HOME | DD
Tomozaurus β Velociraptor's Image - A Follow Up
by-nd
Published: 2013-01-17 04:55:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 7522; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 34
Redirect to original
Description
A follow up to [link]Another archetype I've noticed, and by far the worst of the lot. The non-paleaoart and non-JP/Dino-fanboy public of this very site (though there is some overlap with the latter) version. This group tends to depict the animal as some horrible freakish combination of a Jurassicparkoraptor, a dragon, and a wolf/dog. They often appear as OCs for whatever and can support a variety of accessories.
Consider this a partial PSA. These things are horrible, gross, monstrosities, and unless that is your intention, should never ever be seen again. Stop now. Stop it. No. No! That's a bad DA! No!
Related content
Comments: 78
Love the (intentional?) reference to Alien Resurrection.
π: 0 β©: 1
First: the tails of the raptors in Jurassic Park seem to be less flexible than the other dinosaurs', and they do not bend like in this image.
Second: have you ever heard about something called "mutation"?
π: 0 β©: 1
Have you ever heard of something called pop culture fiction? Fiction as in not real, not possible, imaginary. Learn the fine line of reality pal, maybe you won't be admitted to a loony bin if you do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fiction is not real. What is real is not fiction. Sci-Fi movies may always have a little bit of reality in their stories.
π: 0 β©: 1
You just shot yourself in the foot with that last sentence. That little bit of reality in science fiction and fantasy is so contorted from the real world definition and examples that it falls into the realm of fiction.
π: 0 β©: 1
So with preserved ancient DNA it would be impossible to clone ancient species? So an animal cloned with part of other animal's DNA would not show any signs of mutation?
π: 0 β©: 1
In a real life example the transgenic animal either wouldn't be all that different from it's base template or so radically different it dies of complications. Jurassic Park takes a known fact of the real world and contorts it to fit it's plot. Thus fictional.
π: 0 β©: 1
So a dinosaur mixed with frog DNA would have no chances of showing no feathers and aditional wrist bones?
π: 0 β©: 1
You're missing the point. It's not possible to even get dinosaur DNA in the first place. Also mixing amphibian DNA with what is essentially avian DNA would have probably fatal consequences. Hell geneticists can't even produce a glow in the dark cat or pig without it developing some sort of serious health problem from the introduced jellyfish DNA. Hybrids, whether born from coitus or the test tube almost always are not viable. The Jurassic Park dinosaurs probably wouldn't even hatch from their eggs thanks to all the defects they have. In short these animals are not possible even from a standpoint of general biology, anatomy, and genetics.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why can't we get dinosaur DNA?
The dinosaurs in jurassic Park were able to exit their eggs, but maybe with more difficulty than their cretaceous and jurassic relatives.
Also if you take a closer look at the "Mr DNA scene" it is shown that the damaged dinosaur DNA was not MIXED, but COMPLETED. In parts were the dinosaur DNA was intact, no frog DNA was put. But were the gene lacked some nucleotides, frog DNA was put. The scientidts may have even put some repitilian DNA to prevent serious problems.
π: 0 β©: 1
No a better buffer would be bird or crocodile DNA. The most ideal solution would be to have 100%. Plus we can't get dinosaur DNA in real life as DNA has a half life of 521 years.
π: 0 β©: 1
How can you be certain that DNA can only survive 521 years?
π: 0 β©: 1
I gave you a link and I read over the actual paper of that study.
π: 0 β©: 1
There are also links on scientific sites that tell that a new study was made and that the half life of DNA is now thought to be 6.8 million years, but they only examined moa specimens.
π: 0 β©: 1
Show me then. I'll easily be able to poke a hole in the logic you've given.
π: 0 β©: 1
www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-β¦
www.livescience.com/23861-fossβ¦
www.livescience.com/38150-dna-β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
That's true. Once you go through about 6 million years of countless half lives, you will have a fragment of DNA, but nothing that can be used for cloning. With that in mind, 6 million years is the limit. After 65 million years of half lives, DNA will be reduced to nothing. A half life means that the time it takes for the item to be reduced to half it's original value. Also you gave me news articles again, but Nature and LiveScience are better than the Huffington Post at least. So these articles still prove that dinosaur cloning is impossible.
π: 0 β©: 1
You forgot the fact that they only used moa specimens to make calculations, and these specimens were all at the same conditions for a relatively short period of time.
So the method they used is not so good. If they used older speciemns, maybe from other species, it would be more trustable. You see, I was right about you: you are an "authority puppet". You just repeat whatever an authority says and you do not care about what they did to have such conclusion.
These moa epecimens were not so well preserved as tissue in amber would be. Plus it was found that T. rex's blood was very rich in iron thanks to PRESERVED SOFT TISSUE INSIDE THE BONE OF A WELL PRESERVED SPECIMEN. The iron turned into free radicals after the animals died and made proteins and cells to act as some sort of formaldehyde (or something like that as I read on LiveScience). It was so efficient that even red blood cells were preserved and even CHAMICALS THAT ARE PART OF DNA WERE FOUND. If something like this can hapen inside a bone, who may say what would happen on a well preserved piece of amber?
You also seem to forget that Nature showed that weevil DNA from a 125-135 million year old amber was recovered. And I said it matchaed in some aspects with modern weevil DNA, but these were not identical.
π: 0 β©: 1
I just found you using a fallacy, hypocrite. You just used an ad hominem.Β
Also tell me where you got the information on free radicals? If anything it sounds like you're quoting from Jurassic World on that one.
π: 0 β©: 1
Where did I use such fallacy? Was that because of the moa specimens?
I found the free radicals information in LiveScience.
π: 0 β©: 0
Someone did this with a Spinosaurus and I doubt it's meant to be satire like your raptor...
owl-moon-cass.deviantart.com/aβ¦
π: 0 β©: 2
WTF is that monstrosity?
π: 0 β©: 0
I think I may have found worse than that Tom.
vipery-07.deviantart.com/art/Iβ¦
Get some gasoline quick.
π: 0 β©: 1
What in the actual fuck?
π: 0 β©: 0
I really hope they didn't expect that to be taken seriously as a dinosaur. It was under the folder "creature designs", so idk.
π: 0 β©: 0
What the **** is this thing? This is even more horrible than the JP Velociraptor!
π: 0 β©: 2
Well, that was the 90's interpretation of the animal sssooooooooooo...................
π: 0 β©: 1
The WWD ones actually represent the 1990's interpretations of real dromaeosaurids best. JP's ones were pretty much total fantasy.
π: 0 β©: 1
What? Go watch a JPΒ Featurette or the making of JP, or hell go ask Robert T. Bakker or Jack Horner (The Paleontological advisors of the Film), JP was the most accurate form of dino media in 93
Not to mention WWD was made eight years after JP
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah. It is not the Jurassic Park one.
π: 0 β©: 0
Gah, my old art used to look like that, so I deleted some of it. While I am happy with my childhood, I don't want my gallery filled with terrible abominations!
Especially when the Feather Nazi revolution kicks off...
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, I'll admit my incarnation of Velociraptor is hardly realistic, but it doesn't look like that.
π: 0 β©: 0
You reckon it'll run around after decapitation?
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>