TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What about Dinosaurs in the future?

I mean, is not something THAT insane to re-create dinosaurs, the first theory is to modificate the Chicken's DNA to be similar to a dino, actually chicken and dinos have quite a similar DNA, genetic engeneering might be the answer for it. Another theory is to somehow not break the little DNA of Dinos we have. Would it be possible to do it?

Topics: DNA dinosaurs rewild
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2013: What's in the past belong in the past.. The population of the human is increasing and adding giants creature such as dinosaurs will just add a location problem. This world is already overpopulated.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2013: The larger dinosaurs could not function in present gravity. You'd have to find a smaller planet or a planet with its gravity attenuated by electromagnetic/electrostatic phenomena to put them on.

    Minimal discussion of gravity in first few minutes of Red Ice interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4
    • Sep 15 2013: I have to break it to you, but gravity doesn't work like that.
      Planetary mass and radius are all that's important, and those are more or less constant unless you slam into another celestial body (like the impact that is believed to have formed the moon).

      The asteroid believed to have made the dinosaurs kick the bucket is nowhere near large enough to qualify by the way.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: There is no way to start with what Newton and/or Einstein ever said about gravity and believe that it could have ever undergone a major change near our own planet's surface, but it is a very simple demonstration that it has. The familiar square/cube problem prohibits animals any larger than elephants in our present world.

        Gravity is an electrostatic dipole effect of some sort, it is not a basic force in nature.
        • Sep 15 2013: Let me just stop you right there and tell you that your theories are either worthy of a noble prize, or are complete nonsense.
          Either way, they don't fit the accepted scientific theories and models in the slightest.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: In simplest possible terms...

        Weight is proportional to volume, a cubed figure, while strength is proportional to cross section of bones and muscles, basically a squared figure. Double your physical dimensions, and the factor of two gets cubed for volume and weight but only squared for cross section and strength; you'll have cut your power/weight ratio in half. That's why you don't get 200-lb gymnasts and why we no longer have sauropod dinosaurs.

        You can get a rough size limit for the planet by solving for the point at which one of your top heavyweight power-lifters becomes dysfunctional because of this square/cube thing, that is, by solving for the point at which just standing up becomes the same effort as a 1000-lb squat or dead-lift at his normal weight which you'd assume to be around 350, that is:

        1350/(two-thirds power of 350) = x/(two-thirds power of x)

        You get a number around 20,000 lbs which would be a theoretical size limit for our present world. In real life the biggest elephant around 15,000 lbs and that's around 1% of elephants. That's the real world limit.

        2/3 power of weight is the normal scaling factor for lifting events, i.e. it eliminates the effect of different sizes and lets you see who, amongst the champions of various weight divisions, has actually done the best lift for a particular event.
        • Sep 16 2013: I'm well familiar with how the square-cube mathematics work out, but it's not much of a limiting factor in terms of gravity. What really limits size is how much food is available, and how much oxygen it intakes (oxygen absorption is dependent on surface area, consumption on body mass).

          We had the same gravity on earth for billions of years now (the fact that it's some matter of dipole effect is what I was referring to as noble prize material or utter nonsense), and clearly some of the dinosaurs have grown much bigger than elephants.

          What has changed was atmosphere density. A denser atmosphere encourages larger animals and denser plant life, putting a higher limit on how big an animal can get because there's more food available. This is also why larger warm blooded animals tend to shrink over the generations when they migrate to islands--too high a food requirement. Gravity as a limiting factor has nothing to do with it.
  • Sep 13 2013: Yes that could mean many things including Chickensaurs.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2013: Herbivore only. :) We could modify their brain somewhat as well and get them to replace some tools like ladders and ride them to our "jobs" because hybrids that are burning 120 miles per gallon are expensive in fuel cost. I tried being as open and positive as possible on this one.
  • Sep 19 2013: Agree with you on the population front, perhaps the dinosaurs could wipe out some of the humans for a start (LOL). Best to control the human population first before anything else.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2013: Mmmmm! Dinosaur Tenders.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2013: i'd like to see a mermaid :)
  • Sep 13 2013: Depends what era you want to bring them back from.
    The atmosphere used to be thicker back then, and contained more oxygen. You may just clone yourself a dinosaur only to see it suffocate.

    Granted, if you have the bio tech and funding required to bring back dinosaurs, you probably have the funding for a pressurized zoo exhibit.
    They'll never be more than that though--an interesting, but very expensive zoo exhibit.

    They won't be that dangerous at least. Unlike Hollywood would have you believe, small arms would kill them just fine--if they could leave their specialized environments to begin with.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2013: Sounds scary but interesting.:)