Topic: Would Jurassic Park count as sci fi?
+Anonymous A — 13.5 years ago #19,592
Because it references real science?
+Thed Octor !eqV35U3yE. — 13.5 years ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #239,947
Upgrade to domestos
+Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,949
I think it is. There's a lot of hokum they use as the premise for cloning dinosaurs, which is obviously fictional by nature.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 13.5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,951
@previous (C)
We know that we can clone some animals, so its kind of based on real science. So it must be real sci fi.
We know that we can clone some animals, so its kind of based on real science. So it must be real sci fi.
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,954
@previous (A)
Except it's not. The concept of taking dinosaur DNA from mosquitos preserved in amber and using it for cloning purposes is preposterous, as it uses the assumption that we have viable ova to bring a cloned dinosaur to fruition. Simply doesn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(novel)#Biological_issues_and_accuracy
Except it's not. The concept of taking dinosaur DNA from mosquitos preserved in amber and using it for cloning purposes is preposterous, as it uses the assumption that we have viable ova to bring a cloned dinosaur to fruition. Simply doesn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(novel)#Biological_issues_and_accuracy
·Anonymous A (OP) — 13.5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,958
@previous (C)
Below that, it says that these animals were never proper dinosaurs, but creatures that were made specifically to clients needs, and that only looked like stylized dinosaurs.
Below that, it says that these animals were never proper dinosaurs, but creatures that were made specifically to clients needs, and that only looked like stylized dinosaurs.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,959
@previous (A)
Fictional clients set in a fictional universe. Yes. I mean, it's not science fiction as typically though of which includes outerspace, robots, rocket ships or what have you. The whole cloning technique listed is what separates it from, say, Dinotopia, which is fantasy/adventure instead of science fiction but both focus on dinosaurs.
Fictional clients set in a fictional universe. Yes. I mean, it's not science fiction as typically though of which includes outerspace, robots, rocket ships or what have you. The whole cloning technique listed is what separates it from, say, Dinotopia, which is fantasy/adventure instead of science fiction but both focus on dinosaurs.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 13.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,962
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,963
@previous (A)
In ways, I suppose it could be. Fantasy is just a subset of fiction. After all, they do get on a helicopter and fly to some remote island off of Costa Rica.
In ways, I suppose it could be. Fantasy is just a subset of fiction. After all, they do get on a helicopter and fly to some remote island off of Costa Rica.
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #239,964
Also, I think it would be fair to say the The Lost World is closer to "science fantasy" as the genetic engineering technique aspect of the book was less heavily a focal point.
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.5 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,090
The amber used in Jurassic Park is actually only two million years old.·FUCK !YAH.boners — 13.5 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,092
+Syntax — 13.5 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,117
op
Growing up I read a lot of Si Fi and on occasions I still do but in short story form.
A huge amount of Si Fi was/is written loaded with actual science as well as science that has yet to be invented.
A fav author Arthur C. Clarke, invented the concept of the GEO Satellites in 1945 but his SI Fi story was rejected so he published his theory and the math for GEO's in a british ham radio rag called Wireless.
He even described accurately back in 1945 my Globalstar LEO system. Si Fi is loaded with a mix of science and that which may be science one day.
Growing up I read a lot of Si Fi and on occasions I still do but in short story form.
A huge amount of Si Fi was/is written loaded with actual science as well as science that has yet to be invented.
A fav author Arthur C. Clarke, invented the concept of the GEO Satellites in 1945 but his SI Fi story was rejected so he published his theory and the math for GEO's in a british ham radio rag called Wireless.
He even described accurately back in 1945 my Globalstar LEO system. Si Fi is loaded with a mix of science and that which may be science one day.
+Anonymous F — 13.5 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,182
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.5 years ago, 29 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,199
+Anonymous G — 13.5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,209
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> > Implying
He's implying you've been posting round the clock at the weekend on an internet board at your age.
> > Implying
He's implying you've been posting round the clock at the weekend on an internet board at your age.
·The Doctor !Ep8pui8Vw2 — 13.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #240,214
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,300
@OP
I saw this article recently and it discusses how some scientists from TEDx wanted to "de-extinct" some animals. However, dinosaurs are obviously not an option.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-want-to-bring-some-animals-back-from-extinction-211102151.html
I saw this article recently and it discusses how some scientists from TEDx wanted to "de-extinct" some animals. However, dinosaurs are obviously not an option.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-want-to-bring-some-animals-back-from-extinction-211102151.html
+Anonymous H — 13.5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,301
·Anonymous A (OP) — 13.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,305
·Anonymous A (OP) — 13.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,306
·Syntax — 13.5 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,316
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/scientists-dash-hopes-for-dinosaur-cloning
Scientists dash hopes for dinosaur cloning
Fossilized dinosaur DNA could not have survived 65 million years, according to new research.
Well this might put a crimp in Steven Spielberg's plans to make "Jurassic Park IV." A team of scientists in Australia and New Zealand has concluded that cloning dinosaurs just isn't possible because DNA would not be viable after millions of years.
In a paper published October 10 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the scientists reveal that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that even fossilized or carefully preserved DNA would break down half way in a little over five centuries, then another half every 521 years.
When you consider the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, this means there's no way that enough DNA could ever be collected to bring a dinosaur back to life.
The scientists- from Murdoch University, the University of Canterbury and other universities and organizations - studied the mitochondrial DNA of 158 fossilized bones from three species of moa, the massive, flightless New Zealand birds that went extinct centuries ago. The fossils had all been radiocarbon-dated and were shown to be between 6,000 and 8,000 years old.
Based on the degradation of the DNA samples within these moa fossils, the scientists concluded that DNA would completely break down in 6.8 million years at an absolute maximum, and that's only when it was stored at optimum conditions. (As in real estate, the location of fossils does matter. DNA breaks down at different rates based on temperature, water, and levels of microbes.) Even DNA slightly younger wouldn't be very useful for cloning: they found that DNA would break down to a point where it was completely unreadable in about 1.5 million years.
Now, the purpose of this new paper isn't really to say if dinosaurs can be cloned or not. The team's real objective was to, as they wrote in the paper's abstract, "provide a baseline for predicting long-term DNA survival in bone." But it does support those scientists who say that dinosaur cloning can't be done. Simon Ho, a computational evolutionary biologist and senior lecturer at the University of Sydney, who was not affiliated with this study, told Nature that the paper "confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect."
So it doesn't look like dinosaurs could really be cloned using old DNA, but what about other extinct species? In a recent "Big Think" video, theoretical physicist and TV-science-program mainstay Michio Kaku says we could resurrect much more recently extinct species, such as wooly mammoths or even Neanderthals. He also suggests that dinosaur DNA might still exist --- not in fossils, but in the genes of modern chickens and other creatures. Does that means dinosaurs could be resurrected through some form of future gene therapy? Only time and Steven Spielberg known for sure.
Scientists dash hopes for dinosaur cloning
Fossilized dinosaur DNA could not have survived 65 million years, according to new research.
Well this might put a crimp in Steven Spielberg's plans to make "Jurassic Park IV." A team of scientists in Australia and New Zealand has concluded that cloning dinosaurs just isn't possible because DNA would not be viable after millions of years.
In a paper published October 10 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the scientists reveal that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that even fossilized or carefully preserved DNA would break down half way in a little over five centuries, then another half every 521 years.
When you consider the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, this means there's no way that enough DNA could ever be collected to bring a dinosaur back to life.
The scientists
Based on the degradation of the DNA samples within these moa fossils, the scientists concluded that DNA would completely break down in 6.8 million years at an absolute maximum, and that's only when it was stored at optimum conditions. (As in real estate, the location of fossils does matter. DNA breaks down at different rates based on temperature, water, and levels of microbes.) Even DNA slightly younger wouldn't be very useful for cloning: they found that DNA would break down to a point where it was completely unreadable in about 1.5 million years.
Now, the purpose of this new paper isn't really to say if dinosaurs can be cloned or not. The team's real objective was to, as they wrote in the paper's abstract, "provide a baseline for predicting long-term DNA survival in bone." But it does support those scientists who say that dinosaur cloning can't be done. Simon Ho, a computational evolutionary biologist and senior lecturer at the University of Sydney, who was not affiliated with this study, told Nature that the paper "confirms the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient insects trapped in amber are incorrect."
So it doesn't look like dinosaurs could really be cloned using old DNA, but what about other extinct species? In a recent "Big Think" video, theoretical physicist and TV-science-program mainstay Michio Kaku says we could resurrect much more recently extinct species, such as wooly mammoths or even Neanderthals. He also suggests that dinosaur DNA might still exist --- not in fossils, but in the genes of modern chickens and other creatures. Does that means dinosaurs could be resurrected through some form of future gene therapy? Only time and Steven Spielberg known for sure.
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,317
@previous (Syntax )
tl;dr, Syntax. The simple answer is that dinosaur DNA has degraded and there's no way to properly repair it.
tl;dr, Syntax. The simple answer is that dinosaur DNA has degraded and there's no way to properly repair it.
·Syntax — 13.5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,319
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,321
@previous (Syntax )
Whatever you're going to suggest will be bullshit so fire away, homeboy. Let's hear it.
Whatever you're going to suggest will be bullshit so fire away, homeboy. Let's hear it.
·Syntax — 13.5 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,323
@previous (C)
Not so fast.
Quick check with web says Dinosaurs existed starting 210 Million years ago til 66 Million years ago.
Fact as reported by a well respected body of people agreeing - 75 million years ago Xenu, brought a slew of his people to Earth. If they did Anal probes on the Dinosaurs, they wood have the genetic records and samples necessary.
Not so fast.
Quick check with web says Dinosaurs existed starting 210 Million years ago til 66 Million years ago.
Fact as reported by a well respected body of people agreeing - 75 million years ago Xenu, brought a slew of his people to Earth. If they did Anal probes on the Dinosaurs, they wood have the genetic records and samples necessary.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
·Anonymous C — 13.5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,324
@previous (Syntax )
Okay, you bested me there since I shouldn't have taken you so gravely seriously with the previous post. I know when to take a joke so sorry for coming off as condescending.
Okay, you bested me there since I shouldn't have taken you so gravely seriously with the previous post. I know when to take a joke so sorry for coming off as condescending.
·Syntax — 13.5 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #242,344
@previous (C)Was not trying to best anyone. I figured I wood go with the flow of the Topic. I had no clue Scientology Alien story actually overlapped the Dinosaur age. Found it funny, when I needed to look up names of the Aliens who founded that Church.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.