Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
very quiet on dino dna
01-26-2009, 04:22 AM
Post: #1
very quiet on dino dna
does it prove dinosaurs are related to no living animal?

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-26-2009, 05:25 AM
Post: #2
RE: very quiet on dino dna
(01-26-2009 04:22 AM)smellycat Wrote:  does it prove dinosaurs are related to no living animal?

It proves that it's hard to pull DNA out of a rock..


Oh, and http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blo...60766.html


Enjoy.

"Humanity invented religion initially to overcome the permanent loss of consciousness that occurs at death and it was then taken over by groups who use it to control other groups" - Innuendo, from Def-Logic forums.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-26-2009, 05:53 AM
Post: #3
RE: very quiet on dino dna
i thought they had tissue from a t-rex,debunking the age of dino,s and to do dna on said tissue,seems to have gone very quiet.

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 02:53 PM
Post: #4
RE: very quiet on dino dna
(01-26-2009 05:53 AM)smellycat Wrote:  i thought they had tissue from a t-rex,debunking the age of dino,s and to do dna on said tissue,seems to have gone very quiet.

You have been reading too much science fiction, or creationist websites. In case you hadn't noticed, flesh has a tendency to decompose after death. Somebody gave this summarry of why Jurassic Park isn't possible:

1 We must find intact DNA of the species in question. Amber is one of the better preservatives of DNA, so dinosaur DNA in amber would be good. Problem: DNA degrades over time, even in amber. After several million years, many lethal losses of pieces of the DNA would occur. These gaps in the DNA strand cannot be repaired; their information is lost forever. We cannot improvise the genetic code of an organism.

2 We must extract the DNA from the amber. If the DNA is inside of an insect, there would be the huge problem of getting insect DNA mixed with our dino-DNA. We would be lucky to get a few pieces of intact DNA out; certainly not the whole genome of the animal.

3 We must sequence the DNA — find out what the genetic code of the animal is. That's several billion letters strung together in a chain. One gap in the chain could possibly ruin the whole thing. In the Jurassic Park stories, frog DNA is used to plug the holes in the DNA. This is really silly! As paleontological critics have remarked, "too much frog DNA and your T. rex croaks." A reasonably intact dinosaur genome is necessary to progress further — putting together DNA is a lot harder than reconstructing a dinosaur skeleton from its bones, and that's plenty hard. The odds of correctly assembling a fragmentary genome are similar to putting a million-piece puzzle together with your eyes closed. DNA allows some room for mistakes (not all DNA is used), but it doesn't seem likely that we could get enough for any one animal.

4 If we somehow got a whole dinosaur genome, we would somehow have to make it assemble into chromosomes, which we don't know how to do with dinosaur DNA. That might be able to be accomplished with a few decades of work.

5 Here comes the zinger. These chromosomes now would have to be implanted into a compatible, living, intact egg. Crocodile eggs, or even eggs of the same dinosaur genus, would not work. In vertebrates, the same (or at least closely related) species' egg and cytoplasm apparently are required for the egg to develop normally. The major problem here is that we just have the DNA — we don't know what species we have (DNA doesn't come with nametags), and even if we did we don't have a living dinosaur egg of that species!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 03:23 PM
Post: #5
RE: very quiet on dino dna
they have found t-rex muscle tissue,look it up on the net.

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 03:25 PM
Post: #6
RE: very quiet on dino dna
The molecular evidence that has been recovered from dinosaurs shows them to be related to other animals, contra your claim.

Just Google dinosaur protein. The following is from the first hit returned ... the New York Times.

Quote:In a retrieval once thought unattainable, scientists have recovered and identified proteins in a bone of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex that lived and died and was fossilized 68 million years ago.

...

Repeated analysis of the T-rex proteins, the researchers said, uncovered new evidence of a link between dinosaurs and birds, a widely held but contentious hypothesis. Three of the seven reconstructed protein sequences were closely related to chickens.

...

Though barely detectable, proteins of collagen 1, the main organic component of bone, were separated and examined. Fragments, or peptides, of the protein were pieced together into strands of the seven sequences. Three of these reacted with antibodies to chicken collagen. Two others appeared possibly related to living creatures: a frog and a newt.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/science/13dino.html)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Post: #7
RE: very quiet on dino dna
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXyp8Zy1GY

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 05:22 PM
Post: #8
RE: very quiet on dino dna
(01-29-2009 04:01 PM)smellycat Wrote:  http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXyp8Zy1GY

The person in that video said the following, if not in quite the same words:

"3 We must sequence the DNA — find out what the genetic code of the animal is. That's several billion letters strung together in a chain. One gap in the chain could possibly ruin the whole thing. In the Jurassic Park stories, frog DNA is used to plug the holes in the DNA. This is really silly! As paleontological critics have remarked, "too much frog DNA and your T. rex croaks." A reasonably intact dinosaur genome is necessary to progress further — putting together DNA is a lot harder than reconstructing a dinosaur skeleton from its bones, and that's plenty hard. The odds of correctly assembling a fragmentary genome are similar to putting a million-piece puzzle together with your eyes closed. DNA allows some room for mistakes (not all DNA is used), but it doesn't seem likely that we could get enough for any one animal."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 05:31 PM
Post: #9
RE: very quiet on dino dna
you miss the point,with the dates stated for when dinosaurs exited comes into doubt with this evidence.scientists say millions of years etc,this can not be.

Good evil salvation
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2009, 06:00 PM
Post: #10
RE: very quiet on dino dna
(01-29-2009 05:31 PM)smellycat Wrote:  you miss the point,with the dates stated for when dinosaurs exited comes into doubt with this evidence.scientists say millions of years etc,this can not be.

Why does it bring the date of their extinction into doubt? It may be puzzling how tissue managed to remain in tact for 67,000,000 years, but it would be just as puzzling for it to survive 2,000 years; or even 200 years. Flesh decays, as you will soon find out if you leave meat out of the freezer for long.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Dna & controlled energy, a deathblow to atheism & evolution kaleb 30 4,371 10-27-2011 10:50 AM
Last Post: theMIDDLEway
  Improved DNA testing proves new dates for Aboriginal dispersal Visqueen 5 959 10-02-2011 05:36 PM
Last Post: Arjuna
  dna from outer space debunks abiogenesis Lamarckism 12 3,154 08-16-2011 11:06 AM
Last Post: Raphael
  Young earth DNA jfla 68 7,981 07-23-2010 03:18 PM
Last Post: Raphael
Exclamation The Miraculous Molecule DNA ahmetsecer 1 890 07-08-2009 10:02 PM
Last Post: Raphael



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)