurus on JPL has come up with a pretty good reason why we haven't found any tissue or skin in amber. If a coelurosaur brushed up against a tree, some of the feathers could have been caught in the resin. However, it wouldn't pull off any flesh or skin. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:32, February 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you think dino's could come in close contact with trees in other ways than walking too close by? MismeretMonk (talk) 18:25, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose some flesh may have been stuck in resin if pieces of it fell off a carcass that was being carried by a predator, but it is important to remember that most of the pieces wouldn't get fossilized. After all, only a small fraction of living things are fossilized after death. Skin cells may be preserved in amber too, but they would be too small to detect, and it would be impossible to tell if the cells came from a dinosaur. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:22, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

So, your basic points are:
 * Pieces of flesh will be rare
 * Most pieces will be too small to detect
 * Impossible to tell if it's dinosaur flesh

About the rarety. The same can be said about ALL things found in amber. We have found dino feathers, so we CAN find dino stuff in amber.

You only take skin cells into consideration. I don't get that. In 150 million years there are lots of ways in which dino flesh might end up in amber. Imagine that a tree fell on top of a dinosaur. In a fight a dinosaur is pushed against a tree. In a fight pieces of dinosaur are raining against a tree. A scavenger is ripping flesh out of a carcass and the pieces are flying around. A small dino tries to flee into a tree and is wounded by a branch etc etc etc.

People have discovered microscopic insects in amber. I'm sure InGen scientists could detect blood drops or pieces of flesh.

If the DNA is isolated the species of the creature can be determined. If the DNA contains a Y-chromosome, it is a mammal. If it contains the turtle/ratite Z chromosome it could be a dinosaur. I want to write another article about it. MismeretMonk (talk) 16:57, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

But even so, there's almost NO guarantee that the DNA would be from a dinosaur. We must not forget that the dinosaurs weren't alone in their world. So, even if it has a Z chromosome, it could just be from a simple lizard, the ancestor of the tuatara, a snake, a frog, a simple bird, or even a pterosaur. User:PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 16:42, February 26, 2013

Here is a paper about proteins found in Oligocene amber. It also has some interesting citations:

This paper describes reptile blood cells within biting insects in amber. Probably not DNA, but close enough: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:03, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Reports of reptile skin in Cretaceous amber:

Again, not a dinosaur. But still it proves that pieces of skin can be preserved. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:49, March 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice find! Could you include this in the article? I have no time in the comming weeks to write it. MismeretMonk (talk) 12:00, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

According to this paper, parts of the Cretaceous weevil sequence were found to be from fungi. And attempts to replicate results from the 40 million year old bee have failed, so that is doubtful as well.

Here is a PDF link for the paper.

Also, the documentary didn't say there was DNA in dinosaur bones. It only said that DNA could potentially be found, but we don't have any technology to extract any existing DNA fragments yet. Context is important.

Edit: Another study supporting the amber contamination hypothesis. And a paper says that the 'weevil' DNA is more similar to fungal DNA than insect DNA. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk)


 * I think it is very easy to claim that ancient DNA is contamination. Skeptics once said that the soft tissue in the B. rex bone was a bacterial biofilm. Furthermore, the proteins were contamination of amphibians. I think a large body of scientists is biased against ancient DNA because of the dogma DNA can only survive for a few 100K years. A dogma only recently challenged by Allentoft and his team.


 * The Gutierrez and Marın claim in their article that the 'weevil' DNA is more similar to fungal DNA than insect DNA. Let's take a direct quote:

We made BLAST (Altschul et al. 1990) and FASTA (Pearson and Lipman 1988) searches with the fossil weevil sequence; no insect sequence was in the high scores, only fungi sequences


 * However, this was written in 1998. As far as genomic is concerned, that was still the stone age. Let us do a BLAST search again. Let me show you how to do it, you don't have to be a scientists to compare DNA.


 * The Cretaceous Weevil DNA sequence is number L08072 on GenBank.
 * Go to blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. On this website you can compare ANY DNA, RNA or protein sequence with ALL KNOWN sequences.
 * We want to compare DNA sequences, so click on nucleotide blast.
 * It says "Enter accession number(s), gi(s), or FASTA sequence(s)"
 * Enter L08072 (the number in GenBank)
 * We want to compare the Weevil sequence with ALL known DNA sequences. So, don't change the settings.
 * Scroll down and hit BLAST.
 * Allignments are made in a few seconds.
 * Scroll down to Sequences producing significant alignments:
 * Here there is a list with all the matches found.

The first column gives the number and species of the DNA sequence, the Max ident column shows how many % the sequences are identical. Lets summarize what we see:

And the list goes on and on. Gutierrez and Marın claim that the Weevil sequence had most identity with the. However, I don't see Candida ANYWHERE in the BLAST list. So, I think Gutierrez and Marın claims are bogus.

The fact that in that paper you posted Hebsgaard and his team copied Gutierrez and Marın claims without questioning shows to me that they are just nay-sayers and didn't do their work properly. MismeretMonk (talk) 12:03, March 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Turns out I've made some mistakes by not reading Gutierrez and Marın's paper properly. There were two DNA fragments, only one is on GenBank. The one I looked at was already known to them to be insectian. However, it wasn't distant related enough compared to extant species. Have to look into that.

The other DNA fragment was never published on GenBank. I had to write down the sequence from the article:

CGTCTCCGTA GTGAACCTGC GGAGGGATCA TTTATTCGGT TGCATCAACC AGGCAATCTT CGGATTGTCT GCAACCACTG ACATTGTCGA GGGGTCAACA TTGGAATGGT GTATTTTTAA TTTAATTCTA TCTTTACATG TGAGACACAA TTTTGAATTA ATCTTCAAAA CTTTCAACAA CGGATCTCTT GGTTCTCGCA TCGATGAAGA ACGCAGCAAA CTGGGT

When I did a BLAST over this sequence, the yeast Meyerozyma guilliermondii was indeed the best match. Damn. MismeretMonk (talk) 23:04, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

So one sequence was original, and the other was contamination? This brings up another problem. An insect in amber, a dinosaur bone, or a protein could contain both endogenous and contaminated DNA/protein. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:43, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I attempted to test DeSalle's supposed prehistoric termite DNA. I did a BLAST search of the DNA sequence from the termite that DeSalle published (AH004044). The best matches were from worms, not termites. Furthermore, a DNA sequence from the ribbon worm Carinoma tremaphoros had a 100% match. Sequences from Lineus ruber, another supposed termite sequence and Bipalium trilineatum had 100% similarity as well. So I think that DeSalle's termite DNA was just contamination.

I read on a page about ancient DNA that ancient DNA studies should be done in labs specifically meant for ancient DNA to avoid contamination from modern DNA. More info here: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:32, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

No DNA from amber. The radioactive half-life of DNA dies out long before we can get any DNA from any non-avian dinosaur:    06:19, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Allentoft's calculations may have been incorrect. He studied bones that were stored in museum collections, and Schweitzer says that biomolecules in bones and amber decay as soon as the fossils are exposed to the open. And the ancient weevil DNA seems to challenge it as well. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:28, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

That "ancient" weevil DNA may have had contamination from extant species along with the possibility of generally poor scientific practices from Cano et al.   23:23, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the two sequences matched better with fungal DNA than insect DNA. However, the sequence published on NCBI matched better with modern weevils on the BLAST search that MismeretMonk did, and fungi were nowhere on the BLAST results. Remember to read previous posts on this forum. Also, I think I already posted that paper you just linked. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:30, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

That "ancient" weevil DNA may have had contamination from extant species

I look at it like this. There are two explanations for this discovery:
 * Cano and his team want to extract DNA from an ancient Weevil. Of EVERY bacteria, fungus, spore or insect it could be contaminated with it is contaminated with an extant Weevil. That "extant" wevil DNA is only 98% identical to any Weevil known to date.
 * Cano and his team want to extract DNA from an ancient Weevil. They extract the Weevil DNA. Apparantly the DNA is very conserved and has only 2% difference with extant species.

I think that for ANYONE who isn't biased against ancient DNA option 2 is more likely. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:06, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I definitely go for option 2. The sequence was extracted in 1993. Not many organisms were having their DNA studied back then. Even today, the main insects used in DNA labs are fruit flies. I don't see fruit flies on the BLAST list, only weevils and other beetles. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:42, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

True enough that mistaken identification could have been made. A lot of these times, papers are released with no peer-review. Sad, really, as it allowed misinformation to proliferate among the enthusiasts who follow such sciences, and can even fool young researchers who are looking for "scholarly articles". Chitin is the material that insect exoskeletons are made of, but also are a component of the cellular walls in fungi. Because Weevils have a thing chitinous layer outlining their bodies, it is possible that mistakes could have been made. 18:52, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Jhayk, you posted that in the wrong section. I've moved it for you. I think the fact still remains that the BLAST search results only turned up weevils and other snouted beetles, and no fungi. That gives me more faith in the identity of the DNA. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 20:55, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the taxonomy of the weevil species that you found in the DNA blast search. Lebanorhinus was a nemonychid, but none of the weevil species on the BLAST results were nemonychids. In fact, some of them didn't belong in the same weevil families of each other. Does this increase the chance of it being contamination? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:56, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

BLAST only looks at similarities in sequences, this is not necessarily the same as evolutionary relationships. I made a family tree of the relevant DNA sequences, the Lebanorhinus looks as distantly related to extant species while still being a Weevil. Well, to make a real good family tree we need longer and more DNA fragments. But I think the main message is valid. Lebanorhinus DNA is not closely related to any extant species, so I doubt it is contamination by an extant species. MismeretMonk (talk) 16:53, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

DNA in bones
What do you think of the DNA found in the tyrannosaur and hadrosaur osteocytes? Endogenous Contamination

Of course they didn't find DNA. DNA only lasts for 6.8 million years in bones. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:29, January 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Allentoft and his team only looked at the DNA decay in museum stored bones. Mary Schweitzer said that biomolecules start to decay as soon as they are dug up. That is why Jack Horner's team has an on-site mobile lab. Here bones can be analysed as soon as they leave the grond.

This is from this article:

Schweitzer's hypothesis is that fossils can stay deep in the ground for 68 million years and because they are in equilibrium with their sandstone environment, they can remain in nearly their original state with soft tissues preserved. It was a deep sandstone environment that preserved the soft tissue Schweitzer discovered a few years ago.

Degradation began, however, as soon as field crews removed fossils from the ground and disrupted their equilibrium, Schweitzer said. Changing conditions and exposure to microbes all affected the fossils' condition.

So, maybe Allentoft's calculations are wrong because he looked at bones that had been stored in museums for years/decades.


 * In the article Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of 3 endogenous molecules Mary Schweitzer claims she found DNA in the bone of T. rex (MOR 1125) and B. canadensis (MOR 2598):

We tested for the presence of DNA in dinosaur ‘cells’, using an antibody raised against the double-stranded DNA backbone. This antibody is not based on sequence and cannot be used to identify the source of the DNA as endogenous.

Maybe, there is DNA in fresh bones. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Now that I know that, I think they should do another study on it using fresh bones, since Allentoft's study could be unreliable. Would it be possible to sequence the DNA they found in the T. rex and Brachylophosaurus specimens, or would it be too degraded? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

An old paper about possible DNA in Tarbosaurus osteocytes. From what I've read, nobody tested the claim, so it's best to take it with a grain of salt, but still interesting: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:03, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Since Schweitzer and Allentoft have found that DNA can last for a long time in fossils, is it possible that DNA could be extracted from fossils of other, non-mesozoic creatures? Could it be possible to extract DNA from C. megalodon teeth or White River mammals, for example? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:46, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

DNA CAN be found in bones even from Mesozoic times, and can be recovered through the Loy Antibody Extraction Technique. Unfortunately, the DNA is incredibly fragmentary and basically useless. Using it would be more trouble than it's worth. -- 06:22, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Loy's extraction just a fictional method mentioned in JP media? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:50, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I thought so too until I looked it up. I'll see if I can find the reference. Google's only turning up popular results, ATM. 06:58, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I recovered the paper last night, but it turned out to be a falsified one printed out to appear as if it were a real paper. Apologies on that one. 23:27, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

If what Jhayk says is correct and DNA decays at the same rate in all preservational modes regardless of exposure, is it possible that the DNA that Schweitzer found in the osteocytes could be contamination from a eukaryotic source, such as fungi? That would explain the histones. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:14, March 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * "is it possible that the DNA that Schweitzer found in the osteocytes could be contamination from a eukaryotic source, such as fungi?"


 * The DNA is found ONLY inside the interior of the bone cells. Why would all the fungal DNA travel to the inside of the bone cells? If the sample was contaminated by fungi, I would expect to see fungal filaments all over the place. We don't see that, only bone cells. Fungi don't have bone cells.


 * Note that I have no respect what so ever for any theoretical model of DNA degradation. If those models were right, those proteins in the B. rex shouldn't even be there. For all those models a lot of assumptions have to be made. MismeretMonk (talk) 08:58, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess we can rule out eukaryotic and bacterial contamination. But without sequence data we can't be sure. It would be good to look for DNA in other well-preserved fossils. If it is indeed endogenous and not a unique case, I'm pretty sure we can find DNA in other fossils. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:42, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

DNA sequencing
How long do you think it will be until small DNA fragments such as the ones Schweitzer found in the dinosaur bones can be sequenced? I'm surprised it can't be done already. I'm no expert but I think the technology will be achieved within a few years. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:46, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how long it will take. They only just published there is DNA in the first place. I don't know anything about successfully isolating DNA from fossils. However, I'm that IF it is doable, Schweitzer will do it. MismeretMonk (talk) 15:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Let's just hope that they secured the DNA so it doesn't rot away before we can extract it. I would ask Schweitzer myself, but I don't know her email address and I'm naturally nervous to send her a message in case she gets annoyed. She does scoff at the idea of cloning dinosaurs after all.

I made a subpage of my userpage about the possibility of sequencing a tyrannosaur genome: []. What do you think? Are there any improvements that could be made? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:35, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

According to this post on a DNA sequencing forum (, the smallest insertion size for modern sequencing applications is 22-30nt for small RNA fragments, while the smallest sequence size for DNA is 100 base pairs. Maybe Schweitzer isn't aware of this? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:51, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

Proteins and soft tissues in bones
How common will collagen and other proteins be in dinosaur bones? Common Somewhat common Uncommon Rare Very rare I found a paper about proteins being extracted from a mosasaur fossil: [] Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:13, January 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice! Another collagen found.

"preservation of primary soft tissues and biomolecules is not limited to  large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs  in relatively small-sized skeletal elements."

That sounds hopeful. What a shame they couldn't find Prognathodon DNA but found rabbit DNA instead :(

I have included this story in the article and put in on our facebook page. MismeretMonk (talk) 19:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Of course they didn't find DNA. DNA only lasts for 6.8 million years in bones. It's the proteins they should look for, and some of the DNA code can be deduced from that. Have they found out the collagen protein code yet? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:29, January 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the proteins aren't sequenced yet. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Good news, soft tissue found in a Triceratops horn:

Maybe it contains collagen or protein fragments as well. I hope they investigate further. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:28, February 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice find! I wonder how you find all these articles :) MismeretMonk (talk) 07:35, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

I use the internet. You can keep up with some dinosaur discoveries in this JPL thread:. That's how I found out about the horn. As for the other genetic stuff, I just search for papers through Wikipedia and other sites.

If you still don't forgive JPL, then you can just look for dinosaur articles every so often on Google. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:49, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Scientists have just found organic molecules in fossil crinoids from the Carboniferous. The molecules aren't proteins or DNA, so they can't be used for cloning, but it does prove that organic molecules can last a very long time in fossils:

Here's a 2007 paper about soft tissues in various bones of extinct animals. It seems soft tissues and osteocytes are more common in dinosaur fossils than we expected. This means that proteins and DNA should be more common as well:. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:38, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

After reading some articles about ancient DNA, proteins in fossils, ancient gene resurrection, etc, I've been pondering something.

As we know, the following protein sequence from Tyrannosaurus is incomplete.

1 gatgapgiag apgfpgarga pgpqgpsgap gpkxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 61 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 121 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 181 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 241 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxgv qgppgpqgpr 301 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 361 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 421 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxgs agppgatgfp 481 gaagrxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 541 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xgvvglpgqr

But would it be possible to guess unknown parts of it by looking at the parts we have already uncovered? For example, could we guess which letter came after the other by looking at the other letters? Using this hypothetical method, would it be possible to guess the rest of the collagen protein sequence, and in turn, the DNA sequence? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:17, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

In case you don't understand, I think we could find out the rest of this unfinished collagen sequence by looking at the collagen type |, alpha 1 genes of modern birds, and comparing it with the T. rex. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 18:02, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

I've filled in the gaps in the tyrannosaur protein sequence with a chicken protein sequence and put it on my userpage. I know it can't be put on any of the main pages, but can you please tell me what you think? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:02, February 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * You should compare it also with ostriches and emus. MismeretMonk (talk) 23:31, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

1997 paper describing heme compounds in tyrannosaur fossils: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:40, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have found a problem with the hadrosaur sequences. While using the translator, I noticed that every DNA sequenced deduced from the protein code had TRR at the end. At first I thought that those were just automatically added at the end and didn't count as valid DNA code, so I didn't include them in the Brachylophosaurus DNA sequences. However, I now think I may have been wrong. Should I do the translation again, this time not excluding the TRR letters? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:07, March 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't put the long XXXXXXXXX parts into the translator. TRR is short for: T-A-A or T-G-G or T-G-A or T-A-G. It is valid code. MismeretMonk (talk) 23:31, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Where to look
Where should scientists search for dinosaur DNA and proteins? Hell Creek Formation Judith River Formation Morrison Formation Kem Kem Beds Horseshoe Canyon Formation Yixian Formation Nemegt Formation All of the above Other

From what I've heard, both Leonardo and B-Rex were found in sandstone, meaning that sandstone is the most likely rock to contain dinosaur bones with dinosaur proteins and DNA inside. Using the internet, I have come up with a list of dinosaur-bearing rock formations containing large amounts of sandstone, where dinosaur fossils are often found.


 * Hell Creek Formation: This is the same formation where B-Rex was found. The 3 most common dinosaurs here are Tyrannosaurus, Edmontosaurus and Triceratops. The edmontosaur Dakota was found here, though from what I've read in the paper they could not extract any intact proteins, which is a little odd since the specimen was very well preserved.


 * Judith River Formation: Leonardo was found in this formation. Some of the dinosaurs found here include Brachylophosaurus and Gorgosaurus. Many complete skeletons of the former have been found here.


 * Morrison Formation: Probably the most fertile region for dinosaur fossils in the United States, Apatosaurus, Allosaurus and Stegosaurus have all been found here. No proteins or DNA have been found here, but it will probably be there if we look for it.


 * Kem Kem Beds: A very fertile region in Morocco, and a common site for fossil dealers to excavate dinosaur teeth and bones to sell in the international fossil trade. Indeed, I own some fossils from there. Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus are the most notable dinosaurs from this location. No proteins or DNA have been found yet, but the abundance of fossils means that they could very well be waiting to be found.


 * Horseshoe Canyon Formation: A well-known region in Alberta, this location contains fossils of Albertosaurus, Edmontosaurus and Struthiomimus, among others. The location is very similar to the Judith River Formation despite being younger. I'm pretty sure there will be DNA and proteins there if we look for them.

So, I think scientists should look in those formations to start off with. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:56, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are very biased for North American regions. That Mosasaurus from Belgium also had proteins in its bones. MismeretMonk (talk) 15:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, North America is where most of the world's notable paleontologists such as Jack Horner, Mary Schweitzer, Robert Bakker and Thomas Holtz are based, so those regions will be more accessible for them. On another note, there is also the Nemegt Formation, where Tarbosaurus remains have been found. Maybe some tarbosaur genes could be used to fill in the T. rex genome. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:25, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

How about the Yixian Formation, in China? With the amount of preserved feathers, quills, fur, and other integument they keep finding on the fossils there, I wouldn't be surprised if they found some organic material. They've found fossilized melanosomes on Sinosauropteryx (which is how they partially determined its color), so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume other types of cells or tissues are preserved. Styracosaurus Rider (Contact me) A mole of moles means what? 20:23, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

That could be another good place to look. However, Chinese sites have the same problem as Mongolian and South American sites: It is hard to legally export fossils from there. Most of the dinosaur molecular paleontology seems to be going on in North America, so getting the fossils there could be some tough business. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:48, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey, USA clay yields amber reserves that date back to the Mesozoic. Unfortunately, this won't get you far due to the DNA having been decayed away by this time. Exposure does not dictate the time of the half-life. Uranium in the ground and uranium in a nuclear facility have the same radioative decay rate. Chemical or physical alteration of the DNA itself can not change it's radiotactive decay rate, however contamination from outside influences can. This is why such activities are performed in sterilized clean rooms. 23:39, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

So Schweitzer was wrong about remaining biomolecules only starting to degrade when the fossils are exposed? That actually changes everything, and gives me more reason to doubt her supposed discovery of DNA in dinosaur bone cells. I guess the only option now is to compare genomes of modern archosaurs. Is Schweitzer aware of Allentoft's work? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:44, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Filling sequence gaps
What sort of animal DNA should scientists use to fill in sequence gaps? Only closely related dinosaurs Birds Crocodiles Lizards Frogs Multiple sources Other None of the above

I wrote a new section for the article Filling the sequence gaps. The article still needs a lot of work. MismeretMonk (talk) 21:43, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

According to, the genomes of 2 flycatcher species have been sequenced. I'll add that to the article. And I think scientists are currently working on the genomes of the gharial, saltwater crocodile and American alligator. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:10, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

There is another thing to consider. Recent research has shown that dinosaurs do share DNA with species that are not in their evolutionary history; for example, the current amount of DNA of Tyrannosaurus rex has shown that the rex shares a lot of genetic material with chickens and (surprisingly) newts and salamanders, out of all species. I think it would more important add DNA of species that are similar to genetic structure instead of just those who are supposed to share evolutionary history. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk)

They weren't studying DNA. They were studying collagen. Regardless of similarities, I believe that sole fillers for dinosaur DNA should be DNA from closely related dinosaurs, as well as modern archosaurs and reptiles. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:04, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Genetics doesn't work in real life the way it does in the JP franchise. The JP franchise utilizes a trick known as "Lego Genetics". In real life, you can't go sticking protiens in willy-nilly to fill the sequence without knowing what it will do and what it did in it's original host. And even then, it takes hundreds of the entire strands of DNA to create something as simple as a red blood cell. Doing what JP geneticists did will give you a T. rex sized puddle of protien-mush. It'd really work better to create a protien shake than anything else. If you want to recreate protien sequences in DNA, you'll need decades worth of understanding of the host DNA sequence as well as the donator DNA sequence, maybe centuries. From beginning to end it took the Human Genome Project a decade and half to figure out the genome sequence of H. sapiens sapiens (modern Humans). Now imagine such a project for a creature we know next to nothing about and have even less of a supply of DNA for. It would take generations of geneticists working on a daily basis to even begin to master such a feat. 06:34, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Genome sequencing is becoming cheaper and easier. And fossils aren't the only source of DNA. Comparative genomics of modern archosaurs can give a more complete insight into what ancient dinosaur genomes looked like, and therefore increase our understanding of the fossil DNA we find. As for the Lego genetics, transgenic organisms are made all the time using DNA and proteins from completely unrelated organisms, such as tomatoes with fish proteins to prevent them from freezing during winter. You are right in saying that genes are not like Lego blocks though. They act more like ingredients in a recipe. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:16, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comparative genomics
Jhayk has presented evidence that we might not be able to find DNA in amber or fossils. However, we can still find out what dinosaur DNA, genes and chromosomes looked like through comparative genomics. This has been done with a Triassic archosaur gene. We won't be able to find out what the DNA of T. rex and other famous dinosaurs looked like, but we could find out the genomes of maniraptors and early dinosaurs like Eoraptor. Discuss this method here. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:10, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

MismeretMonk, you did say you could compare genomics. Do you think you could be able to compare genomes of birds and reptiles? I do realize that you won't be able to synthesize any calculated genes or do transfection, but maybe some other scientists might see your work and pick up on it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:01, March 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it is easy to look at genes. But I don't know all the statistical tests to calculate the most likely ancestor yet. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:14, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Are you learning this in uni, or will you have to Google how to do it? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

To calculate the ancestral sequence from extant sequences is a huge work. Involving a lot of statistical methods etc. I have thick books about the subject. But I have never done it, and I wouldn't know how to do it right now. MismeretMonk (talk) 16:53, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur mitochondria
Here are 3 sequenced mitochondrial genomes, coming from the ostrich, Nile monitor and saltwater crocodile respectively:, and.

Comparing these mitochondrial genomes could help deduce what the mitochondrial genomes of ancient archosaurs looked like. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:58, February 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think creating dino mitochrondria won't be a problem. The order of the genes looks quite similar already. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:32, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

This is the order of the turtle mtDNA. I just have to store it somewhere.


 * D-loop
 * F
 * 12S
 * V
 * 16S
 * L
 * NADH1
 * I
 * Q
 * M
 * NADH2
 * W
 * A
 * N
 * C
 * Y
 * COI
 * S
 * D
 * COII
 * K
 * ATP8
 * ATP6
 * COIII
 * G
 * NADH3
 * R
 * NADH4L
 * NADH4
 * H
 * S
 * L
 * NADH5
 * NADH6
 * E
 * Cyt b
 * T
 * P

All three groups have the same set of 15 genes, and almost in the same order. Somewhere in the dinosaur evolution the Cyt b-T-P and NADH6-E segment switched places. We will never know when this happened.

Turtle and bird both have an F region after the D-loop, only in crocs that region is move to another place. I think dino's had the F region after the D-loop. Furthermore, turtles and birds both have a H-S-L region, only in crocodiles this is region is reordered into S-H-L. I think dino's had a H-S-L region.

Because of this, I think it is better to compare ostrich and turtle DNA. Crocs seemed to have changed a lot when they branched off.

I wonder if it will matter anything if we would give all dinosaurs mitochochondria with the bird gene order. MismeretMonk (talk) 11:24, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Creating a cell nucleus
Even if we get the genome of a dinosaur, what sort of nucleus would we put the DNA in? Would it be possible to use a bird nucleus, or would we have to build our own nucleus from scratch? 101.98.128.11 09:15, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * We can put DNA into a nucleus. The DNA is an integral part of the . We need to invent a way to change the naked DNA into . Then we have to find a way to form a nuclear membrane around that chromatin. This won't be an easy step. MismeretMonk (talk) 15:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

During each cell division the nucleus of a cell is destroyed. In the the cell builds a new nucleus around the DNA. So, maybe we could exploid this process. If we insert the dino chromosomes into an ostrich egg which is in Telophase... maybe it will build a nucleus from the dino chromosomes. MismeretMonk (talk) 15:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Chickenosaurus
Should scientists change chicken gene heredity as well as their physical appearance? Yes No

Here's an interesting article: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 17:36, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Heard of this. Really, all it'd do it take a neornithe and turn it into a mutated neornithe. Switching a few genes around to make something LOOK like a non-avian theropod, doesn't mean it's not just a genetically-altered ''Gallus. ''I can change my genetics to make me look like the clone of Harrison Ford, yet on the inside I will still test out as the genetic product of my parents. 06:44, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. However, I still think it would be pretty cool for the time being. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:50, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you change the GENES of a bird so it looks like a non-avian dinosaur... It Will be a non-avian dinosaur. Look up the word atavism.

I can change my genetics to make me look like the clone of Harrison Ford, yet on the inside I will still test out as the genetic product of my parents.

This only holds for plastic surgery. If you change your GENES, you change your INSIDE. If you change all your DNA into DNA that codes for Harrison Ford's appearance... Your won't test out as the product of your parents. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:32, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Genes don't work like that. Genes are not blueprints for an animal's appearance. To quote Sid Meiyer's Alpha Centauri, you can't insert the 'genes for an elephant's trunk' into a giraffe and expect to get a giraffe with a trunk. Again, henes act more like the recipe for a cake. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 21:31, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a chicken can be turned into an actual non-avian dinosaur through atavism. But changing your genes to look like Harrison Ford won't make you look exactly like him. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 21:47, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Though, to be honest, I'm a little confused. Isn't atavism exactly what Jack Horner is studying in order to make the chickenosaur? Even then he still says that it will only be a cool chicken. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:38, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I'm not particularly knowledgable about genetics. I was wrong, changing alleles will change genetic heredity, but the subject remains the same species. Changing a chicken's alleles to match that of a non-avian theropod doesn't affect the fact that it's genetic sequence will still match that of a Gallus. After all, Gallus gallus domesticus is nothing more than a genetically altered Gallus gallus mutated to produce higher muscle mass in order to increase production as a farm product bred for human consumption. 23:45, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Regardless, I think a Chickenosaurus with theropod genetic heredity would still be a pretty cool theme park attraction. The only problem would be altering it's genes so that it can reproduce other chickenosaurs independently. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:50, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

How hard would it be to change the genetic heredity of a chicken to that of a theropod? Jack Horner isn't changing any genes, just switching certain ones off. He is only planning on adding theropod traits to chickens, so how much harder would it be to change the actual genetic heredity? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:49, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear transfer
I found a paper about interspecies cloning between pandas and rabbits, as well as pandas and cats. Apparently, panda fetuses have developed in cats, but the cat mother died of pneumonia:  It could be cited in the Cloning dinosaurs article. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:55, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting! I wonder why it wasn't in the 2007 review paper I read. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

And here is a paper about attempted intergenus cloning between domestic cats and leopard cats. Fetuses developed but they failed to develop to term: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:35, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

On a more skeptical note, here is an article about scientist's doubts about the human-rabbit embryos: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:07, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Have scientists even tried to clone birds or reptiles? I've heard that they tried, but the attempts failed because the bird genes were too unstable. However, the person who told me this didn't give me a direct source, only a list of cloned animals. If it's impossible to clone egg-laying animals, then we can pretty much throw dinosaur cloning out the window. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:06, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think the sources are these: http://www.upc-online.org/winter2002/cloning.html and http://www.upc-online.org/experimentation/020118news_cloning.html PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 10:06, March 16, 2013


 * I think these sources are very biased against animal cloning in the first place. It aren't academic sources, just an anmal rights site. The first one says I should become vegan(!).

A "problem" to be solved is that birds' eggs cannot be removed and implanted in another bird, because the yoke is too fragile and the avian ovum's pronuclei cannot be visualized for microinjection, By the time a hen lays her egg, an embryo has already begun to develop on the yolk and has about 60,000 cells.

I don't known what they mean with "egg", do they mean "egg" as in "egg" or "ovum"? I refuse to believe we can't extract an ovum and perform nuclear transfer. And let the egg develop around it afterwards. But I'll have to read into that. All I know is that mammal cells are REAL WHINERS. If conditions aren't perfect they either die or become tumors. Primitive animals like amphibians are very easy to clone. So, I think reptiles and birds should be much more easier to clone than mammals.

Just as transgenic animals are ridden with gastric ulcers, arthritis, blindness, defective organs, impaired (or no) immune systems, and other human-created maladies, so are cloned animals.

Yes, all cloned animals have strange defects but issue is solved now. Wakayama and colleagues grew the cloned cells in a solution containing trichostatin, a compound that interferes with enzymes that make changes to DNA (that cause these defects). Using this technique, the cloning process was five times more successful. See the LiveScience article.

The team successfully cloned the mice 25 consecutive times. In other words, they cloned one mouse, then cloned those clones, and so on. A total of 581 healthy mice were made, all of which were fertile and lived a normal life span of about two years. No abnormalities accumulated in the mice, even after repeated cloning, the researchers found. MismeretMonk (talk) 23:31, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Eggs
What sort of eggs should be used to clone dinosaurs? Chicken Emu Ostrich Moa

Here is the problem of what eggd to use.

Largest dinosaur egg nature.ca:


 * 60 cm long
 * 20 cm in diameter

Ostrich egg:
 * 17-19 cm in length
 * 14- 15 cm in diameter

For some dinosaurs Ostrich eggs will be to small. How to solve this.

Only clone dinosaur that fit
Could we try to make a list of all Jurassic Park dinosaurs and their egg sizes. I think most dinosaurs could fit into an ostrich egg. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:20, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sauropods: 30 cm long and 25 cm wide.
 * Gigantoraptor: 60 cm long and 20 cm in diameter
 * Maiasaura: ostrich sized eggs
 * Tyrannosaurus: unknown
 * Saltasaurus: 11-12 cm in diameter
 * Hypselosaurus: 1 foot long.
 * Citipati: 18 centimeters long.
 * Oviraptor: 14 centimeters long.

What about egg shape? Does egg shape matter in the cloning process? Troodon and Oviraptor eggs are enlongated and oval, while therizinosaur eggs looked more like ostrich eggs. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 18:00, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Egg shape matters. It's important for development as well as the shape of the dinosaur. The wrong shape and you give your ''Brachiosaurus sp. ''a crippling injury. 06:37, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Moa eggs
I have an idea for an egg cell we could use to hatch dinosaurs. However, we have to clone another extinct animal first.

I think that if we clone moas, we might be able to use their eggs to hatch large dinosaurs that ostrich eggs are too small for. We just have to recreate the moa first. I don't think it would be too hard, since we have a lot of moa bones and have already sequenced quite a bit of moa DNA and proteins. I think we should aim for the Dinornis genus, since those were the larger species, and would have laid the largest eggs.

I believe scientists in New Zealand launched a moa cloning project, but Maori people who owned the land on which the moa bones were found didn't approve of it, so the idea was abandoned. A shame, really. and quite hypocritical as well, since their ancestors wiped out the moa in the first place.

Moa egg with ostrich egg: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:20, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Size of Moa egg:
 * 13 inches (33 cm) long and a capacity of 2 imperial gallons (9 litres). source

Well, not as long as the largest dinosaur egg, but bigger than ostrich eggs. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:07, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I think moa eggs should be used for sauropods and large theropods. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 18:00, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

I just found a picture depicting the size of a Troodon egg. It seems we might need large moa eggs for even some of the smaller theropods. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:53, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Chimera
There might be another possibility of how to clone dinosaurs (This idea was brought up by PonchoFirewalker01 12:58, February 20, 2013): When you get the whole genomes of the species of dinosaurs that you want to clone, there is still the issue on how can you bring them up and you need dinosaurs to clone other dinosaurs if you wanted to clone dinosaurs in the regular cloning process. But I believe that the best way you could bring up dinosaurs is to make dinosaur/bird s.

Note that I DID NOT say hybrid, chimeras and hybrids are very different. Hybrids are mixes between species, whereas Chimeras like something you get if Dr. Frankenstein used early-stage embryos instead of carcasses. Chimera is basically a result of fusing embryos of two different individuals or species, creating a life-form that has unfused body parts of both individuals of species.

For example, they have done this with sheep and goats and have created "". Reason why I would choose them is because in the case of geeps, they can have to reproductive organs of either sheep or goats, you can have a female geep that looks more like a goat, but has the reproductive organs of a sheep and if mated with a ram, she'll only have lambs. This chimera idea has been suggested that it could be used to help save endangered species. If you can make chimeras of ostriches or emus (or even moas, if those get cloned) that have the reproductive organs of dinosaurs, than you can dinosaur offspring with no problems. Another reason for the dinobird chimeras is that if you're able to get birds that have the exact same reproductive system as that of a selected species of dinosaur, you would solve a whole world of other issues (e.g. right egg shape, needed hormones, appropriate incurbation time, right environment for the dinosaur genome, correct embryonic development, etc.) that the developing dinosaur embryo would face. If you're able to clone dinosaurs, you might want to start with both the most studied, the most common, and/or some of the smaller species of dinosaurs.

After you do clone them, you could use them for cloning other species of dinosaurs. These are some species I think should be cloned first: The Troodon (due to that its small, its reproduction has been studied, it's possible that it omnivorous, and its offspring are said to be or even ), Protoceratops (Small species of ceratopsian and a perfect model for understanding ceratopsian behavior and such),  and  (both species and small-sized in adult, which makes them perfect models for learning how to take care of medium/large sized sauropods), and a few others.


 * Is there any evidence inter-Order chimeras can be made? I think the first dinosaur to be cloned should be the most closely related to extant species. In which case Protoceratops has ZERO chance to be on that list. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:25, February 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if it's possible to mix creatures of two Orders. How many chimeras do you have to create before a create will grow out of it that has only the reproductive organs of a dino? MismeretMonk (talk) 18:33, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

"I think the first dinosaur to be cloned should be the most closely related to extant species."

Do you mean 'should', or 'will'? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:42, February 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is the only way possible. MismeretMonk (talk) 16:57, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. This are the advantages of creating chimeras:
 * The ostrich embryo will help the dino cells to develop into body parts
 * A dinosaur oviduct and egg cells can be created without creating a dino first
 * The first dinosaurs will develop in a dinosaur egg

Correct me if I am wrong.

PonchoFirewalker01, you said this idea was mentioned in The Real Jurassic Park?? MismeretMonk (talk) 16:57, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Well, something like that idea, yes. PonchoFirewalker01 11:47, February 24, 2013

I've been searching. Bird chimeras HAVE been made, that is hopefull. This article, Bird chimeras may be models for certain neurological diseases, described a / chimera. Both belong to the Family. This means that inter-genus chimeras are possible in birds. Well, that's a start. Plz look further. MismeretMonk (talk) 17:17, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Another reason why I've chose that is because if I remember, the tissue in the T-rex bones do have tissue and whatnot responsible for reproduction like an ostrich and if a load of dinosaurs have this sort of tissue, than the ostrich is a perfect specimen to use and to take care of the reproductive organs. PonchoFirewalker01 11:50, February 24, 2013

The chimera method sounds a lot more plausible to me now. Since inter-genus chimeras have been made, I think scientists should try to make inter-family chimeras, such as ostrich-emu chimeras. Unfortunately I don't think scientists will try that anytime soon. If the ostrich-emu chimera works, then maybe we could move on to inter-order chimeras, such as tinamou-kiwi chimeras. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:16, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you never know on what they might do. I mean, back then, no one could've thought that the scientists would make those chicken-quail chimeras and even the naked mouse that has a human ear on it's back. Heck, I think the one inter-order bird chimera I think they would make soon is a emu/ostrich-moa chimera, a emu/ostrich with moa reproductive organs. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 16:37, February 24, 2013

Good point. 15 years ago, who would have predicted that scientists would reconstruct an ancient archosaur gene, or clone an extinct ibex. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:22, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

And since we might not be able to clone egg-laying animals (sources here: http://www.upc-online.org/experimentation/020118news_cloning.html and http://www.upc-online.org/winter2002/cloning.html), the Chimera method may be the only way to bring dinosaurs back from extinction. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 10:09, March 16, 2013

Could the cloning of egg-laying animals be possible in the future though? And we still don't have absolute certainty if the chimera method will work. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 21:54, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Funding
Sequencing dinosaur genomes is going to be expensive, let alone cloning a dinosaur. Such research would need funding. As MismeretMonk said, I think scientists could gather funding by creating a Struthiomimus-like creature from an ostrich, adding a few dinosaur genes to it and putting it in a small zoo. That alone would gather many visitors from around the world. Perhaps some chickenosaurs and even mammoths could be added as well. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:39, January 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this is how a real-life Jurassic Park will develop. They're not gonna wait until they have 15 species. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. For all we know, it could take 100-200 years to get that many. Remember, it will be many decades until entire dinosaur genomes are sequenced, at least at this slowpoke rate. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Spreading the word
Most scientists and educated people seem to think that dinosaurs cannot be cloned. A lack of believers means that it will take longer for scientists to try it. Even Mary Schweitzer scoffs at the idea of dinosaur parks.

People like us need to spread the word somehow. Whenever I post a link to this JP wiki, people don't seem to believe it. I think someone needs to write and publish a serious scientific book about this. The Science Of Jurassic Park And The Lost World Or, How To Build A Dinosaur is pretty outdated, so it doesn't really count anymore, at least not to me.

The book would contain similar information to this wiki, but it would be a lot more detailed. Basically, there would be chapters about possible sources of DNA, how to sequence DNA, finding suitable egg cells, etc.

Basically, a heavily updated version of the aforementioned book. Details could include actual dinosaur DNA and protein sequences, information about the Chickenosaurus project, feathers in amber, DNA life in fossils and citations of various studies by people like Mary Schweitzer. And of course, a fair amount of pictures and understandable writing to keep readers interested.

Unfortunately, nobody on this wiki can write a book like this at the moment. I'm only 13, so I obviously can't do this, and MismeretMonk wants to put all of the information about cloning dinosaurs on this wiki. Poncho hopes to write a book about the care of captive dinosaurs in the future, but that wouldn't contain any of the information I'm describing above. Another problem would be finding and affording a publisher. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:37, February 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think books have a high impact on the public. Most people google if they want to know something. Furthermore, knowledge should be free and easy to share. There best thing we can do is making our articles as good as possible. I also would like to have video's about each step. In that way we'll get the public's attention. MismeretMonk (talk) 20:20, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about how we could make our article's better. Here is what I have come up with:

Does that sound good? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:55, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple people should work on them. You and Ponchofirewalker already create and edit the articles, and I supply information and correct any spelling mistakes. However, I think we need more than 3 people to work on these articles if we are to be successful.
 * Along with info about successful discoveries, we should also include information about erroneous discoveries, such as the supposed 80 million year old dinosaur DNA that turned out to be human contamination, and the supposed DNA in a dinosaur egg that turned out to be from fungus. This would make our articles more believable, since we would be examining flaws.
 * Most importantly, keep our sources as up to date as possible.


 * Yes, sounds good. I have lots and lots of stuff in my head and pc that I want to write down, but I have no time for it. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:25, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Another good idea would be to invite critics like Ryan Whitwam here. Maybe they will change their mind once they see the evidence. And it could bring some pretty interesting debates here. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:11, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, I REALLY doubt that this would change their minds. I mean, to them, we're just Jurassic Park geeks who have 'childish' dreams of cloning dinosaurs and are clinging to the possiblity of cloning dinosaurs like cryptozoologists clinging on hopes that Bigfoot exists. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 21:56, March 6, 2013 (Mountain Time Zone)

So you don't believe we will actually be able to clone dinosaurs? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize that you meant 'to them'. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:22, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

No worries and yes, I do believe that dinosaurs can be cloned, but those guys won't believe that it would be possible, unless someone actually did cloned dinosaurs. I mean, in the 19th century, people thought that lighter-than-air vechiles (not counting hot-air balloons) were impossible. That was until the Wright Brothers proved them wrong. The only way to convince them and the world is that if someone DID clone a dinosaur. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 17:18, March 7, 2013 (Mountain Time Zone)

Just thought I'd bring this up, since I didn't see it mentioned yet.

Do you know about the X Prize Foundation? Basically, they form competitions in various fields (they held a competition for the first private spacecraft, for instance) and award prizes to the winners. The idea here is that these competitions will produce results and research worth far more than the prize itself.

It just so happens that they have a "Jurassic Park" prize, which essentially involves the resurrection of extinct species: http://www.xprize.org/prize/jurassic-park-x-prize So while it may be hard to convince people about cloning dinosaurs, there is a motivation for it with possible rewards in sight. Styracosaurus Rider (Contact me) A mole of moles means what? 20:23, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

That could include any extinct species. Mammoths, dodos, thylacines, you name it. They have already resurrected an extinct ibex, but the clone died from lung defects. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:08, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there should be prizes for the first DNA sequence from a dinosaur, or the first verifiable DNA sequence from a piece of amber more than 65 million years old? Scientists would find that more feasible than cloning an actual dinosaur, so they wold be more likely to take part in it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:13, March 9, 2013 (UTC)