2
$\begingroup$

I hear different sources claiming different things, bbc said they did, wikipedia says it hasn't which is it?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I have never read from any reputable source that DNA was extracted from some dinosaur bone. They did manage to sequence a few partial proteins like collagen through mass spectrometry a few years back.. $\endgroup$
    – 5heikki
    Sep 3, 2014 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ Which source says that DNA has been found? I am not aware that any discoveries have been made. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Sep 3, 2014 at 6:51

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Apparently it wasn't. According to Wikipedia, A study that reported Dinosaur DNA was,

mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences that had apparently been extracted from dinosaur bones dating to over 80 million years ago (reference).

However, contamination was found in the reported study (reference). Don't expect too much because this is a close to impossible task (reference 1). Most researchers pinned their hopes on DNA surviving trapped in amber resin but even that is not possible (reference).

If interested in cloning a dinosaur, quickly go through this article (or not).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Could an approximation of dinosaur DNA be made by analyzing the genomes of modern birds and trying to come up with a closest common ancestor? If it worked at all, it would probably be closest to DNA for an Archeopteryix, not a Tyranosaur. $\endgroup$
    – user137
    Sep 3, 2014 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ @user137 That would be hard or next to impossible I would say. There has obviously been many many mutations before when an Archeopteryix evolved into the birds of today. Going back means estimating these mutations as well as estimating what genes might have been present or not. There is a limit to these estimations and it would never be accurate enough. $\endgroup$ Sep 4, 2014 at 4:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .