8 ms·

Jurassic Park’s Stars Would Be Very Different If Film Made Today

20 points by apress 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago
there is an error here: Tasmanian devils are very much NOT extinct... I think the correct reference is Tasmanian Tiger
- cwbrandsma 13y ago
  Yes, but last I heard the population was not considered healthy either (something about a facial cancer that can be passed from animal to animal)...so give is a few months and the statement might be correct.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    They are almost gone (down to an estimated 10K) but they were almost wiped out by disease once before and the population bounced back.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    IIRC that condition has been around a few years now. The devil may not be in great shape, but I don't think demise is imminent.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    not a few months, especially since facial-tumor resistant individuals have cropped up. (one of the principal investigators in my building has done some work characterizing the tasmanian devil situtation).
sigzero 13y ago
I actually don't think it would be much different at all.
- mhurron 13y ago
  Well they wouldn't have fsn to show this time around.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  Doesn't the little fat kid in the beginning suggest that a velociraptor was nothing but a big chicken? Seems he was eerily close to completely accurate.
protomyth 13y ago
"Believing that dinosaurs could ever be cloned." Well, you need to let that one go if you want to make a movie about dinosaurs.
- sentenza 13y ago
  The intriguing part is, that while it is impossible to get DNA out of 15 million year old dinosaur bones, you could get dinosaur DNA fragments from the genome of currently living birds...
  - anonymfus 13y ago
    And that idea was used in Russian novel Ретрогенетика ("Retrogenetics") by Кир Булычёв, written in 1975.
  - jedberg 13y ago
    That was in the book "Jurassic Park". That's why the dinos change sexes -- because they have DNA from a reptile that does that.
    - strictfp 13y ago
      ... and so it was in the film. The video which they show in the information center talks about how they fill in the gaps from frogs to patch together a complete DNA.
  - jonny_eh 13y ago
    If you're interested in that technique, check out Jack Horner's book "How to Build a Dinosaur" [1] [1] http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Dinosaur-Science-Evolution/dp/B003WUYRUE/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Dinosaur-Science-Evolution/d...
tocomment 13y ago
So why would dinosaurs evolve feathers before evolving flight? I'm going by this diagram (however it doesn't show where early flying dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx would come in) http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny/cladogramDino.gif http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny...
- jimhefferon 13y ago
  Staying warm is one speculation that I have read (think how chickadees can live in -40 so feathers must be really warm).
- Sandman 13y ago
  Attracting mates, scaring off predators?
- s_baby 13y ago
  UV protection
kh_hk 13y ago
Just as a side record, a recommendation on reading the original book from Michael Crichton is in order. I found it engaging, including gore imagery, chaos theories and some insightful characters.
csense 13y ago
> dinosaur DNA is way, way too old to recover. With today's technology. Assuming a cache of DNA isn't found in conditions where it's unusually -- perhaps uniquely -- well-preserved. Without stitching together multiple samples or splicing in DNA from other species to make up gaps or degradations. Saying it's fundamentally impossible is equivalent to saying you know something about your unknown unknowns. Impossible is a very strong claim -- not always insurmountable, e.g. thermodynamics says that certain high-efficiency engines can't exist. But I'm skeptical that we can be super-confident that we'll never be able to clone dinosaurs. Of course there are gaps between what happens in the book/movie and what's possible today. That's why it's called science fiction -- if they limited themselves to what's currently feasible, it would be a documentary. (Actually, that would be a fun way to troll someone who's never seen the movie -- tell them it's a documentary before you show it to them.)
- jinushaun 13y ago
  Did you read the rest of that sentence? He didn't say it was too damaged. He says we've only been able to find DNA 6-7 million yrs old. A far cry from the 65 million yrs for dinosaurs. Even if the technology catches up, there will be no dinosaurs until we can find dinosaur DNA.
csense 13y ago
Copy-pasting from this website into my other comment gave me the following: dinosaur DNA is way, way too old to recover Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/jurassic-parks-stars-would-be-very-different-animals-if-the-film-were-made-today/#ixzz2VwtNH5zP http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/jurassic-p... Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter I subsequently edited away the second line, because anyone reading this commment thread presumably already knows how to find the article. They must use JS to insert the second part as invisible text whenever you select something? Does anyone want to dive into the source and analyze what the site's doing? It's an interesting hack.

20 points by apress 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

there is an error here: Tasmanian devils are very much NOT extinct... I think the correct reference is Tasmanian Tiger

cwbrandsma 13y ago
Yes, but last I heard the population was not considered healthy either (something about a facial cancer that can be passed from animal to animal)...so give is a few months and the statement might be correct.
- rdouble 13y ago
  They are almost gone (down to an estimated 10K) but they were almost wiped out by disease once before and the population bounced back.
- Nursie 13y ago
  IIRC that condition has been around a few years now. The devil may not be in great shape, but I don't think demise is imminent.
- dnautics 13y ago
  not a few months, especially since facial-tumor resistant individuals have cropped up. (one of the principal investigators in my building has done some work characterizing the tasmanian devil situtation).

sigzero 13y ago

I actually don't think it would be much different at all.

mhurron 13y ago
Well they wouldn't have fsn to show this time around.
dclowd9901 13y ago
Doesn't the little fat kid in the beginning suggest that a velociraptor was nothing but a big chicken? Seems he was eerily close to completely accurate.

protomyth 13y ago

"Believing that dinosaurs could ever be cloned." Well, you need to let that one go if you want to make a movie about dinosaurs.

sentenza 13y ago
The intriguing part is, that while it is impossible to get DNA out of 15 million year old dinosaur bones, you could get dinosaur DNA fragments from the genome of currently living birds...
- anonymfus 13y ago
  And that idea was used in Russian novel Ретрогенетика ("Retrogenetics") by Кир Булычёв, written in 1975.
- jedberg 13y ago
  That was in the book "Jurassic Park". That's why the dinos change sexes -- because they have DNA from a reptile that does that.
  - strictfp 13y ago
    ... and so it was in the film. The video which they show in the information center talks about how they fill in the gaps from frogs to patch together a complete DNA.
- jonny_eh 13y ago
  If you're interested in that technique, check out Jack Horner's book "How to Build a Dinosaur" [1] [1] http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Dinosaur-Science-Evolution/dp/B003WUYRUE/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Dinosaur-Science-Evolution/d...

tocomment 13y ago

So why would dinosaurs evolve feathers before evolving flight? I'm going by this diagram (however it doesn't show where early flying dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx would come in) http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny/cladogramDino.gif http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny...

jimhefferon 13y ago
Staying warm is one speculation that I have read (think how chickadees can live in -40 so feathers must be really warm).
Sandman 13y ago
Attracting mates, scaring off predators?
s_baby 13y ago
UV protection

kh_hk 13y ago

Just as a side record, a recommendation on reading the original book from Michael Crichton is in order. I found it engaging, including gore imagery, chaos theories and some insightful characters.

csense 13y ago

> dinosaur DNA is way, way too old to recover. With today's technology. Assuming a cache of DNA isn't found in conditions where it's unusually -- perhaps uniquely -- well-preserved. Without stitching together multiple samples or splicing in DNA from other species to make up gaps or degradations. Saying it's fundamentally impossible is equivalent to saying you know something about your unknown unknowns. Impossible is a very strong claim -- not always insurmountable, e.g. thermodynamics says that certain high-efficiency engines can't exist. But I'm skeptical that we can be super-confident that we'll never be able to clone dinosaurs. Of course there are gaps between what happens in the book/movie and what's possible today. That's why it's called science fiction -- if they limited themselves to what's currently feasible, it would be a documentary. (Actually, that would be a fun way to troll someone who's never seen the movie -- tell them it's a documentary before you show it to them.)

jinushaun 13y ago
Did you read the rest of that sentence? He didn't say it was too damaged. He says we've only been able to find DNA 6-7 million yrs old. A far cry from the 65 million yrs for dinosaurs. Even if the technology catches up, there will be no dinosaurs until we can find dinosaur DNA.

csense 13y ago

Copy-pasting from this website into my other comment gave me the following: dinosaur DNA is way, way too old to recover Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/jurassic-parks-stars-would-be-very-different-animals-if-the-film-were-made-today/#ixzz2VwtNH5zP http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/jurassic-p... Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter I subsequently edited away the second line, because anyone reading this commment thread presumably already knows how to find the article. They must use JS to insert the second part as invisible text whenever you select something? Does anyone want to dive into the source and analyze what the site's doing? It's an interesting hack.