|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:37 pm
Alright now think beofre you answer this. Consider all of Hammond's reasons. Do you think that what Hammond did was good or bad. Now think, cause I can see you all reply saying "bad". Think about if it had really happened.
Personally, I tihnk it was good, cause if it was real, think about all the things we would learn. Of cores then there's the whole "dino's getting loose thing" ... but only a few people died.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:25 pm
I would say it's both.
Good -- We learn about the behavioural patterns of a species that died out a long time ago, and get to see what they really looked like. The problem? How do we know the behaviour isn't based upon the modern conditions? It would be difficult to figure out a way to observe the animals in a "natural" setting without putting any researchers at risk (I think "The Lost World" demonstrated that fairly well).
Bad -- Because we do not know how to predict the way these animals would react to different situations, or how to control them, we don't know how we'd be able to "store" them. Looking at living animals is a good way to figure out some behaviours, but doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Only a few people died on Nublar, yes, and the death toll could have been higher on Sorna -- but... if the wrong group brought these beasts to life and they ended up on the mainland -- can you imagine the result of that? It would be tough to control them, and by the time everything was brought under control ... my gods, I don't want to imagine it. (Remember the T-Rex getting lose in San Fran? ... I think it was San Fran...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:02 am
Dr_Alan_Grant I would say it's both. Good -- We learn about the behavioural patterns of a species that died out a long time ago, and get to see what they really looked like. The problem? How do we know the behaviour isn't based upon the modern conditions? It would be difficult to figure out a way to observe the animals in a "natural" setting without putting any researchers at risk (I think "The Lost World" demonstrated that fairly well). Bad -- Because we do not know how to predict the way these animals would react to different situations, or how to control them, we don't know how we'd be able to "store" them. Looking at living animals is a good way to figure out some behaviours, but doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Only a few people died on Nublar, yes, and the death toll could have been higher on Sorna -- but... if the wrong group brought these beasts to life and they ended up on the mainland -- can you imagine the result of that? It would be tough to control them, and by the time everything was brought under control ... my gods, I don't want to imagine it. (Remember the T-Rex getting lose in San Fran? ... I think it was San Fran...) but dinosaurs have never met man, therefore, they dont know of human power or whatever, so everything should be okay until they discover that humans are easy to kill. but, as far as escaping, that was to the fault of irresponsible snobs. and, behavoir study, we would not know. these animals that would be cloned would not have any parental or behavoiral instincts, such as, if you were to clone two raptors, and raise them only until they were about a half to a full year, then leave them, and the two mated, they would raise their young until they were about the same age they were when they were abandoned, and then do the same, which is good, and bad. but, if you cloned something, you would own it, and you could test it for experiments and would not be bothered by product testing on animal protests. but, we could raise the animals to be as we think they are, and make them as authentic as possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:18 pm
Dr_Alan_Grant I would say it's both. Good -- We learn about the behavioural patterns of a species that died out a long time ago, and get to see what they really looked like. The problem? How do we know the behaviour isn't based upon the modern conditions? It would be difficult to figure out a way to observe the animals in a "natural" setting without putting any researchers at risk (I think "The Lost World" demonstrated that fairly well). Bad -- Because we do not know how to predict the way these animals would react to different situations, or how to control them, we don't know how we'd be able to "store" them. Looking at living animals is a good way to figure out some behaviours, but doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Only a few people died on Nublar, yes, and the death toll could have been higher on Sorna -- but... if the wrong group brought these beasts to life and they ended up on the mainland -- can you imagine the result of that? It would be tough to control them, and by the time everything was brought under control ... my gods, I don't want to imagine it. (Remember the T-Rex getting lose in San Fran? ... I think it was San Fran...) It was San Diego.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:18 pm
Dino Dave Dr_Alan_Grant I would say it's both. Good -- We learn about the behavioural patterns of a species that died out a long time ago, and get to see what they really looked like. The problem? How do we know the behaviour isn't based upon the modern conditions? It would be difficult to figure out a way to observe the animals in a "natural" setting without putting any researchers at risk (I think "The Lost World" demonstrated that fairly well). Bad -- Because we do not know how to predict the way these animals would react to different situations, or how to control them, we don't know how we'd be able to "store" them. Looking at living animals is a good way to figure out some behaviours, but doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Only a few people died on Nublar, yes, and the death toll could have been higher on Sorna -- but... if the wrong group brought these beasts to life and they ended up on the mainland -- can you imagine the result of that? It would be tough to control them, and by the time everything was brought under control ... my gods, I don't want to imagine it. (Remember the T-Rex getting lose in San Fran? ... I think it was San Fran...) It was San Diego.
yep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:31 pm
I don't pay attention to what Malcom does. xp
Let's say these idiots clone, say, Utahraptor. As an adult, it is much larger and stronger than a human. Being a predator, and highly intelligent -- we assume, as our comparison would be modern-day predators, and the majority of them are intelligent -- it would probably wonder why these puny, two-legged hairless apes are pushing it around. Its behaviour would be unpredictable, just like any wild animal. Look at Tigers. Sometimes, even in captivity, they unexpectedly attack (someone gets too close, bothers them, is a general annoyance, or they are undernourished/abused). Animals raised in captivity have some natural instinct, they just don't learn everything that they would in the wild -- after all, their food is given to them. They aren't stupid, though, and they know there's a reason why they have sharp claws and p'inty teeth.
It's foolish to mess with nature. Humans and dinosaurs have never been together. Bringing them into a world that has operated without them for millions of years is foolhardy, and I pity the idiot that attempts it. Cloning something that already exists is one thing, cloning something that used to exist but was stopped by natural selection is another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:36 am
Dr_Alan_Grant I don't pay attention to what Malcom does. xp Let's say these idiots clone, say, Utahraptor. As an adult, it is much larger and stronger than a human. Being a predator, and highly intelligent -- we assume, as our comparison would be modern-day predators, and the majority of them are intelligent -- it would probably wonder why these puny, two-legged hairless apes are pushing it around. Its behaviour would be unpredictable, just like any wild animal. Look at Tigers. Sometimes, even in captivity, they unexpectedly attack (someone gets too close, bothers them, is a general annoyance, or they are undernourished/abused). Animals raised in captivity have some natural instinct, they just don't learn everything that they would in the wild -- after all, their food is given to them. They aren't stupid, though, and they know there's a reason why they have sharp claws and p'inty teeth. It's foolish to mess with nature. Humans and dinosaurs have never been together. Bringing them into a world that has operated without them for millions of years is foolhardy, and I pity the idiot that attempts it. Cloning something that already exists is one thing, cloning something that used to exist but was stopped by natural selection is another.
Malcom is awesome.
Isn't it weird how he's right all the time ><
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:55 pm
Yes, it's one of those freakish things that haunts you for the rest of your life. Especially when you get to hear, "I was right", oh-so-frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:13 pm
Dr_Alan_Grant Yes, it''s one of those freakish things that haunts you for the rest of your life. Especially when you get to hear, "I was right", oh-so-frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:54 pm
I say that it's a good idea because you could learn about them but you need to make sure they don't learn that man is easy prey. It is a proven fact that no animal is born a mankiller until they figure out man is an easy prey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:36 pm
Ronin_Warrior15 I say that it's a good idea because you could learn about them but you need to make sure they don't learn that man is easy prey. It is a proven fact that no animal is born a mankiller until they figure out man is an easy prey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:32 pm
Ronin_Warrior15 I say that it's a good idea because you could learn about them but you need to make sure they don't learn that man is easy prey. It is a proven fact that no animal is born a mankiller until they figure out man is an easy prey. you quoted robert muldoon almost perfectly from the book...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:33 pm
kiro_ashura Ronin_Warrior15 I say that it's a good idea because you could learn about them but you need to make sure they don't learn that man is easy prey. It is a proven fact that no animal is born a mankiller until they figure out man is an easy prey. you quoted robert muldoon almost perfectly from the book... or malcolm.. i forget right now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:20 pm
kiro_ashura kiro_ashura Ronin_Warrior15 I say that it's a good idea because you could learn about them but you need to make sure they don't learn that man is easy prey. It is a proven fact that no animal is born a mankiller until they figure out man is an easy prey. you quoted robert muldoon almost perfectly from the book... or malcolm.. i forget right now... same thing. both were all "DOOM!!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
