>it begins.

The DNA is still too fragmented to sequence sempai.

>>8526420
So fill it in with birds or crocodiles or whatever. Like in that movie

>>8526415
i call bs where is the flesh and tendons? i bet these "feathers" are just decomposed skin and tendon.

>>8526426
No, I mean it's so fragmented that it's impossible to even guess what part of the sequence originally was. Like if you had a book in the form of tiny pieces of paper with one letter or maybe half a word, you'd never be able to know what the contents were.

>>8526415
>implying that people would be okay with letting extinct animals be reborn through cloning
It's going to sit in a museum thats heavily guarded and that's going to be the end of that.

>>8526432
You'd at least be able to contextually analyze the use of the frequency of certain words and gauge the academic level of the text and perhaps what it might have been about.
There are limited ways to form a word, after all. But this is an example, so who cares.

>>8526420
C R I S P E R

R

I

S

P

E

R

>>8526432
fuck you I can see a defragmented shitpost from a mile away

>>8526415
>dinos are in fact actually birds
Well shit, at least we have indesputable proof, shit thats some visual proof.

wtf is wrong with you guys? Why does the /pol/ thread have better posts?

>>>/pol/102139833

>>8526426
That movie was smart for saying this but its still not possible. You can only fill gaps if there are pieces already missing. The fragmentation of >10 million year old DNA gives you pieces with round edges.

>>8526458

Clusters of
Regularly
Interspaced
Short
Palindromic
?
Repeats

>>8526456
>You'd at least be able to contextually analyze the use of the frequency of certain words and gauge the academic level of the text
Except this falls apart because you are working with the cutout letters of a single book, you are working with the cutout letters of a hundreds of the same book, as well as the books of all other organisms festering about, of which you have no idea what they are or cannot account for. Any statistic you made would be all noise.

>>8526500
>Except this falls apart because you are not working with the cutout letters of a single book
fix'd

Can feathered dinosaurs still be classified as reptiles?

>>8526420

They should do it anyway in case it's a fake.

>>8526458
>C R I S P E R
is used for directed-site mutagenesis, not sequencing

don't trigger me

>>8526507
nah, they officially birds m8.

>>8526507
"Reptiles" aren't even a group biologists say a lot anymore. Everything says its a vague name and even mammal ancestors would be considered reptiles. So yeah, they are, but birds and mammals are, too

>>8526527
>>8526538

thanks

>>8526456
>>8526432
More like having a book written in binary stripped down to one or two digit couples
Good luck with that

>>8526479
it doesn't. Knowledge of popsci =/= actual scientific understanding

File: Daisies-Flower-Drawing.jpg (79KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1080x1080px

>>8526415
Geologist here. There is no organic material in amber. All it is are images in carbon.

It's a lot like scribbling images on a piece of paper with a graphite pencil. The graphite on the page is not the object drawn.

DNA has a halflife of 521 years. If this sample is 99 million years old, there is no way they can obtain any usable DNA from it.

>>8526458
It's spelled CRISPR you good dammed pop sci memer

>>8527357
Who cares anyway, we could make dinosaurs any time we wanted. Remember the Matthew Broadrick Godzilla movie

>>8527352
Why is this?

>>8526498
>Clusters of
>Regularly
>Interspaced
>Short
>Palindromic
>Erm...
>Repeats!

>>8527368
He's bullshitting you. Well, partly.

File: image.jpg (88KB, 600x744px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x744px

>>8526430
t. my ass

>>8527352
>no organic material
>carbon

Are you dense?

Why aren't they flying off their handles about that neatly preserved ant or whatever it is that's stuck in the amber too?

>>8527047
>WOAGH CRISPA DUDEEEE LAMOAOAAAAAOAAOAO
Are you even reading this thread?

File: image.jpg (179KB, 800x694px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 800x694px

>>8527416
Pol unironically worships scriptfagging.

>>8527422
>le coincidence never happens meme

File: image.jpg (97KB, 630x468px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 630x468px

>>8527411
Good question.

Flying and tree-dwelling arthropods are relatively common in amber.
Large vertebrates in amber are much more rare.

The high-resolution pic is pretty neat btw, can't upload here as its 15mb.

https://i1.rgstatic.net/blog/files/2016/12/amber-tail.jpg

>>8527463
You're just mad because I got dubs :^)

>>8527468
Are those feathers or hair?

File: image.jpg (37KB, 600x271px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x271px

>>8527501
They're an intermediate form.

Guys I've done it! You know how bugs used to big right? And dinosaurs(birds) used to be big too right? And nowadays, birds eat bugs right? So I think, and hear me out, maybe dinosaurs ate bugs too, and maybe, as bugs started to get smaller from less oxygen, the birds had get small too so they could see all tiny insects.

>>8527540
just stfu you mongoloid

File: 1455302924139.jpg (53KB, 500x708px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x708px

>>8527393
>Are you dense?
Well he is a rock scientist.

>>8527393
I'm a geologist, not a chemist.

Chemists can define compounds as 'organic' in the sense that it contains certain molecular compounds but as any geologist knows you can have completely inorganic mineral precipitates of 'organic' compounds. For example travertine

I'm not going to call carbon deposits on the inside of amber 'organic' any more than I would call methane in Jupiter's atmosphere 'organic'

>>8526458

Go away you retarded undergrad

>>8527043
So I guess it's impossible for science. For now.

File: Untitled.png (847KB, 679x874px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 679x874px

>>8526415
Here's the paper if anyone's interested:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(16)31193-9.pdf

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 798x914px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 798x914px

>>8529326
it has some pretty neat pics

File: Untitled.png (619KB, 779x899px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 779x899px

>>8529327
>>8529326

>>8526479
kek, that's actually a pretty good thread

I guess there's a first time for everything

>>8528052
Well you wouldn't call methane in Earth's atmosphere "organic" either because you didn't even bother to google the definition of organic before you replied to that guy.

I understand your point that "organic" material means living tissue or something like that in popular language but you could at least pretend to participate in scientific discussion which is had with accurately defined terms.

>>8527362
It often goes with Cat9

because cats have nine lives

>>8527465
>Large
sparrow-sized

>>8529379
We have different definitions is all. Meteorology calls 'heat' the energy within a reservoir while physicists call 'heat' the transfer of energy. Who's right? The person you're talking to at the moment.

so is jurassic park on the table now?

>>8526458
Back to /b/

>>8526415
is that a 99-million-year-old ant?

>>8526435
steven jewberg ruined everything

>>8529453
Backwards engineer a chicken somehow. Instant exotic pet.

>>8526415
inb4 katsuragi expedition

>>8526507

Dinosaurs arn't reptiles any more than we are.

>>8530036
>not knowing to reverse engineer
back to Riddet with you

>>8529580
Yes, it is.

>>8529580
>>8530687
Why don't we clone the ant instead?

Nothing to see here.

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/dinosaur-in-amber-evolutionists-spin-another-tail/

>>8530713

>This purchased specimen, though no doubt a real fossil, does not bear the authenticity of a fossil uncovered by a meticulous scientist.

uhh

>>8530713
>these vertebrae probably aren't from the end, just from the middle of the tail
>so it's just a bird, not a dinosaur
yes, because any birds known to science have eight unfused vertebrae in their tail (as opposed to having maybe one or two at most followed by the pygostyle)

what if its just an ancient bird