Will never happen. DNA won't survive for so long. At least not enough for cloning. And extracting DNA from amber like they did in Jurassic Park is just ridiculous. Amber actually doesn't preserve DNA very well.
The Dinosaur Thread
- Thread starter SuperFerret
- Start date
Will never happen. DNA won't survive for so long. At least not enough for cloning. And extracting DNA from amber like they did in Jurassic Park is just ridiculous. Amber actually doesn't preserve DNA very well.
Iron_Stark
Pepperony 3000
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 7,470
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 73
I know, still dino cloning is one of the three things I want to see before I die. The other 2 are aliens and an actual ghost.
WarMachine68
Civilian
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
I was surprised there were no feathered dinosaurs in Jurassic World, given the changes in what science thinks it knows about dinosaurs since the 90's.
You know they can turn emus or ostriches or chickens into dinosaurs by changing some dna/gene stuff. The dna contains super old ancestral versions, so they just have to switch feathers into scales, beaks into teeth, wings into arms etc.
I can't figure out why they haven't already done it and opened up a mini Jurassic Park in dubai or something.
You know they can turn emus or ostriches or chickens into dinosaurs by changing some dna/gene stuff. The dna contains super old ancestral versions, so they just have to switch feathers into scales, beaks into teeth, wings into arms etc.
I can't figure out why they haven't already done it and opened up a mini Jurassic Park in dubai or something.
Iron_Stark
Pepperony 3000
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 7,470
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 73
They addressed it in the movie when Wu said they controlled how the dinosaurs looked.
BrollySupersj
The only verdict, is vengeance.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 11,154
- Reaction score
- 2,014
- Points
- 103
Anyone else think the JP movies should ditch the Velociraptor and use the actual bipedal walking reptiles, postosuchus and poposaurus?
They arent dinosaurs, they're more related to the crocodile. But they walked on two legs, were relatively large, and are reptiles.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ricki.jpg/1280px-Postosuchus_kirkpatricki.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...is_(1).jpg/1280px-Poposaurus_gracilis_(1).jpg
Just increase their size, for thematic reasons, viola.
They arent dinosaurs, they're more related to the crocodile. But they walked on two legs, were relatively large, and are reptiles.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ricki.jpg/1280px-Postosuchus_kirkpatricki.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...is_(1).jpg/1280px-Poposaurus_gracilis_(1).jpg
Just increase their size, for thematic reasons, viola.
Enriquespy
Superhero
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,991
- Reaction score
- 2,036
- Points
- 103
Like Iguanas?
or like that Versache lady?
or like that Versache lady?
First-Ever Dinosaur Brain Tissue Found
http://www.livescience.com/56665-fossilized-dinosaur-brain-tissue.html
http://www.livescience.com/56665-fossilized-dinosaur-brain-tissue.html
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Last edited:
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Let's talk about the theory that dinosaurs never existed and it's all fake.
I'm not saying that i believe that dinosaurs didn't exist, i don't know, i wasn't there at the time; but i'm pretty happy with the idea that they exist, they are cool...
I'll leave it here the best theories of dinos didn't existed, discuss as you please:
> An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically
Premise: Consider that at one point the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid that obliterated the Earth and caused all dinosaurs to become extinct simultaneously. There are several problems with such a theory.
For an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs, it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this:
If this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point.
Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.
If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.
The possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.
> There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived
Premise: An elephant has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive.
A dinosaur the size of a Brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per days every day in order to survive. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day. Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close.
Even so, the real problem would be that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).
Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more
> Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics
Premise: The laws of physics and gravity prevents the existence of creatures as massive as dinosaurs. There have been many attempts to justify this, but the fact remains that without changing the laws of physics, it is not possible.
Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.
Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck. Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.
> Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards
Premise: If dinosaurs roamed the Earth and were everywhere, and these creatures were massive, gigantic beasts, then there should be overwhelming evidence everywhere we look. You would go gardening and find ten or twenty giant bones every time you tried to plant some seeds.
People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.
> Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
Premise: Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.
This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest.
> Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s
Premise: For a set of creatures that are supposed to have been so pervasive, so massive, and so populous to have never been seen in any culture's mythology at any time in known history (not even cave paintings), defies logic if the creatures had in fact existed. Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society.
However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from
mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology.
If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology.
Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).
There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.
Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.
> A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one
Premise: You go to a museum and you see dinosaur skeletons. At least, you think you do. You see, those dinosaurs are amalgams of various things ranging from chicken bones, to random bones, to straight plaster casts. Not even the teeth are real. Various bones have been found that have been claimed to be a part of a dinosaur. However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found.
As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.
> There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around
Premise: Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed.
> Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean
Premise: An extinction-level event, such as a giant comet crashing into Earth, or perhaps a disease that wiped out all the dinosaurs, would only have impacted the land dinosaurs and shallow-water dinosaurs, not the ones in the deep ocean. If such an event occurred as the reason for why dinosaurs "went extinct", it would not have applied to the deep ocean dinosaurs which would still be there today.
I'm not saying that i believe that dinosaurs didn't exist, i don't know, i wasn't there at the time; but i'm pretty happy with the idea that they exist, they are cool...
I'll leave it here the best theories of dinos didn't existed, discuss as you please:
> An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically
Premise: Consider that at one point the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid that obliterated the Earth and caused all dinosaurs to become extinct simultaneously. There are several problems with such a theory.
For an event of this magnitude to have occurred to wipe out all the dinosaurs, it would have to wipe out all the rest of life, too. There are major problems with this:
If this event occurred, then it would mean that evolution would have to have started over from scratch from that point.
Not to mention that all humans would also have been wiped out, so let's not even get into the red herring fallacies that try to argue how dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously.
If such an event were to occur, it would mean that there would be archaeological evidence of a period of time, perhaps many millions of years, in which no life existed on Earth except maybe some surviving cave dwellers and deep sea creatures. However, no such archaeological evidence exists.
The possibility that evolution could start life over, in the exact same way, from the exact same biological principles, a second time is just so astronomically absurd it's just not even funny anymore.
> There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived
Premise: An elephant has to eat for 18 hours every day in order to survive.
A dinosaur the size of a Brontosaurus would have to eat for around 90 to 180 hours per days every day in order to survive. It is logically impossible to eat for 90 hours per 24 hour day. Even if it scarfed down food much quicker, it still comes nowhere close to having enough time to sustain itself. If it did absolutely nothing but eat and sleep, it still wouldn't even come close. Even if it never slept but only ate, still it would not even come close.
Even so, the real problem would be that there wouldn't even be enough food for them to eat (not to mention enough fresh water to drink).
Take the example of the Australian rabbit. This tiny animal in relatively large numbers has wreaked havoc on the local environment. Consider the effect of just these tiny creatures. Now consider the daily consumption of one single plant-eating dinosaur. At 13 tons, a Mamenchisaurus, similar to a Brontosaurus, would have to have eaten 1,150 pounds of vegetation per day. This is probably equivalent to about 10,000 rabbits, maybe more
> Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics
Premise: The laws of physics and gravity prevents the existence of creatures as massive as dinosaurs. There have been many attempts to justify this, but the fact remains that without changing the laws of physics, it is not possible.
Due to the principles of gravity, mass, and the limitations of muscular anatomy in any life form, it would not be possible for any animal weighing more than 20,803 pounds to be able to lift its own weight (Holden, 1994). However, the Brontosaurus is supposed to weigh over 70,000 pounds, and other so-called sauropods are supposed to be many times larger than that.
Then there is the issue of neck size - a long necked animal of that size would not even be able to lift its neck. Additionally, their blood pressure would be way too high to be able to live. Their heart would literally explode. For reference, a giraffe has a long neck, and even at its relatively tiny size in comparison to sauropods, a giraffe is at essentially the peak of blood pressure that is possible to live, having a higher blood pressure than any other animal.
> Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in the backyards
Premise: If dinosaurs roamed the Earth and were everywhere, and these creatures were massive, gigantic beasts, then there should be overwhelming evidence everywhere we look. You would go gardening and find ten or twenty giant bones every time you tried to plant some seeds.
People would be building houses out of these bones because there was so many of them. Who needs bricks when you have fossils? Your kids would go play outside and occasionally come back with a petrified dinosaur bone. However, there has never once been an instance in which someone accidentally found a dinosaur bone.
> Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
Premise: Even evolutionary scientists accept that carbon dating is entirely ineffective in measuring time. Not only is it ineffective with relatively short periods of time, but the entire theory is based off a premise that essentially says that the maximum amount of years it can be used for is 40,000 years.
This means that using radiocarbon dating to say that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago is like using a thermometer to measure the height of Mount Everest.
> Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s
Premise: For a set of creatures that are supposed to have been so pervasive, so massive, and so populous to have never been seen in any culture's mythology at any time in known history (not even cave paintings), defies logic if the creatures had in fact existed. Instead, the mythology of dinosaurs did not spring up until around the 1800s. Since then, and especially since the 1900s when Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (published in 1859) book became more popular, dinosaurs have become a pervasive part of society.
However, before the 1800s, Dinosaurs were completely absent from
mythology. We don't see it in Greek, Roman, or any other sort of mythology.
If, as they say, dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, giant, massive creatures that defied the imagination, dinosaurs would then become the focal point of all of historical mythology.
Absolute reference is the key factor. Not a reference that might be a large whale or elephant ("leviathan" and "behemoth" in the Bible). If such massive creatures existed, there wouldn't be one or two ambiguous references here and there. No, if it were true then you would hear very specifically about giant massive creatures with giant heads, ferocious teeth, and tiny arms (Tyrannosaurus Rex), gentle giant long-necked creatures who were many, many times bigger than even the largest known creatures such as elephants (Brontosaurus), and super-fast and intelligent creatures with 9 inch claws and teeth and pack-hunting mentalities (Velociraptor).
There would have to be thousands, even millions of references that are very specific. For example, it's not like we think that references to a dragon might be references to say, a large bird. No, mythology is very clear about dragons being large, reptilian, flying, fire-breathing creatures; and dragons are extremely pervasive throughout mythology.
Don't you think that if dinosaurs existed, myth-writers such as Homer would have capitalized on this in the "Iliad and the Odyssey" and other famous mythological writings and great stories? No, instead you find many mythical creatures like Cyclops, mermaids, and talking horses. But no references to dinosaurs.
> A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one
Premise: You go to a museum and you see dinosaur skeletons. At least, you think you do. You see, those dinosaurs are amalgams of various things ranging from chicken bones, to random bones, to straight plaster casts. Not even the teeth are real. Various bones have been found that have been claimed to be a part of a dinosaur. However, no dinosaur skeleton has ever been found.
As a result, the only way to make a dinosaur skeleton for a museum is to, quite literally make it. That is, they have to create what they think it might look like by filling in 99% of the bones with other things to make what they think the whole thing would look like.
> There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around
Premise: Presupposition is a philosophical term which means that you create the evidence based on an assumed premise. In philosophy, any presupposed arguments are usually dismissed.
To be more clear, the idea of dinosaurs was first imagined, and then scientists attempted to search for evidence that they existed. However, this is not how science works. The scientific method dictates that in order to assume a valid scientific notion, it must first be discovered, and only then create the theories based only on the scientific fact.
Instead, however, dinosaurs were first imagined, and then entire skeletons were designed by creative artists; and then after they had what they thought might exist, they went out and tried to find evidence that their theory existed.
> Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean
Premise: An extinction-level event, such as a giant comet crashing into Earth, or perhaps a disease that wiped out all the dinosaurs, would only have impacted the land dinosaurs and shallow-water dinosaurs, not the ones in the deep ocean. If such an event occurred as the reason for why dinosaurs "went extinct", it would not have applied to the deep ocean dinosaurs which would still be there today.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 15,143
- Reaction score
- 8,885
- Points
- 103
Can we keep the pseudoscience nonsense out of this thread?
I just want to reply to one because it is actually sort of correct.
> Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
This is true. Which is why it is used by archaeologists, not paleontologists. They use Potassium-Argon Dating.
Most of the rest of this is just so wrong to be not worth commenting on.
I just want to say though that the very premise that dinosaurs went extinct is false. They didn't. There are more dinosaurs living today than there are mammals.
I just want to reply to one because it is actually sort of correct.
> Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years
This is true. Which is why it is used by archaeologists, not paleontologists. They use Potassium-Argon Dating.
Most of the rest of this is just so wrong to be not worth commenting on.
I just want to say though that the very premise that dinosaurs went extinct is false. They didn't. There are more dinosaurs living today than there are mammals.
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
I don't get it...
By just dismiss it completely, you are being totally biased.
Or are you part of the gang that also believe in ancient aliens, alien crop circles and nibiru?
Like i said, i do not defend the theory that dinosaurs didn't exist, i just accept it because they are cool and it's way cooler to believe that they did that they didn't...but i don't know, not for a fact anyway.
Last edited:
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Pseudoscience? Please, explain without the all "i want to believe" angle.
I'm not going to debate any of those, since, like i said, i don't believe they didn't existed...but i don't blindly say they did either.
I just put those theories there for argument sake, but since you call it pseudoscience...please, explain every single point.
To say things like "the rest is wrong so it's not worth commenting" has no real value, unless you are 5 and have no understanding on how to defend a point.
Why is it wrong?
What evidences you do have to say that?
You can not possibly argue about the gravity and laws of physic angle, you just can't.
It's logic 101, unless you don't know anything about science.
You can only theorize that things were different back then for whatever reason.
But, if you compare dinosaurs with the animals of today....
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Messages
- 73,965
- Reaction score
- 29,739
- Points
- 203
Obviously.Isildur´s Heir;34391379 said:
No humans were wiped out when the dinosaurs were....because there were no humans on Earth at that point. Humans living with dinosaurs are the thing of fiction and sci fi movies.
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
You are missing the part where i didn't come up with those premises, none of them.
And of course that no human lived with dinosaurs, that's is known.
But, to look at 9 theories and several premises and just dismiss one, doesn't deserve a "You're kidding....right?"
You can only use that expression when you dismiss every single one.
That was my point when i said "i don't get it", and not because i didn't actually understood you.
So, don't act all smart with the "Obviously".
To dismiss everything just because one is false is a fallacy.
dude stannis
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 31
So did God put dinosaur fossils there to test our faith?
Perfect Cell
I wish you weren't so f***in' awkward, bud
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 10,066
- Reaction score
- 5,422
- Points
- 103
No, Satan obvi.
Them triceratops horns were forged by Lucifer himself.
Them triceratops horns were forged by Lucifer himself.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
Hunter RiderRonin -
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Lily Adler#forthecontent! 📹 (she/her)
Latest posts
-
-
Discussion: Congress, The Senate, The House of Representatives - Part I (2 Viewers)
- Latest: blueharvest
-
-
-
Deadpool & Wolverine Deadpool & Wolverine News and General Discussion Thread (11 Viewers)- Latest: emielaen