Cloning prehistoric animals

[Dutch90]

How likely is it that we'll ever be able to do this? I know there's been a project to clone the thylacine in Australia, but that involves a creature that went extinct as recently as 1936 and uses DNA from an embryo preserved by scientists in 1866. So far that's been unsuccessful.

It's possible to extract DNA from mammoths and other animals frozen in ice several tens of thousands of years ago, and they even found bone marrow in a 67 million year old Tyrannosaurus bone back in March 2005, which could possibly contain DNA as well. It was well preserved enough for scientists to see that the red blood cells were very similar to those of birds, further proving the Dinobird theory. But I wonder if enough DNA could be extracted to actually clone such a creature.

Of course, the Jurassic Park scenario is out because the mosquito's stomach acids would severely deteriorate the DNA in the blood it ingested (unless it happened to get stuck in tree sap right after sucking blood from a dinosaur).

[Neltharion]

I was watching something rather recently about this on TV, it was talking about the possilibilites of cloning extinct animals.

It pretty much ruled out cloning a dinosaur(within the next 50 years at least) from DNA, but what is being discussed is the possibility of creating a Dinosaur like bird from a Chicken or a bird embryo.

Basically, they have found the genetic code in which scales can be produced, a tail can be produced, teeth in the beak can be produced as well as turning the wings into arms.

These have all been done to chicken embryos, they blocked certain genes activating thus allowing the embryo to grow a Tail. They then did this for teeth, arms and a long tail. As each was observed naturally in chicken embryos at a certain stage.

I am trying to find a link to this but so far I have found nothing, though I will keep you posted.

[BlackWatch]

Am I the only one that thinks I don't want fuckin' dinosaurs roaming the Earth again!!!

Aside from that, on the scientific side, I don't see it being feasible anytime soon. Then again science and technology tend to take leaps forward so you never know what kind of genetic advancements scientists will make soon.

[deezelboy]

But I wonder if enough DNA could be extracted to actually clone such a creature.

I would doubt it. DNA's a notoriously fragile molecule that tends to fragment into segements.  We've got a whole bunch of cellular machinery in us to stop this happening when we're alive, to give an example of how fragile it is.

So we might get DNA from fossils, we might well get some really interesting sequences, but we're really unlikely to get enough DNA to clone an organism.  We'd be incredibly lucky to get enough for one or two genes IMHO.

[Thedus]

I can't help but think that cloning prehistoric animals is a monumentally bad idea.  Whether it could be done with present technology is another matter, and I don't think we can.  Any recoverable DNA would surely be too fragmented to use.  ...But if we could find a strand intact enough to use where would it lead us?  Sure we could gain invaluable information about the given prehistoric animal, but any studies done would be tainted by the Earth's current conditions - i.e. oxygen levels and general atmospheric quality, interactions with humans and other animals that weren't around when the given species existed, bacteria, viruses, pollution, etc.  The planet was very different prior to humans, and different points in the Earth's development say changes in atmospheric quality and levels of gasses in the atmosphere, as well as climatory changes that just could not be fully known or replicated.  All of these would have an impact on any study that was done.

Plus there are other things to consider.  For example, back in the mid-90's a group of scientists (wish I could remember who and what year it was... maybe '94) were talking about cloning a prehistoric scorpion.  The kind buggers that existed prior to the dinosaurs and measured about a meter in length.  Why on Earth would someone think this was a good idea?  We have no idea what kind of toxins were present in prehistoric scorpion venom, or how it could muck around with a nervous system.  We also don
t knwo what kind of dietary needs it would have.  We could guess, but there again this would have an impact on any studies that could be done on it.

[BlackWatch]

That was my point as well. Do we really want to unleash these things on modern-day Earth? Have they not seen Jurassic Park?

[Hieronymus]

Am I the only one that thinks I don't want fuckin' dinosaurs roaming the Earth again!!!

I can't help but think that cloning prehistoric animals is a monumentally bad idea.

Why on Earth would someone think this was a good idea?

Do we really want to unleash these things on modern-day Earth? Have they not seen Jurassic Park?

Clearly, you people don't think like scientists.  My first reaction to the giant scorpion Thedus mentioned was "sweet!"

[Dutch90]

Yeah, that's probably true. To quote Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with what they could, they never stopped to think if they should". Scientists would probably love to learn more about prehistoric life through cloning, though. I suppose the one problem would be that cloned prehistoric animals may be different from the prehistoric originals. For instance, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs were hermaphrodites because frog DNA was used to fill gaps in the genetic code. That's impossible in real life BTW, you'd need a very closely related animal for that, closer even than birds and crocodiles. Anyhow, they weren't 100 % dinosaur, they were part frog.

But of course if prehistoric creatures were ever cloned it would be on a very small scale and not exactly with the purpose of putting them in a theme park. I don't see much danger in cloning, say, a Hypsilophodon (small herbivorous dinosaur) and studying it in captivity. PETA would throw a hissy fit no doubt, but that's kind of besides the point, although the Lost World movie (Spielberg version) made an interesting reference to the rights of extinct animals that have been brought back to life.

On the subject of the scorpion: Prehistoric Park, while not a very accurate show, made a clever point regarding the venom of prehistoric arthropods. Since mammals didn't exist yet in the Carboniferous, it's unlikely that arthropod venom would be very dangerous to humans. It would be specialized in killing amphibians and other arthropods; different animals (in terms of classification) are different in how they're affected by venom I believe.

[Thedus]

On the subject of the scorpion: Prehistoric Park, while not a very accurate show, made a clever point regarding the venom of prehistoric arthropods. Since mammals didn't exist yet in the Carboniferous, it's unlikely that arthropod venom would be very dangerous to humans. It would be specialized in killing amphibians and other arthropods; different animals (in terms of classification) are different in how they're affected by venom I believe.

We have that series, actually.  My oldest son loves it.  He wants to be Nigel Marvin when he grows up.

That is a good point, and one I had forgotten, but modern day hornets, bees, wasps, and spiders do not hunt mammals, but their venom can be quite toxic.  Actually, spiders that use necrotoxins don't even have to deliver a large dose to cause considerable damage to mammal.  Now granted, the amount of venom delivered from modern bees, wasps, and spiders is rather minimal when compared to the dosage delivered by various venomous snakes, and such.  But image what the dosage per sting would be like if the critter doing the stinging was a meter long and was designed to hunt amphibians and arthropods of a similar size. Designed for mammals or not I'd wager that such venom could really do some damage if introduced in to human system.

Edited to fix a spelling error. :|

[BlackWatch]

Designed for mammals or not I'd wager that such venom could really do some damage if introduced in to human system.

I was thinking the exact same thing. A toxin is a toxin. Sure mammalian biology might be different, but if it'll kill giant spiders I'm going to assume it can probably kill me too!

[Dutch90]

That is a good point, and one I had forgotten, but modern day hornets, bees, wasps, and spiders do not hunt mammals, but their venom can be quite toxic.  Actually, spiders that use necrotoxins don't even have to deliver a large dose to cause considerable damage to mammal.  Now granted, the amount of venom delivered from modern bees, wasps, and spiders is rather minimal when compared to the dosage delivered by various venomous snakes, and such.  But image what the dosage per sting would be like if the critter doing the stinging was a meter long and was designed to hunt amphibians and arthropods of a similar size. Designed for mammals or not I'd wager that such venom could really do some damage if introduced in to human system.

Edited to fix a spelling error. :|

The important difference here is that modern arthropods coexist with mammals, while in the Carboniferous nothing like mammals existed yet.

Venom is used for self defense as well as hunting. Mammals often prey on or otherwise endanger arthropods like bees, wasps and spiders, so it is to be expected that arthropods have evolved venom that is dangerous to these creatures as well.

I was thinking the exact same thing. A toxin is a toxin. Sure mammalian biology might be different, but if it'll kill giant spiders I'm going to assume it can probably kill me too!

It's actually not that simple; here's an interesting example regarding the funnel web spider:

Funnel Web Spider Venomp
While some very venomous spiders may give dry bites, Funnel Web Spiders do so much less frequently. It appears that approximately 10% to 25% of their bites will produce toxicity, however, the likelihood cannot be predicted and all should be treated as potentially life-threatening.

Bites from Funnel Web Spiders have caused 13 deaths (seven in children). In all cases where the gender of the biting spider could be determined, it was found to be the male of the species. Most victims were young, ill or infirm.

There is a large number of different toxins in the venom of Funnel Web Spiders. Collectively, the toxins are given the name atracotoxins (ACTX), as all these spiders belong to the subfamily Atracinae.

Although extremely toxic to primates, the venom appears to be fairly harmless to many other animals, including dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, guinea-pigs, chickens and even cane toads. It has been suggested that these animals may be resistant to the venoms effects.

http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/venanimals/ven_spidfunweb.html

I suppose that last sentence suggests this may have to do more with the animals in question than the venom itself, but that is not for certain. If there can be toxins that specifically target the nervous system and toxins that specifically attack tissue (necrosis), I don't see why there can't be toxins that specifically affect certain groups of animals.

[Hunter]

What are the chances of a prehistoric blood sucking parasite being found preserved in amber like in Jurassic Park? Or was that just an illogical movie moment?

edit: been answered I see!

[Neltharion]

I seem to be the only one who is against cloning Dinosaurs, have any of you seen Jurassic Park?

/Hudson

Raptors can open doors man!

/Hudson  (Read it in his voice)


Though I'd love to ride into town on the back of a T-rex....

Ok, back to science of this....

[deezelboy]

The important difference here is that modern arthropods coexist with mammals, while in the Carboniferous nothing like mammals existed yet.

But isn't it more the case that venoms can be pretty broad in their application?

Take jellyfish, for example.  Their stings can be extremely painful for mammals such as ourselves.  However, there should be no major selection pressure as far as I can see for jellyfish coming up with something that can paralyse fish but also deter mammals - it's just that the venom developed against fish also has a nasty side effect when used against mammals, due to the relative similarity of their metabolisms.

At least, I would be no happier swimming with Carboniferous jellyfish than I would with the jellyfish of today.

[Dutch90]

I guess in the end there's only one reason to truly find out (which would be time travel ), but Deezelboy makes a good point I think.

I wonder, though: where's the selection presser for funnel web spiders to possess venom that is especially lethal for primates? This is especially interesting since humans are the only prevalant primates in Australia. I'm not even sure there are any primates in Australia besides humans....