Dinosaur feathers found preserved in amber

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


So cool! Now all that's left is clone it :]

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by woogleuk
We know that creatures were so big back then because the Earths gravity was lower.

That's not correct. There are a number of reasons why they probably grew so big, but gravity on Earth has always been the same.

We don't know that for a fact, shifting continents and changes in the Earths mass could cause gravity to become stronger over the millions of years.

Look up "The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction"

That being said, I should have maybe said..."Some believe that creatures were so big back then because the Earths gravity was lower"

Originally posted by woogleuk
We know that creatures were so big back then because the Earths gravity was lower.

No... the Earth's gravity hasn't changed more than a few millionths of a G (from matter build up from constant meteor bombardment) since the Theia Impact. The reason that there were more larger animals back then was because 1) there was a higher oxygen content of the atmosphere and 2) the average temperature was much warmer (notice how the largest land animals are native to warm climates, elephants for example).

'bout to debunk your scienterrific method good sir OP, according to my Bible got sititin' hurr, the universe is only 6000 years old, God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith.

DNA more than a few thousands years' old is so broken up it's useless. So finding intact dino DNA is impossible.

However scientists are working on back-engineering a chicken into its original model, a dinosaur.

If they suceed in doing this, it may be possible in the future to use Chicken-o-saurus's fresh DNA to "patch up" ancient, broken dino DNA.

So, the dream is not over...

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
So Jurassic Park is scientifically possible after all? Well looks like Crichton is right

Well, If we can find a sample of DNA good enough, I suppose it would be possible to clone then, using the aid of another animal.

edit on 16-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

Both hair roots and feathers contain DNA. If the DNA preserved in the amber has not degraded to the point of uselessness, it could be possible to clone them. Bringing back some of these animals to life would be very risky for us. Dinosaurs were successful for 165 million years for a reason.

DNA Extraction
www.ehow.co.uk...

What Is DNA Semi-Conservative Replication?
www.ehow.co.uk...

Type in motion - Jurassic Park - Mr DNA


Jurassic park: Recut
www.youtube.com...


Reality ...

The Search for DNA in Amber
From: The Natural History Museum | By: Andrew RossJeremy Austin
www.fathom.com...
The ( PDF)
.www.nhm.ac.uk...

Jurassic Park comes true: How scientists are bringing dinosaurs back to life with the help of the humble chicken

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 9:51 PM on 13th June 2008

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... 9mgUXjc

and back to this ...

Dinosaur feathers found preserved in amber
At least 70 million years ago, discovery shows, creatures were fuzzy, not scaly
www.msnbc.msn.com...

That's ace, I used to love reading about dinosaurs when I was younger.

Finds like this though make you wonder how the young Earth theorist can stand by there claims. Just out of curiosity what explanation do the young Earth fans give about Dinosaurs?

Goddam' "ethical restrictions"!

Millions of chickens go into KFC buckets every day, and yet we can't hatch a single 'modified' one...

Teeth, gator snout, probably faster and stronger... this chicken would be the alpha male of chickens. He would be the MAN. Unethical? He'll have a great time!

Some new pictures were released today. It seems they found a large number of them, and of different kinds.

An extraordinary collection of ancient feather fragments preserved in amber has opened a window into a lost world, one that now appears populated by dinosaurs covered in plumage as rich and varied as that of modern birds

This one looks like a modern feather:



Some more:








Last one with comment:

"If these didn't come from a geological context 70 to 80 million years old, you'd think they were dead ringers for modern birds," said Wolfe of the hook-like structures at right, which connect the stiff hairlike branches that line the shafts of flight feathers. At left is a feather from a chicken.

More information and source here: Wired

Originally posted by chi_z
'bout to debunk your scienterrific method good sir OP, according to my Bible got sititin' hurr, the universe is only 6000 years old, God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith.

I really hope that's you joking and just not being detected by me.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


The feathers have DNA? If yes please implant it into a chicken egg. I want a pet dino.

Originally posted by atomicn
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel

 

The feathers have DNA? If yes please implant it into a chicken egg. I want a pet dino.

Yep, feathers have DNA. How intact the DNA is in these amber samples is another question. But do you really want a nasty critter like this running around?

There's a company who specializes in this by the way:

With recent advances in DNA technology, we can now extract the necessary DNA to be able to determine the sex from just a few plucked feathers.

Avianbiotech

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by flyingfish

The defination of dinosaurs as being reptiles is being over turned by recent data.

Please learn what theropods, abelisaurids, and ceratosaurs are.

Then you will realize how wrong you are.

It's a transition from one (reptile) to the other (bird). Please review the data in depth.

Google those 3 keywords.

I know what theropods, abelisaurids, and ceratosaurs are.
You took my comment literally I was referring to the past ideas that "all" dinosaurs were being classified as reptiles.
If you read my whole comment and study the links then you will realize how wrong you are.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by flyingfish

The defination of dinosaurs as being reptiles is being over turned by recent data.

Please learn what theropods, abelisaurids, and ceratosaurs are.

Then you will realize how wrong you are.

It's a transition from one (reptile) to the other (bird). Please review the data in depth.

Google those 3 keywords.

I know what theropods, abelisaurids, and ceratosaurs are.
You took my comment literally I was referring to the past ideas that "all" dinosaurs were being classified as reptiles.
If you read my whole comment and study the links then you will realize how wrong you are.

Well if what you say is true, and I did miss other comments made by you that clarify your point, than I concede and apologize for misinterpreting your statements.

Dinosaurs is indeed a blanket term that we use unfairly to group millions of species of animals into one umbrella category and you are correct, there are exceptions and it will not always hold up.

So I am sorry if I misread your intent. Hopefully you will accept my apology.

reply to post by muzzleflash


No apology needed I was responding to ACTS 2:38 comment, blanketing the term dinosuar by Webster definition.

Incoming somewhat irrelevant post:

Since dinosaurs had feathers, birds have feathers, and some birds can be trained to talk - will I be able to train my future T-Rex pet to talk? I have to wait for the Japanese to clone a mammoth first, though.

Originally posted by chi_z
'bout to debunk your scienterrific method good sir OP, according to my Bible got sititin' hurr, the universe is only 6000 years old, God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith.

That is completely wrong, sir! God put them there to remind us why we start wars.

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
So Jurassic Park is scientifically possible after all? Well looks like Crichton is right

That's what came to mind for me too. lol

wow, cool! thanks OP! great find man!


correct me if an am wrong, would we not need the RNA to somehow bring this creature back to reality?

Originally posted by woogleuk
We now know Dinosaurs had feathers.

It has been shown that chickens share common DNA with that of the T-Rex.

We all know evolution played a roll in shaping life on earth.

We know that creatures were so big back then because the Earths gravity was lower.

Lately I have been wondering if Dinosaurs did actually die out and become extinct, or, did they evolve, become smaller and become the birds that we know today.

Probably not, but it does get the mind thinking.

Could you give me a source for this tidbit of info, I have never heard that the earth's gravity was different by more than a few percentage points once it completed forming.

Thanks