8 ms·

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/

sambeau 13y ago
DNA only lasts 10,000 years. They'd need a lot of DNA from a single dinosaur type to be able to stitch enough strands together to make one. However… Mammoths!?
- MarkTanamil 13y ago
  > DNA only lasts 10,000 years. Source? Seems like an arbitrary number plucked out of somebodies ass.
  - Aineias 13y ago
    http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555 http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11...
  - sambeau 13y ago
    I got my information directly from a geneticist friend who was explaining why cloning dinosaurs is not going to happen. He may of course have been simplifying it for us. Looking at the internet it looks like it's usually a lot lower. 10,000 years is the longest it might survive. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/02/dna_testing_richard_iii_how_long_does_dna_last.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2... This discussion explains it: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1754212/half-life-of-dna-is-521-years-jurassic-park-impossible-after-all http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1754212/half-life... "10,000 years is roughly 20 half-life periods, so they should expect roughly 1-millionth of the DNA to remain" EDIT: Reading on I see that if stored at cold temperatures it can last a lot longer.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      Honestly, if you're worried about your image the citation to slate isn't the one I would have disclaimed. That's quite some editorial comment at the end of the crev.info piece: """ These claims should be remembered if ancient DNA older than that is confirmed in future finds[...] if intact DNA is found in a dinosaur or other fossil older than the upper limit they just stated, it could have the effect of falsifying the evolutionary timescale. Since evolutionists are such staunch believers, though, most likely the reaction will be, “Well, what do you know; DNA can survive for 65 million years.” [...] The rest of us should remember what they said beforehand about DNA’s upper limit age, and not let them get away with it. """ Now we know -- if you've had result A for hundreds of years, and result B for singles of years, then evidence suggesting that the two conflict clearly supports result B. EDIT: link to http://crev.info/2013/07/longevity-of-dna-estimated/ http://crev.info/2013/07/longevity-of-dna-estimated/ (and vacillation about the propriety of citing to slate) was removed even before I posted this reply. It seems to be a nice, on-topic summary of current knowledge on the longevity of DNA, but wow, the editorializing. :/
      - sambeau 13y ago
        Ha. I really should have taken a second look at what I was citing! I removed that before I saw your comment. For some reason I thought I'd cited some interesting genetics blog. I read the paragraph. Yep. Took a quick look around — looks science-y. Oops. Bah. My shame. I spat my coffee out when I read the whole article. On a related note, I really wish HN had a preview feature. I often end up posting & then editing because 1) no preview 2) sessions timing out.
    - mkl 13y ago
      EDIT: Reading on I see that if stored at cold temperatures it can last a lot longer. Yes, though it seems they need to be stable, constant temperatures too. The Denisovans (human related species, ancestors of some of us) are known entirely from 41,000 year old DNA from a cave in Siberia, and the sequence recovered is basically the full genome - as good as for living humans and a lot better than any found for Neanderthals so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin http://www.nature.com/news/new-dna-analysis-shows-ancient-humans-interbred-with-denisovans-1.11331 http://www.nature.com/news/new-dna-analysis-shows-ancient-hu...
- maxerickson 13y ago
  It's apparently an ongoing project: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/ http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exp... And they found blood: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/siberia-mammoth-blood-discovery/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/siberia-mammoth-blo...
  - dhughes 13y ago
    Or an actual 68 million year old T. rex leg bone with blood vessels, still soft: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
    - chc 13y ago
      But AFAIK nobody really believes you'll find readable DNA in there. It just doesn't last more than a couple of million years no matter how carefully you preserve it.
      - andrewflnr 13y ago
        I don't remember which source it was, but I remember they did claim to have (partially) sequenced it, and found that it's nearest living relative was chickens.

DNA only lasts 10,000 years. They'd need a lot of DNA from a single dinosaur type to be able to stitch enough strands together to make one. However… Mammoths!?

MarkTanamil 13y ago
> DNA only lasts 10,000 years. Source? Seems like an arbitrary number plucked out of somebodies ass.
- Aineias 13y ago
  http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555 http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11...
- sambeau 13y ago
  I got my information directly from a geneticist friend who was explaining why cloning dinosaurs is not going to happen. He may of course have been simplifying it for us. Looking at the internet it looks like it's usually a lot lower. 10,000 years is the longest it might survive. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/02/dna_testing_richard_iii_how_long_does_dna_last.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2... This discussion explains it: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1754212/half-life-of-dna-is-521-years-jurassic-park-impossible-after-all http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1754212/half-life... "10,000 years is roughly 20 half-life periods, so they should expect roughly 1-millionth of the DNA to remain" EDIT: Reading on I see that if stored at cold temperatures it can last a lot longer.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Honestly, if you're worried about your image the citation to slate isn't the one I would have disclaimed. That's quite some editorial comment at the end of the crev.info piece: """ These claims should be remembered if ancient DNA older than that is confirmed in future finds[...] if intact DNA is found in a dinosaur or other fossil older than the upper limit they just stated, it could have the effect of falsifying the evolutionary timescale. Since evolutionists are such staunch believers, though, most likely the reaction will be, “Well, what do you know; DNA can survive for 65 million years.” [...] The rest of us should remember what they said beforehand about DNA’s upper limit age, and not let them get away with it. """ Now we know -- if you've had result A for hundreds of years, and result B for singles of years, then evidence suggesting that the two conflict clearly supports result B. EDIT: link to http://crev.info/2013/07/longevity-of-dna-estimated/ http://crev.info/2013/07/longevity-of-dna-estimated/ (and vacillation about the propriety of citing to slate) was removed even before I posted this reply. It seems to be a nice, on-topic summary of current knowledge on the longevity of DNA, but wow, the editorializing. :/
    - sambeau 13y ago
      Ha. I really should have taken a second look at what I was citing! I removed that before I saw your comment. For some reason I thought I'd cited some interesting genetics blog. I read the paragraph. Yep. Took a quick look around — looks science-y. Oops. Bah. My shame. I spat my coffee out when I read the whole article. On a related note, I really wish HN had a preview feature. I often end up posting & then editing because 1) no preview 2) sessions timing out.
  - mkl 13y ago
    EDIT: Reading on I see that if stored at cold temperatures it can last a lot longer. Yes, though it seems they need to be stable, constant temperatures too. The Denisovans (human related species, ancestors of some of us) are known entirely from 41,000 year old DNA from a cave in Siberia, and the sequence recovered is basically the full genome - as good as for living humans and a lot better than any found for Neanderthals so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin http://www.nature.com/news/new-dna-analysis-shows-ancient-humans-interbred-with-denisovans-1.11331 http://www.nature.com/news/new-dna-analysis-shows-ancient-hu...
maxerickson 13y ago
It's apparently an ongoing project: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/ http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exp... And they found blood: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/siberia-mammoth-blood-discovery/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/asia/siberia-mammoth-blo...
- dhughes 13y ago
  Or an actual 68 million year old T. rex leg bone with blood vessels, still soft: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
  - chc 13y ago
    But AFAIK nobody really believes you'll find readable DNA in there. It just doesn't last more than a couple of million years no matter how carefully you preserve it.
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      I don't remember which source it was, but I remember they did claim to have (partially) sequenced it, and found that it's nearest living relative was chickens.