The Instigator
Scrivener
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Piccini
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Dinosaurs can't be brought back

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Piccini
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 36218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Scrivener

Pro

Dinos can't be brought back
Piccini

Con

I take that first round is for acceptance only, so I accept. Looking forward to the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Scrivener

Pro

Dinos can't be brought back
Piccini

Con

OK, that was rather disappointing. I was expecting a better argument. But, nevertheless, here are my points.

First of all, we don't need to bring dinosaurs back. There are live and well-known dinosaurs today. We call them birds.
Yes, modern birds are technically dinosaurs[1]. They share the same evolutionary ancestor as triceratops, T-rex, and other famous dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are actually defined as "the group consisting of Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and all descendants"[2]. This alone should be enough for me to win the debate, but let's assume Pro was talking only about the cool, scary, deinos sauros (terrible lizards). We still can bring them back. There are two debated ways of doing so, as I will show.

First way would be the one popularized by Jurassic Park movies. Find some dinosaur DNA, fill the missing parts, organize it nicely in chromosomes, and clone them. In the movie, they get the DNA from a preserved mosquito, and fill the missing parts with frog DNA. In real life, it would be hard to get the DNA, but not impossible, but the filling DNA would most likely come from modern birds. You know, they are dinosaurs and all, so their DNA shouldn't be so different. That said, this is a viable way, however hard. But there is another easier (and cooler) way.

In his book "How to build a dinosaur: extinction doesn't have to be forever"[3] John Horner suggests that we could reengineer modern birds DNA to make them cool dinosaurs. Actually, it is possible that we have only to turn off certain parts, as the dinosaur DNA is probably asleep inside birds DNA. His idea is to take a chicken (as chicken's genome has been already extensively studied) and tinker around to "awaken the dinosaur within"[4]. Now, HOW COOL IS THAT?

We wouldn't be able to have building-tall lizards because of the oxygen problem (today's atmosphere has way less oxygen them 65 million years ago), but what the hell, I would be happy with a 2-meter-tall raptor, or even with dog-sized carnivorous lizards.

So, summing up, I showed that dinosaurs lived among us. For debate purposes, I also showed that there are at least two ways of bringing the cool terrible lizards back. I believe I have proven my point, and I wish luck for my opponent to rebut my arguments.

References:
[1] http://www.amnh.org...
[2] Benton, Michael J. (2004). "Origin and relationships of Dinosauria". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; and Osm"lska, Halszka (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 7"19. ISBN 0-520-24209-2.
[3] Horner, John R.; Gorman, James (2009). How to build a dinosaur: extinction doesn't have to be forever. New York: Dutton. ISBN 978-0-525-95104-9. OCLC 233549535.
[4] http://news.discovery.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Scrivener

Pro

Your right, but no animal today has the right DNA to fill in the missing parts. The birds' DNA has been changed and modified so we cant
Piccini

Con

I was expecting more of a challenge. Well, Pro only says that it can't be done, but haven't provided a single reason why, while I on the other hand have provided at least two viable ways of bringing dinosaurs back. Pro says that no animal today has the right DNA, but that is not true, bird DNA is dinosaur DNA, as birds are dinosaurs, so their DNA is perfect to tinker and make ourselves a chickensaurus.

That said, I think I have won the debate, specially after Pro said "[sic] Your right". Quite cool subject, also.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DanBeach 3 years ago
DanBeach
I was looking forward to this but PRO kind of ruined it, he did not put up much of an argument. simply stating it can not be done is not really evidence or much of a coherent argument.
Posted by DanBeach 3 years ago
DanBeach
I feel there needs to be a definition of dinosaur here. I can only assume that we are talking about living creatures from the Jurassic time period and are now extinct. But i see many arguments here for both sides, No reason to ruin the fun here, I would rather see your creativity than to just restate my own opinions.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
ScrivenerPicciniTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro practically conceded. He had no arguments or sources, whilst Con had both.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ScrivenerPicciniTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ARGUMENT: Terrible argument by assertion from pro, not supporting his claims with any evidence, leaving them entirely unwarranted. Whereas pro did the research, and proved his case, even more so expanding us into the whole birds point. Plus good professionally done sources.
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
ScrivenerPicciniTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G went to Con. Con actually presented an argument. Therefore arguments go to Con. Con used sources, while Pro didn't.