# Should they make a dinosaur?



## AE35Unit (Feb 14, 2009)

Just watching a programme on Discovery Science about genentic mutation and they have shown it is possible to turn an Emu into a Dino! Its pretty much accepted that birds are modern dinosaurs,they shape so many characteristics and they managed to get a chick to grow a long reptile like tail as well as teeth,and its only a matter of time before they create a living walking dinosaur! The question is tho,should they do it? Or should they be content with the knowledge that they can do it and that the emu,or more likely the turkey,is a modern dinosaur?(surprisingly it was shown in an earlier programme that the closest living thing to a dinosaur is in fact a turkey!)


----------



## dustinzgirl (Feb 14, 2009)

Yes. I want to try dinosaur meat.


----------



## AE35Unit (Feb 14, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Yes. I want to try dinosaur meat.



Probably tastes like chicken (or turkey)


----------



## BookStop (Feb 15, 2009)

or emu.

But no, I don't think they should. WHat would be the purpose? (other than obviuos culinary benefits) It just seems that genetically modifying an emu to appear to be a dino is useless. It's not like studying it could give you any insight on what real dinosaurs werelike.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Feb 15, 2009)

I'll sum it up in one word: No.



Why? Well, possibilities of Jurassic Park aside, there'd be a lot of ethical issues that would be raised about it.


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 15, 2009)

No.

They should only do it if they can create at least a decent facsimile of the environment in which the dinosaurs (what's the point of making one creaure?) would live. I can't see how they could do this, even supposing that they had some genuine information about the dinosaur's DNA (which they haven't and never will).

And if they're simply making up a creature by playing around with a current species' DNA, what on earth is the point?


----------



## Happy Joe (Feb 15, 2009)

I say yes... 'cause; I wanna see one!
The knowledge gained may prove beneficial in medicine, agriculture or the future modification of humans.

Enjoy!


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 15, 2009)

That seems a bit like a case of "we got <name your invention> because of the space programme", i.e. diversionary and expensive.

If people want to use genetic manipulation for some real-world application, then that's what they should be doing**, not trying to make the world's biggest scaly chicken drumstick.






** - With, of course, all the usual safeguards.


----------



## Happy Joe (Feb 16, 2009)

Perhaps; but if they don't do it there is no chance of a knowledge transfer.

I still want to see one! Start with newly extinct species, go for some mammoths next, then some dino DNA. At every step they will learn more; the more they learn the better the chances that some of it will have some wider application.

I'm not afraid of progress. Buffalo burgers are good, rattlesnake less so, let's try something exotic... or at least go have a look at them.

Enjoy!


----------



## mosaix (Feb 16, 2009)

I can't see it being possible. Although they are related birds are now so different. The most basic difference, and I can't see how they could get over this, is that birds are warm blooded whereas dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles.

I would have thought it a lot easier if they started off with something that was more like the end-product such as a crocodile. 

If they can do it, I think they should, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## AE35Unit (Feb 16, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> No.
> 
> They should only do it if they can create at least a decent facsimile of the environment in which the dinosaurs (what's the point of making one creaure?) would live. I can't see how they could do this, even supposing that they had some genuine information about the dinosaur's DNA (which they haven't and never will).
> 
> And if they're simply making up a creature by playing around with a current species' DNA, what on earth is the point?


 
Actually Urs there was a program on yesterday which showed a fosillized bone containing soft material from which they managed to extract genetic material!!


----------



## AE35Unit (Feb 16, 2009)

mosaix said:


> I can't see it being possible. Although they are related birds are now so different. The most basic difference, and I can't see how they could get over this, is that birds are warm blooded whereas dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles.
> 
> .


actually dinosaurs were not reptiles,they came later and are not related to dinos. They have also shown that velociraptor had the large keel that birds have and were covered with feathers, not for flight tho, and also may well have been warm blooded, just like birds!


----------



## HoopyFrood (Feb 16, 2009)

Yes, technically not reptiles; dinosaurs were a species of their own. Different leg structure for a start (underneath the body as opposed to out to the sides). And yup, with the ever-growing amount of evidence about dinosaurs, it is possible that some of them, particularly the smaller therapods, may have been warm-blooded. Probably not all of them, but then they did span millions of years and came in all shapes and sizes. But those that most resemble their feathered descendants may have been warm blooded.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 16, 2009)

Errr no, dinosaurs _were _reptiles.  Skull structure, egg-laying, scaly skins.......

They were just very highly-evolved ones.  The improved posture, insulating feathers and warm blood were experiments that came out right.

It's just ironic that the crude and primitive crocodiles, a separate branch of the same ancestral stock, outlived them.


----------



## Dave (Feb 16, 2009)

Just a small point, but how will they know they have got it correct? Do they have Dinosaur DNA like in _Jurassic Park_ from blood inside a mosquito trapped in amber? 

I only ask because your thread title instantly makes me think of the Dinosaurs in Crystal Palace Park near me which were _made_ back in 1854. They didn't get those quite right.
BBC - London - History - The dinosaurs

And IIRC there is a Dinosaur in the Natural History Museum which used to have it's toe bone attached to it's nose, because no one knew any better.

The point I'm making is that without a _blue print_ to work from, how can we really know that we have created the real thing?


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 17, 2009)

In my opinion - no. Leave it alone. just because we _can_ do thing doesn't mean we _should _do it. 

We upset the balance of nature too much already without adding our own pre-fabricated species to the problem.

Reckless and meddling we are but Prometheus we are not.


----------

