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. Make sure your point has not been posted and refuted before. 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)

Dino parasites
see DNA in parasites.

For the parasite article we have to figure out a few things:


 * What parasites did feed on which dinosaurs species?
 * How did parasites penetrate the thick and scaled skin of dinosaurs?

When I looked up Mesozoic bugs most of them fed on dinosaurs with feathers. Haven't been able to find a parasite of Ornithisians. MismeretMonk (talk) 08:34, April 24, 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)

I think another test needs to be done before we can say whether or not DNA is preserved in amber. Scientists should try to extract DNA from amber of various ages. A good age variation is found below:


 * Lebanese amber (120-135 million years).
 * New Jersey amber (95 million years).
 * Burmese amber (95 million years).
 * Baltic amber (44 million years).
 * Dominician amber (25-40 million years).
 * Madagascan copal (>1 million years).
 * New Zealand copal (>recent).

Scientists should attempt to extract DNA from at least 5 or 6 different specimens from each site, but only from common inclusions such as flies. If they manage to extract DNA from even one piece, then I'm sure scientists will look for more. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:09, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Did Cano do any work with modern beetles in his lab? I have heard that he used poor laboratory methods, which is why so many scientists are skeptical of his findings. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:40, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless they were watching them doing the extraction, they can't know that. Protocols they used are in the Materials and Methods of their paper. MismeretMonk (talk) 08:48, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find the whole paper for free? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:59, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I did a BLAST search of a supposed 40 million year old DNA sequence of a legume leaf in amber. It showed high similarity (96%) with modern legumes and similar plants. I think this DNA sequence is genuine is well. Also, how did you BLAST search the supposed 'weevil' sequence that WASN'T published on NCBI? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:04, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

If the DNA has survived in amber-preserved insects, then why hasn't any chitin survived? Also, why couldn't scientists reproduce these findings? I hate to be skeptical, but is it possible that DNA in amber is extremely rare? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:46, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Feathers in French amber: Here. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:00, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Cretaceous gecko in amber. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:17, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the taxonomic tree of the Lebanorhinus DNA. Apparently, the closest relative is Gastrophysa, which is a non-weevil beetle. The next closest relative is Gaurotes, which is not a weevil either. Unless I read the tree wrong, and the ones at the top of the tree are the closest relatives, which I hope is the case. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:07, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

1) The ones on the top of the tree aren't the closest relatives. It is only the distance from the nodes that counts.

2) You can't make a good tree with only part of one gene. I once made a tree with one genes, and in that tree rat was more closely related to chickens than mice! You need multiple genes. Actually, it is quite a discussion if genes are good for making trees at all. A growing group says it is better to use non-coding DNA because it can evolve with no bounds.

3) The Lebanorhinus belongs to the family. The DNA is 98% identical to that of Cimberis. Also a member of Nemonychidae. However, it is 99% identical to other some non-Nemonychidae Weevils. As I said, since we have only part of one gene to compare, I don't think this is a problem.

MismeretMonk (talk) 12:36, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Are there any papers saying that genes might not be good for making family trees? I can't seem to find anything about it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:00, April 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * There are papers in which they use genes to make a phylogenetic tree, other papers (like this one) use satellite DNA. Other papers use speudogenes etc. Trees based on genes and satellite DNA can give different results. MismeretMonk (talk) 06:55, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so satellite DNA may be better for making phylogenetic trees than genes. That makes sense, since genes can be pretty conserved throughout evolution. Are there any papers openly criticizing the use of genes in phylogeny, or do papers only use different methods? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:27, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Insects in Hell Creek amber. A unique thing about this is that scientists used microscopic photography to examine the insects. This means that even if we have to break down the amber to get DNA, we can still study the inclusions afterwards with the photos, just as you suggested. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:59, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

I consulted Tomozaurus (archosaur geek) on JPL again, and he says that while it's technically possible for a dinosaur to wound itself on a tree, the chances of a piece of flesh being found in amber are slim to none. Fossilization is rare after all. I think that the lizard pieces only ended up in amber because lizards are small animals. So I guess we have to look in blood-sucking insects and feathers instead. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:10, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Mosquito in Burmese amber:. And criticism of Poinar's book:. I also can't find anything about vertebrate blood cells in ANY amber insects other than that single example of lizard blood cells. Is it possible that such preservation is extremely rare? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:22, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

the chances of a piece of flesh being found in amber are slim to none.


 * The chance of ANYTHING ending up in the fossil record is slim to none. I've seen a lot in amber of which the chances are slim to none, but they're still there.

can't find anything about vertebrate blood cells in ANY amber insects other than that single example of lizard blood cells. Is it possible that such preservation is extremely rare?


 * It can't be that rare if it managed to end up in the fossil record. It could be that people aren't looking for it. Poinar sits 24/7 in his basement looking at amber. That is how he found it. MismeretMonk (talk) 07:33, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Mothfly in Cretaceous Siberian amber. If only Poinar was examining these Mesozoic specimens. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:23, April 25, 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.

Further evidence that freshly excavated bones contain more DNA is reported by Pruvost and his team :

we demonstrate that freshly excavated and nontreated unwashed bones contain six times more DNA and yield twice as many authentic DNA sequences as bones treated with standard procedures. Finally, we compared the DNA content in the fossil bones of one animal, a 3,200 year-old aurochs, excavated in two separate seasons 57 years apart. Whereas the washed museum-stored fossil bones did not permit any DNA amplification, all recently excavated bones yielded authentic aurochs sequences. We established that during the 57 years when the aurochs bones were stored in a collection, at least as much amplifiable DNA was lost as during the previous 3,200 years of burial.


 * 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)

Errors in the DNA
I've heard that chemical base pairs/amino acids in fossils can change over time. If this is true, we may have to find a way to repair this ancient DNA/proteins. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 21:56, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? MismeretMonk (talk) 07:42, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that some types of DNA degradation involve one DNA base changing to another, like an A changing into a T. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:53, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

This article mentions it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:56, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

DNA degrades with age, and some types of degradation (like changes of one DNA “base” to another) cannot be detected by sequencing, but would still render the reconstructed clone inviable because those mutations would be lethal in the re-created organism.

This is a true problem, but not a huge one. We can test if the genes are functional. If a mutation made the gene bad or unfunctional we can either try see see what part of the sequence is wrong, or we can just use an extant version the gene that works.

If the mutation is present in regulatory sequences, this is a larger problem:

The genomes of many species, including ours, contain repeated elements dispersed throughout the genome. Much of this is “junk,” some of it may have unknown but essential functions, but all of it would cause problems trying to reconstruct an ancestral DNA sequence. We don’t know exactly how many of these things there are nor exactly where they all sit on the DNA. If you screw that up, you will likely not get a viable “egg.”


 * Well, we're lucky that dinosaurs had very little non-coding DNA. If we can't get the regulator DNA to function, we'll have to wait until we fully understand gene regulation. Then we could either correct the bugs or write new and more efficient regulator DNA.

Finally, trying to assemble bits of fossil DNA (or DNA “cloned” from those fossil sequences) is likely to cause copying errors, creating even more mutations that will make the “clone” inviable.

I think it is very easy to scan the assembled DNA for copying error by comparing it with the original fragments. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:17, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that the differences in the tyrannosaur collagen code are the results of amino acids changing during degradation? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:35, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Critic responses
Here we post critics responses to Jurassic Park and recreating dinosaurs. Though we believe that cloning dinosaurs IS possible, it is important that we also post critical responses to point out flaws and errors in our research. Remember, problems are not stop signs. They are guidelines.

Genetics and biotechnology
I thought it would be helpful to create a section for the technology required to recreate dinosaurs or use dinosaur DNA.

Wired has an interesting article about biotechnology and DNA amplification at home. In theory, with the right parts and equipment, one may be able to create an entire ancient DNA or PCR lab at home. And with the multi-million dollar fossil trade out there, it might not be too hard to buy specimens that could be examined for proteins, maybe even genetic material. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:26, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Extracting the DNA
How do scientists extract DNA and protein from ancient bones and amber? If I manage to become a paleontologist, I may try it one day. I do realize that being a paleontologist is not the same as being a geneticist, but that does not mean I can't try it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:33, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you know anything about extracting DNA. But the basic method is quite easy. Watch this video and you can do it at home:



MismeretMonk (talk) 08:56, March 19, 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)

I found this neat item. DNA sequencing on a USB stick. This means that Schweitzer and other scientists might be able to sequence DNA in bones and amber right on the field, since the item is portable. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:46, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur DNA general
see Dinosaur DNA

On my userpage, I am making a list of ALL known authentic Mesozoic DNA sequences. So far, I have only listed the translated hadrosaur and tyrannosaur genes, the weevil DNA and the synthetic archosaur rhodopsin. That makes 7 Mesozoic DNA sequences overall. Are there any other DNA sequences from the Mesozoic era that haven't been proven to be contamination, or are those the only ones so far? It frustrates me when I don't see much recent research into this topic. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:25, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, I searched through all three major gene databases. It seems those 7 sequences really are the only ones so far. Needless to say I am pretty disappointed. Hopefully we will see more research soon. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:01, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong! Apparently, several DNA sequences have been found from T. rex. You can see them here]. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:46, April 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sequences from . Tyrannobdella is a leech. MismeretMonk (talk) 10:07, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

It was a joke. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 21:28, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Proteins and soft tissues in bones
see Proteins in fossils 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)

Have the genes and proteins of collagen type |, alpha 1 been sequenced for ostriches and emus yet? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the NCBI protein database. Seems like it hasn't been sequenced for either of them. Damn. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:32, March 22, 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)

Yes, I do realize that Xs stand for gaps. I've already corrected the hadrosaur sequences. Now I won't make the same mistake again. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

In Schweitzer's paper about the dinosaur DNA, I found this table of actin and histone protein peptides. Should these sequences be put in the Proteins in fossils article? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:23, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that there were actually seven proteins extracted from the B-Rex bone, but the Proteins in fossils article only shows three. I've tried to get the original paper with all sequences on it, but I can't find it for free. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:37, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

I did two BLAST searches with the T. rex and Brachylophosaurus collagen type |, alpha 1 sequences. The results were pretty worrying.


 * First of all, the brachy sequence showed a 100% match with collagens of various species, including anoles, elephants, opossums, rats, frogs and even dogs.
 * The tyrannosaur collagen showed 94% similarity with newts, and 91% similarity with anoles.
 * I also did a search with the other hadrosaur gene. It showed 100% similarity with chickens AND turkeys. While high similarity would be expected with a dinosaur, a 100% similarity is a cause for concern.


 * Did you do a protein or amino acid BLAST? MismeretMonk (talk) 08:18, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Schweitzer said that the proteins showed similarity with chickens and alligators, which would be expected with dinosaurs. But I don't see those on the BLAST list. I'm probably overreacting, but maybe the proteins are contamination after all. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:38, March 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * I will have to read into it, but these are my first thoughts:


 * Critics already pointed out the code had similarity with amphibians. Horner and Schweitzer pointed responded that there are no amphibians in the desert of the Badlands.
 * Genes like collagen practically stopped evolving 500 million years ago. That is why it is similar to such such evolutionary distantly related species like anoles, elephants, opossums, rats, frogs and even dogs.
 * Protein code is even more conserved than DNA code.
 * We only have very small parts of the protein code.
 * Schweitzer proved the soft tissue can't have formed by biofilms or any contamination.

The reason genes are so similar in all vertebrates was Henry Wu's reason to use frog and even mice genes when he couldn't find the dino version of it. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:15, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

It turns out I didn't read the BLAST results properly. I mistook the query covers for the maximum identity. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:04, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Toads have been known to live in very dry places, I wouldn't be surprised if some toads lived in the badlands. But the B-Rex bone was found within sandstones, and I don't think toads can dig. So thanks for that information. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:24, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I have found some reason to doubt the authenticity of Schweitzer's collagen sequences, again. I compared the DNA code that was deduced from the protein code to the col1a1 DNA code of chickens and turkeys. You can see the alignment I made in the picture. You may notice the lack of N letters in the code. This is because I replaced the Ns with the A, T, G or C letter that was present in the chicken. This produces a more reliable alignment.

If genes like collagen stopped evolving 500 million years ago, then the alignments would form an almost precise if not perfect match with each other. But this is clearly not the case. Only two letters match precisely in all four species. Even the turkey collagen has differences from the chicken collagen, but it's not as extreme as in the dinosaurs. Each dinosaur gene has a G at the beginning where an A should be. At the end of the sequence there should be a T. Instead, there are Gs. Notice the amount of Gs in the dinosaur sequences. Such repetitive nucleotides are usually found in bacteria and other simple organisms. Overall, all of this could imply a number of things:


 * Non-avian dinosaur genes derived a lot from bird genes.
 * The proteins were not collagen.
 * The proteins are contamination from a bacterial source. I know you said that Schweitzer demonstrated that the proteins could not have been contamination, but in fact her studies only increase the chance of it being endogenous. It isn't set in stone. And scientists are easily biased not only against things, but FOR things as well. Schweitzer's studies could be very biased, and most other independent studies say that the proteins are contaminants.
 * The proteins were mistranslated. I doubt this, since I translated a chicken protein and the translation was correct. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * You should only compare the protein code. I think you compared the wrong regions. It seems that only the second half of the dino proteins were preserved. MismeretMonk (talk) 07:42, April 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I will have to read into this before I can say something about it. All I know is that they explained in these articles that the sequences were archosaurian:


 * Asara JM, Garavelli JS, Slatter DA, Schweitzer MH, Freimark LM, Phillips M, et al. Interpreting sequences from mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 2007;317: 1324–5.
 * Asara JM, Schweitzer MH, Phillips MP, Freimark LM, Cantley LC. Protein sequences from mastodon (Mammut americanum) and dinosaur (Tyrannosaurus rex) revealed by mass spectrometry. Science 2007;316:280–5.
 * Organ CL, Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Freimark LM, Cantley LC, Asara JM. Molecular phylogenetics of mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 2008;320:499.

Just saw the article about Lufengosaurus proteins. Cool stuff. It disproves my personal hypothesis that DNA and proteins wouldn't last past the Cretaceous. Hopefully they will be sequenced one day, along with the mosasaur collagen. Of course, there is always the possibility of contamination. Let's wait until further studies come out. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:45, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Even though no amphibians live in the Hell Creek area, is it possible that contamination could have occurred in the laboratory? And I looked at the tyrannosaur collagen code. You claimed that it was "quite similar" to the chicken collagen. It is similar, but there are still some major differences in the amino acid code. For example, there is an I where a K should be, and a P where an A should be (though the P is present in the mammoth and rat collagen). Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:35, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

there are still some major differences in the amino acid code.

Probably because T. rex isn't a chicken. At place 2 Rat has an S where all others have an A. (I think) Organ et al (2008) made a phylogenetic tree of the dino collagen and extant species. The dino collagen appeared in the tree where you would expect them to be: brached off between crocodiles and birds. MismeretMonk (talk) 08:18, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

It is also good to remember that BLAST is very crude method. It you would change the parameters of BLAST it could also give these alignments:

T. rex GATGAPGIAGAPGFPGARG              APGPQGPSGPK Anolis GSAGAAGKDGLNGLPGPIGPPGPRGRTGDVGPAGPPGPPGPPGPP

T. rex GATGAPGIAGAPGFPGARGAPGP              QGPSGPK Anolis GSAGAAGKDGLNGLPGPIGPPGPRGRTGDVGPAGPPGPPGPPGPP

T. rex GATGAPGIAGAPGFPGA     RGA         PGPQGPSGPK Anolis GSAGAAGKDGLNGLPGPIGPPGPRGRTGDVGPAGPPGPPGPPGPP

T. rex GATGAPGIAGAPGFPGA     RG       A  PGPQGPSGPK Anolis GSAGAAGKDGLNGLPGPIGPPGPRGRTGDVGPAGPPGPPGPPGPP

MismeretMonk (talk) 08:33, April 12, 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)

IIRC, the NJ amber site has been built over. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:40, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

The Djadochta Formation is a Cretaceous formation in Mongolia where fossils of Velociraptor and Protoceratops have been found. The main locality is the Flaming Cliffs area. This could be another place to look. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:18, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Predicting genes
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)

Would a software make it any easier? I found a program online that reconstructs ancestral molecular sequences. If you think it could help, I can post a link. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, false alarm. I misunderstood the software's description. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:16, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Someone on the JPL forum posted this:

"The comparative genomics work that some people speculate about is essentially that; speculative. These are inferences of what certain gene sequences would look like based on comparisons between modern species, but there's essentially no way of knowing if these inferences are correct (they're based on specific models of gene evolution which may or may not be true and have a lot of room for uncertainty), and most of those reconstructions contain more uncertainty than anything concrete. It's important to understand that we have about 180 million years, give or take, of unaccounted-for evolution between the earliest archosaurs and the earliest modern-type birds, a similar length of unaccounted-for evolution between the earliest modern-type crocodiles, at least 40 million years between the earliest archosaurs and where lizards split off, and probably a good 150 million years between that early reptile split and lizards. If we factor in what we know about early mammal-lineage genetics (not much, either), we're left trying to handle, give or take, 700 million years of undocumented genetic evolution across 4 major lineages. Trying to pinpoint exactly what the genome of these ancient animals would have looked like is pretty much guesswork outside of a few extremely conservative sequences."

If this person is right, is it possible that the Triassic archosaur gene was just a lucky guess? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:13, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

I realize we can test genes, but I still feel uncertain about this. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:48, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * This person is soo vague on what he means that I can not respond properly. Is he talking about genes, non-coding DNA? And a big surprise for that person is that ALL science, including medicine is speculative at first. Experiments will prove us right or wrong.


 * If people talk a lot without specifically stating what they mean, followed with captain-obvious calculations like this one, I usually stop reading. Comparative Genomics is a genuine branch of bioinformatics and have proven to be a usefull tool to predict gene functions. If a random JPL user doesn't believe in it, I can't care less. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:04, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the same as gene prediction, but it does involve comparing genes, so I might as well put it here. I have been looking at the (partial) brain-derived neurotrophic factor genes of chickens, ostriches and alligators, which is a gene involved in supporting the survival of brain neurons, among other things. The gene is very similar in all three species, so similar that I first thought I must have made a mistake.


 * I told ye that genes practically stopped evolving 500 mya. MismeretMonk (talk) 12:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that was only for stuff like collagen. Guess I was wrong. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:59, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ostrich.
 * Alligator.
 * Chicken.

Their last common ancestor lived at the beginning of the Triassic Period, around 245 million years ago. How much has the gene changed since then? The similarity seems to imply that the gene didn't evolve too much. In the bird sequences, the gene starts with the base pairs GTTATTTCAT, while the alligator starts with GTTATCTCAT. It is likely that the ancestor had either of those or a similar sequence. This is one step towards deducing yet another ancient archosaur gene.


 * There are webtools that compare the sequences for you. Such a tool is Clustal Omega. Maybe I should make a separate article that explains how to use such tools. MismeretMonk (talk) 12:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

However, I would need to understand a lot more about the whole process before I could do that. And considering that I'm only a young teen, that isn't very likely for now. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:10, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to predict an ancestral gene sequence with certainty, it needs a lot of work and statistics. MismeretMonk (talk) 12:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Now I am looking at the genes of two lizards, the Komodo dragon and the Gila monster. Both are varanoid lizards. Varanoids appear in the Cretaceous, and helodermatids (the family that the Gila monster belongs to) appeared at least 80-75 million years ago, so they must have split before then. Again, I compared their BDNF genes:
 * Komodo dragon.
 * Gila monster.

Their genes are also very similar, but I have noticed more differences in base pairs. The Komodo dragon gene starts with AGTTGCATGA, while the Gila monster starts with AGTTGCATGC. This implies that there must have been more gene evolution between them. However, it should still be easy for scientists to deduce this Cretaceous lizard gene. Do you know anyone else who works with bioinformatics? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:12, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I just found a paper questioning the accuracy of ancient gene prediction. You may actually want to read it: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:23, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Here is another paper questioning the accuracy of maximum likelihood. It also suggests a possibly more accurate method. Ti ve honest I can't understand most of it, but what I can gather from it is that coevolutionary information may yield more accurate results than maximum likelihood, though it sounds a lot more difficult than the latter: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:18, April 9, 2013 (UTC) I did an alignment of four BDNF genes. The picture only shows part of the alignment. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

What sort of statistics are involved in maximum likelihood? Although some scientists question the accuracy of that method, I might give it a try. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:45, April 11, 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)

For the discussion I think it is good to separate the discussion in two topics:
 * Genes
 * Regulatory sequences
 * Chromosome structure

References genomes
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)

I found a whole genome shotgun sequence of the American alligator on NCBI, if it helps: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:08, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Would it also be a good idea to fill in sequence gaps with DNA of closely related dinosaurs? For example, Tarbosaurus and Albertosaurus DNA would be closer to T. rex DNA than chicken or even ostrich DNA. It could also make the sequences more likely to be functional. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:30, March 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that could work. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:04, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I found several archosaur genome projects while surfing the web.
 * Hoatzin genome.
 * Green sea turtle genome.
 * Painted turtle genome.
 * Various bird genomes. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:47, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Painted turtle genome sequenced! Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:56, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Emu genome project. This is a particularly exciting one, since emus are ratites, and insight into the emu genome could allow us to make the Ratitosaurus as in MismeretMonk's The Malcolm Effect. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:44, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Genes
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. 06:34, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact you can stick a gene from one creature in a non-related species. Read about . Furthermore, of most proteins the function is either know, or predictable from sequence. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:04, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Though this probably isn't related, your point reminded me of Dr. Sorkin's journal from Jurassic Park: The Game and her warnings against filling in sequence gaps in such a haphazard way, as the end result transformed the Dilophosaurus into a totally different creature. I say we should heed her advice if we want to create dinosaurs and not circus freaks.


 * I have returned. I am a king. Therefore, I am THE RETURN OF THE KING!! Speak to me, peasants! 16:58, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I now have my own critique of filling in missing parts of the gene. Genes from unrelated species have been put in other animals, but this is completely different from adding different parts of other genes into one gene. Making a transgenic animal simply involves putting a gene from another species in it, with no add-ins from other species. Let's assume we put a normal chicken gene into a cow. The gene functions as normal. But if we take a piece of DNA from a chicken and put it in the cow gene, it may be a different story. If we assume each gene is a jigsaw puzzle, constructing one gene using DNA from different animals is like completing a jigsaw puzzle using bits and pieces of several different puzzles. It just doesn't work. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:07, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

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. 06:34, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:04, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I've been thinking about what Jhayk said about genetics. Transgenic animals have been made before, but that is a different thing to filling in DNA sequence gaps with the DNA of other animals. Have real scientists actually done this before? I do realize that bird genes are very similar to those of theropods, but what about sauropods and ornithischians? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 13:42, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? You just mentioned that genes have been placed in unrelated species? We don’t know what sauropod genes looked like. But I shouldn’t worry much about genes, they are VERY conserved throughout evolution. It are the regulatory sequences and chromo structure we should be worried about. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:04, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

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. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:16, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I put in a fragment of T. rex collagen protein in the chicken collagen protein. The T. rex amino acids are in lower case and bold.

MFSFVDSRLLLLIAATVLLTRGEGEEDIQTGSCVQDGLTYNDKDVWKPEPCQICVCDSGNILCDEVICED TSDCPNAEIPFGECCPICPDVDASPVYPESAGVEGPKGDTGPRGDRGLPGPPGRDGIPGQPGLPGPPGPP GPPGLGGNFAPQMSYGYDEKSAGVAVPGPMGPAGPRGLPGPPGAPGPQGFQGPPGEPGEPGASGPMGPRG PAGPPGKNGDDGEAGKPGRPGQRGPPGPQGARGLPGTAGLPGMKGHRGFSGLDGAKGQPGPAGPKGEPGS PGENGAPGQMGPRGLPGERGRPGPSGPAGARGNDGAPGAAGPPGPTGPAGPPGFPGAAGAKGETGPQGAR GSEGPQGSRGEPGPPGPAGAAGPAGNPGADGQPGAKGATGAPGIAGAPGFPGARGPSGPQGPSGAPGPKG NSGEPGAPGNKGDTGAKGEPGPAGVQGPPGPAGEEGKRGARGEPGPAGLPGPAGERGAPGSRGFPGADGI AGPKGPPGERGSPGAVGPKGSPGEAGRPGEAGLPGAKGLTGSPGSPGPDGKTGPPGPAGQDGRPGPAGPP GARGQAGVMGFPGPKGAAGEPGKPGERGAPGPPGAVGAAGKDGEAGAQGPPGPTGPAGERGEQGPAGAPG FQGLPGPAGPPGEAGKPGEQGVPGNAGAPGPAGARGERGFPGERGVQGPPGPQGPRGANGAPGNDGAKGD AGAPGAPGNEGPPGLEGMPGERGAAGLPGAKGDRGDPGPKGADGAPGKDGLRGLTGPIGPPGPAGAPGDK GEAGPPGPAGPTGARGAPGDRGEPGPPGPAGFAGPPGADGQPGAKGETGDAGAKGDAGPPGPAGPTGAPG PAGZVGAPGPKGARGSAGPPGATGFPGAAGRVGPPGPSGNIGLPGPPGPAGKZGSKGPRGETGPAGRPGE PGPAGPPGPPGEKGSPGADGPIGAPGTPGPQGIAGQRGVVGLPGQRGERGFPGLPGPSGEPGKQGPSGAS GERGPPGPMGPPGLAGPPGEAGREGAPGAEGAPGRDGAAGPKGDRGETGPAGPPGAPGAPGAPGPVGPAG KNGDRGETGPAGPAGPPGPAGARGPAGPQGPRGDKGETGEQGDRGMKGHRGFSGLQGPPGPPGAPGEQGP SGASGPAGPRGPPGStgapgiagapgfpgargaPGPRGRTGEVGPVGPPGPPGPPGPPGPPSGGFDLSFL PQPPQEKAHDGGRYYRADDANVMRDRDLEVDTTLKSLSQQIENIRSPEGTRKNPARTCRDLKMCHGDWKS GEYWIDPNQGCNLDAIKVYCNMETGETCVYPTQATIAQKNWYLSKNPKEKKHVWFGETMSDGFQFEYGGE GSNPADVAIQLTFLRLMSTEATQNVTYHCKNSVAYMDHDTGNLKKALLLQGANEIEIRAEGNSRFTYGVT EDGCTSHTGAWGKTVIEYKTTKTSRLPIIDLAPMDVGAPDQEFGIDIGPVCFL

Right now it is basically just chicken collagen with some basic changes done to it. It may or may not be functional. If the protein was translated into DNA, someone could synthesize the gene and transfect it to look for it's function. Unfortunately, nobody here can do this. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 10:04, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

When a mouse gene was put into a fly, the flies grew functional eyes. The problem was that the eyes grew all over the wings, legs, body and other places on the flies, not just the head. Was this because of the genes having evolved seperately for so long, or was this a problem with the regulating DNA? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:23, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Here is the protein translated into DNA.

ATGTTYWSNTTYGTNGAYWSNMGNYTNYTNYTNYTNATHGCNGCNACNGTNYTNYTNACN MGNGGNGARGGNGARGARGAYATHCARACNGGNWSNTGYGTNCARGAYGGNYTNACNTAY AAYGAYAARGAYGTNTGGAARCCNGARCCNTGYCARATHTGYGTNTGYGAYWSNGGNAAY ATHYTNTGYGAYGARGTNATHTGYGARGAYACNWSNGAYTGYCCNAAYGCNGARATHCCN TTYGGNGARTGYTGYCCNATHTGYCCNGAYGTNGAYGCNWSNCCNGTNTAYCCNGARWSN GCNGGNGTNGARGGNCCNAARGGNGAYACNGGNCCNMGNGGNGAYMGNGGNYTNCCNGGN CCNCCNGGNMGNGAYGGNATHCCNGGNCARCCNGGNYTNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCN GGNCCNCCNGGNYTNGGNGGNAAYTTYGCNCCNCARATGWSNTAYGGNTAYGAYGARAAR WSNGCNGGNGTNGCNGTNCCNGGNCCNATGGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNMGNGGNYTNCCNGGN CCNCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNCCNCARGGNTTYCARGGNCCNCCNGGNGARCCNGGNGARCCN GGNGCNWSNGGNCCNATGGGNCCNMGNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNAARAAYGGNGAY GAYGGNGARGCNGGNAARCCNGGNMGNCCNGGNCARMGNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCARGGN GCNMGNGGNYTNCCNGGNACNGCNGGNYTNCCNGGNATGAARGGNCAYMGNGGNTTYWSN GGNYTNGAYGGNGCNAARGGNCARCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNAARGGNGARCCNGGNWSN CCNGGNGARAAYGGNGCNCCNGGNCARATGGGNCCNMGNGGNYTNCCNGGNGARMGNGGN MGNCCNGGNCCNWSNGGNCCNGCNGGNGCNMGNGGNAAYGAYGGNGCNCCNGGNGCNGCN GGNCCNCCNGGNCCNACNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNTTYCCNGGNGCNGCNGGNGCN AARGGNGARACNGGNCCNCARGGNGCNMGNGGNWSNGARGGNCCNCARGGNWSNMGNGGN GARCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNGCNGCNGGNCCNGCNGGNAAYCCNGGNGCNGAY GGNCARCCNGGNGCNAARGGNGCNACNGGNGCNCCNGGNATHGCNGGNGCNCCNGGNTTY CCNGGNGCNMGNGGNCCNWSNGGNCCNCARGGNCCNWSNGGNGCNCCNGGNCCNAARGGN AAYWSNGGNGARCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNAAYAARGGNGAYACNGGNGCNAARGGNGARCCN GGNCCNGCNGGNGTNCARGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNGARGARGGNAARMGNGGNGCN MGNGGNGARCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNYTNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNGARMGNGGNGCNCCNGGN WSNMGNGGNTTYCCNGGNGCNGAYGGNATHGCNGGNCCNAARGGNCCNCCNGGNGARMGN GGNWSNCCNGGNGCNGTNGGNCCNAARGGNWSNCCNGGNGARGCNGGNMGNCCNGGNGAR GCNGGNYTNCCNGGNGCNAARGGNYTNACNGGNWSNCCNGGNWSNCCNGGNCCNGAYGGN AARACNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCARGAYGGNMGNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCCN GGNGCNMGNGGNCARGCNGGNGTNATGGGNTTYCCNGGNCCNAARGGNGCNGCNGGNGAR CCNGGNAARCCNGGNGARMGNGGNGCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGCNGTNGGNGCNGCNGGN AARGAYGGNGARGCNGGNGCNCARGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNACNGGNCCNGCNGGNGARMGN GGNGARCARGGNCCNGCNGGNGCNCCNGGNTTYCARGGNYTNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCN CCNGGNGARGCNGGNAARCCNGGNGARCARGGNGTNCCNGGNAAYGCNGGNGCNCCNGGN CCNGCNGGNGCNMGNGGNGARMGNGGNTTYCCNGGNGARMGNGGNGTNCARGGNCCNCCN GGNCCNCARGGNCCNMGNGGNGCNAAYGGNGCNCCNGGNAAYGAYGGNGCNAARGGNGAY GCNGGNGCNCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNAAYGARGGNCCNCCNGGNYTNGARGGNATGCCNGGN GARMGNGGNGCNGCNGGNYTNCCNGGNGCNAARGGNGAYMGNGGNGAYCCNGGNCCNAAR GGNGCNGAYGGNGCNCCNGGNAARGAYGGNYTNMGNGGNYTNACNGGNCCNATHGGNCCN CCNGGNCCNGCNGGNGCNCCNGGNGAYAARGGNGARGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGN CCNACNGGNGCNMGNGGNGCNCCNGGNGAYMGNGGNGARCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCN GGNTTYGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGCNGAYGGNCARCCNGGNGCNAARGGNGARACNGGNGAY GCNGGNGCNAARGGNGAYGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNACNGGNGCNCCNGGN CCNGCNGGNGTNGGNGCNCCNGGNCCNAARGGNGCNMGNGGNWSNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGN GCNACNGGNTTYCCNGGNGCNGCNGGNMGNGTNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNWSNGGNAAYATH GGNYTNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNAARGGNWSNAARGGNCCNMGNGGNGARACN GGNCCNGCNGGNMGNCCNGGNGARCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGAR AARGGNWSNCCNGGNGCNGAYGGNCCNATHGGNGCNCCNGGNACNCCNGGNCCNCARGGN ATHGCNGGNCARMGNGGNGTNGTNGGNYTNCCNGGNCARMGNGGNGARMGNGGNTTYCCN GGNYTNCCNGGNCCNWSNGGNGARCCNGGNAARCARGGNCCNWSNGGNGCNWSNGGNGAR MGNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNATGGGNCCNCCNGGNYTNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGARGCNGGN MGNGARGGNGCNCCNGGNGCNGARGGNGCNCCNGGNMGNGAYGGNGCNGCNGGNCCNAAR GGNGAYMGNGGNGARACNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNGCN CCNGGNCCNGTNGGNCCNGCNGGNAARAAYGGNGAYMGNGGNGARACNGGNCCNGCNGGN CCNGCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNGCNGGNGCNMGNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNCARGGNCCNMGN GGNGAYAARGGNGARACNGGNGARCARGGNGAYMGNGGNATGAARGGNCAYMGNGGNTTY WSNGGNYTNCARGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNGCNCCNGGNGARCARGGNCCNWSNGGN GCNWSNGGNCCNGCNGGNCCNMGNGGNCCNCCNGGNWSNACNGGNGCNCCNGGNATHGCN GGNGCNCCNGGNTTYCCNGGNGCNMGNGGNGCNCCNGGNCCNMGNGGNMGNACNGGNGAR GTNGGNCCNGTNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNGGNCCNCCNWSN GGNGGNTTYGAYYTNWSNTTYYTNCCNCARCCNCCNCARGARAARGCNCAYGAYGGNGGN MGNTAYTAYMGNGCNGAYGAYGCNAAYGTNATGMGNGAYMGNGAYYTNGARGTNGAYACN ACNYTNAARWSNYTNWSNCARCARATHGARAAYATHMGNWSNCCNGARGGNACNMGNAAR AAYCCNGCNMGNACNTGYMGNGAYYTNAARATGTGYCAYGGNGAYTGGAARWSNGGNGAR TAYTGGATHGAYCCNAAYCARGGNTGYAAYYTNGAYGCNATHAARGTNTAYTGYAAYATG GARACNGGNGARACNTGYGTNTAYCCNACNCARGCNACNATHGCNCARAARAAYTGGTAY YTNWSNAARAAYCCNAARGARAARAARCAYGTNTGGTTYGGNGARACNATGWSNGAYGGN TTYCARTTYGARTAYGGNGGNGARGGNWSNAAYCCNGCNGAYGTNGCNATHCARYTNACN TTYYTNMGNYTNATGWSNACNGARGCNACNCARAAYGTNACNTAYCAYTGYAARAAYWSN GTNGCNTAYATGGAYCAYGAYACNGGNAAYYTNAARAARGCNYTNYTNYTNCARGGNGCN AAYGARATHGARATHMGNGCNGARGGNAAYWSNMGNTTYACNTAYGGNGTNACNGARGAY GGNTGYACNWSNCAYACNGGNGCNTGGGGNAARACNGTNATHGARTAYAARACNACNAAR ACNWSNMGNYTNCCNATHATHGAYYTNGCNCCNATGGAYGTNGGNGCNCCNGAYCARGAR TTYGGNATHGAYATHGGNCCNGTNTGYTTYYTNTRR

The next step is to turn the non-ATGC letters into nucleotides. Since the gene is so large, I don't think I'm about to do that. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:42, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Regulatory sequences
A critic on JPL posted this. "Even if you could manage to reconstruct a complete collagen molecule, you're not looking at a complete gene; the parts of the gene that form the protein are only a very small portion of the functional pieces of the gene (which include all sorts of regulatory sequences that determine how the gene is transcribed, where it's transcribed, and what parts are transcribed). Even then, we're still stuck with the fact that collagen is one of probably nearly 20,000+ genes, and is one of the most structurally conservative genes out there. The vast majority of genes are not going to leave reconstructable proteins, and even then, in the important ones, the protein itself is less important than where and when the protein is made in the body, and that information is only going to be found in the genome."

If this is true, creating dinosaur genes might be a lot harder than I thought. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:32, March 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it IS true. The amount of protein produced in a cell is regulated by other DNA sequences like TATA boxes, promoters, enhancers, insulators, si-RNA's etc etc etc. These non-coding sequences will be much more important than the protein sequence.


 * What I hope is that those regulating sequences will be preserved in bones and amber. I think that the main use of the protein sequences will be to identify the species of the DNA found in amber and bones. MismeretMonk (talk) 14:45, March 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Let it be known that once we completely understand how genes are regulated, we can just design all the regulatory sequences for our dinosaur by ourselves. But that might take another century of research. MismeretMonk (talk) 14:45, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

We would still use the retro-translated proteins in creating the dinosaur genome, right? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:24, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Would it work to use regulatory sequences of birds if we can't find dinosaur sequences? Or would it simply make the collagen non-functional? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:58, March 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Scientists have used regulatory sequences of viruses to regulate plant genes, and the proteins still work perfectly. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:36, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * If I would create small theropods, I think the regulation of most genes could stay the same. MismeretMonk (talk) 18:36, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

If regulatory sequences of viruses can be functional in plants, then I don't think we should restrict the bird sequences to small theropods. Bird genes could be used for ALL dinosaurs. Viruses aren't even thought to be true lifeforms by most scientists, meaning that they are completely different from plants. Or would it be restricted to small theropods because of the size of the animal? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:10, March 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it is not that easy. I wrote that to show that if you combine a virus regulator with a dino gene, the gene will still be fully functional. However, the regulators will determine how much of what protein is produced at what time. THIS is what really determines what the animal will look like. It are these sequences that Jack Horner will have to play with to change wings in arms with claws. So, we really need the dinosaur regulators. If we use regulators from crocodiles, we will clone crocodiles. MismeretMonk (talk) 13:41, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

If we can find normal DNA and proteins in fossils and amber, I'm pretty sure we can find the regulators. Like all DNA specimens, they will probably be fragmented, but it shouldn't be too hard to piece the fragments together as long as said fragments are from the same species. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:56, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Chromosome structure
We shouldn't worry about genes, it is the non-coding DNA we should be worried about. As I've written in Filling the sequence gaps, chromosomes are also quite similar in archosaurs. Chromosome 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Z are very similar in overall architecture between turtles and ratites. If parts of those chromosomes are missing in the extracted DNA, I would just fill that gap with chromosome pieces of turtles/ostriches. However, scientists have never done anything like this before. MismeretMonk (talk) 17:42, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Ouangraoua and her team made a very complete prediction what the chromosomes looked like of the ancestor of all amniotes (reptiles, birds and mammals). They calculated 41 ancestral chromosomes, with an overlap of 75% with the chicken genomes and 67% with the human genome. With the same technique the chromosome structure of the anscestral bird and archosaur could be calculated.

I read that paper, and I didn't find anything about an ancestral archosaur chromosome. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. Where exactly does it say that?

The Z chromosome in reptiles and birds is still conserved after 275 million years of evolution. In the case of the Z chromosome, it may be possible to fill in the gaps with lizard and croc DNA, not just bird DNA. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:59, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Creating chromosomes
Imagine that we would have figured out the code of all the chromosomes of a dinosaurs. We would now have to change that digital code into actual chromosomes. How would we do that.

DNA synthesis
DNA can be created from lose nucleotides with machines. However, these machines can only create fragments of 200 nucleotides long. These fragments can be linked into larger fragments.

However, there is no technology yet to create a string of 186 million base pairs (length of dino chromosome 4).

Chromatin creation
If we would have synthesized the long strings of DNA. We must change this naked DNA into. A large number of histones and other proteins have to bind on the DNA and from complexes with each other.

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)

Here are mitochondrial genomes of the painted turtle and the ostrich. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:34, April 17, 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 not 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)

In the future, a more extreme version of the Chickenosaurus project could be possible. Lee Silver writes this in his book Challenging Nature. "...evolutionary developmental geneticists believe that comparisons of DNA in birds and reptiles -on either side of the evolutionary line leading to dinosaurs- could provide some, although not complete, insight into the extinct genome of dinosaurs. Genetic, developmental, and evolutionary understanding and data could be combined with molecular understanding to allow rational design of a dinosaur on a computer. Starting with a virtual chicken genome, virtual genetic changes could be implemented to increase overall adult size, eliminate feathers and restore scales, turn wings back into elongated front and back legs, and mold the virtual animal into a reasonable facsimile of a particular dinosaur, such as a giant long-necked apatosaurus, a triceratops, or even a Tyrannosaurus rex. The designed electronic genome would be converted into organic DNA with nano-DNA writing machines that automatically link up thousands of smaller DNA fragments into whole chromosomes. The genome would then be inserted into a chicken egg devoid of its own DNA -in an advanced version of the process that created Dolly- and presto, dinosaur facsimiles."

I think that if we can't find enough ancient dinosaur DNA to clone the actual animal, this method could be used as a last resort. It wouldn't be an actual non-avian dinosaur, but close enough. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:25, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * And WHY wouldn't it be a non-avian dinosaur? MismeretMonk (talk) 17:45, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it would just be a dinosaur-mimic and not a true dinosaur. It would be like a speculative drawing come to life, but not a true dinosaur. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 13:49, March 28, 2013 (MDT)


 * The chickenosaurus will have more primitive versions of its gene regulation, showing ANCESTRAL not artificial traits. If there is a theropod that has no wings, but claws... it is both genetically as morphologically a genuine non-avian dinosaur. If it isn't, than what IS it. A "dinosaur-mimic"? A "speculative drawing come to life"? In this project the OLDER VERSIONS of gene regulation are brought back, it is an atavism. When by pure chance the regained their ability to grow claws... Should we call those claws "claw-mimics" of "drawings-of-claws-come-to-life". Do we have to invent new taxonomic names for identical creatures of which the only real difference is that humans were infolved in their creation? MismeretMonk (talk) 21:44, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Tell me. What ARE the characteristics of a non-avian dinosaur. Tell me what the characteristics are of a finished chickenosaur. And give me one morphologic reason those creatures belong to different taxa. MismeretMonk (talk) 21:44, March 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hoatzin claws are not unique. Ostriches have claws as well. And having characteristics of your ancestor is different from actually BEING your ancestor. That's like calling a dolphin a prehistoric cetacean because it has rear flippers from atavism, or calling a human an Australopithecus because it inherits gene regulation from them. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:07, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right. The Chickenosaurus may be a non-avian theropod after all. But what about the hips? Modern bird hips are different to non-avian theropod hips. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:10, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

I just realized something. If the Chickenosaurus is a genuine non-avian dinosaur, and it could indeed be created in 5 to 10 years, does that mean a real Jurassic Park could start construction next decade? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 11:44, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that the tooth gene in chickens kills them before they hatch. Can the gene be made non-lethal, or will we have to skip the teeth altogether? And I'm curious to see the regulatory proteins and sequences. Are they on NCBI? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:15, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, birds cannot develop functional teeth with enamel. The teeth developed in embryos were merely useless tooth buds. But even if the tooth enamel genes in chickens have disappeared or become pseudogenes, would it be possible to make the pseudogenes functional again? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:56, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Here is an DNA sequence in the chicken that used to be functional enamelin. Over time, it has become a pseudogene. But if we can find out what made it non-functional, could we potentially undo the point mutations and turn it into a functional gene again? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:02, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I just compared chicken enamelin with crocodile enamelin on Clustal Omega. It turns out that the chicken enamelin has LOTS of gaps in it. It also has quite a few differences, so I think there will also be a lot of point mutations to detect. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 06:15, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

In Lee Silver's book, what else is mentioned about creating dinosaurs and other extinct animals? That quote is just a small excerpt. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:53, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Is the Chickenosaurus a real non-avian dinosaur?
I thought I'd add a nice sub-section where we can debate if the Chickenosaurus is a real dinosaur. MismeretMonk says yes, because it would have the ancestral characteristics of one, but most other people say it would simply be a weird collection of dinosaur parts. I too believe that it is a real dinosaur, but to be pretty honest I feel pretty unsure about it. Jack Horner himself says that it would simply be a modified bird. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 11:08, March 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, even if it was identical to a non-avian dinosaur in every aspect, I wouldn't call it a dinosaur. I would call it a freak. Unless it can reproduce and survive, it will just be one really mucked-up chicken. If it is allowed to grow and reproduce on it's own, and if it can grow and evolve, then maybe, just maybe we could call it a neo-dinosaur. Let me put it another way - if a man was born with gills, would he be a new species? Would we have to share the planet with Homo aquaticus? Or would he just be a mutant?


 * And should we really trust the opinion of the man who said a Spinosaurus could kill a Tyrannosaurus rex? ;D


 * I have returned. I am a king. Therefore, I am THE RETURN OF THE KING!! Speak to me, peasants! 17:09, April 9, 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,

Bogus! In vitro fertilization is possible in birds (see Chick production by in vitro fertilization of the fowl ovum) The aim of this study was to produce viable chicks by removing egg cells from hens and fertilize them with sperm, afterwards the fertilized egg cells were transfered to the oviduct of recipient hens. This worked well.

If this is possible I refuse to believe we can't extract an ovum and perform nuclear transfer, and let the egg develop around it afterwards.

because the yoke is too fragile

What is "yoke"? Do they mean "yolk"? There is no yolk at the ovum stage.

and the avian ovum's pronuclei cannot be visualized for microinjection,

Liu and colleagues were able to extract nuclei from chicken cells and transplant them into rabbit oocytes. This proves that it is possible to see the nucleus in avian cells and extract and transplant them.

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)

I've heard that they tried, but the attempts failed because the bird genes were too unstable.

I once looked into that. I couldn't find ANY evidence people ever seriously tried to clone birds/reptiles. Some sites misinterpreted that as no-one-ever-succeeded in cloning birds/reptiles. 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. MismeretMonk (talk) 00:15, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

This article says that nuclear transfer between distantly related species may not work after all. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:55, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange, this review paper from 2009 said that rabbit-human clones resulted in cells showed correct gene expressing and cell differentiation.


 * Zeki Beyhan, Amy E. Iager, Jose B. Cibelli (2007). Interspecies Nuclear Transfer: Implications for Embryonic Stem Cell Biology, Cell Stem Cell, Vol. 1, pp. 502-512


 * Lets see what they discovered in the three years since this article. MismeretMonk (talk) 07:17, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think that paper is citing another paper from 2003 by Chen et al. Stem cell research in China is pretty shady, and sometimes faked entirely. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:23, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

Where is the picture? I can't find it anywhere. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 14:37, March 17, 2013

Here:. It's longer than an ostrich egg and almost as wide. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:30, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me a bit like a emu's egg, only bigger. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 22:41, March 17, 2013 (Colorado, USA, Time)

Elephant Bird Eggs
Another possible egg could be used to hatch medium to large-sized dinosaurs, and would also require cloning an extinct animal: Aepyornis maximus, or the elephant bird. So far, no-one has yet found dinosaur eggs of greater size, and the elephant bird only died out around the same time as the dodo. Many non-fossil, subfossil, and fossil eggshells exist alongside many bones, so maybe it could be cloned. This would allow the use of elephant bird eggs to hatch large theropods, ceratopsians, other large dinosaurs, and likely even most sauropods, as the eggs' size is approximately 30 cm. (1 foot) long/tall and 21 cm. wide, with a volume of around 160 times that of a chicken's egg. Mr. Guest  10:31, March 29, 2013 (Colorado, USA, Time)

Eeyup, elephant bird eggs would be good for large theropods. But we don't have much DNA from the elephant bird, and we don't have an extant egg large enough to house the embryo. We could use the chimera method, but if the ostrich chimera is the same size as an ostrich it might have trouble laying the elephant bird egg. The egg could even get stuck and the chimera would die. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:52, March 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * But there is one thing that I'm pretty sure that not a lot of us think of. That is that Moas and Elephant birds actually lay eggs that are bigger than any dinosaur egg ever laid. We would be dealing with that the egg could be too big for even a sauropod embryo. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 9:00, March 30, 2013 (MDT)

False. Gigantoraptor eggs were way bigger than any modern bird eggs. They laid eggs that were 60 centimeters long, so their embryos are way too big for any egg. Sauropod eggs were around the same size as moa eggs. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:10, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about cloning dinosaurs, Jurassic Park Treasury. That will be possible, but right now the DNA is very fragmented and in tiny supply. I think that by the time we have a dinosaur embryo to put in an egg, elephant birds will have been recreated. However, you do have a point with the egg getting stuck while the chimaera is laying it. That could possibly be resolved by using either moas laying the elephant bird eggs (moa/elephant bird chimaera) or by using large ostriches (elephant bird/ostrich chimaera). This is stretching it a bit, but it may even be possible to place the embryo of the elephant bird in an artificial egg, like InGen did in Jurassic Park. Could that even be done? Mr. Guest  7:17, April 27, 2013 (MDT).

The problem with artificial eggs is that you would need the hormones to help the dinosaur embryos develop properly and we have no idea what kind of hormones and/how much of these hormones are need. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 8:21, April 28, 2013 (MDT)

The way I see this, dinosaur growth and development hormones (or elephant growth/development hormones) should be rediscovered along with the rest of the genome. I may be incorrect though. Another thing: do you think that dinosaur embryos that should be in their normal size/shaped eggs (e.g. Gigantoraptor or extremely large sauropod embryos) would conform to the incorrect egg shape if there was enough room? Or would artificial eggs be the only option? Mr. Guest  9:03, April 28, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Chimera
There might be another possibility of how to resurrect 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)


 * I have shown above that there is no evidence we can't clone egg-laying animals. Everything upc-online.org claims is nonsense. MismeretMonk (talk) 09:06, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Paper about chicken-houbara chimeras: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:58, March 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice, quite fascinating! Only one chick came out of it alive, but its a definite good deal. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 12:25, March 18, 2013 (Mountain time)


 * THAT is unexpected! The Houbara Bustard and Chicken belong to different Orders! If that is possible, raptor-ostrich chimeras could in theory be made. That solves the whole EGG thing :) MismeretMonk (talk) 08:56, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I just came across another problem. Chimeras are created by fusing embryos, correct? We would only have the dinosaur DNA. To create a dinosaur embryo we would have to put the dinosaur nucelus in an egg. So we would still need eggs before we could use the chimera method. Maybe we could use the chimera method if the dinosaur embryo in the ostrich egg fails to develop into a baby? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:54, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that problem went across my mind today. Well, could you get a embryo to develop outside an egg (like on a dish) for a few days and then use the embryo's reproductive cells? Or does it have to be in a egg?

Yeah, and we could do that as well, Jurassic Park Treasury. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 22:03, March 19, 2013 (MDT)

Yeah, I guess we could create an embryo in a dish. I forgot about that option. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:48, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'd talked to my boss (who is a vet) about it and he told me that, in the case of horse and cattle (if not mammals in general) cells, you can do the fertilization in a dish, let the egg develop into a embryo, and they stay and develop there for only up to 10-11 days, until they need to be inserted into the womb. But during that time, you have to keep it well incubated and in a CO2 and Oxygen controlled environment. He doesn't know about doing it with birds (for that he doesn't do embryo deals with birds and because of the laying egg deal), but I thought that I should bring it up. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 17:21, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

According to this paper, chick embryos CAN be grown in vitro. So we have the embryo thing covered. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:09, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, so the steps might be simple, maybe like this:


 * Extract DNA from your source.
 * If incomplete, insert related genes and whatnot.
 * Insert it within unfertilized egg of a ostrich/emu/moa.
 * Give it a electric shock to stimulate embryonic development.
 * Let the embryo develop in the dish for days or so.
 * Take an ostrich/emu/moa embryo and remove the cells that become the reproductive system with those from the dinosaur embryo.
 * Place the ostrich embryo into egg and let it hatch and develop.


 * When it reaches sexual maturity, get the female dinobird chimera mated with a male dinobird chimera.


 * Female will lay eggs (most might be infertile).


 * After weeks/months of incubation, you get your dinosaurs (alive and healthy or died at birth)!

PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 21:33, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

Also, I believe that the Chimera is more effective on bringing not just dinosaurs, but a whole load of extinct animal, than cloning. Why? Because in cloning, you're only bringing an individual back, whereas in using the Chimera method, you're bringing back a species back. In cloning, you use a lot of money bring an extinct individual back and there's a great chance that the individual won't survive. Whereas in using the Chimera method, you would create an individual of a surviving species with the reproductive organs of an extinct species. And when you mate it with another chimera, you will possibly get the offspring of the extinct species. If you didn't succeed the first time, you can just do it again and you would get the offspring. And you can keep doing it again and again, until the end of the chimera's productive life. By that time, you will have bunch of individual animals to start a breeding population. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 10:26, March 30, 2013 (MDT)

The chimera method will probably only work for deinonychosaurs though, since they are both paraves. I doubt you would be able to create a T. rex through the chimera method, for example. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:59, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Creating a real Jurassic Park
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)

I've had this idea in my head for a while. Another idea would be to create a Chickenosaurus with a few dinosaur genes, such as the T. rex collagen type |, alpha 1. We would need to complete those genes first, but I think that could be done in a few decades. It would be both physically and genetically different from Jack Horner's Chickenosaurus though, due to having a few actual non-avian dinosaur genes and changed genetic heredity. It would be modified to be more similar to a typical small theropod as well. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:52, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Something has been worrying me for a while, so I might as well post it. As we know, cloning dinosaurs IS possible. However, WILL it happen? With the amount of skeptics out there, and the report on DNA half-life, I think scientists have lost hope. Schweitzer and her team seem to be the only ones out there still looking for biomolecules in dinosaur fossils. If scientists lose hope, then nobody is going to try. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:57, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaurs we could create
I thought it would be a good idea to come up with a list of dinosaurs we could create. MismeretMonk doubts that we would be able to find enough DNA to clone one specific dinosaur species, but we might be able to fill in the DNA sequence gaps with the DNA of birds and similar dinosaurs.


 * Ratitosaurus: Idea by MismeretMonk. This would basically be a modified ostrich with a tail and hands, with a number of Ornithomimus/Struthiomimus/Gallimimus genes added to it. Also, many of the ostrich genes are replaced with genes that were present in the last common ancestor of all modern birds.
 * Chickenosaurus: Idea by Jack Horner. Not a true non-avian theropod, but just a chicken with hands, a tail and teeth.
 * "Velociraptor": Idea by Jurassic Park Treasury. A theropod created from a genome made by using genes from Velociraptor and the last common ancestor of all birds. See my blog post.
 * "Tyrannosaurus": Idea by Jurassic Park Treasury. A tyrannosaur created using DNA fragments of T. rex and Tarbosaurus, with DNA of modern birds used to fill in the sequence gaps.
 * Primosaurus: Idea by Jurassic Park Treasury. An ancestral dinosaur/archosaur created by comparing genes of modern archosaurs.
 * Brontosaurus: Idea by MismeretMonk. A sauropod created using DNA fragments of Diplodocus and Apatosaurus.
 * Dynamosaurus rex: Idea by MismeretMonk. A tyrannosaur created using DNA fragments of T. rex, Allosaurus and Giganotosaurus.
 * Rostrosaurus: Idea by MismeretMonk. A small herbivore created from DNA fragments of Heterodontosaurus and Pisanosaurus.
 * "Hadrosaurus": Idea by Jurassic Park Treasury. A hadrosaur created using DNA fragments of Brachylophosaurus and Edmontosaurus. Has very little to do with the actual Hadrosaurus.
 * "Omniceratops": Idea by PonchoFirewalker01. With it's name meaning "every horned face", it's basically a ceratopsian with the genetic material of mutliple species of ceratopsians (such as Triceratops, Styracosaurus, and Protoceratops).
 * Wellsogallus: Idea by MismeretMonk. A giant version of Ratitosaurus.
 * Megavarana: Idea by MismeretMonk. A giant Komodo dragon resembling a slightly oversized megalania.
 * Titanosuchus: Idea by Jurassic Park Treasury. A massive alligator resembling Deinosuchus. Several genes from the last common ancestor of all modern crocodilians are added to it.

Share your idea and I will add it to the list.


 * Tell me why the Chickenosaurus isn't a true non-avian theropod? MismeretMonk (talk) 08:20, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I think Horner only wants to change their physical appearance. We could turn it into an actual theropod by changing the alleles, but I don't think he plans on doing that. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:25, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I think I will put some of the dinosaurs in your JP remake idea on the list, but only the ones which specify which DNA was used in their creation. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:41, March 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * But I think a "true brontosaurus" would be created via mixing the DNA of an Apatosaurus and a Camarasaurus (and not diplodocus), ya know? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 21:22, March 29, 2013 (MDT)

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)

Will you take part in any of this?
I think all of us would like to recreate a dinosaur someday. While it is unlikely that any of us will get to own our own Jurassic Park due to financial reasons, I think we could help with certain parts of it. I plan to become a paleontologist, so perhaps I could find proteins and DNA in dinosaur bones and amber in a similar manner to Mary Schweitzer. What about you? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:51, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

My part would be pretty obvious. The part I will take to tending to the care of the resulting dinosaurs, from the day of birth to old age. I will take part in feeding, cleaning, training, enrichment, and designing their exhibits. At least, thats what I will do. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 21:23, March 24, 2013 (MDT)

So you want to be Dr. Harding?

I have returned. I am a king. Therefore, I am THE RETURN OF THE KING!! Speak to me, peasants! 17:22, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be the vet, more like a keeper and a behaviorist. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 06:26, April 24, 2013 (MDT)

Cloned extinct species
I think it is nice for the discussion if we would have a list of all the extinct/endangered species that are cloned or in the process of getting cloned.

I find it hilarious that just 13 years ago, most scientists said that extinction was permanent and that no extinct animal could be brought back to life, no matter how recently it became extinct. I would have loved to see the look on their faces when the Pyrenean ibex was cloned. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 07:39, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be fair, I think that with several species and groups (like therapsids, trilobites, etc.), extinction might be permanent. And, there are species that we did wiped out, but didn't collect their bodies, so we would've have their genetic material. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:17, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

Of course, I doubt we will be able to clone therapsids, trilobites and other creatures. The extinction of icthyosaurs, ammonites, belemnites and megalodon are probably permanent as well, though we might be able to get a few DNA fragments from the latter. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:33, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Probably for the best, especially for the marine animals you've mentioned. It's would be a relatively miserable captive existence for the dinosaurs and keeping them in captivity, but it might be worst for the marine animals. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 20:15, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

Megalodons might still have a place in today's oceans. And dinosaurs wouldn't be any more miserable in captivity than any other animal. Zoo animals are usually pretty happy, and many make bonds with the zookeepers. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:34, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the megalodon's main food source were the whales and after countless generations of the absence of that predator, I'm pretty sure that today's whales can't handle the megalodon (especially with the commercial whale hunters on their tails).

True, animals can be pretty happy in zoos and develop bonds with the keepers, but there are species that don't do well in captivity and we have no idea which species of dinosaurs are good in captivity and which are not. Also, even with the best enrichment and whatnot, a load of animals would stereotype (consist on repetitive behavior, due to stress) a lot and that will be mentioned in my book. The worst cases of stereotypic behavior comes from large predators (bears, big cats, etc.) and large herbivores (Elephants mostly). PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 20:45, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

I found an article saying that we cannot clone ANY ancient creature with modern technology. This includes mammoths. I think this is bullshit, but I'd like opinions. Note that by 'ancient organism', it means things like dinosaurs and mammoths, not recently extinct species. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:40, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Extinct frogs
Speaking of cloning amphibians, I just found an article about cloning an extinct frog! Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 05:33, March 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that one. It is a nice project! MismeretMonk (talk) 09:04, March 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, I'm not too surprised they'd clone extinct frogs next. If I remember correctly, amphibians were among the first vertebrates to be cloned (in 1952, by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King), over half a century before Dolly, right? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 08:52, March 17, 2013 (CO time)


 * I always figured that the first extinct creature to be resurrected for any significant period of time would be a frog. Many species have become extinct in recent times (like the gastric brooding frog and the golden toad), so genetic material is more easily available. It's easier to clone amphibians anyway, and there is a motive to do so thanks to a dangerous strain of fungus that is wiping out a lot of frogs. Styracosaurus Rider (Contact me) A mole of moles means what? 18:55, March 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the embryos stopped dividing early, but they did divide some. Maybe in the next year that gastric brooding frog will be brought back to life. Mr. Guest  5:56, April 27, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Woolly mammoth
We have to list this one here. I doubt we will be able to clone a mammoth in 2015 like the Japanese scientists said, but I do believe it will be done before 2040. We already have a lot of mammoth DNA: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * If I remember, one of the possible ways that the Japanese hope to bring back the mammoth is by hybridizing the mammoth DNA (via frozen sperm) with an Asian elephant, so that when the female hybrid (female hybrid are usually fertile) reaches sexual maturity, it will inserted with another set of mammoth sperm, to produce a more mammoth-like offspring. They will continue doing it again and agin, until they have a 99.99% Woolly Mammoth (it could never be 100%).

While this technique is interesting, it does have problems. One, ancient, defrosted sperm would probably not survive well enough to fertilize an egg. Second, even we are just starting to AI (Artificial Insemination) on elephants, it doesn't have as much an success rate as with cattle or horses (at least, not yet). Third, if you were able to get a hybrid offspring, it would suffer a side-effect of being a hybrid. And finally, even if it is nice and healthy, considering the pachyderm's lifestyle and readiness to mate, it would take more than half a century to complete such a project. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:17 (Colorado time), March 17, 2013

The other option is to create a mammoth nucleus and put it in an elephant egg cell. I think that's a more realisitc option. The problem is that it is notoriously hard to fertilize elephants because they only breed once every couple of years or so, most wild elephants get pregnant quickly after they come into heat, and the elephant vagina is very deep, meaning that inserting the nucleus could be difficult. However, I don't think it's impossible. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:41, March 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it'll be a long time before we could clone a woolly mammoth and another issue to consider is that elephants are endangered and with that issue around, I highly doubt that anyone would want to use a whole bunch of elephant cows just to clone a extinct one.

And as a side note, it might be possible to use the chimera technique to help resurrect these species, don't you think? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 17:08, March 19, 2013 (MDT)

Yes. That would be a lot easier, since embryos can be grown in-vitro. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Pyrenean ibex
The first extinct animal to ever be cloned. They cloned one in 2009, but the kid died after 7 minutes, due to lung defects: Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

They've actually cloned several ibex, but they seemed to have died pretty early because Celia (the last pyrenean ibex, whose cells they'd used) was an old animal and even when frozen, those cells are still decaying.

Another problem, even if they go over the aged cell issue, there's also the issue that the only cells and chromosomes of the ibex that they have obtained was that of a female and they did not obtained the Y chromosome from a male of that species. It seems, at least to me, (unless they have obtained the Y chromosome from mounted specimens) the only way to "resurrect" this species is to crossbred the clones with closely related subspecies. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:38, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

They cloned more than one? Source? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:40, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenean_ibex#Cloning_project PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:52, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

Only one ibex was actually born, though. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:06, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Several were cloned, but only one survived to birth, right? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 20:11, March 20, 2013 (MDT)

Anyway, the ibex can be the first animal use the chimera method on to resurrect her species. Get her clone embryos to develop again, fuse them with an embryo of a domesticated goat, raise the chimera, and use the chimera to bring back her species. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 21:24, March 30, 2013 (MDT)

Moa
Yet another candidate. We have lots of bones and tissue from these birds (I actually found and still own a possible moa bone), and they only died out recently, so we have potential to find lots of DNA from them. A lot of DNA has been sequenced already, though not the entire genome. Due to their size, they could also turn out to be even more impressive if the Chickenosaurus experiment is done on them. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Haast's eagle
The largest eagle that ever lived. Although only 2 DNA sequences and 2 protein sequences have been found, I'm sure scientists can find more. Remember, they only became extinct at around 1500 AD. Harpy eagles, golden eagles and wedge-tailed eagles could be suitable host parents. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 09:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

The different species of moas would have to be cloned as well, as they were the eagles' natural prey. All the species (various moas and Haast's eagles) could then be released into a nature reserve. And about the DNA problem: as you say, the DNA's just waiting for someone to find it. We just have to look in the right places. Mr. Guest  9:24, April 28, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Thylacine
Another cloning candidate, the Thylacine or Tasmanian Tiger, the largest marsupial predator to live until recent history (went extinct at 1936). DNA has been extracted from museum specimens, but are in poor shape. But genes of those specimens have been inserted into mice and proves that old genes can become biologically active again. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk)

I'm a bit more doubtful about the thylacine. The only host I can think of for it is the Tasmanian devil, and even that seems too small. However, I do believe we can create Tasmanian devils and wombats with a few thylacine genes, and we can slowly build up from there. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 00:38, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, size doesn't matter too much in the case of marsupials. When they are born, they're almost the size of a jelly bean. The thylacine pup can stay within the Tasmanian Devil's pouch for an period of time and after that, it could use a artificial pouch and replacement milk. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:07, March 17, 2013 (MDT)

Interesting fact: It turns out that its the numbat (or, aka, the marsupial anteater) that is more closely related to the Thylacine. But due to the numbat's extremely endangered status, we won't be using them anytime soon. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 20:35, March 27, 2013 (MDT)

I'd still use Tasmanian devils. They are predators and their milk would be much better than numbat milk for nutrition. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 02:44, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Smilodon
Smilodon or the sabre-toothed cat (or, incorrectly, tiger) is another possible candidate for cloning. Some DNA samples have been taken from specimens in the La Brea Tar pits (Smilodon fatalis) and from South America (Smilodon populator). PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 7:11, March 21, 2013 (MDT)


 * The possible surrogate mother would be a tiger or a lion, since genetics tell us that the smilodon is not too far away from the Felidae group than we thought . And there are habitats the the smilodon clones can be released to, these places include Yellowstone, Catalina island, and maybe Antelope island (for large populations of bison). Maybe even in areas that have large populations of wild horses (etc. Nevada). PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 9:11, March 23, 2013 (MDT)

Neanderthal
Probably one of the best candidates for cloning, since we have sequenced their entire genome. Of course, cloning such an intelligent species has massive ethical implications. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 20:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Where would we put them? Can we even coexsist alongside them? That is the question.

Mastodon
We have a fair amount of genetic material from this animal. We just have to find more. I'm pretty sure we could make a mastodon/elephant chimera in the same manner as a mammoth/elephant chimera. Then the chimera would give birth to a mastodon. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 20:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, but like the mammoth, it would be a long time before we could do that, mostly due to the elephant's reproduction system. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 17:39, March 21, 2013 (MDT)

Cave lion
Genetic material has also been found from this animal. Siberian tigers would probably be the best surrogate parents for the cave lion. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 20:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Woolly rhinoceros
We have a fair amount of DNA from this animal. However, it's closest living relative is the Sumatran rhinoceros, which is critically endangered, so it will be hard to find a parent/chimera for it. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 20:25, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Heck, the Sumatran rhinoceros is EXTREMELY difficult to breed in captivity, so difficult that (until quite recently) they couldn't breed and reproduce in captivity for over a century! The only parent/chimera species that are in good populations I could think are a subspecies of White Rhino. But even so, we won't be using them for bringing back that Woolly Rhino any time soon. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 17:25, March 21, 2013 (MTD)

Quagga
Some genetic material has been found from this animal. It is also a subspecies of the common plains zebra, which is still common in Africa. So I think resurrecting this one will be easy. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:13, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the quagga project, in South Africa, that is already in place? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 06:55, March 22, 2013 (MDT)

Cave bear
I think that cloning this species will also be easy. We have DNA, and analysis of that DNA suggests that the brown bear is the closest living relative to the cave bear. So all we would need to do is find more DNA, sequence the DNA, synthesize it, put it into a nucleus and use a Kodiak bear as a parent. And of course, we could use the chimera method. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:13, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Man, the chimera method could be used for practically ANY of these species, huh? I wonder why none of the scientists have thought of it? PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 06:58, March 22, 2013 (MDT)

Maybe because they're too distracted by the cloning method. We should really get the word out. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Extinct insects
I think that before we clone dinosaurs, we should start cloning simpler Mesozoic organisms such as insects. If we can find enough DNA in amber from one or two specific insect species, we could clone those species. Fruit flies have been cloned before, so I don't think this will be a difficult task. Maybe pet shops of the future could sell breeding colonies of Lebanorhinus weevils to exotic pet owners, or maybe Dominican bees could be used as laboratory animals. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 08:30, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Baiji
Another good candidate is the baiji. It only became extinct a few years ago, and we still have viable DNA of it. An Amazon river dolphin could be a good host parent. The chimera method could work as well. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 11:10, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea. It;s one of the easiest options on this list, considering that there was a sighting in 2007 and that most of the other ones here have been gone at least 20 years. DNA would be really easy to transfer, and the clone would almost certainly be viable. Mr. Guest  5:58, April 27, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Heck, I'm wondering why scientists aren't thinking about it already. Maybe because the habitat is so polluted that they'll just go extinct again. Maybe they could engineer it to be more pollution-tolerant? Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Or, like the dinosaurs, we could place them in captivity or a specifically engineered environment. I think that the reason they haven't done it yet is the same reason as with the other reasonable ones: there is so much doubt in the possibility of a success that it is "pointless". Hopefully, cloning the gastric brooding frog species would get them reinvigorated. Mr. Guest  9:10, April 28, 2013 (Colorado, USA time)

Heath Hen
This North American scrub bird only went extinct around 1932. It was a subspecies of the Greater Prairie chicken, making it the perfect surrogate/chimaera partner. There are a good anount of stuffed specimens, and DNA could be extracted from the feathers and skin. It's a good idea since it's a recent extinction and a subspecies of greater prairie chicken. Mr. Guest  6:09 April 27, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Elephant Bird
Another large, flightless bird from an island, It only went extinct a few hundred years ago. There are plenty of eggshell pieces, some skeletons, and possibly some mummified pieces preserved in caves. This bird would also be a good idea as a surrogate dinosaur parent, just like with moas, due to its immense eggs. There should be enough DNA across several specimens to either make some clones (ostrich surrogate) or some chimaeras (again, ostriches or other large ratites). Mr. Guest  6:18 April 27, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Madagascar is pretty tropical. Lots of DNA might have degraded. Scientists should still be working on it, though. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Those conditions could also help preserve some types of specimens, such as skin samples that would otherwise crumble to dust. Still, you do have a point. Feathers and other specimens would degrade. However, this is a piece of cake compared to cloning, say, a giant camel or mammoth due to the fact that the elephant bird died out only rather recently. Mr. Guest  9:16, April 28, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Ethical issues of cloning dinosaurs
Article we have to create: Ethical issues of cloning dinosaurs Should we clone dinosaurs? Yes No I've followed a bioethics course a few months ago. I've learned a few methods to analyse these ethical issues. I'll post them here. Let us applay them and see what we can get. MismeretMonk (talk) 08:56, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

This is something called Reflexive equilibrium:



This tool helps to differentiate between moral intuitions, moral relevant facts and moral principles at stake. It is helps to structure the preparatory exploration of the case, before coming to a balanced and nuanced judgment.

Is it morally just clone dinosaurs?

Moral intuition: what they regard as morally problematic, gives an uneasy feel. Write the relevant keywords in the moral intuitions.

Reflect WHERE those intuitions comes from --->

Moral relevant facts: regarding arguments, estimations, hypotheses that can be, in principle, verified; Place these elements in the relevant facts section. Moral principles: regarding arguments that refer to virtues, desired states (consequences), moral rules (respect autonomy, freedom of choice) or (un)fairness (proportionality, balance of cost and benefits). Place the relevant elements in principals section.

Uncatalogued
Let us cut-paste most of these statements to the appropriate sections above, shall we? MismeretMonk (talk) 08:56, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

I personally find it annoying when people say we shouldn't clone dinosaurs because they will "kill us all~", or "destroy ecosystems!". Dinosaurs would be no more dangerous than modern animals. They are animals, and animals die when you shoot them. I think that this sort of irrational fear originates from the fear of the unknown. And large invasive dinosaurs could be controlled very easily. Tyrannosaurs, for example, are not like rats or pigs that breed easily and are hard to catch. They are apex predators, and would find it hard to survive in most places of the world where there is no prey larger than a deer to catch. And if they lived in an open environment such as the Serengeti, they could be spotted and killed easily. Small species such as ornithopods and dromaeosaurs may be harder to control, though. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:37, March 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * While I do agree with you on that, I would however say that some of the those people say do bring up some points.

Mind you, I don't think that ALL of the dinosaurs would be to much of a problem towards our modern animals. For example, the more I understand the dromeosaurs and deinonychus', the more I see that these animals are not the super animals we fear and I think that a lion or a tiger can definitely win on a one-on-one match against them.

If we do clone them, where will we put them? I mean, we obviously can't release them into the wild. Even if they got the skills for survival, they don't have an ecosystem to return to. I mean, the extinct species mentioned earlier actually DO have areas where they can be released at: the mammoth can go to the steppes in Siberia (at the "Pleistocene Park", no doubt), the Thylacine can go back to Tasmania, the Moa can go to the New Zealand mainland or on islands (more for the sake of the Haast's eagle, no one would want that near their sheep), the ibex has the Pyrenean mountains to return to, the frogs have their ponds, and even if you bring back the Smilodon, there might be a place for it in Yellowstone and/or Antelope Island in Utah (for the bison) or even in Nevada (for the mustangs). But there is no place for dinosaurs.

And an island won't do the trick either. Most islands are pretty dang small, maybe only big enough to support herbivores no bigger than a protoceratops or carnivores no bigger than troodon or even compsognathus. And even islands that would support big dinosaurs are heavily colonized (either by cities or tribes) and those people won't want dinosaurs running around on their island. The only way (I believe) you could get such an island is if a whole group of volcanoes erupted at the same time and place in the ocean and after they are done, they might make an island the size of Connecticut or New Jersey. If that happens, you could plant the island with the plants that are native to the region (for environmental reasons) and are needed for dinosaur nutrition. That would take years or decades to do and after all that, then you could release the dinosaurs there. But until that happens, we should probably restrict on how many species of dinosaurs and how many large dinosaurs are to be cloned. PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 20:08, March 18, 2013 (MDT)

Artificial islands can already be made by expanding existing ones. I'm pretty sure we could expand islands to the size of states in the future. I believe dinosaurs would mostly be zoo animals anyway. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 03:27, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

Without an actual Isla Nublar out there (or even better an Isla Sorna), I think that the majority of the dinosaurs you want to clone would end up as zoo exhibits. That wouldn't be a good life. And supposing that a raptor escaped, or even worse a tyrannosaur, it would cause havoc. A raptor in a metropolis would be like unleashing a tiger or a lion into New York. But these are creatures that have been extinct for millions of years. People wouldn't know how to handle them. And suppose it wasn't just a raptor - suppose a breeding colony made it into the wild? The environmental implications are far too frightening for us to imagine. A raptor could possibly win a fight with a bear, since they could take down a Tenontosaurus, and a cougar wouldn't last long battling a pack of Deinonychus. Wolves would be outcompeted too, especially in their endangered state. A raptor pack as the dominant predator in Yellowstone would be a disaster. Countless people could die and many endangered species would be at risk. And a raptor would be nothing compared to what havoc a T. rex could wreak upon the modern world. In a major city, it could kill countless civilians before the military could deal with it, putting it back in the zoo or finishing it off permanently. And what of the docile herbivores? A Triceratops, as big as an elephant with three gigantic horns, could cause a lot of unintended chaos. So let us suppose the dinosaurs were put in a maximum security zoo where they could never escape. Would that be a good life? Trapped behind bars, gawked at by little children, surrounded by crowds all day and fences by night? A population of freaks that were blown up 65 million years ago, with no place in the natural world for them. Maybe, just maybe, against all odds, we could clone a dinosaur and put it in a zoo, but they would serve as nothing more than amusement for the masses. How would a dinosaur behave in a zoo, anyway? Some creatures can live in a zoo, others can't. Would a dinosaur? How can we know without a time machine? In the end, I would really love to see someone create a simple Gallimimus, a relatively unextraordinary creature, but that poor Gallimimus and it's brethren! Nature killed them off, and my last verdict is, unfortunately, let dead dinos lie as John Hammond should have. Go clone a mammoth or a moa, they still have a place in our world and I really want to go to New Zealand and see a Dinornis, or go on vacation to Pleistocene Park. I'd love to be like Audubon and see the skies blackened by Passenger pigeons again. And I think that thylacines and dodos are awesome. But dinosaurs belong to another age, an age that is buried in the Earth under iridium. You wanna see a dinosaur? Go build a time machine.

I have returned. I am a king. Therefore, I am THE RETURN OF THE KING!! Speak to me, peasants! 17:51, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

ARGH! The stupidity is so strong it burns! There is no evidence that raptors hunted in packs. Group fossils could simply represent a group of unrelated animals attracted to the same carcass, like crocodile and Komodo dragon "packs". They would be no more dangerous than a cougar or a wolf. And wolves are not endangered. They are actually very common.

Dinosaurs can do just fine in a zoo, like any other animal. The only people who say that zoos are cruel are stupid animal rights activists. Animals in zoos can behave very well and show affection towards zookeepers, even predators like big cats. Animals live great lives in zoos, with no risk of being attacked by predators and great medical care. And if they escaped, they could be killed easily with a good rifle or shotgun. These are animals, not magical monsters.

If you want to let nature kill of tons of species, then you might as well let a meteor kill the human race. Nature is a false god and people like Earth First, the Earth Liberation Front and Greenpeace are no better than creationists. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 22:07, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Guys, lets not start something here. Both of you make good points and whanot. Like so:

1) There is no evidence that the dromeaosaurs hunted in packs, but there's also no evidence that they didn't either.

2) While I doubt that a single dromeaosaur or a pack of them would be too bothersome, there is still the issue that the dinosaurs could potentially become an invasive species, if placed in the right conditions and whatnot.

3) As a whole species, wolves aren't endangered, but several subspecies are endangered (eg. the Mexican Grey wolf).

4) Each species of animals shows a different set of danger levels, same thing goes for individual animals.  You could have one tiger that is quite docile and another who is extremely aggressive.  And their temperament can change, due to a response in the environment.  While the dinosaurs might not be hyper agressive monsters, they are still wild animals and you must be on guard of them always.

5) The zoo topic is a mixed topic.  Mind you, there are loads of good zoos that do great work for welfare and conservation.  But, at the same time, there are bad zoos as well.  There are good and bad circuses, good and bad farms, good and bad dairies, etc.  Some great conservationists, like Jane Goodall, don't like zoos too much, but definitely give a pat on the back to those who do a good job.

6) Even if the zoo is a great zoo, not all species of animals do well in captivity.  For example, The Sumatran rhino can live well in captivity, but is extremely hard to breed in captivity.  Also, Great White Sharks usually don't last pretty long in captivity, longest one to be in captivity was for just a few months and had to be released due to self-inflicting injuries.  And even if they can live and breed in captivity, there are animals that would have problems with stereotypic behavior.  Big predators have this problem, so do birds, elephants, rhinos, etc.  Dinosaurs would be no different, they will also deal with these issues as well, especially the predators (such as Tyrannosaurus rex).

7) Also, with these wild animals not having any wild areas to be released at, it would cause problems.  Say if you were able to clone dinosaurs and then zoos around the world will want them for public attention.  They would star attractions for years.  But then, decades, the "dino-faze" will end and they would be seen as just regular animals and nothing else.  Mind you, there will still be people and individuals who will be interested in these animals, but they wouldn't be the money makers anymore.  They will become money wasters or as we call them in the agricultural business, "hay burners".  Also, the majority of zoos nowadays are mostly interested in conservation and education than being a show case of nature (like they used to be in the old days).  Anything that needs conservation and can be returned to the wild in the future, they're the ones who can be good for zoos.  For dinosaurs, however, it'll be different.

8) Also, lets please not be disgraceful to each other and whanot.  No matter how ridiculous someone's comment is, response with respect and patience.

PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 16:31, April 15, 2013 (MDT)

1. Of course there isn't any evidence that dromaeosaurs didn't hunt in packs. There is no evidence that they didn't ride unicorns or jump around on pogo-sticks either. 2. Dinosaurs are cooler than modern animals. I for one wouldn't mind if they outcompeted modern ones. 3. We can just bring them back with selective breeding if they go extinct. 4. Again, no more radical than any modern animal. 5. Of course there are. 6. One great white lasted in captivity for 162 days before being released. Another one was added to the Monterey Bay Aquarium in August 2011, though I'm not sure if it's still there. It's mostly a problem with modern animals anyway. 7. Dinosaurs can't be used for conservation, but they can be used for education. And I don't think a real Jurassic Park would ever get old, just like Disney Land and Universal Studios theme parks are still popular after many decades. 8. I have no respect for stupidity and lack of research. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 23:27, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. -_-' You did not just say that, did you? If you're gonna convince anyone about that, you need to speak more professionally. 2. Really? You really just said that? You would rather have rhinos, elephants, tigers, and other species (animals that we have history with for thousands of years, creatures that have shaped our world and our culture, and are needed for a healthy ecosystem of this world) wiped out just to keep creatures that we've lost or never even had? One reason why that Thylacine was not saved from extinction is not just habitat destruction, disease, and hunting, but that scientists viewed it and other marsupials as "primitive" and "inferior". It wasn't until we've lost it that we've realized our mistake. Think what would happen if we went on that "dinosaurs are cooler" thought-train and because of that, elephants and tigers have been wiped out as a result (just an example). Then, a century later, our kids would view the elephant and tiger the same way we see the smilodon and the mammoth and they would want it back as well. I love dinosaurs and the opportunity to study them, but I will not approve of placing them over the animals that we are lucky to have today. 3. With selective breeding, you'll only bring back a wolf that looks like the specific subspecies. The real one would be extinct forever. 4. True, but they would hold surprises that we would not have predicted, like any other modern animal. 6. Yeah, but it couldn't stay in captivity for long. And how would know that it's restricted to just modern animals? ALL animals, modern or ancient, would have issues. Even though we've learned much about dinosaurs, they are still a mystery. You just never know until one comes up. 7. It would still be popular, but the public would still become more conservation conscious and they would probably start seeing the dinosaurs as "parasites". 8. Maybe, but a good scientist is a respectful scientist. You just need to have a cool head and explain things mildly and in great detail. That just how it works.

PonchoFirewalker01 (talk) 19:21, April 15, 2013 (MDT)

1. I was merely giving an example of what such thinking could do. Saying there is no evidence that dromaeosaurs didn't hunt in packs is one thing, saying there is no evidence they didn't is another. 2. According to Lee M. Silver's book Challenging Nature, we could simply use biotechnology and computer technology to create entirely new ecosystems and remake the entire biosphere. And large animals are not important for ecosystems. There is a reason life on Earth hasn't been wiped out by mass extinctions. 3. You could also use cloning or chimeras to bring the subspecies back. If we can bring dinosaurs and mammoths back, we will have no problem with a wolf subspecies. 4. True. 6. I meant restricted to MARINE animals. My apologies. 7. I don't think so. If we can design entirely new ecosystems, this will not be a problem. 8. Being a jerkass doesn't mean you can't be a good scientist. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 04:18, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

But one major thing that everyone is overlooking: Most dinosaurs could not become invasive without perfect conditions and an empty/weak biological niche. Take herbivorous dinosaurs, for instance. They would have one heck of a time trying to survive outside captivity or a specifically engineered habitat. Why? Simple: grass. Grass never existed in the Mesozoic Era, only showing up 5 million years after the death of the dinosaurs. Modern grass-eating animals have had 65 million years to evolve very strong stomachs, as grass is, chemically, ridiculously difficult to digest. An herbivorous dinosaur, such as a Dryosaurus, would almost certainly be incapable of digesting grass. Grass might even be toxic to dinosaurs. Mr. Guest  5:49, April 27, 2013 (Colorado, USA time).

Actually, grass has been found in titanosaur coprolites. Jurassic Park Treasury (talk) 01:44, April 28, 2013 (UTC)