When We Clone a Tyrannosaurus, Can We Feed it Creationists?

[Kuciwalker]

it's brilliant!

[Bkeela]

Feed Creationists to T-Rex? Don't be absurd! According to the Answers in Genesis website, T-Rex were vegetarian. Remember: before the fall of man, there was no death. Not even the least significant bacteria expired. T-Rex was not a meat eater, but used its large, sharp teeth to eat giant watermelons.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The problem is finding whole DNA strands which are in good enough shape to clone.

I highly doubt the DNA would have stayed in mint condition that long. I am hoping that enough DNA survived to sequence though, and then compare it with croc and bird DNA, so the few numbskulls who still deny that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs will shut up.

[Mr. Harley]

Why I hate Crichton - you would use crocodile or bird (maybe touraco and the hoatzin genes) to fill in the missing areas of dinosaur DNA. The only reason to use frogs would be ease, and we are so far along in working with higher mammals, i.e. Dolly, it would only make sense to use the closest living relative to make sure you get as close as possible after spending all that money.

[alva]

When We Clone a Tyrannosaurus, Can We Feed it Creationists?

Djeezes...the're not around yet and already you want to start clubbing them.

[Dinner]

They are around... The forces of ignorance are always around.

[GePap]

Heck no- Why would we want our new T-rex to get food poisoning? No, before we feed it the creationists, we have to pasteurize them.

[Dinner]

I think the creationists have been "pastor-ized" there whole life and that is the problem.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I thought the latest theory was that T Rex was actually a scavenger. That means we'd have to kill creationists ourself, and then leave them lying around for Rexie to find.

Not that that's a problem or anything; I'm just saying...

[Dinner]

Large meat eaters are rarely exclusively scavengers. Condors are the only ones I can think of and they have a very energy efficent means of getting around and looking for dead animals. T-Rexs didn't.

[Boris Godunov]

This is amusing. As further proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism, we have their falling for patently obvious April Fools hoaxes in their desperate search for evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/blog.html#aprilfool

The April 1997 issue of Discover magazine had a pretty good April Fool's joke about some Neandertal musical instruments that had supposedly been discovered in Germany. It was an unlikely collection, featuring bagpipes, a tuba, a triangle and a 'xylobone', along with a cave painting of marching musicians. In September 2000 the Institute for Creation Research fell for it and featured Marvin Lubenow presenting this evidence in one of their radio programs. I pointed that out on this website about a month later, and the ICR quickly apologized and retracted the claim. However, no erroneous argument ever completely disappears from creationist literature. I've recently noticed the April Fool article cited again in an article by Brad Harrub on the Answers in Genesis website. Harrub also thinks that the Java Man skullcap belongs to a gibbon - even though AIG has admitted that this is a discredited argument that creationists shouldn't use any longer. Harrub's article was also published in AIG's 'peer-reviewed scientific journal', the Technical Journal. What is AIG's peer-review process like, if clangers like these can get through it?

Interesting that AIG still uses claims that even they themselves acknowledged are discredited.

[Az]

I think the creationists have been "pastor-ized" there whole life and that is the problem.

*giggle*

[Elok]

To be fair, the creationists might be stupid but I don't think they'd ever be stupid enough to waste money cloning a large, vicious animal with no resistance to modern pathogens and no practical purpose except as a curiosity for tourists to gawk at. You need an educated elite to come up with a concept that pointless, the ignorant yield only modest stupidities.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Elok
To be fair, the creationists might be stupid but I don't think they'd ever be stupid enough to waste money cloning a large, vicious animal with no resistance to modern pathogens and no practical purpose except as a curiosity for tourists to gawk at. You need an educated elite to come up with a concept that pointless, the ignorant yield only modest stupidities.

It is not known that extinct creatures would be any more vulnerable to modern pathogens than living animals are. The evolutionary relationship between pathogen and host is complicated enough that for a brief time such a revived long extinct creature might even experience far less vulnerability to pathogens as all of the pathogens specialised to infect it may have all disappeared.

Furthermore, most animals have no practical purpose. We would learn a great deal by cloning such an animal so at the very least the money would be as well spent as money currently spent unearthing and mounting articulated dinosaur skeletons for display in museums.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I thought the latest theory was that T Rex was actually a scavenger. That means we'd have to kill creationists ourself, and then leave them lying around for Rexie to find.

Not that that's a problem or anything; I'm just saying...

So we just clone some raptors too