• Hey all, due to some issues with false DMCA takedown requests, we've had to remove and censor a few things until the situation is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Extinct!

Oh and @ LegendaryRotom, "reconstructing" a dinosaur wouldn't be possible. Birds evolved 135 (or was it 125?) million years ago from dinosaurs. Their genes changed way too much since then to reconstruct any diosaur.
Click to expand...
Well,perhaps not a Sauropod or anything of that scale,but I still find it a plausible idea for creating species such as caudipteryx,just to give an example.Types of dinosaurs that had features similar to large flightless birds.
It may not be any more possible to find a complete strand of DNA,now would it?To accomplish a feat such as bringing back a dinosaur,we need to experiment with EVERY IDEA YOU CAN IMAGINE.That's your idea,that my idea,that the guy next door's idea.No one can say:
"Pssh.THAT IS SO REDICULOUS IT WOULD NEVER WORK!"
Like I've said before,it's all a game of trying and trying again.

Of course,I still want my hunter-jumper Camptosaurus someday.^__^
 
Well well well. The points given are pretty much valid. And well, the fact of having read as well Jurassic Park, inspires me to give my two cents to this matter.

I don't know about Dinosaurs though. The planet has had a huge, and i mean HUGE environmental, geological geographical and also chemical(for the aquatic ones at least) change in the last millions of years, that can make the idea very complicated to be pulled over with creatures of long time ago.

Not only that. Even thought that Babylon and others have taken the point of a virus from the past, i find strange that no one ever talks about the present-time effects that the existent viruses could have in them. Let alone, the adaptation issues.

Granted, they are organisms, but at least, prehistoric creatures-wise, they'll surely have a hard time with us if they get in contact with this setting of ever-changing viruses, as they have only coded in their genome how to fiddle with the diseases existent a long time ago.

Natural selection happened primarily to overcome those diseases and death; being unevolved creatures, they are adapted to a certain environment and conditions long lost (not in all earth but in the majority of it); and come to think of it, ourselves, the humans, carry a lot of bacterias and viruses inside and outside of our bodies that could be harmful for them.

The simple fact of our direct or indirect contact with them can make them either evolve in order to survive, or be condemned to be dead again, and as seeing that they went extinct due to being unable to change/adapt (most of them at least)...then, the odds aren't in their favor at least...

(continues in next post. Sorry for that)
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the second followed post but the server doesn't stand too much text in a single post. If a mod can merge the posts i will appreciate it. thanks.

Maybe they could replicate the Dinosaurs by playing with the genome and trying to fill the gaps, if they ever dare to do it (and yeah, that would make PETA jump from anger) we could get a full restored creature; but still, unless it is isolated in a semi-equal environment of all characteristics previously said, it won't survive for a long time.


Now "recent" creatures, on the other hand are very much plausible to get restored, as they were adapted to the environment in a certain time gap that hasn't had a lot of changes. However, if the natural habitat of such creatures has been corrupted or drastically changed, then there could be the possibilities of either be unable to be restored, or forced to be "relocated", which would cause a certain imbalance on ecosystems depending on the situation. Hence the reason of getting them inside their original places.

I don't know too much about Dodos, but if their main habitat is merely untouched or hasn't had any groundbreaking change in the last 500 years, then they can be restored.

Same goes for the other recently exctinct species.
I know i may sound like i'm being kinda selfish in the idea, but i'd like to revive lost species, for the sake of proper preservation (after all, most of those were killed by our own recklessness hunting them).

Yeah, i know, what about the lesson well learned by killing an entire specie? i know about that moral discussion. I also have some mixed feelings about it, but if we can do a good thing like attempting to re-balance some lost environment by restoring species, i'm feeling that we're doing good things and that in the process, we learned those lessons

(Plus, Scientists can also put up excuses to make us "believe" that the restoration of such things is in reality "limited",so that it cannot be repeated easily)...

In the major cases such as the Dodo, the Thylacines, The Galapagos Giant Turtle, and many other, i'd like to see them being restored if that's possible, just to attempt to amend some of our biggest errors...

Hm. This could be used even as a measure of preservation for the endangered species. I'm pretty sure that PETA wouldn't look that as a bad thing...unless someone twists this idea in a very morbid and corrupt way.

And well, those are my two cents. Sorry again for this long chunks of text
 
Last edited:
LegendaryRotom said:
Well,perhaps not a Sauropod or anything of that scale,but I still find it a plausible idea for creating species such as caudipteryx,just to give an example.Types of dinosaurs that had features similar to large flightless birds.
It may not be any more possible to find a complete strand of DNA,now would it?To accomplish a feat such as bringing back a dinosaur,we need to experiment with EVERY IDEA YOU CAN IMAGINE.That's your idea,that my idea,that the guy next door's idea.No one can say:
"Pssh.THAT IS SO REDICULOUS IT WOULD NEVER WORK!"
Like I've said before,it's all a game of trying and trying again.

Of course,I still want my hunter-jumper Camptosaurus someday.^__^
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that a Caudipteryx isn't in the bird evolution line.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs somewhere in the Middle Jurassic. The Caudipteryx existed at the Early Cretaceous.

It would be possible to make birds with fingers and bony tails by using genetic manipulation, but reversing evolution is and will always be impossible.

I'm not saying that che chance of finding Archosaur or even Dinosaur DNA is impossible, but very, very slim.
 
I would like to have a pet velociraptor
 
drifl00n said:
I would like to have a pet velociraptor
Click to expand...

You surely wouldn't want to. They were savage, intelligent predators.
And they were extremely fast. Their brain volume also suggests that they could make plans like chimps.

Sadly, their intelligence has been overrated in movies like Jurassic Park.

Personally, I'd like a Deinonychus or Dromaeosaurus more for their looks. A Velociraptor had a pretty ugly snout. The model they used in Jurassic Park were Deinonychus, then they enlarged them to the size of an Utahraptor (wich wasn't discovered yet back then). and gave them the Velociraptor name.
 
Last edited:
Velociraptors were social creatures, weren't they? Surely you could eventually tame it like a dog :3

*ahem*

Jokes aside, I would love to see a real-life Therizinosaurus. Or an Elasmosaurus if I had that amount of water.
 
Drake Pokétrainer said:
You surely wouldn't want to. They were savage, intelligent predators.
And they were extremely fast. Their brain volume also suggests that they could make plans like chimps.

Sadly, their intelligence has been overrated in movies like Jurassic Park.

Personally, I'd like a Deinonychus or Dromaeosaurus more for their looks. A Velociraptor had a pretty ugly snout. The model they used in Jurassic Park were Deinonychus, then they enlarged them to the size of an Utahraptor (wich wasn't discovered yet back then). and gave them the Velociraptor name.
Click to expand...

Deinonychus are really cool looking too. If i remember back to my dinosaur days, I think they were faster than Velociraptors. At least that is what i learned.
 
I think that would be cool if they could make dinosaurs come back to real life. Then we would know what color their skin was :-p I like pterydactyls. (is that how you spell it) haha.
 
ScorpioStarmie said:
I think that would be cool if they could make dinosaurs come back to real life. Then we would know what color their skin was :-p I like pterydactyls. (is that how you spell it) haha.
Click to expand...

Guessing the color isn't that difficult.
They probably had camouflage colors, at least most of them.

Forest dwellers were green, brown or maybe had stripes. The ones in the savannah were more yellow and orange with spots.

But pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs. Not even reptiles anymore (altough I also doubt the later species of dinosaurs were still reptiles). Warm blooded, hairy creatures that lay eggs.
 
I thought most dinosaurs were warm-blooded (particularly the dromaeosaurs) creatures that layed eggs.

Guessing the color isn't that difficult.
They probably had camouflage colors, at least most of them.

Forest dwellers were green, brown or maybe had stripes. The ones in the savannah were more yellow and orange with spots.
Click to expand...

What if they were poisonous and wanted to indicate that they were poisonous? Could dinosaurs have been poisonous in the first place.
 
Yonowaru in Chaos said:
I thought most dinosaurs were warm-blooded (particularly the dromaeosaurs) creatures that layed eggs.



What if they were poisonous and wanted to indicate that they were poisonous? Could dinosaurs have been poisonous in the first place.
Click to expand...
That could also be possible.
But I doubt much dinosaurs were poisonous. At least not any big ones. Maybe some coelurosauroids.

Or some feathered dinosaurs could have bright colors to impress a partner.
 
I remember on Walking with Dinosaurs that certain pterosaurs (like Tapejara and Ornithocheirus) had colour displays on their beaks and heads.

I still remember how Jurassic Park had Dilophosaurus spray poison at that guy. lol.
 
Yonowaru in Chaos said:
I remember on Walking with Dinosaurs that certain pterosaurs (like Tapejara and Ornithocheirus) had colour displays on their beaks and heads.

I still remember how Jurassic Park had Dilophosaurus spray poison at that guy. lol.
Click to expand...

And how it was reduced to the size of a Velociraptor. That was hilarious.

Yeah, Pterosaurs probably also got bright colors. They didn't really need camouflage.

And Ceratopses and Stegosaurs could change the color their shield and plates during mating season or to scare others away.
 
They injected a mouse's DNa into a pregnant mouse and the baby (s) it had was indentical in nearly every way to the first mouse. So, that's a start for cloning.
 
Yonowaru in Chaos said:
Ah yes, that I remembered too.

But it's interesting how those drawings of dinosaurs that depict them as fleshy and muscular use bright and contrasting colours. I mean, look at Cryolophosaurus.
Click to expand...

This
Allosaurus is even worse. Why would it be orange if it lived near forests?
 
Eh at least it looks somewhat like a rock-type of brown-orange colour.

The person who drew Cryolophosaurus used light blues, purples, maroon, and stuff like that.

Well at least none of them are hot pink. Just mild pink.
 
I actually say the logic when Crichton made the dilopasaurs able to spit poison. Yes there is no evidence to support this, but Chrichton was making a point not worrying about being scientifically accurate. His point is, all we have is bones. We don't know the full biological extent of these animals. The dilopasaurs very well could have spit poison. If we take the chance of bringing back an animal, we could be severely unprepared for everything that animal is potentially capable of. They could release certian pheremones that are deadly to humans, they could spit poison, they could overly aggresive, etc, etc, etc. We can only glean so much from bones.
 
Babylon said:
I actually say the logic when Crichton made the dilopasaurs able to spit poison. Yes there is no evidence to support this, but Chrichton was making a point not worrying about being scientifically accurate. His point is, all we have is bones. We don't know the full biological extent of these animals. The dilopasaurs very well could have spit poison. If we take the chance of bringing back an animal, we could be severely unprepared for everything that animal is potentially capable of. They could release certian pheremones that are deadly to humans, they could spit poison, they could overly aggresive, etc, etc, etc. We can only glean so much from bones.
Click to expand...

That could be possible. I don't blame him. His book was awesome.
We can derive the general appearance, speed, what it ate and on which terrain the animal lived. But that's all. When they first found a Hadrosaurid mummy, the scientists made a lot of new discoveries.
But I still wonder why they reduced the Dilophosaurus' size in the movie. It had its real size in the book.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top