The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Dinosaurs can be brought back...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 45758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




There has been no extensive research into this particular subject, but i am a firm believer that if DNA is found the process can take place, there has already been an experiment showing that Trout DNA was placed into a Salmon egg and the egg hatched, Trout.
Note to voter: Yes bring your beliefs into this when deciding but go with the argument that is the best! Note to Challenger: Bring it on!


Argument I: Lifespan of DNA

DNA has a half life of only 521 years (1). This is bad for cloning Dinosaurs, since cloning requires a good enough amount of DNA to make a complete replica of the creature. While this might be possible for an animal who went extinct a few centuries back, like the Dodo, the half life makes cloning Dinosaurs impossible. At only 521 years, Dinosaur DNA is about as extinct as they are. Dinosaurs have been extinct since 65 million years ago (2), their DNA can't be used or mixed with another creatures because it's been entirely eroded away.


Conclusion: Sadly, Dinosaur DNA doesn't exist anymore. There is no way to clone Dinosaurs.
Debate Round No. 1


DNA found in Amber or calcium?
There have been thousands of bones dug up by paleontologists and of them there has been no calcium or cells found alive but, if that bone was preserved lets say in ice cold Antarctica or maybe in Amber.

The idea of extracting DNA from amber isn't confined to the movies. The first reported success in the real world came in 1992, when scientists reported finding DNA from an extinct bee encased in Dominican amber. Other reports of successful extraction followed...

What next?

So, if the DNA was found (which is possible) then what next, well research has shown an experiment with Salmon eggs and then DNA of a trout, which was then inserted in the Salmon eggs and a healthy trout was hatched. We can expand this then lets say the Trout DNA is the Dinosaur DNA and the Salmon egg is an ostrich egg (it has the largest egg in the world, which is why its my choice) then it can be incubated and well then we have ourself (if it works) a healthy dinosaur egg (maybe).


Rebuttal I: DNA Exraction

An extinxt bee =/= 65 million year old Dinosaur. Even in ember and ice, DNA decays. Prehaps at a slower rate, but none-the-less it does. DNA from 65 million+ years ago doesn't exist, in any condition, anywhere in the world. A Half-Life isn't based off preservation from bacteria, but off natural decay that simply happens. Whether there are outside factors or not doesn't stop that.

We were able to perform all the experiments with the Trout DNA because we have it's DNA. Dinosaur DNA would have disappeared completely 10's of millions of years ago, requardless of if it's incased in ember.

Conclusion: DNA doesn't last long enough for us to have any of it today.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I begin I would like to point out (2) spelling mistake ember&Requardless -
"DNA is no longer here?"
This is possible okay!

DNA could not last half a million years yes, but paleontologists describe DNA in samples designated millions of years old. Ditching the millions-of-years dogma would resolve this dilemma. The clearly detected dinosaur proteins and what looks like dinosaur DNA make sense if the earth layers that contain them were deposited by Noah's Flood only thousands of years ago.
Technology is going to keep going, further and further. We already have very accurate drawings of Dinosaurs and there bones, when technology reaches its best point then we will be able to maybe make DNA through something else.
DNA yes is not available at the moment but we will keep going in science and will find it. i refer to my previous argument, to where we go next!



Rubuttal I: Extracting DNA

As great as that article was, the odds of the DNA being Dinosaur in origin is highly unlikely. As the article made clear, it can not be Dinosaur DNA unless Dinosaurs went extinct within the last 10,000 years. While that's wondrous news for a Creationist, it doesn't stand to merit in the scientific community.

"If it is dinosaur DNA, then it cannot be millions of years old because of the results of a separate study. Scientists examined 158 ancient leg bones from the extinct giant moa bird that lived on New Zealand’s South Island. The study authors generated a DNA decay rate with unprecedented rigor." -Pro's Source.

We have drawings because we have complete bone structures, but we still aren't sure if we have them right. For all we know, a T-Rex might have massive arms, and we've been using the wrong bones. Technology, of any level, cannot magically bring back DNA that no longer exists.

Conclusion: Dinosaur's cannot be brought back to live.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Eventually maybe; but the far future isn't what this debate is about (when human survival that long is not assured). Surprised I did not see any social issues of them not being the same creatures even if they could be brought back... Anyway con built a case about DNA half life, and pro's own source supported it. S&G given lightly to pro, as he did point out con's errors, which made me nitpick and catch more of them (not enough to normally award this, however I give lesser points a little more easily to the side I'm voting against, as a mechanism to decrease the influence of any bias)