Scientists Discover 75 Million Year Old Dinosaur DNA

Could we just have gotten one step closer to a real-life Jurassic Park? A team of scientists recently published a paper in the National Science Review in which they claim to have discovered ancient DNA in fossil remains of a duck-billed dinosaur dating back 75 million years (link to publication). A related article that's a bit easier to read and less "technical" than the aforementioned paper can be found here.

Image above shows Hypacrosaurus & closeup of a cell presumably containing DNA
(Source Image)

Contrary to our current understanding that DNA decays quickly, with the oldest fragments suitable for sequencing being 1.5 million years old, the scientists around palaeontologist Alida Bailleul argue that they encountered a very special case of DNA preservation that allows the material to survive for millions of years (a preservation scenario that is currently not properly understood, yet accounts for the scientist's discovery).

The authors are aware that other scientists claimed to have found ancient dinosaur DNA before, and they know that such finds frequently turned out to be modern microbes that contaminated the fossils. In their paper, however, they argue that such contamination can be excluded and that the discovered DNA is therefore truly ancient, thus belonging to the dinosaur fossil they investigated (Hypacrosaurus stebingeri). The below images show a comparison of cells of Hypacrosaurus (top) and Emu (bottom):



The team now encourages other scientists to investigate fossils that have been preserved in a similar fashion in order to validate their claims. So could this really be the game-changing discovery that brings us closer to resurrecting dinosaurs and other organisms that roamed the earth millions of years ago?

To answer that question, and to get a second opinion, I found another article (link) where an expert discusses the claims and related issues including the potential implications of the discovery. Maybe we need to remain sceptical, but it wouldn't be the first time that our current theories would need to be re-evaluated due to previously unknown factors and an unexpected discovery.

Thanks for reading up to here and I very much look forward to your thoughts and comments!



SOURCES & LINKS:
-----------------------------
01. Evidence of proteins, chromosomes & chemical markers of DNA
02. TechTimes article: Scientists Found Possible Dinosaur DNA Evidence
03. Has dinosaur DNA been found? An expert explains what we know
04. More information about Ancient DNA
05. Wikipedia article on duck-billed dinosaurs (Hadrosaurus)

Wouldn’t it be crazy if one day people managed to clone dinosaurs and they ended up being intelligent and able to communicate?

Or they clone them and they eat all of us and take the earth back, and if they are intelligent they will just use our cars and stuff.

a reply to: underwerks

Paleontologists now regard dinosaurs as being very intelligent for reptiles, but generally not as smart as their avian descendants.

Some have speculated that if the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event had not occurred, the more intelligent forms of small theropods might have eventually evolved human-like levels of intelligence.

Wouldn’t it be crazy if all their (ignorant scientists) dating methods were completely flawed and the dinosaurs are the dragons spoken of in old folklores
That dinosaurs/dragons are not nearly as old as people believe and some still exist today, well some think they still do

That finding DNA millions of years old is stupid because it’s just not that old and dating methods are flawed

Let’s hope we can clone this stuff and real dinosaurs can wander around again

People laugh at flat earthers but believe DNA and 75 million years, how dumb is that

Very cool find,

I'm still waiting for a Mammoth to be cloned.

I wonder though, the chances of enough usable code to be there?

So, what happened to the science that said that entropy in DNA remnants as old as this, could not allow for any useful information to be preserved? How could this discovery modify that?

a reply to: charlyv

The complex nature of DNA makes it impossible to ever reconstruct the exact DNA of an extinct animal using small fragments, especially when patched up using more than 99% of another distant relative's DNA.

Even if, somehow, the DNA hadn't degraded or a significant percentage of such was still viable, you can't just fill those bits you do not have with DNA from other organisms.

We would have no blueprint sequence available to determine what the missing bits should be filled with for a start.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: underwerks

Paleontologists now regard dinosaurs as being very intelligent for reptiles, but generally not as smart as their avian descendants.

Some have speculated that if the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event had not occurred, the more intelligent forms of small theropods might have eventually evolved human-like levels of intelligence.

What if some of them evolved upright and bipedal and walk amongst us wearing skinsuits?

Just saying to knock before entering. You might catch me letting my scales air out.

I question if their way of identifying how long ago they existed is actually correct. Dinosaurs could have been her half a million years ago, structuring carbon dating by using three thousand years as reference does not mean it will work correctly over a hundred thousand years, there could be some variables in the climate or in the environment that could have made radiocarbon dating unreliable over that period of time.

look this is IMO a VERY BAD IDEA

Lets look at the Jurassic park (outside of the science part that take some movie liberties) movie series.
that alone presents some realistic (outside of training raptors , that was silly by any standards) ways things could go wrong.

now lets say the Jurassic park movies are all BS for this discussion

lets look at basic common sense/logic.

While I dont say scientists are ignorant nor have good theories about the dinosaurs.
the key word is THEORIES.
even what they claim to know at best could be called LIMITED.

we have close to ZERO idea what type of bacteria they had in , on and used in their bodies.
what viruses, parasites, and other biological entities they created, had, or generated.

we have guesses (some educated but still guesses) what intellect (no I am not claiming human, lets get real) they had, their physical abilities, what they ate, ect.

take all that and realize they have LESS THAN ZERO what their DNA (much less a full grown one) will be effected by the biological, chemical , ect things of our modern age.

We could realistically bring back a biological entity that we have no immunity to
Or worse create an entirely new biological entity that could harm us or the environment .

IMO I think we should study what is left and let (for lack of a better term) sleeping dogs lie
given human ignorance and arrogance .

or put it as chris rock once said

JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT A GOOD IDEA

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I want a dinosaur burger NOWWW!!!!!

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: scrounger

I want a dinosaur burger NOWWW!!!!!

hope it doesnt make you wish for the taco bell sales burrito trots

scrounger

a reply to: jeep3r

Just a few thoughts....

Let's say we could bring back a dinosaur. The question is, what about the supporting bacteria for its gut and even mites and such for the dinosaur? Could it survive without them or would suitable replacements take their place? Do suitable bacteria exist? Would the modern plants be poisonous to it?

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: scrounger

I want a dinosaur burger NOWWW!!!!!

hope it doesnt make you wish for the taco bell sales burrito trots

scrounger

Hit up Taco Bell and order the Tyrannosaurus Mex combo. 100% ground dino, no fillers!

a reply to: jeep3r LMAO scientist's can't agree on events that happened 300 yrs ago,because of a false narrative of America,none of their data works,dinosaurs could of been on earth a few hundred years ago,as well as different human species,scientist discover what ever they are told otherwise won't get paid

A refreshing thread amongst all the current virus and political writings on here. Something to take our minds else where for a while.

Man has always had this dream of bringing dinosaurs back. This is a fantastic discovery and I hope more research and funding goes into it. However I think the idea that we will be going to a Jurassic Park type theme park is a long way in the future.
Fascinating find though.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: scrounger

I want a dinosaur burger NOWWW!!!!!

hope it doesnt make you wish for the taco bell sales burrito trots

scrounger

Hit up Taco Bell and order the Tyrannosaurus Mex combo. 100% ground dino, no fillers!

later you take a "jurassic" journey at the throne

Scrounger

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: charlyv

The complex nature of DNA makes it impossible to ever reconstruct the exact DNA of an extinct animal using small fragments, especially when patched up using more than 99% of another distant relative's DNA.

That's also my understanding. DNA has some long strands and the more time passes the more fragmentation occurs. It also makes sense that some conditions might preserve DNA better than others, but even in the better preserved DNA there are limits.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I question if their way of identifying how long ago they existed is actually correct. Dinosaurs could have been her half a million years ago, structuring carbon dating by using three thousand years as reference does not mean it will work correctly over a hundred thousand years, there could be some variables in the climate or in the environment that could have made radiocarbon dating unreliable over that period of time.

I don't know where you got "over a hundred thousand years" from, radiocarbon dating is never used for things that old, not over 70,000 years old according to this table:

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods


That's a good article if you're curious how they date things over 100,000 years old. The reason radiocarbon dating isn't useful over 70,000 years is there's too little carbon 14 left, though as measurement accuracy increased, that 70,000 years number has crept up, it used to be lower.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Well, that's Mr David Icke and Credo Mutwas take on the matter.

Makes great science fiction, but the truth of the matter is rather more deplorable.

Our ruling classes are cold-blooded bastards all on there own without the need to be shapeshifting reptiles.