dino-chicken

[te_lanus]

Seems inhibiting a few proteins early in a chickens development leads their genes to "revert" to their ancestral genes and grow teeth and a dino looking mouth

BBC - Earth - Chicken grows face of dinosaur

Wonder if they were allowed to hatch if they'll revert to eating meat like a raptor. Would make a cool zoo exhibit, but would their offspring keep their genes or would they devolve into chickens again?

 

[Bunyip]

Seems inhibiting a few proteins early in a chickens development leads their genes to "revert" to their ancestral genes and grow teeth and a dino looking mouth

BBC - Earth - Chicken grows face of dinosaur

Wonder if they were allowed to hatch if they'll revert to eating meat like a raptor. Would make a cool zoo exhibit, but would their offspring keep their genes or would they devolve into chickens again?

That is just a fantastic article. Amazing.

 

[Bunyip]

I'll have two please.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I, for one, am excited by the implications of this find - both for the field of science, and for the potential of new menu options at KFC.

 

[Jumi]

That's an interesting look back at evolutionary history and what role protein synthesis and errors/changes in it plays in how bodies are formed. It's the same thing as humans who develop tails.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, crap!
This'll ruin one of my favorite phrases...."scarce as hen's teeth".

 

[Flankerl]

The new Jurassic Park won't have feathered Dinosaurs. My scientific mind is offended.

 

[Revoltingest]

Feathered predators are way cool.

For those who don't recognize him, this Jesse The Body Ventura....former pro wrestler & governor of Minnesotastan.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wonder if they were allowed to hatch if they'll revert to eating meat like a raptor.

That's a good question. I suspect they would have to, at least if it's the teeth in the picture. Different teeth have different function. The reason birds don't have teeth anymore is that they make it harder to eat seeds, and whatever other things birds eat. Incisors for shearing and tearing can't deal with seeds. Somethin' like that.

Would make a cool zoo exhibit, but would their offspring keep their genes or would they devolve into chickens again?

No. There are several parameters involved in this. First, is is a dominant gene or not. And if is, did they restore both genes in the gene pair. It will change the chances. Some offspring would get it though, at least. But it shouldn't devolve, because in evolution nothing ever devolves. It only evolves forward. But, sometimes the mutations bring about analogous features, basically, it repeats it in a similar way. You never have genes transform backwards. They have no memory of what they once were before. That is lost.

 

[Skwim]

Feathered predators are way cool.

For those who don't recognize him, this Jesse The Body Ventura....former pro wrestler & governor of Minnesotastan.

Yeh, Minnesota's shame. Even more so than California's shame: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeh, Minnesota's shame. Even more so than California's shame: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Shame?
In what way?

 

[Jainarayan]

Feathered predators are way cool.

For those who don't recognize him, this Jesse The Body Ventura....former pro wrestler & governor of Minnesotastan.

But feather boas are faaabulous!

 

[Skwim]

Shame?
In what way?

From a Minnesota Public Radio Poll published October 8, 1999

"Statewide, 43 percent now rate Ventura's performance as "excellent" or "good" (down from 56 percent), while 31 percent rate it as "only fair," and 25 percent rate it "poor" (up from eight percent)

A majority (51 percent) now think Ventura is "not well prepared to govern, and his public comments often ... make matter worse." Only nine percent felt that way in April. Additionally, those feeling his "plain speaking style would improve government" has dropped from 62 to 29 percent.

Only 30 percent of state voters now feel Ventura is a "needed breath of fresh air" (down from 49 percent), while those who feel he is an "embarrassment" has jumped from 16 to 43 percent."
source​

 

[Revoltingest]

From a Minnesota Public Radio Poll published October 8, 1999

"Statewide, 43 percent now rate Ventura's performance as "excellent" or "good" (down from 56 percent), while 31 percent rate it as "only fair," and 25 percent rate it "poor" (up from eight percent)

A majority (51 percent) now think Ventura is "not well prepared to govern, and his public comments often ... make matter worse." Only nine percent felt that way in April. Additionally, those feeling his "plain speaking style would improve government" has dropped from 62 to 29 percent.

Only 30 percent of state voters now feel Ventura is a "needed breath of fresh air" (down from 49 percent), while those who feel he is an "embarrassment" has jumped from 16 to 43 percent."
source​

A governor's rating fell?
Oh, the horror!

 

[Etritonakin]

That's a good question. I suspect they would have to, at least if it's the teeth in the picture. Different teeth have different function. The reason birds don't have teeth anymore is that they make it harder to eat seeds, and whatever other things birds eat. Incisors for shearing and tearing can't deal with seeds. Somethin' like that.


No. There are several parameters involved in this. First, is is a dominant gene or not. And if is, did they restore both genes in the gene pair. It will change the chances. Some offspring would get it though, at least. But it shouldn't devolve, because in evolution nothing ever devolves. It only evolves forward. But, sometimes the mutations bring about analogous features, basically, it repeats it in a similar way. You never have genes transform backwards. They have no memory of what they once were before. That is lost.

Aren't the teeth in question a sort of memory of what the animal once was before?


While I'm asking questions from relative ignorance....... Is it possible to internally program DNA to make specific pre-determined changes over time?

 

[Ouroboros]

Aren't the teeth in question a sort of memory of what the animal once was before?

They're genes that turned off. I'm not exactly how, but genes can be turned on and off.

While I'm asking questions from relative ignorance....... Is it possible to internally program DNA to make specific pre-determined changes over time?

The DNA is the program, and the changes are to the DNA, i.e. the program. They're basically the same. There's no predetermined code in there. There's a lot of code that are remnants of the past, but a lot of it is also duplication errors or viral infections and such.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seems inhibiting a few proteins early in a chickens development leads their genes to "revert" to their ancestral genes and grow teeth and a dino looking mouth

BBC - Earth - Chicken grows face of dinosaur

Wonder if they were allowed to hatch if they'll revert to eating meat like a raptor. Would make a cool zoo exhibit, but would their offspring keep their genes or would they devolve into chickens again?

She's a clever girl. ...
....
....
...

 

[Etritonakin]

They're genes that turned off. I'm not exactly how, but genes can be turned on and off.


The DNA is the program, and the changes are to the DNA, i.e. the program. They're basically the same. There's no predetermined code in there. There's a lot of code that are remnants of the past, but a lot of it is also duplication errors or viral infections and such.

I'm just going to have to study this stuff, I guess

 

[Bunyip]

Aren't the teeth in question a sort of memory of what the animal once was before?


While I'm asking questions from relative ignorance....... Is it possible to internally program DNA to make specific pre-determined changes over time?

How would you know what changes to make? You can't see into the future.

 

[Etritonakin]

How would you know what changes to make? You can't see into the future.

Yes, I can. We make the changes we can make, and want to make, as much as we are able -or understand that we are able.

WE cannot see PERFECTLY into the future -because we are ignorant of some things -and cannot consider them beforehand.

If all could be understood beforehand, all could be predicted beforehand.

“The best way to predict your future is to create it”

― Abraham Lincoln

Now..... consider, for a moment, that the above is not a quote from Abraham Lincoln...

The one who created that lie would have created this false-yet-real future.

The problem is that lying about the past destroys the future -weakens the foundation.

Given enough falsehood, the future could collapse into chaos and ruin.

Disregarding the lie, or false realities based on lies, can redeem the time, etc..

_________________________

Learning would be futile if we could not both know the future and create it to varying degrees.

As it relates to evolution...

Let's say I knew beforehand that I wanted to create man -and that man would require certain things to sustain man -but also teach man that man has a relationship with all other things..... plants making oxygen, insects aiding in plant reproduction, availability of food sources, etc..... or whatever the relationship might be at any time....
That would be how I would know what changes to make.

What we see in nature we call a system -because it works together.

I read today that without bees, mankind would lose a third of its food supply.

Without plants, man's oxygen supply is threatened, etc. ....

Creating life forms "after their kind" -performing specific roles in the ecosystem which supported the existence of man -would lead to their form -based on their function, but perhaps other things.

So... seeing into the future and making changes -or not making changes -is the whole point.

Sustaining the existing system -or creating other sustainable systems -or learning that systems are necessary and should be sustainable, is the point.

------------------

From an evolutionary standpoint.... the ultimate fitness for survival would be the ability to make the future your biatch.