Feathered dinosaur tail found in amber (2016)(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Feathered dinosaur tail found in amber (2016)
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38224564
37 comments
Would it theoretically be possible to extract DNA from these samples or are is that out of the question ever in any situation?
Impossible. DNA has an estimated half life of only 521 years [1]. It's a fairly reactive molecule due to the number of reactions it has to undergo to fulfill its purpose.
I believe the T-Rex soft tissue [2,3] that has been discovered contained short polypeptide sequences. You can infer the codons from this information, but that elides promotor, signaling, non-coding, etc regions that will be of massive importance. Not to mention you won't get much data in the first place.
Hundreds of years from now, any dinosaurs we recreate will be the result of creative genetic engineering and imagination.
[1] https://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.1...
[2] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-11-mechanisms-soft-tissue-prote...
[3] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shock...
I believe the T-Rex soft tissue [2,3] that has been discovered contained short polypeptide sequences. You can infer the codons from this information, but that elides promotor, signaling, non-coding, etc regions that will be of massive importance. Not to mention you won't get much data in the first place.
Hundreds of years from now, any dinosaurs we recreate will be the result of creative genetic engineering and imagination.
[1] https://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.1...
[2] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-11-mechanisms-soft-tissue-prote...
[3] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shock...
> Hundreds of years from now, any dinosaurs we recreate will be the result of creative genetic engineering and imagination.
Not to mention machine learning. I wonder if we get a bunch of samples from different individuals, could an AI simply just piece it all together?
Not to mention machine learning. I wonder if we get a bunch of samples from different individuals, could an AI simply just piece it all together?
If the information is gone, it is gone.
I'm sure you could devise a "machine learning algorithm" that'll shove some random numbers in there, though.
I'm sure you could devise a "machine learning algorithm" that'll shove some random numbers in there, though.
Given how many AI/ML companies infer meaning from meaningless data the information being gone isn't an issue. /s
Machine learning from what? Existing dinosaurs? The data is gone, what you're suggesting is that some type of AI is going to literally create life from nothing. Considering we aren't capable of autonomously driving a car down the road without killing someone, we've got a while to go before that happens.
> The data is gone
Correct
> Considering we aren't capable of autonomously driving a car down the road without killing someone, we've got a while to go before that happens.
These two problems are completely unrelated. Also, every form of transportation can result in injury or death, even walking and bike riding, so setting our goal at 0 deaths as a benchmark for success doesn't make sense.
Correct
> Considering we aren't capable of autonomously driving a car down the road without killing someone, we've got a while to go before that happens.
These two problems are completely unrelated. Also, every form of transportation can result in injury or death, even walking and bike riding, so setting our goal at 0 deaths as a benchmark for success doesn't make sense.
This was more my commentary on attaching AI/ML to every single problem and expecting that to fix it, when we're VERY primitive in either technology.
... and the machine said "Let there be light!" and there was light. The machine saw the light and it was good.
Restoring the full sequence is going to be like putting together a paper book that's been through a shredder.
And if you're thinking about cloning a dinosaur, that's even harder because you'd need to recreate exactly the same environment as in that specie's egg, otherwise the embryo won't survive to hatching. Not impossible, but extremely hard.
And if you're thinking about cloning a dinosaur, that's even harder because you'd need to recreate exactly the same environment as in that specie's egg, otherwise the embryo won't survive to hatching. Not impossible, but extremely hard.
Restoring the full sequence of a proper sample after modern sequencing methods is already as convoluted as putting together a book after it's been through the shredder.
Restoring the full sequence of damaged DNA (any that's left) after millions of years is like trying to do the same after the shredder stuff has been burned
Restoring the full sequence of damaged DNA (any that's left) after millions of years is like trying to do the same after the shredder stuff has been burned
Yes, but DNA is very fragmented and degraded. All you can hope to do with it is some DNA phylogeny.
"Jurassic Park" anyone? Ok, this particular dinosaur wouldn't be particularly awe-inspiring, but still... :)
Feathers on a dinosaur make them a lot less scary IMO, even the one in the artist impression is kind of cute, but I know (if I was around) seeing a very toothy bird-like creature live and in person might make me change my mind.
I also had this with the Neanderthals paintings of Tom Bjørklund. Most of the time Neanderthals are rendered as ape like beings, but he draws them as humans. This made me think completely different about Neanderthals.
A list of his work: https://steemit.com/art/@cultureshock/these-neanderthal-char...
His website: https://www.tombjorklund.fi/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombjorklundart/
A list of his work: https://steemit.com/art/@cultureshock/these-neanderthal-char...
His website: https://www.tombjorklund.fi/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombjorklundart/
You (everyone) should study their skeletons. No different from ours, unless you are a forensic anthropologist. Especially considering the wide variety of human body shapes. Showing them as ape-like is a type of racism. Technically speciesism I suppose.
what? they seem noticeably different to me.
[deleted]
I think I work beside the 2nd one... ;)
Ever had a bird attack you? They can be pretty scary, and they are tiny! Those things are fearless.
Just say Red-Winged Blackbird here in the Midwest and any bicyclist will shudder.
I was attacked from behind by some red wing blackbirds in Ohio this past summer while walking - I don’t know if I’ll ever feel truly safe again.
As others have commented modern birds of prey are pretty terrifying animals, majestic and beautiful, but they are large and terrifying. Even standing next to an ostrich (no teeth), its very hard to look past their general size and their 4 inch claws.
[deleted]
Funny the YouTube video linked by the comic is gone.
Wow I had no idea Wayback archived YT so well.
In a time when dinosaurs and birds both co-existed how do they tell the difference between dinosaur feathers and bird feathers? What are the features of feathers between these species that differentiate them?
It's in the article, along with photographs and CT scans:
"We can be sure of the source because the vertebrae are not fused into a rod or pygostyle as in modern birds and their closest relatives," he explained.
"Instead, the tail is long and flexible, with keels of feathers running down each side."
...
The feathers lack the well-developed central shaft - a rachis - known from modern birds. Their structure suggests that the two finest tiers of branching in modern feathers, known as barbs and barbules, arose before the rachis formed.
"We can be sure of the source because the vertebrae are not fused into a rod or pygostyle as in modern birds and their closest relatives," he explained.
"Instead, the tail is long and flexible, with keels of feathers running down each side."
...
The feathers lack the well-developed central shaft - a rachis - known from modern birds. Their structure suggests that the two finest tiers of branching in modern feathers, known as barbs and barbules, arose before the rachis formed.
Essentially (or, "cladistically"), birds _are_ dinosaurs, and even if you restrict yourself to "non-modern dinosaurs", where do you draw the line?
Well maybe. There were a class of very birdlike creatures called enantiornithines which I suspect are a completely different line and quite possibly not dinosaurs, however I've dug around before and am unable to find any precise statement of their genetic relationship to extant birds (and therefore their relationship to true dinosaurs).
Enantiornithines had the wing joint inverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
"Enantiornitheans are thought to have left no living descendants ... the articulation of the shoulder bones – which has a concave-convex socket joint that is the reverse of that of modern birds"
If anyone can elucidate, please do.
At the bottom of the article is a link to another article on these creatures https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36651471 "Ancient birds' wings preserved in amber"
Enantiornithines had the wing joint inverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
"Enantiornitheans are thought to have left no living descendants ... the articulation of the shoulder bones – which has a concave-convex socket joint that is the reverse of that of modern birds"
If anyone can elucidate, please do.
At the bottom of the article is a link to another article on these creatures https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36651471 "Ancient birds' wings preserved in amber"
(2016)
Still cool.
Still cool.