Jurassic Park: The Search for Dino DNA 

I'm glad that someone point out that. Those were mutants, not dinosaurs. Though movie contain more streamlined interpretation with frogs DNA and clones.

The later movies even have to say that explicitly, to explain why they aren't covered in feathers, even though the science had moved forward a bit since the first film.

@@robbybevard8034 And that was one of good parts of Jurassic World.

Which if you think about it might be a positive thing for the dinomutants. The world's ecology and other ways of life are a lot different than they were back then. Not only would these animals have a hard time adjusting to the new climate (notice how in stories with secret underground worlds the dinosaurs inhabit the world around them matches their time period, even in kids stories) but we would have a hard time adjusting to them. It would be cool at first but eventually they'd have to be put down for the sake of humanity and I don't think a T-Rex is as bulletproof as Hollywood wants us to believe.

ShadowWing Tronix it is possible and perhaps likely that larger dinosaurs could not even breathe given the change in oxygen concentration in the atmosphere from the Cretaceous to today.

Though reading it is not really the problem. The problem is that there is not enough intact DNA since DNA breaks down. So what information was there is so diluted that even if you had liters preserved dinosaur blood for that era, there would still not be much DNA left. Of course maybe we find that there is a way DNA half-life may be suspended in some way. But as far as we know DNA is not stable enough under any close to natural circumstances. It is stable enough that it can be used as a blueprint for life. But life repairs its DNA and even then constantly mutates. So even in living hosts is not fully stable. Yet is stable enough that there have been experiments of using it as data storage. Now computer technology may allow us to bring back non-avian dinosaurs, in a way. Though simply doing retro engineering of already existing DNA combined with liberal use creative gene manipulation to make an organism express the same sort of phenotypes as we have seen from the fossil records. But this is more akin to making a designer organism. Same technology that would allow us to make Griffons and Unicorns. Of course there is quite a lot of ethical concerns to doing so. But who know what the future will hold. Though it is also possible that computer technology as well as other technical developments will stagnate. I do not think we are there yet. While Silicon based computing is now not making the gains it once had it can be pushed a bit further. And if we manage to prefect other technologies like Graphene computer or Optronics we should be able to push far beyond what silicon can achieve.

Cythil I think later Jurassic Park media said the solution was multiple samples, with a heavy leaning on the frog dna for the missing portions. Of course, that would require LOTS of recovery of intact amber here...perhaps that is more effective a stopgap than theoretical computer crunch time

@@Maniac536 Yeah, even with more samples you would need so many samples that you may need a swimming pool of blood or more. (I admit I have not done the math. But It is a guestimation based on how half-lifes work out) And beyond that it would be a monumental task just finding those little bits of DNA you could use in that sea of blood. ;) But what is more likely is just doing a designer creature in the shape of a dinosaur. If technology continues to progress then we should be able to do that. You would likely not use frog DNA as a template to work off for you Dino however but rather use something more closely related. Like modern day dinosaurs like birds. But my guess is that it was used as a setup for Parthenogenesis, the asexual reproduction. Though I think there still other animals that would be more fitting who exhibit parthenogenesis. But I guess people be more familiar with the trait in frogs I guess.

He was talking at the time. Now we know that Birds are Dinosaurs. Back then it was just farfetched speculation.

Except no they can't. even if it were possible for something as small as melanin molecules to be preserved in the low-res particle-by-particle mineral replacement, which they aren't no matter what these people claim, all they've done is said 'ooh we see eumelanin and pheomelanin' ... aka the only kinds of melanin there are. which we knew already. doesn't stop a lot of know-nothing knowitalls from depicting all dinosaurs as calicos from that point, showing they don't remotely understand how color works. The only pigments available are orange and black, but look at the range of colors you can find in mammals, reptiles, and especially birds. There's more to color than pigment, just like there's more to development of life than DNA. Hell you could have a dino that's naturally white and turns pink from eating shellfish full of carotenoids. FLAMINGOSAUR why not?

@@KairuHakubi For clarity Flaming IS a dinosaur. So we have evidence of such effect.

@@KairuHakubi There's studies done on the refractive properties of structures in bird feathers, that create the shimmering blue-green-black colors. So that is something you could find in fossilized feathers. But then there's a whole range of pigments and chemical compounds that create color in birds, so we're indeed a long way off of reconstructing dinosaur color. But it's still worthwhile research I believe. Just another piece of the puzzle

Trial and error.

Note that Chuck posts videos on RU-vid when they won't get shut down for copyright issues. Most of his book reviews, for example. His site will continue to get the majority of his reviews.

That's what I was thinking - wasn't the entire point of the novel that we shouldn't be pointlessly trying to 'master nature' in this way? If anything, latest research and understanding of the study of the environment and ecology is the very fact that, when left alone, an ecosystem can either restore itself or develop further.

That's really what Jurassic Park was all about. The dangers of bringing back creatures we know very little about.

Although taken as a fact today by most paleontologists the bird/dinosaur link was much less accepted when the book was written.

@@drewpamon I suppose. I'd still have guessed to use reptiles instead of amphibians would have made more sense even back then. To me, it seems more like a pure plot device to allow for the sex-switch and "nature finding a way"...

It was used so the the dinosaurs could change their sex. It was just a convenient plot device.

I have to give JW props for answering the no longer accurate to the fossil record point with "if their genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different but you didnt ask reality , you wanted more teeth"

That phrasing isn't really explaining it very well. The theory wasn't so much a second brain, but secondary CNS structures along the spine that would help such large bodies react to stimuli more rapidly. Basically, extra nervous tissue that allowed for more complex, higher-developed reflexes, and/or more efficient communication between the extremities and the actual brain in the head. The theory was an old one, but it was based on real observations of bone structures in dinosaur spines that we still don't really understand. Lots of books and magazine articles hyperbolized this into the "butt brain" myth.

Not exactly a brain in the butt, but a secondary mass to help control stuff and receive inputs. It's also not that far out there. Crabs have two brains, and octopi for instance, have something akin to NINE brains. they're not all equal pieces that think independently, but Its a ganglion thing. Not a butt brain, but a super specialized extra mass for giving and receiving inputs. (Calling it a second brain is easier than saying all that.) This is why Octopi have to actually look at their arms to know where they are, the main brain isn't responsible for receiving those signals.

Our very own digestive apparatus is a highly linked neuronic network. A gutt brain if you will. Oversimplified of course.

So? Some people to this day still think the bible and other made up bullshit stories are true....

Not uncommon. If i was younger unfortunately i made some very bad decisions using the other kinda brain we males possess.

Actually, I would say it's the opposite. Dinosaurs you can pen up, put tracking collars on, hunt down if needed, etc. Mosquitoes, not so much. If a long-extinct insect species that may very well be incompatible with current ecosystems gets out and start breeding in every puddle, that could actually do serious damage while being near-impossible to contain. Modern-day mosquitoes cause enough problems, imagine a new variety that's resistant or even immune to modern-day predators & preventative measures.

@@SynchronizorVideos Nah, I just meant: Drill open the amber, take out the material, sequence it to see if you can form/sequene a complete DNA-strand from the insect itself rather than its stomach contents. I wouldn't want to clone giant mosquitoes, either.

It has been done. Some scientist said he had recovered genetic material from a weevil that was from the Paleogene, but the results could not be replicated. The info is from a documentary that came out the same year as the film. Jeff Goldblum is the narrator, so it's pleasant enough to listen to in the background. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LX5qpyx98ys.html

That doesn't undermine his point, it emphasizes it! Later tech can do more than earlier tech could.

It's also mentioned in the movie. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qUaFYzFFbBU.html

Birds are dinosaurs in the same way whales are even-toed ungulates.

@@cosmodeus1720 The present scientific consensus is that birds ARE a group of maniraptoran theropod DINOSAURS that originated during the Mesozoic Era. And, yes, whales are even toed ungulates. And snakes are tetrapods.

@@jhill4874 It would be fascinating to learn how birds survived the Cretaceous extinction.

@@tenrec Small ones, like all the survivers.

"Just a hypothesis" does not go of the tongue as well.

@@schwarzerritter5724 Still there is huge difference in just theory and scientific theory. Talking about science it become critical factor.

But that’s not how science works. Plenty of scientific theories have yet to be confirmed independently. For example, string theory. Whilst other scientists embrace different theories.

@@volvanochaser1099 In science theory is the prove. As there are no facts or wild speculations. It is why theory and scientific theory are two radically distinct concepts.

TheRezro No. Scientists formulate theories first. Proof comes second. As I said, string theory is leading theory, but it has yet to be proven. So many theories that scientists work with aren’t proven, perhaps because the methods or technology to prove them isn’t there yet.

Considering nearly all communists are atheists, they typically aren't anti-evolutionary. Remember Stalin's attempt at to create a "humanzee" to use as a propaganda tool against Christian "imperialist's" creationist ideals?

Hear hear! I'll stick to VR T-Rexes

Scientists ask questions, and attempt answers. Engineers actually build things. Like bridges, cell phones... or dinosaurs.