Ok, so I've seen many conflicting arguments about it so

By any science we currently have or can even theoretically think would work, it is impossible.

Nothing would be wrong with bringing some dinosaurs back, people just go full retard with "MUH JURASSIC PARK" and thinking cloning dinosaurs would for some reason involve dumping them in the wild.

As someone who works with animals, dinosaurs at a zoo would never, ever be able to get out. The big carnivorous shit in the movies had less security than fucking lions at a normal zoo do.

>>2294060
This. There is no scientifically possible way as of right now to resurrect dinosaurs. But if there was, barring some cost issues, scientists would not hesitate to do it.

>I've seen Jurassic Park... That's not a good idea XDXDXD

Shut the fuck up, and stop getting your morals from blockbuster movies.

>>2294045
maybe someday but no as of know theres no way, however we could reverse engineer a "dinosaur" so to speak we can manipulate say a chicken to have a tail teeth and claws but it would just be a chicken with yeh tail, teeth and claws

>>2294148
They're working on that but it will never be a "dinosaur" that actually existed. It will be impossible to nail down all of the behavioral details color patters, and special traits that we have no idea about. It would never be a real dinosaur.

>>2294143
That's not even what he said. He was saying that Jurassic Park is a stupid example.

Good reading comp.

File: What the Fug.png (202KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 600x700px

>>2294152
I was agreeing with him you stupid fuck.

Nice try with the reading comprehension though.

>>2294161
>>2294152
Tbh, based on reading the novel, Crichton(?) pointed out that the dinosaurs would visibly suffer due to an atmosphere with a lower amount of oxygen. I think that's something to consider. He might be wrong too and the dinosaurs would be just fine in our atmosphere.

>>2294217
>Crichton(?) pointed out that the dinosaurs would visibly suffer due to an atmosphere with a lower amount of oxygen.
did he? do you have a page number?

our atmosphere has more oxygen, not less.

File: Phanerozoic Oxygen.jpg (95KB, 1800x1133px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1800x1133px

>>2294217
>>2294225
Its roughly the same depending on the exact point. Even if its a little high itd be like taking you up to altitude, no big deal.

>>2294232
see that huge drop in the line over 200 mya?
that's when dinosaurs lived. Oxygen was WAY lower then.

yeah, it would be like climbing to altitude. Friendly reminder that altitude kills a significant fraction of people. There's a very good chance you couldn't survive during the Jurassic because 15% O2 is enough to kill you.

More importantly, all that O2 we have now didn't just magically appear one day. It was CO2 during the Mesozoic, which will suffocate humans.

File: Subway Guy.jpg (93KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x960px

>>2294570
Ummm... No? Dinosaurs lived 235 mya- 65 mya, so it was higher and lower at different times. Wtf are you talking about altitude kills a significant fraction of people? Going from sea level to Denver, Colorado has never killed ANYONE. CO2 only suffocates people when it is the only thing to breathe, and as you can see, there was plenty of oxygen both then and now.

Please know what you're talking about before you post.

>>2294045
But dinosaurs are still alive, why would we need to resurrect them? :^)

File: hyperchicken.jpg (112KB, 967x597px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 967x597px

>>2294045

Reverse engineer chickens! BAM!

seriously, get atavic traits reactivated through genetic manimpulation

>>2294636

see>>2294150

>>2294637

would technically still be a dinosaur, just not any particular extinct species. it would be a new species of dinosaur, but a dinosaur nonetheless.

>>2294636
AFAIK impossible as of yet since the chicks just die inside the eggs not long after

>>2294650

As of yet is the key phrase. Most are intentionally killed tho. Nobody wants a toothy chicken (actually it's general lab practice - transgenic or heavily modified animals are destroyed before advanced development)

>>2294641
But if we're just going to create a bird that loos like a dinosaur , but not a dinosaur that was ever real, what point does that serve?

>>2294045
>Ok, so I've seen many conflicting arguments about it so I'm just gonna ask, do you guys think its plausible to "resurrect" the Dinosaurs?
No
>should we even try to?
Why should we?

File: IMG_2734.jpg (102KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x384px

>>2294658
Could study how it moves and apply the knowledge to extinct species.
Could have a custom novelty pet.
Could train it to fill a useful niche.

>>2294652
>intentionally killed
nope

>>2294664
But it wouldn't have the the associated behavioral traits that would make it move like a dinosaur. It would just be a chicken with a tail teeth and claws

>>2294045
I don't see how. Where are you going to get the DNA? The only other option is time travel or "reversing" modern birds to whatever species of dinosaur they came from, but even then you're likely to only come up with a tiny handful of Therapods. You'll never get back things like Ceratopsians or Sauropods.

>>2294683
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMmgnpcaKyM

>>2294714
And? Why do we need to recreate a pseudo-dinosaur just to study this?

File: o2 graph.gif (35KB, 540x810px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 540x810px

>>2294587
A drop of oxygen from 21% to 15% is a 30% reduction.

to get the same reduction at altitude you'd have to go to 10,000 feet, roughly twice as high as Denver.

By strange coincidence I happen to live at 10k+ feet and can tell you from experience-

you probably can't survive here.
Our altitude kills visitors every year.

if you check your chart you'll see O2 was never higher during the time dinosaurs were alive. It reached modern levels at the end of the cretaceous, about when they died off.
>CO2 only suffocates people when it is the only thing to breathe, and as you can see, there was plenty of oxygen both then and now.
it will poison you at even slightly elevated concentrations, and there was much more of it back then.
>Please know what you're talking about before you post
kek

>>2294777
>Our altitude kills visitors every year.
Maybe, but not just from people flat out suffocating.

>>2294795
no, to do that you'd have to increase CO2 by 600% or more.

just like it was when the dinosaurs were alive.

at that point you're dealing with oxygen levels equivalent to 10k feet PLUS insane quantities of suffocating gas.

I'd guess the effects would be something like breathing at the top of Mt. Everest. Which will literally kill any human in a matter of days.

>>2294161

you used an imperative sentence that only refers to the person you're fucking literally talking to, in response to a quote you made up, you added the last bit to make your gay little comment.

just agree that you're a tard bro.

File: PhanO2.gif (12KB, 440x277px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 440x277px

>>2294777
1. The difference in oxygen depends on the study, mine is a more consistently used figure in studies of oxygen content.

2. The Mesozoic wasn't one single point in time you fucking moron, starting around 165 mya (Callovian Stage, Mid Jurassic) The oxygen content was essentially the same as the present, give or take 1%. starting around 115 mya, there would be anywhere from a 1- 5% increase meaning there is an absolute maximum of 20 % drop in oxygen content between then and now.

3. As someone who currently lives in Denver, Colorado, and HAS lived above 10,000 ft. before, you can fuck right off.

4.Inert gas poisoning only takes place in the absence of oxygen. Enough CO2 can poison you, but It would need to be in excess of 2000 ppm to do any lasting damage, which it never was during the Mseozoic

Nice trips, but you're still a fucking idiot.

>>2294798
>What does "This" mean?

After "This", the rest of my response was talking to OP and a rhetorical idiot who believed Jurassic Park.

>>2294672
It's an ethics thing. They're not at current allowed to bring the modified chicks to term.

>>2294804
>mine is a more consistently used figure in studies of oxygen content.
mine is a survey of all accepted studies with a margin of error and confidence intervals.

yours is a graph you didn't even cite presumably based on one study which most people probably don't use.

the graph I posted conveniently includes CO2 concentrations.

Leadville got a foot of snow tonight, you're next.

>>2294804
Nevermind, I found the citation for your chart.

We both posted the same chart, yours just counts Oxygen in CO2 while mine splits them out.

so your mistake is in thinking CO2 is O2.

In reality once you subtract CO2 from total O2 you get my chart.

>>2294804
Notice on the chart I posted that every time O2 drops, CO2 rises.

this is because the oxygen is the same, it's just being tied up and released in the carbon cycle. So yes, overall oxygen was the same, but huge amounts of it were tied up in unbreathable CO2.

>>2294813
>breeding pugs and toadline dogs is fine
>factory farming chickens is fine
>Oh you can't hatch a chicken with teeth thats UNETHICAL

>>2294833
the anon isn't telling the whole truth.

the chickens with teeth died on their own.

the chickens produced with wide snouts and no beak were killed because they can't breathe and eat at the same time so they would've starved.

>>2294839
Oh, thats better then. I've been under the impression the just did it for no real good reason.

>>2294823
>>2294827
>>2294828

Here's the citation for minehttp://www.pnas.org/content/96/20/10955.full

Just a simple google image search shows more results for mine than yours.

Mine depicgts an attempt to normalize the amount of O2 not locked up in the carbon or sulfur cycle.

Even assuming yours is correct, it still very much depends on the time as the Mesozoic was not a single instance. Given your graph, an animal from 190 mya (Pliensbachian stage, Early Jurassic) woukld have trouble breathing with a 25% O2 decrease, while a dinosaur from 100 mya (Cenomanian stage, Late Cretaceous) will only face an O2 decrease of 8%.

>>2294853
I see what you're doing.

You're dividing 21 by 12 rather than the other way round.

so what you call a 25% reduction in free O2 is actually 40%. (12% is closer to 1/2 of 21%, not 1/4th)

Dinosaurs had no problem breathing this much lower concentration of O2, they had much more efficient non-septate lungs that filled huge amounts of their body, even invading the bones of the back, hips, arms, head, ribs, etc.

if anything they'd suffer from O2 poisoning in our atmosphere.

but yes, this became less of a problem over time as O2 steadily climbed from the mid Jurassic to modern levels in the Cretaceous.

Interestingly though their lungs actually expanded over that same time period, invading more of their bones until they evolved an essentially bird-like flow-through lung in non-avian saurischians.

>mfw I realized birds have the juvenile traits of theropods
>reverse engineering a dino from a bird would be like forcing the species to grow up, so to speak

>>2294850
They would've been killed either way so they could be x-rayed, dissected, and preserved as science requires.

but no, there's no ethical basis for killing a GMO if its quality of life isn't decreased. We have a number of GMO animals floating around, they aren't just automatically slaughtered on ethical grounds. If chickens with teeth could survive the mutation and live a normal life there's no ethical reason not to produce them. It just hasn't happened yet and some research indicates it probably won't.

>>2294865
nah, most of their traits are derived rather than paedomorphic.

The actual problem is that genes for primitive characters have been lost entirely, and the animal has evolved to depend on the derived traits to the point where removing them in one system compromises another. For instance, producing non-avian hips and thighs would cause the bird to be unable to breathe.

or as we saw with the modification of the rostrum, introducing an avian palate into a non-avian snout causes the animal to choke to death. Modifying one trait starts a chain reaction of further modifications needed to keep the whole animal functioning.

>>2294864
My bad, I read your graph wrong, I was looking at 150 mya thinking it was 200 mya.

>>2294873
I see. I think Foster pegged Tithonian O2 at 21% but that included CO2 at ~1600 ppm.

When you split out CO2 it drops O2 to about 14%.

14% is 33.33...% less than current, a reduction of 1/3 in breathable oxygen. He estimated humans in this atmosphere would become light-headed and suffer increased respiration, headaches, and faster heartbeat, as well as noticeably reduced stamina. Presumably we'd acclimate to the lower O2 levels, the larger problem would be releasing CO2 from the bloodstream because of the higher concentration in the air.

>>2294798
XDXDXDXDXSXSXZSXDSJSJSVVWJWPWOWKVWVWVWVSVFFUCKYOURSELFQUEERXDXDXDX

Are you more retarded than the person who dropped you on your head as a baby?

File: 2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jpg (611KB, 960x1299px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 960x1299px

>>2294878
he's probably just a newfag that doesn't speak 4chan yet. He'll figure it out or fuck off.

either way your comment was dead on balls accurate. If we knew how to bring back dinosaurs we'd be doing it.

>>2294875
>that included CO2 at ~1600 ppm.
Foster also attributes an average daily temperature of 90 F and elevated humidity to this figure.

another problem for humans since we have trouble cooling off when humidity goes too high and sweat stops evaporating.

This may be another reason dinosaurs evolved such large and efficient lungs- they presumably didn't sweat and breathing large amounts of air would've allowed more efficient cooling. Hard to say, though the enlargement of the antorbital fenestra would work to conserve water while allowing some improved shedding of heat via the pulmonary epithelia.

which worked out well for birds since they probably took a trait adapted to cooling and exapted it for the oxygen-intensive fast ATPase muscle activity of flight.

It's noteworthy that neither high-flow non-septate lungs nor fast ATPase muscle activity is found to significant extent in crocodilians or their more primitive sisters, the lizards. It's very likely that evolution for lower O2 contents drove the mechanisms of cooling, speed, and eventually flight.

Also noteworthy is that elevated CO2 produced nutrient dilution with increased productivity in plants, driving gigantism in dinosaurian herbivores and thus the predators that hunted them. Paleoclimates very specifically shaped the evolution of non-avian dinosaurs as well as birds in ways that we can look at and understand.

>>2294875
Again anything under 2000 ppm isn't going to do any kind of damage, and its not until 3000 when you start to have serious immediate issues.


And again, a dinosaur from the Mid Cretaceous would suffer no problems in our time and vice versa.

>>2294889
>Again anything under 2000 ppm isn't going to do any kind of damage
no, it reduces your ability to work is all. It won't harm you, you'll just have less stamina, headaches, possible confusion, rapid heartbeat.

none of those things are damaging unless you're in a life-or death situation where your poor performance harms you.

>a dinosaur from the Mid Cretaceous would suffer no problems in our time and vice versa
probably, but we've strayed from my original point, O2 wasn't elevated when dinosaurs lived.

>>2294889
>>2294893
also the effect of elevated CO2 are ON TOP OF the effects of lowered O2, meaning they work together to harm you more than either one would on its own.

Climb from sea level to the top of Long's Peak and smoke a couple cigarettes, that's about the sort of rush you'd get out of Tithonian atmospheres. Might or might not kill you, but you'll definitely feel it.

Current scientific consensus says dinosaurs were essentially big birds
The archetypal T-Rex image as a big reptile is bullshit, it most likely had feathers

>>2294045
Some fucking scientist cloned a sheep back in the late 90s and we have had the cure to cancer and std for awhile.
If some fag from the 90s could clone a sheep are tech now could easily.
I vote for really small Dino's.

>>2294839

the snouty chickens got too much hormone and wound up with the chicken equivalent of a cleft palate. more precise hormone dosage would get a functional, snouted, toothy chicken. but that would take a lot of work and time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e39pyOxY7pg

Here's horner about reverse engineering chikins

>>2295485
>more precise hormone dosage would get a functional, snouted, toothy chicken
no.

File: Possumdactyls.jpg (1MB, 1958x2191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1958x2191px

>>2294045
No unfortunately. It has nothing to do with the current state of technology so much as it does the nature of DNA. DNA only has a half life of 521 years. That means that even if a sample was recovered from the most recent possible date and had prime preservation the nucleotide bonds would have broken 130 million times. It's estimated that at 1.5 million years the genome sequence is completely unreadable. At that point sequencing becomes a best guess :/ http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

>>2295744
That's were Jurassic Park comes into play my friend. Just engineer what we think dinosaurs are sopose to look like not those feather chicken things people are on about now

>>2294045
>do you guys think its plausible to "resurrect" the Dinosaurs?
No
The closest you could do is possibly use artificial selection to breed more sterotypically dinosaurian traits in modern birds until they more closely resembled their ancestors but even this would take who knows how many generations.
Shit like the cloning methods in Jurassic Park would not be possible because no form of DNA can be preserved for too long until it is unreadable, the only animal that might possibly be resurrected this way are mammoths and even those specimens that were preserved in ice have DNA that is almost completely degraded and that was only for less than a million years.
>>2294143
>I've seen Jurassic Park... That's not a good idea XDXDXD
In the book and in the movie the only reason the park failed was because they invested in ridiculous electric fence enclosures rather than traditional "12 foot deep concrete pit" style enclosures.
Jurassic Park is a morality play in the virtues of keeping it simple.

>>2294045
No because they never existed; they are just a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KXzgeq1BuA

>>2294754
because its fucking cool and at some point a businessman will just pay to do it if science gets hung up on the ethics

>>2296941
i thought the moral is that corporations disregard human safety for profits

>>2294060

> less security than lions

> retards fall into lion enclosures every month

>>2295744
>DNA only has a half life of 521 years.

that would put the salvageable DNA limit at 6.8 million years still nearly 10 times out the reach of dinosaurs that means in theory anything that went extinct after the middle Messinian is technically clonable

>>2298059
>fucking cool

you need to go back

>>2298376
No it was "Don't take the fat shit with obvious moral ambiguity and put him in charge of park security."

>>2299620
>just because he's fat he's morally dubious
Quit triggering me omg

>>2294045
I seriously hope we can successfully clone entire genetically diverse groups of dinosaurs BEFORE we can successfully terraform planets, like Mars.

How awesome would it be to literally live on a dino world?

>>2294650
No, the chicks don't die, their eggs are deliberately destroyed, so either the scientists can examine the results of different experiments on specific embryos under the microscope, or because the second those eggs hatch they will legally be considered living creatures and the scientists want to avoid that whole scenario like the plague.

Nobody wants PETA to bring molotov cocktails to your workplace.

>>2299621
he was morally dubious and everyone else knew it. Had nothing to do with him being a whale.

>>2295273
There has never been any scientific evidence that T Rex itself had feathers. There is strong evidence that it's relatives had feathers, but not the T Rex itself.

We only have one single impression of skin that we know 100% comes from a T Rex, and there are no feathers in it at all. BUT, it comes from the underside of the tail, very close to where it's cloaca would have been.

So yes, due to it's relatives showing evidence of feathers, scientists are not ruling out the possibility that T Rex may have had them. But to say it most likely had feathers or to refer to them as "essentially big birds" is ridiculously false.

>>2299634
Excuse me that is offensive to whales. I have a friend who is currently transitioning to living as a whale full time, in fact. The problem clearly is that he was fucking a white male, you fat-shaming bigot!!

>>2299424
Yes, but how many lions ESCAPE from their enclosures each month in an average year?

Just because a self aware species with opposable thumbs can get IN, does not mean a non self aware species lacking opposable thumbs can get OUT.

>>2294664
The only scientific advantage you mentioned can already be studied.

>>2298059
Why do stupid people always assume vaguely defined "businessmen" have nothing better to do with their time then get wrapped up in theoretical science that serves no purpose other then their own enjoyment?
If rich men really were that keen on breaking scientific ground just because it's "fucking cool" we would have men on Mars, zero dependency on fossil fuels and alot more man made "Chimaera's.

File: wyrexskinlarson.png (114KB, 621x337px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 621x337px

>>2299635
>We only have one single impression of skin

>(more than a dozen)

>it comes from the underside of the tail

>Most of the skin patches... were found on the bottom side of the articulated tail.
>Most
>(not all)

for fuck sakes you shits, Hemoglobin levels adapt in long exposure of low or high levels of O2, whether high or low levels of C02, i think scientist that can actually create a fucking dinosaur egg hatch will think about their longevity and general health conditions

>>2301567
Hemoglobin isn't the part you'd have to worry about.

Oxygen poisoning during development causes blindness. Retinal capillaries don't adapt to elevated oxygen.

>>2300391
Men on Mars coming soonish and there are cash rewards by wealthy people for scientific innovation.

Also if I had vague businessman money I'd invest in cool science shit if I thought it was interesting

>>2300391
This project has 2 problems:
1. it doesn't break new ground
2. it's designed solely to raise money

It's one of those retarded propositions that would have to be done by scientists, but wouldn't contribute anything to science.

and that's ultimately why nobody's doing it. People with the money to spend are dropping it on real science like finding ways to mitigate malaria or searching for cures to other common diseases.

>>2294658
awesome pets.

Like you wouldn't want a raptor that's imprinted on you, with iridescent scales, eats dog food, and fits in a shoebox?

>>2302230
how are glofish sales doing?

>>2294045
>We'd be playing god though!
>I'm comfertable with having the right to kill and breed livestock though

Why do people get upset at the idea of anything that involves scientifically manipulating nature?
Is it because they can't think of themselves as these sacred magical beings and actually have to think about their place in the universe?

>>2297849
If dino's don't exist whycome he got the thumbnail for the video hm?

Really makes ya think.

File: Dinosaurs_eating_CEO.jpg (407KB, 2000x1833px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 2000x1833px

>>2299620

Better yet

> "Don't take the fat shit with obvious moral ambiguity and put him in charge of park security AND refuse to pay him for extra work"

which basically means what >>2298376 said

File: 123132.jpg (352KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 800x800px

>Currently in human induced mass extinction
>Wants to bring back dinosaurs
Delusional much?