Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/20/the-quest-to-build-a-dinosaur/

If it sounds straight out of Jurassic Park, it’s no coincidence: Horner served as scientific advisor on all three films, and is said to be an inspiration for the rugged protagonist, Alan Grant. Unlike in the movie, though, Horner thinks he can bring back a dinosaur without using its DNA—a crucial difference, because in real life, dino DNA hasn’t been recovered. Horner has a different plan. By making a few genetic tweaks to its modern-day ancestor, the bird, he wants to hatch a dinosaur straight from a chicken egg.

I can definitely see the conservative backlash by all the useless mongrels who waste their time arguing ethics of mad science instead of doing real work, but hey... dinosaurs! The question is... is he recreating dinosaurs or is he making a new species that probably looks like what we think dinosaurs looked like?

[Sensei]

If he can successfully put two legit chromosomes together, it's a dinosaur. Sounds to me we're looking at Kentucky Fried Dino, since he's mixing with a chicken, at least on the first try.

[Ampersand]

I've heard about this idea before. Here's basically what it's all about.

Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 99 percent similar, and yet we look and act very differently. Similarly, Chickens and Velociraptors are very genetically alike, and seem to have very little in common. Why is this? DNA is not the ultimate definition of what makes an animal what it is. The differences lie in how the genes are activated, what order they are activated in, and a multitude of other variables that take place in the womb that ultimately decide how the genes express themselves.

These genes are activated by hormones produced when the animal is in the womb or egg, which spread throughout the body and basically instruct the genes in how to behave. For example, there is a hormone that activates a Gene that says "Produce a tail". The amount of this hormone produced determines the structure of the tail.

This researcher has demonstrated that, by injecting the growing chick, while still in the egg, with that hormone, he can induce the chick to grow a dinosaur like tail. This isn't his only accomplishment, though. He's induced them to grow teeth, and scales.

too long ; didn't read

The Dinosaur Genes are still there, in the chicken, it's just a matter of activating them in the right order.

tl;dr

It's magic.

[Killas[SiN]]

Wow.

That's so awesome.

[Armok]

Wow, that's epic, I am 100% for this, I'm a bionerd and I love this kind of stuff! ^_^

[ChairmanPoo]

Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 99 percent similar, and yet we look and act very differently. Similarly, Chickens and Velociraptors are very genetically alike, and seem to have very little in common. Why is this? DNA is not the ultimate definition of what makes an animal what it is. The differences lie in how the genes are activated, what order they are activated in, and a multitude of other variables that take place in the womb that ultimately decide how the genes express themselves.

I agree in part (epigenetics is a growing field), yet dissent with the wording. Those differences in DNA are not immaterial. It's just that how the genes express themselves is as important as the existing DNA.


I also think that the fact that he found a leftover in the chicken (the tail) doesn't necessarily mean he will find more leftovers... though it IS interesting, I give you that.

And hey, research that results in more insights about cell/gene tinkering and developmental biology is ok in my book, as it can result in actual useful stuff.

[Ampersand]

Let me rephrase that, then. The differences in DNA aren't immaterial, of course, but the DNA itself doesn't actually do much of anything by itself. What DNA does is hold code for the production of proteins and other bodily chemicals that on the whole are far more important for the development of an animal.

And it's not just tails that he's managed to produce in chickens. He's also induced them to grow teeth.

[Leafsnail]

Gestation is also very, very important.  We don't know how to create an egg that a dinosaur can hatch from, for instance (although I guess we could start from a chicken egg and make modifications).

[Ampersand]

Actually, the egg of the Ostrich may very well be large enough. If I recall correctly, it's not just the largest egg presently, but the largest egg ever.

[Leafsnail]

But would it support a dinosaur?  I mean, an elephant womb is clearly large enough for a human baby, but would one be able to develop in it?

[Ampersand]

Well, yes. Probably. It is currently perfectly possible to move the fertilized egg of one species, say a lion, into the womb of another, say, a tiger. Gestation will take place in a perfectly ordinary way.

But the important bit here is that they're not making a new species with all of this. In the end, it will be genetically indistinguishable from a Chicken, or an Emu, or an Ostrich, whichever they end up using, The only difference is in how those genes are expressed. More succinctly, it will be a chicken that vaguely resembles a dinosaur.

So, it should be perfectly happy developing in whatever egg is used.

[Luke_Prowler]

I approve of this mad science!

[Rilder]

They need to make these Dinos have the brains of dogs so we can teach them tricks.

I wanna pet raptor. NOW.

[LegoLord]

I wanna pet raptor. NOW.

Agreed, only I can wait.  Barely.  And I'd want a small one.

[Eidalac]

Reminds me of a story about a millionaire fossil hunter who was searching for bones with viable sabre-tooth cat DNA so he could re-create the species.

While I can kinda back such ideas on technical merit, I can't help but ponder what happens if they manage to pull it off, and, well, think of how killer bees go started.

In this case, I don't think what he'd get would be a re-created dinosaur, but a new species similar to them, at best.  Honestly, we don't know enough about their biology to say for certain.