Talk:Biological issues in Jurassic Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Present-day PCR can't amplify large quantities of DNA (the entire dinosaur genome). Even if this was possible, it would take a very long time.

You don't need to PCR a chromosome - putting it into a cell will do the job for you (as with Yeast artificial chromosomes)


PCR needs parts of the DNA to start the reaction (the so-called primers). To get them, the genome needs to be mapped beforehand.

Random primers are commonly used to PCR unknown sequences, which can then be sequenced.

Because DNA is broken down by nucleases and proteolytic enzymes in the mosquito gut, the mosquito would have to be preserved immediately after feeding.

Nucleases yes, but proteases don't break down DNA - only protiens

Since there are now sources/references included in the article, I took the liberty of removing the reference tag and hiding it somewhere else.

Contents

[edit] Nuking this

I'm tagging this for deletion. It's an interesting opinion piece but it isn't a good Wikipedia article because it consists of speculative opinions rather than factual writing about notable opinion on the subject. Perhaps sources like the book listed in "further reading" could provide the basis for a decent article on this subject, but that isn't what we have here. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean

"None of the dinosaurs featured in the movie are known to have existed in the Dominican Republic 65 million years ago." What about anywhere else on Hispanola?

[edit] Notes to self

Information or leads on finding some, very preliminary search:

  • [1] - references this article, not usable on its own, except in parts when it draws its info from other sources
  • [2] - Creationist?
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5] (...)
  • [6]

--Kizor 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"too much frog DNA and your T. rex croaks."_Dragon Helm 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • [9] - Dinosaur running speeds calculated
  • [10] - Hey! Can we use this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kizor (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

--Kizor 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brachiosaurus rearing.

"In addition, it is seen to raise up on its hind legs - as its forelimbs were longer and heavier, this seems very unlikely, as the animal could potentially have injured itself."

Unlikely according to whom? Greg Paul has written a convincing argument that states that sauropods could have easily reared themselves up. You can find this argument here: http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Jan/msg00553.html So, is this actually an inaccuracy or simply invalid criticism? [arthal] 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Brachiosaurs were unique among saurpods in that their front limbs were longer. In other saurpods, the reverse was true. 80.42.25.215 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary

"The high intelligence of the film's Velociraptors is considered somewhat unlikely by scientists, given the relative size of their brains and comparisons with contemporary animals."

Do we mean contemporary, or do we mean modern? Since I can't read the reference, I can't see what is intended. Contemporary seems rather unlikely, as that would be a bit circular.... Skittle 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read enough in my work on this article to know that it's "modern." Thanks for that - it's surprisingly easy to miss and non-native speakers tend to trip over it. Changing. --Kizor 09:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus section

"The movie's theory is that the Tyrannosaurus rex would be unable to "see" someone if they were to remain still, though some argue that it would still be able to smell them. The book was ambiguous on the subject. In the sequel novel, The Lost World, it is revealed that the Tyrannosaurus can in fact see inanimate objects, and was actually bothered by the rain."

This basically re-iterates a part of the novels/movies, without actually stating one way or the other if this could or could not be scientifically accurate. It seems like the purpose of this article is to provide sources arguing one way or the other; this fact has no sources for or against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Network57 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the movie someone said they were unable to see people who were still due to the frog DNA they used to patch up the holes in the original DNA sequence. I can't remember if this was just some wild guess that worked or actual knowledge. --M.A. 21:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of the animals

Beyond the obvious biological constraints that have been "forced" either by the movie or the novel, I have always wondered how the life engineers of InGem could have done to grow-up 20 tons animals in the few years since the discovery of PCR (1983) and similar techniques used for extracting and replicating the DNA. I think the largest ones depicted dinosaurs are possibly tens of years old (or even centennials if cold blooded). Any comments on this? --Cantalamessa 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the novel, the dinosaurs grew rapidly, and over the course of several years. In the novel, I think that the specific years are used, while the movie doesn't seem to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteArcticWolf (talk • contribs) 13:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is discussed in the novel that the aging was purposely sped up by InGen.

[edit] I can help with the article

I have the book The science of jurassic park and the lost world. I can help with referencing. T.Neo (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassic Park screenshot 3.jpg

Image:Jurassic Park screenshot 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleo-Atmosphere

Does anyone know if it would ever be possible for a dinosaur to breathe today? I think it's unlikely that there would be enough Oxigen. nihil (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Think of people who live at high altitudes. If the dinosaurs had time to get accustomed to our atmosphere it would not be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Neo (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've noticed that this article is shown from an evolutionary perspective, even though evolution isn't necessarily what the majority of people believe. (I'm a Creationist myself). And, it seems to be geared against the (Jurassic Park) franchise. ~ Popie the Popester

Hi, I too have problems with this artical (but for very different reasons). The artical is called Biological issues, meaning scientific issues not religous issues. Personally I'm saddened by how many people believe in creationism, when there is no reason to. In a vain effort to hopefully change at least one persons opinion might I advise you look here. Talk:Evolution/FAQ. I like to look at this amazing photo here [11] to me, it puts things into perspective. Oh well...happy editing. :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All i See are stars, Handiwork of God. I am saddened by the number of Evolutionists, but they are decreasing. Scientist have been wrong, dead wrong. Look at the doctrine of humors. Too each his own though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.208.115 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isnt about the evolution/creation debate. It is about the biological errors in the jurassic park franchise. I myself am actually a christian, but still a staunch beliver in evolution, which wikipedia is biased towards (something I don't have a problem with, though). If you dont like this, rather focus on conservapedia or creationwiki, which show things from a creation point of veiw. And, yes, science has been wrong in the past, but the evidence clearly points towards evolution, for example, animals from differant eras being seperated and not being all jumbled up as if they all died in a flood. Evolution doesnt mean there isnt a god, it just means that the Earth is old, and animals change and go extinct. As for this article being biased against jurassic park, it isnt. There are many inaccuracies in the jurassic park franchise because it is science fiction, not fact, and, what facts are true about the animals portrayed are exaggurated and "creative licsense" is often added (see the venom spitting dilophosaur; total nonsense, but entertaining). T.Neo (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of sections for attention

There's a couple of areas I can help out on, but I'll need more detail from the films:

Could someone add a size for The Lost World 's Pachycephalosaurus? It's not necessarily downsized, as the lack of a described skeleton has meant estimates have fluctuated over the years. Most recent estimates put it in the neighborhood of a large Thescelosaurus.

Also, could someone do something similar for the size of Stegosaurus? In this case, I'd also like information on the number of plates, the position of the spikes (vertical or horizontal), the flexibility of the tail, and, since I've seen them mentioned elsewhere, the number of fingers and toes, and what it has under its neck. The real thing was up to 9 meters long, had 17 plates, 4 spikes pointing out horizontally and back, a tail that did most of its flexing toward the end because the large plates limited motion closer to the body, 5 fingers and 3 toes, and a concentration of little armor nodules around the throat.

Finally, is it just me, or are the Spinosaurus section and the end of the Tyrannosaurus section veering off into the morass of who should have beaten who? J. Spencer (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Only numbers I could find seem to cite the real life sizes rather than the in-movie ones, but I scanned this which is somewhat cool, maquettes of the dinosaurs with a cut-out human for scale, Pachy and Stego on the lower right: [12] Funkynusayri (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Going by that, the pachycephalosaur looks like it's within current estimates. I thought the stegosaur was larger in the film (again looks to be within range; if we say the person is 2 m tall, for example, the dinosaur is a little over 8 m long, and a more average person yields an even smaller stegosaur), but it's clearly got vertical spikes and at least a couple more plates than 17 (can't be sure about the neck). I wouldn't blame them too much for the tail spikes, as that was only really studied in the last ten years. J. Spencer (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be the fact that there are objects between the humans and the Stegosaurus that create the illusion that it is further away and thus "twice as big" as the real one, if you look here:[13] There's a tree or something in between, and the shot is angled so the characters are seen slightly from above, but later when they attack, they appear smaller.

Also, I have a dinosaur book published in 2000 where Pachy is shown as being eight meters long, stuff like that might add to the confusion. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)