3
   

Dinosaurs from chickens??

 
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:24 pm
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-scientists-brink-bringing-dinosaurs-life-thanks-discovery-DNA-relics-humble-chicken.html


The idea seems to be that the basic chicken retains much if not all of the information needed to construct dinosaurs.
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:26 pm
I haven't read the link, but, birds are descended from some types of dinosaurs.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:36 pm
The thing was driven by information as is all biology. Most likely is that some sort of genetic re-engineering was involved going from dinosaurs to birds. It's provably impossible to get from dinosaurs to birds via any combination of mutation and selection.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:53 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of genetic code from our ancestors (or a chicken's ancestors) still remains in the modern genome. However, I am skeptical that we will ever be able to isolate the pieces necessary to recreate ancient animals (at least with any degree of accuracy).

We might be able to create chickens with tails or chickens with teeth and tails and claws, but I don't think we would have a dinosaur. I think we would have a modernosaur.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:57 pm
Like Naomi Campbell you mean?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:00 pm
i do have proof:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/342077178_02eb9a7ebe.jpg

see they are dinosaurs and chickens AT THE SAME TIME!
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:10 pm
Yeah, the answer to the age-old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, it's obvious: the dinosaur!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 06:58 am
gungasnake wrote:
It's provably impossible to get from dinosaurs to birds via any combination of mutation and selection.


What a jackass.

Prove it, clown, if it's as iron-clad certain as you claim.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 01:36 pm
Well, Horner likes to act like a gadfly sometimes, as in his contention that Tyrannosaurus rex was an obligate scavenger. One should take his statements, particularly those to the mainstream press, with a big block o' salt.

With that said, if one were to somehow obtain a largely-complete genome that was "missing" parts and figured out a way to piece it together aside from those parts, birds are definitely the way to go for 'filling it in'. Jurassic Park had amphibians providing that extra stuff, which is silly concerning the relatedness of the creatures.

Similarly, it is entirely plausible that "dinosaur"-ish genes which determined dinosaur-ish phenotypes could be modified or switched on/off to create a more 'basal' bird. But Horner would seem to be exaggerating quite a bit concerning deriving a dinosaur, as in something with about the same genotype as something which actually lived in the Jurassic, from an emu. The evo-devo stuff is interesting, but its exclusivity, here implied as the sole thing making the difference between birds and dinosaurs, would be very much contested. In fact, the exact extent to which it has played a role in evolution is one of those fun hotly-debated issues that is a real controversy in science. Oh, and in case anyone is getting the wrong idea, I would say it's consensus that modifying development has been a very important way in which evolutionary changes/novelty has come about, even though its relative importance compared to other mutations is still debated.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 01:42 pm
Hmm, perhaps I should provide a caveat: if one were to strip away and modify the development of modern birds and arrive at what they think was likely the ancestral form, they *could* come up with a dinosaur-bird-thing which is very like or near-identical to something which actually lived millions of years ago.

But an actual tyrannosaur from modern bird DNA seems a bit silly to me, as that's a separate but closely-related lineage of theropods. They could probably design a theropod-like dinosaur, but I have trouble seeing how they could make a statistical argument for it being accurate without some real tyrannosaur DNA.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 02:04 pm
Shirakawasuna wrote:


But an actual tyrannosaur from modern bird DNA seems a bit silly to me,



They've actually managed to sequence some of the proteins from that tyrannosaur leg bone you might have read about with the soft tissue inside, and the proteins were all but identical to those of a chicken.

The trex was basically just a big chicken with sharp teeth.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 03:25 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Shirakawasuna wrote:


But an actual tyrannosaur from modern bird DNA seems a bit silly to me,



They've actually managed to sequence some of the proteins from that tyrannosaur leg bone you might have read about with the soft tissue inside, and the proteins were all but identical to those of a chicken.

Just like human proteins are all but identical to those of a mouse.

I guess humans are just big mice with opposable thumbs.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 03:43 pm
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00475/SNN2525GX1_475740a.jpg
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 05:57 pm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html

Quote:

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins
Scott Norris
for National Geographic News
April 12, 2007

Ancient collagen—the main protein component of bone—has been extracted from the remains of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, according to two new reports.

The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization.



Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Until now the dino-bird connection has been entirely based on physical similarities in fossils' body structures (related: "Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows" [December 1, 2005]).

In a related study, a team led by Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University conducted tests that also revealed the presence of collagen in the T. rex remains.

In one experiment, antibodies that normally react in the presence of chicken collagen reacted strongly to the dinosaur protein, suggesting a similar molecular identity.

Multiple Tests

For the protein sequencing study, Asara's team isolated seven fragmentary chains of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—from the T. rex specimen.

The results are by far the oldest such data ever recovered. Previously, the earliest protein sequence data came from a 300,000-year-old mammoth specimen.

Asara's team extracted the amino acids using a highly refined version of the analytical technique known as mass spectrometry......
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 06:07 pm
Quote:
The new studies provide strong support for the hotly debated claims that organic material previously extracted from the T. rex's leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that somehow escaped fossilization...


In real life....

...that escaped fossilization by means of not being anywhere remotely close to millions of years old...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 06:15 pm
I recall my great grandfather's tales of running with dinosaurs when he was a boy. Then he went off to trade school. When he came home, for some reason he was not clear about, the big beasties were all gone. So, yeah, many of them have not had time to fossilize.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 06:28 pm
oy, Apparently you didnt read the facts about the "soft tissue" . It was a substance that was encased within a carbonate matrix all crystalized. The keragen deposits in coal beds are very similar, where nodules of waxy like material lie within caverns calleds "vugs"
The chemical and physical states of a fossil bera no information about its limit in age. There are fossilized ambers from the Paleozoic, and these deposits will melt like tar balls when exposed to heta. They have no crystal structure and are pure organic material. Coal wax, petroleum, sour gas, and now , by the miracles of acid etching, we have relict soft tissue in a T rex kneecap.
ALL comfortably aged at about the CAMPANIAN via U/Th disequilibrium methods.

(No Bibles were disturbed in the U/Th dating)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 06:44 pm
gunga may be confused in thinking that"if its old, its gotta be really hard rock". Not true at all, some of the rocks of the Early Ordovician are still clays and are used for making brick. Chalk cliffs of Cretaceous (chalk) ages are just that, chalk, not consolidated and indurated. Many early formations contain minerals that are soft and unstructured, they can retain an almost paleo soil appearnce. The same is with many deposits of minerals, petroleum like tar, Permian coal layers with actual paraffin wax layers, and resins and organic fluids of ages that go back over 400 million years. The act of consolidation and induration involves a process like "cooking" by differential P/T and uniaxial compression. If such cooking does not occur, then many deposits of organic acids or waxes or even soap like materials can be left as fossil evidence. Animal fossils are usually produced by chemical replacement nmechanisms.As Thompson et al found, the lack of complete replacement of the material within the upper leg bones was a function of a chemical reaction that had only achieved a certain level of completeness

When gunga lets us know that he doesnt understand paleo material science, he tries to pooh pooh what he doesnt understand. Fortunately hes realktively safe because noone has the time or inclination to do a detailed explanation of mechanisms. However, I can assure him that Ill try to let him know at least where hes dead wrong. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 07:19 pm
farmerman wrote:
gunga may be confused in thinking that"if its old, its gotta be really hard rock". Not true at all, some of the rocks of the Early Ordovician are still clays and are used for making brick. Chalk cliffs of Cretaceous (chalk) ages are just that, chalk, not consolidated and indurated. Many early formations contain minerals that are soft and unstructured, they can retain an almost paleo soil appearnce. The same is with many deposits of minerals, petroleum like tar, Permian coal layers with actual paraffin wax layers, and resins and organic fluids of ages that go back over 400 million years. The act of consolidation and induration involves a process like "cooking" by differential P/T and uniaxial compression. If such cooking does not occur, then many deposits of organic acids or waxes or even soap like materials can be left as fossil evidence. Animal fossils are usually produced by chemical replacement nmechanisms.As Thompson et al found, the lack of complete replacement of the material within the upper leg bones was a function of a chemical reaction that had only achieved a certain level of completeness

When gunga lets us know that he doesnt understand paleo material science, he tries to pooh pooh what he doesnt understand. Fortunately hes realktively safe because noone has the time or inclination to do a detailed explanation of mechanisms. However, I can assure him that Ill try to let him know at least where hes dead wrong. Very Happy



Do you ever feel that you are a soldier fighting a never-ending wave of barbarism and ignorance, Farmerperson?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jun, 2008 09:03 pm
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg

Bone is not the most porous stuff in the world, but it IS porous. The idea of anything like this surviving inside bone for 70,000,000 years is a total joke; it would have to have never rained in Montana or the Dakotas in all that time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dinosaurs from chickens??
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2017 at 04:39:35