It is dumb, why didn't they learn from Jurrasic Park? XD Anyway, I see why it should be done SCIENTIFICALLY, but MORALLY, there is no reason. Its like mice and testing cures on them. Its too wrong to be right but in SOME cases necassary. But really, its dumb...Like Dumb...XD

morally...yea it could be wrong.. scientificly.. well let me say this.

I watched jurassic park o.o

again and again and again, trying to figure it it was plausible >.> it is and the only thing they did wrong to make it a disaster was, they used frog's DNA XD as mentioned.. some frogs can change their gender and thus in an all gender area, reproduce. oh..and they had that stupid traitor guy >.> he got eaten :)

I know..i probably watched it too much XD

as long as they don't bring back man eaters >.> we'll be safe

but yea... these guys were chosen to go extinct o.o

You guys know we won't "Get eaten"... right? America possesses the power to blow up the whole planet. I'm SURE they can keep some dinosaurs at bay.

ALSO. Though I personally believe animal testing is wrong, the idea of re-creating a species wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Think about it. RETURNING nature's given species to life. HELL. If they would only do that with the creatures -humans- made extinct, and not the ones nature did...

So, personally? I'm pro-recreation.

And, as I watch you say this is "wrong." I would like to clap and point in the direction of the Magical Menagerie Laboraties, and say HA! Because that's -exactly- what's happening there, and I find it ironic.


AND JURRASSIC PARK IS A MOVIE AND THEREFORE FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE.

>> Just like Godzilla.

GOOD STORY. Just that STORY. S.T.O.R.Y.!!!!

But it was nature that took dinosaurs away, right? (at least from what is stated by scientists) Nature does control us, but eventually nature will dissapear. When nature takes something away, I'm pretty sure that it's serious. D=

Who's to say humans and their 'science' isn't a part of nature? Comets and everything is a part of nature. I'm not sure why science, and human beings aren't "nature".

I don't see why it's so 'OMG HORRIBIBBLE!!"

To me, it's not relateable to animal testing, and I won't stick my hand in that can of worms because my opinion is the unpopular one.

And... how are they morons, really? They're most likely highly intelligent individuals, far more than any of us here, no matter how much you'd like to deny it. They're doing it to see just how far we can go with science, and it's interesting to me. I admit I'd do it if I was in that field, because it interests me. I want to know if it's possible.

And I almost laughed when watching it because of how MML-esque it was. xD

I wouldn't call a meteor (going with the popular theory, don't shoot me) natural selection at it's best.

I, personally, am against it when it comes to dinosaurs that could kill us- Like T-Rexes. Or that are insanely huge. For the smaller ones that wouldn't kill us, and would add something to the environment? Go ahead.

Although, you have a point with the nature thing- But it's like human cloning. It's wrong to a point, but it can have its uses eventually. Morally?I think it's wrong, but it's not my place to stick morals into science- I'm not a scientist.

I'd like to thank you for saying what isn't "popular". It's hard to say what you think when it isn't what others think...

I also LOVE that "They're NOT stupid" comment. Yea... we're (for the most part) 13-15 year old girls. What the hell do we know? They went to school for YEARS. They're smarter than prolly a lot of us combined... even if it's just because we lack the experience they have. We may grow upt o be as smart as them, but that's just it... most of us... need to GROW UP first. And become adults.

Most teenagers I know think they're the smartest thing on the planet, and everyone else is stupid... yea, news flash, they went to school, they get paid for it, they have the degrees. We don't have a high school diploma yet. x.o Who are we to say they're stupid?

Just because we can blow something up doesn't mean we should.
Being vegitarian, and trying to go vegan, I'm completely against that.
Many animals are bred just to be slaughtered. To recreate anything to find that we just have to kill it... is useless.

I didn't say we should blow anything up, Oshi. I'm saying, if it came down to us, dinosaurs would NOT eat us. DOI. I was dispelling tha arguement that "OMFG dinos bad eat us"...


Oh! And for the record, I wasn't calling any one of us stupid. I was saying we lack the schooling and experience of the scientists doing this.

owo.... Human + human = Dinosaurs...?
xD Seriously on my part of it-

If dinosaurs existed, I would probably be the one yelling 'SHWEET DINOS! 8D' and you would find me being estatic ove rbeing eaten by a Living Tyrannasauris.

There sSIlvs point, that yeah, US has power to asplode the world so Dinosaurs wouldn't prove mucha big threat. If everyone knew what it tok to take cre of them, and let them live naturally, then I'm all for 'em X3

Zevi is yet again, confused because she sees things others say that is plausable and contradicts what she thinks..I don't like debate boards, but I do like to debate.


I personally think it would be cool to have some countries "donate" islands and raise some dinos(if we could) and let them loose there. We could even possibly train them to be..human friendly. And if they are like the scientists say, they should have mostly the intelligents of a deer(for the herbavors) and be frightened by us. As far as the carnivores, only make the smaller ones and leave the bigger ones to amaze us in bone like forms. XD

I sort of have to agree with Silv here. And Everlyn. I mean... I would be the first person at the gate to see a baby quagga born from an empty horse egg given the nucleus of a quagga cell. Or a thylosine.

I don't so much feel for bringing dinosaurs back, though. I was the kid who had nightmares about being eaten by escaped t-rexes. :/ I was the kid who made as little movement while going to sleep as possible because that theory hadn't been disproven yet.

So... Yeah. I could deal with a Dinotopia-esque environment with plant-eating dinosaurs, but without the meat-eating dinosaurs to eat them...? I dunno. Don't shoot me down for the Dinotopia comment-- I haven't seen it in forever and can't remember most of it.

I'd also like to point out that maybe "blowing up the world" isn't the best choice of words... If the world blew up, where would we be? :p

(Haha, I added exactly nothing to the debate.)

For the 'people are morons' thing going on- humanity is sort of a species of morons in that it can't leave things alone. XP We're working our way to destruction, and on the way finding out a bunch of things that -might- lead to something bigger, if we don't destroy the world first. While it's interesting, human lives are really short compared to everything else out there.

Now, back on topic, I think it would be very interesting to bring back extinct creatures. If we could master nature and actually take CARE OF it, then that's all fine and dandy. But, humans will overrun the world in population alone, so where would we even put these dinosaurs? The sea-dwelling ones would have plenty of room, but we don't have anywhere big enough for herds of dinosaurs, if it ever got that far. And, really, re-creating a creature that could eat us in a fair fight without batting an eyelid, is similar to how we're making computers that are becoming more and more advanced.

Worry about Terminator movies becoming reality, or Jurassic Park? Either way, it's cool while it lasted, and I'm all for it. XD The world is not a place for morals in science these days, as cruel as that may sound.

For global warming...won't even get into that subject, though I don't believe it in the sense that the term has become.

(Dinotopia would be cool, but we lack a friendly talking dino-buddy. XD)

*shrugs* A reletive of mine does this for living "in real life"...
Not specifically related to dinosaurs, but still...

You know.. if they had the power to re-fabricate dinosaurs (which they would with the frozen tissue they found), I don't see a single reason why not to.. plus, if they did THAT - then surely they could bring back the Thylosine, the Passenger Pigeon, and they could most certainly use that to prevent the Cheetahs (etc) from becoming extinct...

I personally would love to have a pet Archeopteryx... then again, I do own a "game-site" that's based off of genetic manipulation and engeneering anyway....

You know.. we have glow-in-the-dark pigs.. and fish that have their hearts flash neon colors now, right..? All due to genetic engeneering.. and you know, tomatos are healthier now, 'cause all the plants (save for those from the seed-savers community) are genetically engeneered... Did you know that apples weren't actually RED 100 years ago? They were kinda' a dusty yellowish color... Just a hint of "rougue"... And that changed, 'cause of genetic engeneering..

Heck - look at all the sicknesses that are gone now, 'cause of that science.. Look at the sicknesses that WILL be gone (like cancer)...

Even when genetic engeneering wasn't done with test-tubes - it was still done a loooong time ago.. how do you think we got so many different breeds of dogs? People thought about what they wanted, did what was needed, and got the results.. ta-da! Jack Russel Terrier! Invented by.. *gasp* Mr. Jack Russel! ... ya' know?



Meh.. if they brought back dinosaurs, I'd say "holy shit that's cool!"

I second this.

And, honestly, it's not going to turn out like Jurassic Park if it ever did happen. I'm guessing human beings could at least be a little more intelligent than that.

I don't think I added anything of value to this debate.

Also, you meat eaters (myself included here)

You know they genetically engineer chickens to be so fat they can't walk?

And cows with so much muscle they die cause their legs can't hold up their fat and the collapse?

And chickens without feathers?

And turkeys that are stupid enough to drown in the rain?

FACE IT. Science is there.... and it's gonna do stuff you don't like.

Yeah... but that part was an accident. :P

If I could add a bit more to this...? While science does stuff you don't like, in the long run it is to do something to help you. It's doing animal testing so that people with malaria don't die, or so that paralyzed people can regain use of whatever limbs they can't use. I mean... I was watching a movie in my Biology class (which really is a horrible class; I know more than the teacher in some areas) and there was a rat that had partialy regained the use of its back legs because they tested the procedure on it to see if it worked. Now how did that hurt the rat?

But... Really this isn't what the thread is about, so I guess I'll shut up and live with my opinion-post.

Well, I think it COULD be kinda cool to being back some of the more small and harmless dinosaurs. It's a nice idea. Kinda utopian, but, with all the modern technology, quite possible. Imagine having little pet micro raptors running about your bedroom! Funfun! XD;;

But cloning things like T-rexes? I think that that's...well, to be quite blunt, I think it's stupid. It's a very dangerous thing to do. Risky. Insane, even. And how would they care for it? How to feed it and give it a place big enough to roam?

All they're thinking about it proving that it could be done; the scientists, in my opinion, arent thinking about the consequences enough.

Slap me in the face and call me jack.

I don't think this is worng, neccisarily, but there is one thing I have to, whisper... into all of your ears.

THIS WILL NEVER BE ACHIEVED IN REAL LIFE!!! (sory for all caps)

I DO have a wild imagination, trust me. TRUST me. But the recreation of dinosaurs (unless you are making plastic look-alikes/ or you live in MML xD) IS IMPOSSABLE. Both scientificaly AND, although we, humans, clone things now, the recreation of life, THAT lived A LONG TIME AGO will be EXTREMLY difficult.

So, why argue over somthing like this, if it will NEVER happen? Plus, Jarrasic Park, like silver said, IS A MOVIE, created in someone's MIND that was most likely VERY CREATIVE!

*done/ sorry for caps :)*

You're trying to tell me... something that cries out in pain when you hurt it... doesn't have feelings? You're trying to tell me that my puppy, who snuggles with me and whines when I'm sad... doesn't have feelings?

You're trying to tell me, Dolphins, as SMART as humans, maybe MORE so. The only creatures other than humans known to have sex for nothing more than -pleasure- doesn't have feelings?

Honestly... and I'm sorry if this offends you (but you've well and offended me)...

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.


That's just... such an egotistical downright MEAN and definatly WRONG thing to say.

o.o Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

I personally am a FIRM believer that animals feel just as much, if not more than, humans. They're so much more pure than humans. They don't care that "Julie said that Tom said that Steve called me a whore." They don't care that they missed a TV show cause TiVo didn't tape it. They don't feel the same way we do, because why should they? They only need the bare necessities to be happy with who they are, and who cares what's in the mirror. They're just not selfish, like humans are. Humans rely on man made things to be happy, and being happy to live must be alien to some people, because it's suddenly not feeling? Animals get angry, they get sad, they show happiness, they get scared, they love They even make friendships. I could give you examples of EACH EMOTION if you like. Tell me how that's different from a human.

Any scientist that says animals can't feel - HOW do they know? Scientists can't even tell what humans feel, mostly.

I second Silver. My arguement may not be as good as hers, since I have a weird way of explaining what I think, but people who disregard animals because they can't talk and tell us they feel, are the reason animals and people aren't living in harmony. That's...horrible.

*pokes head in* Technically, Jurassic Park is a book, with plot and pseudo-science created in the mind of Michael Crichton, a prolific sci-fi writer. Many books that he writes are based off of very cutting edge science, stuff that doesn't quite work yet and so far has no practical applications, like nanotechnology, quantum physics, and cloning. He takes these ideas and spins them into a possible worst-case scenario. In Jurassic Park, the then-infant field of cloning spun out of control through human error and general arrogance. It's a common theme in many of his books. In Timeline, studies in the quantum structure of the universe led to technology that allowed a team of archaeologists to go back in time via subatomic wormholes, and then get slaughtered in the middle ages. In Prey, a swarm of nanobots infected, controlled and killed a variety of main characters.

The common thread here? All of the stories are based off of plausible ideas, and existing scientific discussion that are expanded to a hypothetical outcome that we will never achieve. We will not go back in time to the middle ages. Time tourism is just not possible, regardless of the fact that quantum foam does exist. And we will never bring back the dinosaurs. Yes, cloning exists, but for the purpose of the book, some liberties were taken with the existing technologies. Here's what Wiki has to say:

By the way, Velociraptors? Are only about knee-high. And probably had feathers.

As far as using cloning to bring back other extinct species? Well, they're already trying that with currently endangered species, for example: pandas. Scientists are currently using every fertility treatment that exists to try to keep them from dying off, from artificial insemination to cloning to viagra to panda porn, for goodness sake.

When it comes to bringing back, say, the dodo, well, you need complete, intact DNA. Without complete strands, you really can't do anything. The only reason the were able (in the fictional book) to clone dinosaurs was because of the fossilized mosquito (which, for reasons explained above, can't actually work). And, even if you were able to successfully clone an extinct creature, you couldn't successfully resurrect an entire species (at least, not a healthy one). I mean, what about genetic variation? If you start with just the one DNA sample, there's no way there'd be enough variation to provide a healthy amount of mutations to allow for selection of the fittest and general propagation of the species. I mean, even current conservation efforts, where there's more than one individual involved in the propagation of the species are plagued with illnesses and vulnerabilities that come from a lack of genetic variation.

All that's without even getting into the question of available habitat. I mean, It's been a long time since the dinosaurs roamed the earth. We've had not one, but two ice ages since then, not to mention the slight change of continental drift. Their original habitats have either completely changed, or been completely wiped out. And guess what? Those habitats that still remain are now populated with whole ecosystems that didn't exist before. Re-introducing dinosaurs would wipe out those populations, either because of a new predator, or new competition for food and territory. So who has more right to the land, then? Velociraptors or Jaguars? There's no way that, even if we could bring back dinosaurs (which we can't), we could keep them alive.

It's not a question of "should we or shouldn't we," because we can't. The question is moot.

I think it would be freaking awesome to see a live dinosaur. xD Can't think of much else to comment on, since others have already said most of what I was thinking... ^^; I don't see how it would be wrong in any way unless they couldn't be cared for properly. When they're using the animals to help create them, don't see how that would be bad either. As long as they're not hurting anything.
And I can imagine they'd be kept in captivity... I mean... why the heck would you release them into the wild? /That/ is when bad things would happen.

And to the 'animals don't have feelings' comment.... That just disgusted and ticked me off so much... >_> Saying that I completely disagree with that would be a BIG understatement. And telling it to us as if it were a /fact/ is just /so/ offensive. Humans are animals too, you know. I couldn't agree more with what Silver and Ashe said...

This is actually a GOOD idea. Jurassic Park: FORGET IT. Jurassic Park was a load of Dinosaur lies. If we recreate Dinosaurs in small controllable populations, within labs, we could discover medical innovations, and much more. Keep in mind- these are LAB populations- NOT wild.

On another note, yes, animals can feel. They can, period. And, before it gets started, just want nto make the point. Changing DNA in embryos is not cruel, considering they are just a mass of cells, and cannot quite think yet, plus, will be born as they are, hence not cruelty. And, scientists tend to have enough brains to euthanize a suffering creature.

Major Kudos, Shev.

Getting over the fact that it is scientifically impossible to genetically recreate dinos... There's no reason to do that in the first place.

Everything humans have done in the past as far as genetics and technology are concerned were founded by curiosity and relevance. Even the occasional "happy mistakes" we've made in the past (read: insulin) were spawned by the quest to find something else - something that would do/prevent/effect something positively. Generally. Even guns were created with defense in mind.

Anyway - Dinosaurs have absolutely no relevance to anything going on in the world today. I'd like to say their biological niches have been filled, but the flat case is that they don't exist anymore. When dinos ruled, mammals weren't around. Granted, therpasids were... but they are our remotest cousins and they didn't grow to be much larger than the average house cat.

Look at any stable ecosystem. The number of secondary/tertiary consumers that are there are strictly limited by the number of producers/primary consumers available - and quaternary consumers are almost impossible to find. While you could try to throw in the dino equivalent of a jaguar... it just wouldn't work. They're evolved to digest things that don't exist today, and vice versa.

It's the same with herbivores; even plants have spent the past multi-million years evolving. There are whole phyla of plants that exist now that weren't around back then. And I know I don't have to be the one to tell you that plants are filled with all sorts of chemicals able of doing wonky things to people; God forbid a dino chomp down on a Cycad. It takes a month for an adult human to die of the liver cancer Cycads cause, and I'm sure the poor dinosaur would be down for at least as much suffering. After all, they haven't had a chance to evolve defenses to plant constructs that didn't exist when they were around.

As for looking at them for medicinal reasons? What purpose could a dinosaur possibly serve? That's a bit like using an abacus to do your calculus. They're just so outdated.

Really the only thing dinosaurs are good for is exploring evolutionary connections, and they do that just fine from where they are now.

Mind you, this isn't all to say that I don't think that would be damn cool... Have you SEEN the dracorex hogwartsia skull!? If that guy came back to life I would be pissing pure happy.

And as for animals not feeling? Bullshit.
Trust me on this one. I'm on the verge of spending the rest of my life dedicated to the things - they feel.

I have to disagree Pender.

It IS genetically possible. If you actually watched the program, and look through the facts.......Yes, as they said, in 50 years, Dino LIKE creatures would be possible. The geneticists were able to have a chicken embryo- mainrain tail vertabrae, have them GROW TEETH on the beaks, and grow scales and feathers in abnormal locations. As for wings to arms, think of Archaeopteryx. Wing- arms, is what they say. Now, yes, it may be hard or impossible, but in 50 years, "Emuasaurus" as they called a possible "Dinosaur" replica, could very well be done.

And with environmental niches- these WOULD NOT be wild populaions. As I stated before, these would logically be lab kept small, managable populations, not interfering with the wild and current habitats. Because, I DO agree that they do not belong wild on Earth today, but in a lab setting, I'm good with it.

I also agree that yes, they would help with evolutionary connections much, and is yet another purpose to recreate them.

yay raptors! now i can hug the birdy ancestors!
those feathery clawed bird-lizard things are soooo cute in my onion!

They wouldn't be cute when they bite your fingers off. *poofs*

Why is this thread still going?
Honestly, if someone wants to make something, I don't really care anymore. There is no point on stepping on people's toes for "right or wrong" with this.
If a scientist makes a dinosaur like thing, fifty years from now or even tomorrow, fine. Hopefully they'll actually be smart enough to keep it to themselves if something goes wrong instead of saying "oh yeah, we made something then killed it because it didn't work out." If anything, they'd probably take more then fifty years to do extra research. Why? Because they're scientists. I'm pretty sure that many of them wouldn't want to get into trouble with it, no matter how amazing it sounds. Amazement can still become a problem, and I'm sure that scientists know this fairly well.

Odds are good that this will happen after many, if not all of us on this site right now, are... well... dead.
I'm not for this, no, but really... the use? It may or may not be possible. How do we know till someone tries? When they do, well, I'll want to see things like this, but real debates... but I would want to see it.
Prove to myself that it happened.
Give me a reason to hate it.
If this "new" creature is in any form of pain, I'd expect it to be put to rest, or for someone to try to fix it... if that'd even be possible.

But I still need to agree with Shev and Pender, I just can't say that I do or do not believe it till it happens. I just don't see how they plan on making something that doesn't live in this world... knows nothing of it... can't really eat things here because it probably couldn't digest it. Meerkats can't eat grass, what makes them think that a creature who's been dead for ages would be able to eat it now? Odds are pretty good that even grass has evolved a little.

Anyway... you'd put somewhat "similar" DNA's together... So, you put a mammoth's DNA with an Elephant, yeah? I believe this was tried before when they managed to apparently find a perfectly preserved Mammoth in the ice. What happened? I believe it died. The DNA wasn't perfect. It's the same when you create a different cross animal, such as a mule, or those things that are sheep/alphaca crosses. They can't breed, can they? So you need to continue making these animals from those who should be happy with their own kind.
*shrugs* You don't (typically) see humans going at it with other creatures, do you?
Though, I suppose that many of these creatures don't really have anything to do with eachother. I believe that the eggs are removed from the female whatever and sperm from the male whatever and placed in a vat or however they do that, then they either place the fertilized eggs back into the female whatever or let them grow in a tube.
Or a LIGER! Those are usually very unhealthy. They're bred because they have gorgeous coats and can be used for human entertainment. But they can die... really easily... because even a lion/tiger mix, something that's so similar, still has odd DNA from eachother. They simply don't mix to 100%. Maybe the first Liger was an accident? Then people thought it'd be okay since that one seemed alright? Who knows.

Went a tad off topic, though, didn't I?
I'll shut up, since I have no idea what I'm saying, and I wish for people to set anything that's not true in this thread straight... though... that's the entire point of this, isn't it?



Wait... did any of this make sense? Am I just tired?
I mean... it's obvious that I really have no idea what I'm talking about...
So...
Yes, I think it's a tired-rant

those people are morons. duh jerasic park replay. are they stupid (nvm thats a definate yes) :rolleyes:

I want dinosaurs.
Badly.

I also want them to bring back the Thylosine like they should have YEARS ago as they have a perfectly preserved baby of one in a jar.. all they'd have to do is clone, pop in a marsupial, and done... Thylosines back from extinction.. but do they do it? Noooo, they won't do it 'cause of danger to the sheep and all that.

I bet you 10 bucks.. if wolves went extinct.. Like right now, and we could bring them back (genetically), ya'll would be "Yes, omg, save the wolves!".. But not Dinos.

Really, is an Archaoptyrx so bad to have as a pet?

Plus, it's not like genetic engineering hurts animals. At all.


Oh yeah.. you can't "mix" dna perfectly, no.. but you CAN make a cat glow in the dark. You can make bioluminescent fish that were not that way before. You can make apples red. You can take the genetics of a mammoth (if they're good), remove the genes of an elephant from an egg, and insert it into the new host. Put the (now firtile) egg into an elephant, and you're done.

Obviously, it takes bit more work than that, but.. if the genes are good, there's no reason for them to fail, really.. Not anymore.

I don't really see this being too much of a problem...because I simply don't think it's possible for an unstable molecule like deoxyribonucleic acid to NOT decompose over that time period--the carbon isotopes in these creatures 'bones' haven't just aged, lots of them are gone, as in, fossils are not bones, they're rocks cast into bones. :/

If this was plausible, I'd check out a little series called "prehistoric park'. Honestly, if we ever have prehistoric creatures, that seems the most likely scenario. They were animals, guys--not gods, not monsters, just animals, and yes, animals can be dangerous, but I call to attention retile farms with creatures like rattlesnakes. Dangerous is very, very closely tied to experience.

On the moral side, honestly, I think the most immoral thing that could come out of it is the likelyhood of suffering of the poor beasts--new diseases, totally different climate and atmosphere, plants and animals who literally have bodies composed with different toxins and concentrations of protiens...it kinda sounds like trouble for them :( I'm personally more comfortable with more recent mammalian extinctions--speaking about to...maybe austrilopiticene and a few hundred thousand years earlier. Definately in a period that is exempt from cataclysms like the KT event. Less likelyhood of animal suffering, because groups of organisms (theoretically) would be similar.