Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2015, 01:57 PM
Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Okay, I'll admit that my scientific knowledge isn't great... but I'm more apt to understand science than a lot of my peers... so here's the thing:

When our genes evolve they don't throw away or trash the stuff that's no longer in use, correct? I mean, birds should have the "tooth" gene or "OMGYUSOBIG" gene in their pool somewhere, right?

If that's the case, how come we can't just artificially redirect those genes and re-engineer a living, breathing deinonychus... or a mammoth from elephants... or a amphicoelias from a... from a... wait a sec... oh. oh. Never mind about the sauropods.

Still. Question stands. How come?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Same reason a flying skateboard isn't on sale at Walmart.

Nobody's developed the technology necessary.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 03:25 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
I just now listened to a radio program that was discussing the "Dino Chicken" project.

http://www.livescience.com/50886-scienti...icken.html

Now, what one does with a dino chicken is puzzling. Giant Dino chicken eggs perhaps? They probably wouldn't be as docile as normal chicken and just think of the cock-a-doodle-doo the male would make.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Disclaimer: I know fuck-all about genetics. This is just me rambling.

As I see it to wind back the clock and get a T-Rex (or other dinosaur) you'd have to have a living descendant of the same which had the *full* set of unaltered genes for the T-Rex contained in it's DNA - sounds unlikely. Then you'd have to figure out exactly which genes you had to switch off or on to get a T-Rex - even more unlikely.

What you can do is fiddle with individual genes and produce chickens with teeth and other such oddities - by winding back the clock on specific genes. You might even be able to make something that looked like a dino with that but a. it's probably not gonna have a great survival potential b. it's not going to be a dinosaur that ever existed.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Quote: Giant Dino chicken eggs perhaps?


Make an omelet? Eat them before they eat you?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
(11-06-2015 03:38 PM)morondog Wrote:  Disclaimer: I know fuck-all about genetics. This is just me rambling.

As I see it to wind back the clock and get a T-Rex (or other dinosaur) you'd have to have a living descendant of the same which had the *full* set of unaltered genes for the T-Rex contained in it's DNA - sounds unlikely. Then you'd have to figure out exactly which genes you had to switch off or on to get a T-Rex - even more unlikely.

I'm with you-- not a genetics expert. Had a friend who's a molecular biologist and we chatted but it was mostly about homozygosity.

I wonder if it would be possible to get a lot of T-Rex samples and then later with amino acid reconstruction make a full set of DNA? Sure, they'd be probably be all mixed up. But maybe with reptiles and birds they could reverse engineer the missing parts, sort of like reverse engineering Proto-Indo-European with various languages.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
I mostly just want a sabre toothed kitten, or a dire pug.

And a 40 pound tarantula would be neat.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
(11-06-2015 03:38 PM)morondog Wrote:  Disclaimer: I know fuck-all about genetics. This is just me rambling.

As I see it to wind back the clock and get a T-Rex (or other dinosaur) you'd have to have a living descendant of the same which had the *full* set of unaltered genes for the T-Rex contained in it's DNA - sounds unlikely. Then you'd have to figure out exactly which genes you had to switch off or on to get a T-Rex - even more unlikely.

What you can do is fiddle with individual genes and produce chickens with teeth and other such oddities - by winding back the clock on specific genes. You might even be able to make something that looked like a dino with that but a. it's probably not gonna have a great survival potential b. it's not going to be a dinosaur that ever existed.

Well.....

[Image: 150522-dinochicken_7cad697847423e3342955...0-1000.jpg]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
Because we are nowhere near that level of sophistication or understanding when it comes to gene manipulation.

The further we learn and find things out, the more information we generally we discover we don't know, then we have to try to learn that. Like getting the genome of a species was a great step. That doesn't mean we are a master of what each combined factors can do. Now studying what specific protein types are factors within the genetics so it's taking more time to grind out the data.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 07:58 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 08:11 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Reviving extinct animals ala Jurassic Park question
I'mma throw the disclaimer that I'm not remotely qualified on this topic... Ethology doesn't exactly have much to do with genetic manipulation.

(11-06-2015 01:57 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Okay, I'll admit that my scientific knowledge isn't great... but I'm more apt to understand science than a lot of my peers... so here's the thing:

When our genes evolve they don't throw away or trash the stuff that's no longer in use, correct? I mean, birds should have the "tooth" gene or "OMGYUSOBIG" gene in their pool somewhere, right?

Yes, but somewhat.

Inactive genes are not 'trashed' when they no longer function, they just sit there until a mutation occurs which may reactive them, for instance, birds do have the genes for teeth, commonly seen in 'throwback' chickens with a mutation which reactivated the gene, similarly, humans still have the genes for our tails.
But genes for size aren't necessarily a single gene.

(11-06-2015 01:57 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  If that's the case, how come we can't just artificially redirect those genes and re-engineer a living, breathing deinonychus... or a mammoth from elephants... or a amphicoelias from a... from a... wait a sec... oh. oh. Never mind about the sauropods.

Still. Question stands. How come?

We can artificially activate and deactive genes at our leisure, it a fairly common practice in genetic manipulation research. The problems with essentially reverse engineering a species from a living ancestor is that we need to know which genes did what, and for an entire genome, that will take decades of research which may never get passed ethics boards.
The other problem with the genetic side is that , in most species anyway, the non-coding DNA (such as meaningless and left-over genes to which you refer KC) make up most of the genetic make up of the species, and thus are far more likely to fall victim to the constant random mutations which our DNA undergoes, so for the species and indeed even the individual which we use as our test-bed may have extensive damage to the genes important to the 'rebuild' species.

Non-genetically is that we'd need something sufficiently close to a dinosaur to be able to use it as the testbed to make one from. A chicken is probably not going to suffice as the egg with probably kill it (assuming we got everything else right).
Mammoths may be possible thanks to elephants, but it's a big risk for the elephant we'd have to use to birth the ReMammoth, again assuming we'd got it right.

Of course, if we had a complete example of the genome of the creature we want to replicate, that cuts half the problem: just use bacteria to make copies and insert the resultant duplicate into a zygote in the same way we'd do with the 'rebuilt genome' implied from the problems above.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: