|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 3:36:23 GMT
I recently saw a doco where Jack Horner enthused that it WILL be possible to genetically "reverse engineer" birds - especially ratites - into their long distant ancestors, the dinosaurs. Or at least, something strongly resembling them.
Scientists have already been able to re-create teeth and long tail bones in chickens. As you know, all of a creatures ancestral genetic information is contained in its DNA; it's just a matter of activating it selectively and correctly.
Horner said it's not a matter of if, just when... and it isn't far away.
Likewise, it'll be possible to do the same with prehistoric mammals, etc... including people too, I guess...
But I haven't been able to find any more info on this, can anyone help??
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 20, 2008 3:42:33 GMT
- 2. Where is he going to get the DNA, from fossilized bone. First he needs to prove he can get DNA from a rock.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 4:09:48 GMT
No, no... that's not how it works. They'll take NEW DNA -- such as that from an emu -- and manipulate that so that it expresses ancient characteristics, such as teeth, forearms instead of wings, and a long tail. I imagine this will occur at the embryonic stage. As I said above, they've already been able to bring teeth and a long tail back to a chicken.
The process has nothing to do with fossilized DNA, this isn't Jurassic Park technology...
Yes, Horner wasn't quite right about T. rex being a scavenger, but it looks like this is really gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 20, 2008 4:20:14 GMT
Sorry I was thinking of a different show. Yes I saw that one. I believe they were talking about it being possible in maybe 50 years. Its a long way from a few small teeth and little tail to a T-Rex or other Dinosaur. I'm not saying this method won't work but I'm skeptical. I think however it does show the possible relationship of modern birds to Dinosaurs in turning recessive genes back on. Hopefully it will work but will just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 4:24:45 GMT
I got the impression that it was more like the next FIVE years...
I think that if they can put teeth in a bird -- something that hasn't occurred naturally for tens of millions of years -- they can do everything else too!
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 20, 2008 6:31:44 GMT
Well, maybe the most important question is, how will they know how to search for the exact set of genes if they don't have the original genetic sequence of the dinosaurs?
More hot air from Horner, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 7:19:38 GMT
Geneticists have learned to recognize the functions of various genes over the last few decades. If they can backwards-engineer teeth in a chicken embryo, they know what they're doing. Bird genes are, in many cases, not very different from theropod genes; to put it another way, 100% of theropod-dinosaur genetic information is contained in bird genes.
It's not just Horner, there's people doing real work in this field.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 7:26:28 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html"There is now nothing to stop us bringing back dinosaurs but ourselves." -Horner ‘Making a tooth is complex,’ says Harris. ‘So the idea of turning on one gene that might be able to do this in an animal that hasn’t made teeth in over 70 million years, was somewhat of a stretch.’ Examining the growing embryo two weeks later, he called colleagues to look at what had happened. ‘You could see very clearly paired structures on the lower jaw. 'And so, a normal chicken can actually grow teeth.’ Furthermore, the teeth had the same curved shape as dinosaur fangs. Following this, Harris and Fallon began to find other dinosaur traits in the DNA of birds, such as scales.' Furthermore, the teeth had the same curved shape as dinosaur fangs.Come on guys, this is AWESOME!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2008 11:39:10 GMT
But...Assuming it would really work,i ask you:WHY? Why mess with nature creating what probably would be only monsters? Why not let the things as they are and use the same technology to try curing lethal diseases and such?? Why humans always try to act like gods,believeling they can control the powers of nature (which they can't) and don't accept to be more...Humble? Geez...
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 20, 2008 11:53:10 GMT
Why create monsters...? Because monsters are COOL.
Yes, of course the technology should also be used to cure lethal diseases. It doesn't have to be a a choice between only one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 20, 2008 12:13:11 GMT
- 2. Where is he going to get the DNA, from fossilized bone. First he needs to prove he can get DNA from a rock.
He is not getting DNA from a rock you big silly. He is getting it from chickens.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 20, 2008 14:59:27 GMT
I got the impression that it was more like the next FIVE years... I think that if they can put teeth in a bird -- something that hasn't occurred naturally for tens of millions of years -- they can do everything else too! The article says "Larson now believes in a hundred years or so, geneticist could retro-engineer animals that appear identical to Mezozoic Dinosaurs." That is a long time off. We'll probably all be dead by then. A little tail on a chicken and some baby teeth don't make a T-Rex. Also where is this miracle little chicken. Did it hatch. Show me a picture of it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 20, 2008 15:30:12 GMT
- 2. Where is he going to get the DNA, from fossilized bone. First he needs to prove he can get DNA from a rock.
He is not getting DNA from a rock you big silly. He is getting it from chickens. ;D That reference was to a different show. Mary Schwitzer (who was working with Jack Horner) claimed to have found well preserved T-Rex flesh in a fossilized bone that was 68 million years old. However since then Paleontologist Thomas Kaye has suggested that it is really only slimey bacterial colonies called biofilms. Mary Schweitzer stands by her original story. The jury is still out.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 20, 2008 17:32:19 GMT
*sigh* The bird ancestry isn't even clear, so I wonder how they claim to know more. Horner is just trying to get himself more attention. In retrospective, he's been doing nothing but that in the last years.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2008 19:18:01 GMT
*sigh* The bird ancestry isn't even clear, so I wonder how they claim to know more. Horner is just trying to get himself more attention. In retrospective, he's been doing nothing but that in the last years. Sad but true...
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 21, 2008 1:57:42 GMT
Well, the "dinosaurs" wouldn't really be dinosaurs, just super-modified birds. I doubt any bird could be made into and exact replica of a trex though.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 21, 2008 2:09:44 GMT
Well, the "dinosaurs" wouldn't really be dinosaurs, just super-modified birds. I doubt any bird could be made into and exact replica of a trex though. A theropod is a DE-modified bird. I, at least, will be interested to see what comes of this.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 21, 2008 2:26:01 GMT
Most likely an Emu with a tail, arms, some teeth, and less fuzz.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 21, 2008 4:36:01 GMT
Well, the "dinosaurs" wouldn't really be dinosaurs, just super-modified birds. I doubt any bird could be made into and exact replica of a trex though. A theropod is a DE-modified bird. I, at least, will be interested to see what comes of this. I can see it now first people will start screaming, then running and finally dying! Help its here, it's gonna
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 21, 2008 5:33:50 GMT
Most likely an Emu with a tail, arms, some teeth, and less fuzz. I'd settle for that. I live in Australia, so I see regular emus all the time.
|
|