There's no going back now. There will be more and more of those as the series progresses. But I did appreciate that Carnotaurus and Baryonyx are in the movie. Nice to see some real and new dinos in the franchise. I hope they're in the game too!
Are there any dinosaurs you DONT want in your park?
- Thread starter Dino droppings? Droppings?
- Start date
There's no going back now. There will be more and more of those as the series progresses. But I did appreciate that Carnotaurus and Baryonyx are in the movie. Nice to see some real and new dinos in the franchise. I hope they're in the game too!
That mimus that comes with the delux edition. I am not a fan of any of them honestly.
For me there's not any dinosaurs I DON'T want in my park, but my least favoured one or one I will not be rushing to put in my park will have to be the Indominus...
Two of the dig sites are in England, so there's a VERY strong chance we'll get Baryonyx in the game. I hope we both get them in the game, too.
Hybrids are fun, and morally interesting, it's basically playing at being God. In fact, nowadays, there are some studies using mixed DNA to our own benefit, so... But obviously the franchise shouldn't forget to introduce new real dinosaurs with the JS esthetic, I hope to see some new ones in Fallen Kingdom.
May I ask why? I personally really like the herbivores !
How are they any more morally interesting than the regular JP dinosaurs? Both are theme park monsters. Both have DNA from extinct creatures and both have DNA from extant creatures. That's literally the whole message of JW. There is no difference between the two.
This theme is actually covered in the JP novel. Wu wants to alter the dinosaurs because he thinks that guests will prefer dinosaurs that don't move as quickly and Hammond wants them to be 'real'. The problem is that either way they are not real and never could be real for various genetic reasons.
The term 'hybrid' then could easily be applied to all JW dinosaurs. The only reason we are talking about the I-Rex is that it's a hybrid of two (or more) DINOSAURS. However, in reality we have been artificially hybridising species as long as we have domesticated livestock and plants (roughly 10 thousand years). So again, there's nothing new here other than a big dinosaur with sharp claws that can camouflage.
As for the ethical side of things; we don't even know how to begin to have the conversation about whether it's ethical or not to clone extinct creatures. Especially species that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years. As Ian Malcom says 'we're not talking a species that has been olitorated by deforestation or the building of a dam; dinosaurs HAD their shot'.
For me, the much more interesting dilemma is whether it's ethical to clone extinct creatures at all. And if so, what rights do we grant them? This is fundamentally the main theme of all the JP books and movies.
It seems that if we did bring back extinct creatures, hybridising them would be an inevitable step and therefore not worth thinking about in as much depth.
Yes, bringing back extinct animals is morally debatable, but today scientists are trying to do this with species and subspecies in danger, and even years ago a read that they wanted to "revive" extinct animals, but was hard to find necessary DNA and/or animals that could breed them. In Jurassic Park, dinosaurs are hybrid because the DNA it's incomplete, it's a way to solve a problem, but in World they are trying to create new species from scratch, it's different to clone an extinct animal, that could be useful to study that animal in a recreated environment (It's not 100% identical, but it's better than trying to guess looking at today's animals) than to create a new species with certain qualities just because we can. And it's also different from choosing that goat and that goat because they produce the most milk, or the watermelon, which in past times had less food, or grain.
I didn't read the book, just saw the films, so I didn't knew that, interesting. And about the dinosaurs rights... if nowadays animals are treated like things in most places... it would be even harder to give dinosaurs rights, because they couldn't be released to nature.
I hope I have not committed many grammatical errors. XD
Dramasaurus - No to Drama
Haha your English is fine!
There is a fundamental difference between hybridising two species and creating a NEW species.
The I Rex isn't a new species because if it mated with another dinosaur it would not produce fertile offspring and that is essentially the definition of a species. This is the same as a mule; a cross between a horse and a donkey. It cant produce fertile offspring. The Irex is simply a cross between two or more dinosaurs and therefore, the only difference between it and the other dinosaurs in JP/JW is that it can't produce fertile offspring and the original dinosaurs on Nublar and Sorna they seemingly could!
Also, as I said, there is a difference ethically between cloning a species that humans played a part in its extinction to a species that died out 65 million years ago.
If possible, I'll try to avoid having I-Rex and I-Raptor in my park. If people are getting tired of the "same old" dinosaurs like T. Rex and so on, I'll just bring in weirder ones and avoid creating uncontrollable monstrosities.
I couldn't tell you any specific dinosaurs, but in JPOG I was more interested in creating dinosaurs outside the big name dinos. For example, I was more interested in the Camarasaurus than the Brachiosaurus, and I was more interested in the Styracosaurus than Triceratops (although, of the 3 ceratopsians, I was least interested in the Torosaurus for some reason).
I imagine that trend will continue into Evolution lol.
I imagine that trend will continue into Evolution lol.
Last edited: