Scientists Extract 'Blood' From Dinosaur Bones
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Yes, but its inevitable some people would want to ride them anyway -_-Archemetis said:
Ah well, gotta feed them somehow, might as well get payed for it.
Wow. This is quite a big find. This news, however, filled me with dread. From the impending "Jurassic Park" apocolypse? Nope. Creationists. The first study they did was f***ing lapped up by creationists as they said "How can dinosaur cells last millions of years undamaged and unfossilised?!! They must have existed 10000 years ago like the bible said!!!". Now this story is back in the news I'll have to explain it to them all over again. It's like painting the damn Forth bridge.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think that doesn't apply to all animals. Some reptiles' red blood cells still have a nucleus, and so DNA. If this applis to Dinos I don't know. Of course any DNA would have long since decayed by now.Sigenrecht said:
Clone it clone it clone it clone it.
Shame it's Hadrodaur blood and not that of a T-rex or a Raptor, but it's a start.
Shame it's Hadrodaur blood and not that of a T-rex or a Raptor, but it's a start.
There are dinosaurs in the Bible? Man, maybe I oughta convert...thenumberthirteen said:
...naaaaah.
Also, you can say "fuck," you know. We're all adults here. Well, most-... okay, a few of us, anyway.
Foolish beliefs like that are why you will be amongst the first to be eaten.irishdelinquent said:
There aren't it's just them trying to explain how we found all these new animals that are strangely missing from Noahs ark.dantheman931 said:
The Internet's bad enough without me adding to itdantheman931 said:Also, you can say "fuck," you know. We're all adults here. Well, most-... okay, a few of us, anyway.
This information will not lead to dinosaur cloning. It isn't related to DNA in any way. The second link in the OP itself states that DNA, to the best of human scientific knowledge, doesn't survive for that long.
The only way dinosaurs will get cloned, if ever, is if we learn enough of their structure to imitate it, splice it, then somehow grow the cells into actual beings using advances in stem cell research. This is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.
What we should worry about is some of the responses in comments to the New Scientist page. Apparently this dating result for the dinosaur in question is also surprising for evolutionists, which of course means that creationists are using it as pretend evidence that their particular, narrow strain of deity exists. It's not fun to watch.
The only way dinosaurs will get cloned, if ever, is if we learn enough of their structure to imitate it, splice it, then somehow grow the cells into actual beings using advances in stem cell research. This is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.
What we should worry about is some of the responses in comments to the New Scientist page. Apparently this dating result for the dinosaur in question is also surprising for evolutionists, which of course means that creationists are using it as pretend evidence that their particular, narrow strain of deity exists. It's not fun to watch.
...I know there aren't any dinosaurs in the Bible, dude. No offense, but did you honestly think I was that ignorant? 8-/thenumberthirteen said:
Of course not. I had JUST finished talking with a creationist about this very news item when I checked Escapist and got your reply, and I must have still been in "baby talk" mode.dantheman931 said:
Guys, you're forgetting that Velociraptors were actually about 2 feet tall. Spielberg increased the size for dramatic reasons. I could take on about 4 velociraptors alone, provided I had good shoes for kicking, and reasonably thick clothing.
However, Utahraptors were about 6.6 feet tall and 21 feet long, and were still fast and agile. Now those would scare the shit out of me.
However, Utahraptors were about 6.6 feet tall and 21 feet long, and were still fast and agile. Now those would scare the shit out of me.
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the tungsten wiring used to make the new electric fences aren't actually conductive, except to 9-year-olds.Archemetis said:
It's actually a brachylophosaurus (spelling?) I believe and a corythosaurus is actually part of a family that is not part of the Hadrosaur "grouping". Scientifically anyway.irishdelinquent said:
Because we can learn all about the blood cells that make up a dinosaur, plus the scientist claim that the dna they have it similar to that of a bird, drawing the Ornithscian group (the family that includes creatures like brachylophosaurus and triceratops) closer to the Saurischian group (the family that includes creatures like tyrannosaurus and brachiosaurus).Broken Wings said: