T Rex Soft tissue has been found.
 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683. That's right they found soft tissue inside a dino bone. They aren't exactly sure how much they have but at the very lest they'll be able to answer some new questions with it. Chances are that the DNA is either destroyed or mangled beyond the point of recovery. However, the chance remains, even if it's a really small one, that they could find some. Thus the question becomes should we even attempt a cloning? It would be sweet but do we really want Dinos running around on us. Also genreal thoughts on what else this might mean for science would be nice.

I heard about this on FNC a few days ago and from what they said, the DNA is completely intact. I really don't see a problem with cloning it. I doubt a real life Jurassic Park will happen since it's only one dinosaur and they will no doubt have plenty of guns pointed at it at all times (at least a few more than just one game warden :P ).

I'm sure the last thing that todays scientists would want is a giant dinosaur rampaging through the west coast like in The Lost World, so you're probably right, Bob... IF it comes to that. (Though I would like to point out that Robert Muldoon rocked.)

I highly doubt it though. For anyone to clone up themselves a Tyranosaur, they'd probably have the United States Governement breathing down their neck in order to prevent or supervise such activity. Long story short, the only living dinosaurs we're probably going to see are the ones in Congress. Think about it, who's going to say "Hey! I got an idea! Lets use this hunk of meat to build an army of creatures who hunting ability hasn't been matched since they went extinct! Gee, It can swallow a man in one meaty bite? Let's Go For it!

Yeah. Likelihood of a Dino-resurection: slim to none.

I really don't think that cloning a T-Rex would be such a bad idea. I mean, sure we'd have to keep it supplied with food, and eventually it would grow too large to control, but I'm sure that that would take years on end, and just watching the life-cycle of what appears to be an extinct animal would be enlightening. Besides, it'd die too young to become a threat anyway, so why not? Sure, there are ethical implications, but knowing scientists, they're going to push forward whether or not it's ethical, so just give them the go-ahead.

I just hope this means that the scientists are going to have to revise their ideas on pre-history.

Even if they did clone it the last time I checked you needed two dinosaurs to make a baby. They would have to keep cloning and cloning the same dinos.That'd cost a lot of money and they'd go bankrupt. I think if they cloned it it'd be a great way for scientists to observe the physiology of a T-Rex. We think we know a lot about them, so let's clone it and see if we're right.

Well, such an experiment would not be all that conclusive. Think about it: in the 65 million years since that animal went extinct, The climate has changed significantly everywhere. Wildlife of today may carry diseases that would tear the ol' rex a new one. And if it's hunting, it is no longer hunting the wildlife it would in it's natural prehistoric environment. All we'd see is "How would a T-Rex react if we put it in Location A."

It's the same as taking a Human and dropping him in an isolated biosphere. All we see in that case is how a man reacts in such a siduation. It all tells us nothing about how a T-rex lived in it's natural habitat.

No, but it could teach us quite a bit more about its physiology, growth, etc.

How the hell did that get preserved?
Does anyone know?
That's incredible.
I mean...
Blood vessels!
Millions of years old.
How is that even possible?
As for the cloning, it wouldn't be the first time it was brought up. Scientist's have already tried to get the okay to make baby Moas and Mammoths.
If you're proposing to make a viable species, I'm going to be fully against that.
We've meddled enough, both ways. And this would be the mother of all invasive species.(not literally)
In any case, wouldn't Baby T-Rex be immune to most viruses, since any viruses that have the proteins necessary to infect Dinosaurs would have long since died out.
But something else would probably kill it, like a different air balance, or something that's only poisonous to it, or something.

I've heard proposals for computer programs that can predict what something looks like from its DNA.
Wouldn't it be more cost effective and less dangerous to wait for that program and then use it instead of a real Dino?

Yes, but wasn't it more cost effective and less dangerous to not send people to the moon? Just because it's less cost effective or more dangerous to do something, doesn't mean that a human will pay those factors any mind. Curiousity is one of our largest traits, and that is why we are the dominant species on the planet. Curiousity combined with human ingenuity has been known to create marvels.

I wonder what happens if I rub these sticks together...
AHHH! Fire burn!

I wonder what happens if I put fire on this stuff...
AHHH! Explody Pain!

I wonder what happens if I bring a T-Rex back from the dead...

I was thinking more of being able to see what it looked like. I'm not sure if somehow we were able to figure out what a T-Rex's scales were colored and other small things like that which may not be preserved in a fossil.

I think it ould be pretty cool if we cloned "The Rex" I think it would serve as a great example of humn acheivement. It'd be like the moonlanding or the atomic bomb or agriculture. We'd be proving that we defied death and brought back an animal that hasn't been seen for tens of millions of years!