You know, I think it is interesting because what was described at the end with the Mammoth and all is basically what the Jurassic Park books heavily imply IIRC. Namely that these creatures aren't really even clones of dinosaurs, so much as they are genetically engineered creatures designed to look like what people think they would have looked like. There are even hints at Hammond (who's book self is far darker) having them modified to be more marketable, because the scientific implications of this mean nothing to him, he's just looking to make money off of this.
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.
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.
In 1993 right after this movie came out there were museums full of dinosaur displays (not because of the movie they had always had the dinosaur exhibits) clamoring for people to visit. Their intention was to show the reality behind JP’s scientific methods. When I visited one as a kid I received a pamphlet that gave the reasons why the film would not have worked. They didn’t argue Dino DNA could be preserved in fossilized mosquitos (even though to my knowledge an intact mosquito has not yet been found to this day, I think other preserved blood sucking bugs have) they argued about the problem would be in reading the DNA strand. They argued what Jurassic Park said VR would take minutes would’ve taken 50 years, and any slight mistake in processing would’ve set that back to zero...that was what they had to say. Does nobody remember the fact computers will get faster every year? I remembered after the Human Genome Project was completed, it finished ahead of schedule because of that fact.
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.
For note the DNA crystallization is a statistical thing. One sample becomes worthless after a couple million years a couple dozen maybe not. If we had sufficient degraded samples with sufficient time and computing power it is still a possibility. But that is the key. We are talking about an effort on par with the human genome project and minimum thousands if not hundreds of thousands of samples of one species. The odds are as good as 0 but not quite 0.
3:16 ... minor nitpick: actually in a few very special cases of extremely well preserved feather imprints, scientists could derive the feather colours of dinosaurs from fossilized melanosomes.
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 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
Perhaps no one wants to be remembered for using dynamite to excavate Troy, but many people would want to be remembered for rediscovering Troy. Give Schliemann some credit, he rediscovered a city that even the Romans of Augustus' time were uncertain of the exact location.
Note that Chuck posts videos on TH-cam 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.
I would have loved to see a T-Rex in real life but it's important to realize science doesn't care how cool things would be. Good scientists have ideas and will create tests to disprove their own ideas. Even if tests prove successful they publish their work so other scientists can prove them wrong. These failures are not really failures because they teach us more. Jurassic Park had ideas that really excited me as it seemed plausible. It got me to research & look up more information. Over time I learned it was highly unlikely but it never changed the fact was it taught me new things and inspired me to learn more on my own afterwards. As it did for others too.
@@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's probably for the best that the whole amber approach doesn't seem likely to ever work... With humanity's luck, it would end up producing rapidly-breeding gigantic mosquito-dinosaur hybrids with a thirst for human blood...
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.
If you don't excavate a site, erosion will eventually destroy it -- probably in the very near future, since many finds are only made due to erosion. In fact, many finds are only made after part of the fossil has been destroyed by erosion.
I remember, when Jurassic World was coming out, that there were some people up in arms over the fact that they dinosaurs in the movie still looked like they did in the original films instead of reflecting the modern understanding of what they should look like, but then a group of scientist came out in defense of the franchise because it had been their inspiration to go into their fields of studies.
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"
i'm surprised that apparently the connection between birds and dinosaurs wasn't considered seriously until the early 1980's when the remains of archaeopterix were known since the 1840's, when the term "dinosaur" appeared. as for crichton, it's debated to this day if jurasic park was in any way influenced by the novel "carnosaur" from 1984 which may have been the first about cloned dinosaurs. however, there are several early sci-fi stories about cloned mammoths and mastodons.
Once we have a sufficient understanding of the way DNA genomes work it should be possible to alter the DNA of a viable offspring of a say a chicken or a pigeon, or indeed any avian, and "switch on" the dinosaur genes and "switch off" the bird genes. This is not as crazy as it sounds I was shocked to learn
As much as i love this subject, im not aloud to be a scientist at a university yet becuase im still stuck with learning MAth and English wich comes first before science.
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.
Well thanks to the cia they overcame whatever dna breakdown was happening because now they are claiming the wooly mammoth might be born by the elephant but it’s going to exactly like the mammoth . So they basically Jurassic parked it good or enough at this point.
Why not test the hypothesis on the insects in amber themselves? Those must be much more common than blood-sucking insects that just fed. If _their_ genetic material survived, perhaps material inside their stomachs would survive, too. The loss - if it doesn't work - would be less problematic.
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. th-cam.com/video/LX5qpyx98ys/w-d-xo.html
@@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.
I remember reading somewhere else that JP's "dinosaurs" are not real dinos. Instead they are artificial chimera made from dinos broken dna spliced with frog,reptile,bird,and other animals dna
Don't mean to be that guy, but Dinosaur colour in fossils is actually a very recent advancement! You're right in that in the 80s it was a very rare thing, but nowerdays we can examine the pigmentation in fossilized skin to get an idea of what colour dinosaurs were. Like I said, very new stuff, but ultra cool none the less =D. Not trying to undermine your point, just stating how awesome it is that science marches on :3.
The problem with dinosaurs dna is to have it over geological time scales you would need to have it frozen. Freezing for 100,000 years is possible. Sure they have found larger chemical constituents from higher protein numbers but bacteria would surely degrade dna in such a long time period without staying frozen. In fact to me it seems incredible to have found muscle or tendon chemicals in such a long time period. No we need other methods to find these natural dna from so long ago. Space/time methods which humans may find in time if we ourselves are given the opportunity to carry on long enough and we are not subsumed by communism or some other anti-evolutionary method from brutal dictators seeking power.
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?
please never say "just a theory" in a scientific context. ever. if it were "just a theory" it would be "just something that is known to be a fact, peer reviewed, confirmed independently"
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.
I hate to be the one to point this out but, the entire point of Jurassic Park was this kind of science is a bad idea. It's a cautionary tale, hence all the Chaos Theory and thintelligence stuff. Crichton was criticizing science and scientists. Scientists who were inspired to pursue this, completely missed the whole point in way that makes the "Tony Montanna's my role model" crowd look smart. It just has to be part of the conversation, it had to be said. Hey, who wouldn't want to see a T-Rex, At least until it's peering down on you while you're taking a shit in an outhouse.
You know, I think it is interesting because what was described at the end with the Mammoth and all is basically what the Jurassic Park books heavily imply IIRC. Namely that these creatures aren't really even clones of dinosaurs, so much as they are genetically engineered creatures designed to look like what people think they would have looked like. There are even hints at Hammond (who's book self is far darker) having them modified to be more marketable, because the scientific implications of this mean nothing to him, he's just looking to make money off of this.
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.
Most fascinating!
I was a huge Dino-junkie when I was a kid. I was 7 years old when the movie hit the cinema.
Boy, did I love that movie.
Great to see you posting on TH-cam again! Welcome back Chuck!
"Big things have small beginnings"
Love your work!
In 1993 right after this movie came out there were museums full of dinosaur displays (not because of the movie they had always had the dinosaur exhibits) clamoring for people to visit. Their intention was to show the reality behind JP’s scientific methods. When I visited one as a kid I received a pamphlet that gave the reasons why the film would not have worked. They didn’t argue Dino DNA could be preserved in fossilized mosquitos (even though to my knowledge an intact mosquito has not yet been found to this day, I think other preserved blood sucking bugs have) they argued about the problem would be in reading the DNA strand.
They argued what Jurassic Park said VR would take minutes would’ve taken 50 years, and any slight mistake in processing would’ve set that back to zero...that was what they had to say.
Does nobody remember the fact computers will get faster every year? I remembered after the Human Genome Project was completed, it finished ahead of schedule because of that fact.
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.
A great peek into a fascinating subject!
For note the DNA crystallization is a statistical thing. One sample becomes worthless after a couple million years a couple dozen maybe not. If we had sufficient degraded samples with sufficient time and computing power it is still a possibility. But that is the key. We are talking about an effort on par with the human genome project and minimum thousands if not hundreds of thousands of samples of one species. The odds are as good as 0 but not quite 0.
Wow, I had no idea Crichton didn't come up with the amber thing himself! That's really neat!
3:16 ... minor nitpick: actually in a few very special cases of extremely well preserved feather imprints, scientists could derive the feather colours of dinosaurs from fossilized melanosomes.
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
Perhaps no one wants to be remembered for using dynamite to excavate Troy, but many people would want to be remembered for rediscovering Troy. Give Schliemann some credit, he rediscovered a city that even the Romans of Augustus' time were uncertain of the exact location.
Oh WOW. I remember that book on the left.
Yes ! The TH-cam algorithm coming through for once ! Thank you for making this video!
After following your private site for years I'm so glad you're on YT! I sent you an email ages ago and I hope you're doing great.
Note that Chuck posts videos on TH-cam 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.
Also can they compare it to the soft tissue recently discovered in dinosaur bone ?
I would have loved to see a T-Rex in real life but it's important to realize science doesn't care how cool things would be.
Good scientists have ideas and will create tests to disprove their own ideas.
Even if tests prove successful they publish their work so other scientists can prove them wrong. These failures are not really failures because they teach us more.
Jurassic Park had ideas that really excited me as it seemed plausible. It got me to research & look up more information. Over time I learned it was highly unlikely but it never changed the fact was it taught me new things and inspired me to learn more on my own afterwards. As it did for others too.
Trial and error.
I never got why they used frog DNA instead of bird to "repair the gaps" or whatever...
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.
It's probably for the best that the whole amber approach doesn't seem likely to ever work... With humanity's luck, it would end up producing rapidly-breeding gigantic mosquito-dinosaur hybrids with a thirst for human blood...
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.
I believe that some dinosaur species survived well beyond what is currently accepted in academia , to become the dragon legends .
Man the title of this threw me off. I kept thinking that it was something that was published within the JP franchise itself.
I have watched so much Charmed Hard so now I can’t watch this video without hearing ‘DINO DNA’
Comments drive metrics for the best channel on TH-cam.
If you don't excavate a site, erosion will eventually destroy it -- probably in the very near future, since many finds are only made due to erosion. In fact, many finds are only made after part of the fossil has been destroyed by erosion.
We have woolly mammoth dna, but we haven't cloned one yet. OTOH not sure if someone isn't trying it.
I remember, when Jurassic World was coming out, that there were some people up in arms over the fact that they dinosaurs in the movie still looked like they did in the original films instead of reflecting the modern understanding of what they should look like, but then a group of scientist came out in defense of the franchise because it had been their inspiration to go into their fields of studies.
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"
i'm surprised that apparently the connection between birds and dinosaurs wasn't considered seriously until the early 1980's when the remains of archaeopterix were known since the 1840's, when the term "dinosaur" appeared. as for crichton, it's debated to this day if jurasic park was in any way influenced by the novel "carnosaur" from 1984 which may have been the first about cloned dinosaurs. however, there are several early sci-fi stories about cloned mammoths and mastodons.
@2:53 Too soon Chuck... Too soon ;_;
Once we have a sufficient understanding of the way DNA genomes work it should be possible to alter the DNA of a viable offspring of a say a chicken or a pigeon, or indeed any avian, and "switch on" the dinosaur genes and "switch off" the bird genes. This is not as crazy as it sounds I was shocked to learn
With the advent of the immensely capable and versatile CRISPR-Cas gene-technology making a non-avian dinosaur is much more likely.
As much as i love this subject, im not aloud to be a scientist at a university yet becuase im still stuck with learning MAth and English wich comes first before science.
"they needed a second brain elsewhere to control their body"
That was a thing people actually thought was legit?
TIL.
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.
Well thanks to the cia they overcame whatever dna breakdown was happening because now they are claiming the wooly mammoth might be born by the elephant but it’s going to exactly like the mammoth . So they basically Jurassic parked it good or enough at this point.
I thought this was going to be a deep dive on the novel. The real history is a much better story!
Why not test the hypothesis on the insects in amber themselves? Those must be much more common than blood-sucking insects that just fed. If _their_ genetic material survived, perhaps material inside their stomachs would survive, too. The loss - if it doesn't work - would be less problematic.
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.
th-cam.com/video/LX5qpyx98ys/w-d-xo.html
*wipes eyes* *golf clap*
If there was a time traveller why not go back in time and capture dinos
I have dinosaur DNA. I have it in the freezer in the garage.
Birds ARE dionsaurs.
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.
I remember reading somewhere else that JP's "dinosaurs" are not real dinos. Instead they are artificial chimera made from dinos broken dna spliced with frog,reptile,bird,and other animals dna
It's also mentioned in the movie.
th-cam.com/video/qUaFYzFFbBU/w-d-xo.html
So that’s the history. All I got was “they didn’t find any DNA.” Thanks.
Don't mean to be that guy, but Dinosaur colour in fossils is actually a very recent advancement! You're right in that in the 80s it was a very rare thing, but nowerdays we can examine the pigmentation in fossilized skin to get an idea of what colour dinosaurs were. Like I said, very new stuff, but ultra cool none the less =D.
Not trying to undermine your point, just stating how awesome it is that science marches on :3.
That doesn't undermine his point, it emphasizes it! Later tech can do more than earlier tech could.
The problem with dinosaurs dna is to have it over geological time scales you would need to have it frozen. Freezing for 100,000 years is possible. Sure they have found larger chemical constituents from higher protein numbers but bacteria would surely degrade dna in such a long time period without staying frozen. In fact to me it seems incredible to have found muscle or tendon chemicals in such a long time period. No we need other methods to find these natural dna from so long ago. Space/time methods which humans may find in time if we ourselves are given the opportunity to carry on long enough and we are not subsumed by communism or some other anti-evolutionary method from brutal dictators seeking power.
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?
please never say "just a theory" in a scientific context. ever. if it were "just a theory" it would be "just something that is known to be a fact, peer reviewed, confirmed independently"
"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.
Your dream is my nightmare.
I hate to be the one to point this out but, the entire point of Jurassic Park was this kind of science is a bad idea. It's a cautionary tale, hence all the Chaos Theory and thintelligence stuff. Crichton was criticizing science and scientists. Scientists who were inspired to pursue this, completely missed the whole point in way that makes the "Tony Montanna's my role model" crowd look smart.
It just has to be part of the conversation, it had to be said. Hey, who wouldn't want to see a T-Rex,
At least until it's peering down on you while you're taking a shit in an outhouse.
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.
Haha you think Neil Tyson is a real scientist