Scientists Monkey With Evolution, Produce "Snouted Chicken"
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"sonic hedgehog" is a gene that regulates developmental structure. And yes, that's its legitimate name.demoman_chaos said:
Kind of hilarious that it's unethical to hatch dinosaur chicken eggs when the meat industry's keeping millions of chickens in shoebox-sized boxes for their entire lives, grinding their beaks off and feeding them offal from other chickens.
Those scary scientists are going to create something horrible, but by all means let's mistreat the shit out of those chickens if it gets us our KFC faster!
(As a disclaimer, I am by no means some sort of PETA-esque animal rights activist and fully believe there is nothing wrong with eating meat, but the double standard here is kind of sickening)
Those scary scientists are going to create something horrible, but by all means let's mistreat the shit out of those chickens if it gets us our KFC faster!
(As a disclaimer, I am by no means some sort of PETA-esque animal rights activist and fully believe there is nothing wrong with eating meat, but the double standard here is kind of sickening)
Very interesting indeed. But I have to agree with the first poster, "pictures or it didn't happen". I mean, why wouldn't they put a picture in.
Also, knowing a thing or two about genetics and evolution, it seems unlikely they could do what they said for the simple reason that they would most likely need to pinpoint more than just a section of DNA strand and activate or deactivate it. Evolution and genes are very stubborn and have tendency to want to match up with the modern incarnation. I would suppose it's possible if they identified all the genes involved though. They have done a lot of modern research with trying to activate and deactivate genes. What they found was simply that the epigenetic landscape (thank you Conrad Waddington (A famous British Embryologist and Geneticist)) could not be changed by simply turning on or off genes known to affect a certain developmental trait simply did not work. Basically, there is no one gene that controls anything, but a bunch that control trait A and a bunch that controls controlling trait A. So, all known attempts to do this that I am familiar with have failed because it never affected the developmental path of the organism.
But, maybe they'll put a picture out tomorrow, after all, I don't go to Harvard.
Also, sourcing? I mean, saying he goes to Harvard is just misleading. Which Harvard school does he go to? Is it Harvard school of Public Health or Harvard Medical School? They both deal with genetics.
Also, knowing a thing or two about genetics and evolution, it seems unlikely they could do what they said for the simple reason that they would most likely need to pinpoint more than just a section of DNA strand and activate or deactivate it. Evolution and genes are very stubborn and have tendency to want to match up with the modern incarnation. I would suppose it's possible if they identified all the genes involved though. They have done a lot of modern research with trying to activate and deactivate genes. What they found was simply that the epigenetic landscape (thank you Conrad Waddington (A famous British Embryologist and Geneticist)) could not be changed by simply turning on or off genes known to affect a certain developmental trait simply did not work. Basically, there is no one gene that controls anything, but a bunch that control trait A and a bunch that controls controlling trait A. So, all known attempts to do this that I am familiar with have failed because it never affected the developmental path of the organism.
But, maybe they'll put a picture out tomorrow, after all, I don't go to Harvard.
Also, sourcing? I mean, saying he goes to Harvard is just misleading. Which Harvard school does he go to? Is it Harvard school of Public Health or Harvard Medical School? They both deal with genetics.
I would like to see a source on this. I remember reading something to that effect but upon further research, it was an old Scientific American article talking about a recessive trait in chickens that is lethal and they only last a maximum of 18 days in the egg. But, the beaks are snouted and there is visible teeth on the little developing skull (so cute). But, the egg dies for some reason (most likely that the recessive trait triggers only part of what is necessary for the organism to live at that point). Though, this did put new life into Haeckle's(spelling) Theory of Recapitulation or Ontogeny RECAPITULATES Phylogeny. Though, most of the biological scientific world agrees that the theory of recapitulation is false.Treblaine said:
Crazy!
My first thought is that I want to eat one. Since I hold a vendetta against chickens and will eat them whenever I can... delicious vengeance.
I don't want to sign up for New Scientist to read the original article. boo.
My first thought is that I want to eat one. Since I hold a vendetta against chickens and will eat them whenever I can... delicious vengeance.
I don't want to sign up for New Scientist to read the original article. boo.
If indeed there is a missing link. I'm not completely advocating Creationism, I just think that there are more possibilities than just straight evolution or divine creation.Scytail said:
Also, I really want to see one of these things in a zoo. Why the hell do ethics always have to spoil our fun? Why can't we create an off shore independant research facility that explores all of the wonders of scientific experimentation?
A picture... of an egg?Jabberwock xeno said:
I guess they could do an ultrasound or something but it's hard to see detail in those. All they seem to have seen is the facial skeletal alterations of the fetus that are slightly different than what you would see in a normal chicken egg/fetus thing. I don't know about you but I doubt I'd know the difference even with a comparison pic.
Isn't it a bit late to say that.novixz said:
anyways, this is interesting. hooray for genetic reengineering!
(we're probably doomed from the very beginning of our existence to make stupid mistakes nobody can rectify later) : D
tse... *shakes head*Joshimodo said:
isn't the right choice of words:
what could possibly go wrong?
?
your version is just not fate-tempting enough.
with people like you, this could actually work. V_V
Oh c'mon, any sort of genetic breakthroughs at all are inextricably linked to evolution. It's impossible to separate the two.Azuaron said:
What's that? Gregor Mendel did it? Well... he's dead. So who cares what he thinks. -_-
Oh no you di'int...the spud said:
Awesome to see sonic hedgehog in this article, the best academic joke of my first year biochem degree right there!
Don't mean to be picky but sonic hedgehog is actually more of a regulatory protein than a gene.MikailCaboose said: