Reverse Evolution: Creationism Dies?

Black Swan

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, where an engineer takes a completed product apart and figures out how it works. Why not reverse engineer evolution? Scientists are learning more about the double helix every day, taking it apart and examining its contents, attempting to understand how it works?

Jack Horner in his new book How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever advocates experiments to reverse evolution in chickens. With a bit of humour he calls it a "dinochicken" when being interviewed by WIRED magazine (March 2009). He summarized:

HORNER: "Birds are descendants of dinosaurs. They carry their DNA. So in its early stages, a chicken embryo will develop dinosaur traits like a long tail, teeth, and three-fingered hands. If you can find the genes that cancel the tail and fuse the fingers to build a wing -- and turn those genes off -- you can grow animals with dinosaur characteristics."

What if scientists do this? Turn-off, and perhaps turn-on parts of the genetic code in a contemporary species? By doing so, can they reverse engineer one of today's living species to what it may have been millions of years before, thereby providing support for the theory of evolution when producing living examples of extinct organisms that are consistent with the fossil record?

How will this impact on the creationism belief found in many religions, should a living example of an extinct raptor (that agrees with the fossil record) appear on the telly or walking about in local zoo?

Will it be considered a Jurrasic Park spoof created by mad scientists, or will many creationist theists reconsider their belief systems in the face of a living, breathing velociraptor (or some other dinosaur found in the fossil record)?

Mena

With all the evidence for evolution already presented, I doubt reverse engineering (assuming it were possible?) would make a dent in their case. They (creationists) already defy logic and reason.

Black Swan

Mena wrote: »

With all the evidence for evolution already presented, I doubt reverse engineering (assuming it were possible?) would make a dent in their case. They (creationists) already defy logic and reason.

Then you would agree with Jack Horner during his WIRED magazine (March 2009) interview when asked:

DAMON TABOR: "It would certainly prove the creationists dead wrong."*

JACK HORNER: "Religion is about faith, not evidence."

*Although I don't like the use of the word "prove" by Tabor in a scientific discussion, you understand the meaning of Tabor's question. "Support" or "suggest" would have been a better choice of words.

Mena

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Then you would agree with Jack Horner during his WIRED magazine (March 2009) interview when asked:

DAMON TABOR: "It would certainly prove the creationists dead wrong."*

JACK HORNER: "Religion is about faith, not evidence."

*Although I don't like the use of the word "prove" by Tabor in a scientific discussion, but you understand the meaning of Tabor's question. "Support" or "suggest" would have been a better choice of words.

Yes I would agree. No matter the evidence, they have a twisted route around it (in their eyes). MrPudding converted in into words very well in this post.

I don't think there is anyway to convince them otherwise.

taram

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What if scientists do this? Turn-off, and perhaps turn-on parts of the genetic code in a contemporary species?

Will it be considered a Jurrasic Park spoof created by mad scientists, or will many creationist theists reconsider their belief systems in the face of a living, breathing velociraptor (or some other dinosaur found in the fossil record)?

Scientists turn off and turn on genes already for plenty of reasons. The problem with reverse engineering is that there's a stage where you don't have any genetic material to work with, so hit a blank wall. You'd never get to the stage of a raptor, because while you could get it to have claws and a tail, no idea how you'd get to get it to create teeth, size, scales etc. unless you made a hybrid with reptile genes. Now, if we wanted neon pink glowing wolves or sabretooth tigers we could probably wrangle that

Zillah

I really don't think it works like that. Sure, a chicken will have a whole bunch of now inactive dino DNA, but the majority of dino DNA has been lost or changed by mutation. Yes, in one case we might have a gene combination for dino unique proteins that is merely inactive, but in most cases the genes have been altered rather than merely suppressed.

That's not to say that it's not a worthy endeavour by which to gather some dinosaur DNA and to make some freakish nightmare hybrids, but I don't think we could salvage all that much DNA.

Any professional opinions?

Galvasean

taram wrote: »

Scientists turn off and turn on genes already for plenty of reasons. The problem with reverse engineering is that there's a stage where you don't have any genetic material to work with, so hit a blank wall.

This is most likely true.
However;

taram wrote: »

You'd never get to the stage of a raptor, because while you could get it to have claws and a tail, no idea how you'd get to get it to create teeth, size, scales etc. unless you made a hybrid with reptile genes.

It might be possible in theory considering birds still have claws, scales and tails so those traits are probably not completely lost. As for size, good old Velociraptor wasn't too much bigger than a chicken, about turkey sized.

However, Velociraptor is certainly not the ancestor of modern birds since it's ilk (the dromaeosaurids) evolved after the first birds (which evolved from a different branch of dinosaurs, before someone accuses me of being a member of the BAND camp).
Side note: some have theorized that dromaeosaurids are actually a branch of birds which evolved to be flightless killing machines (for more info please visit the palaeontology forum :P).
A more likely candidate for the ancestor of birds would be a close realative of the small Jurassic dinosaur Compsognathus. heck it out;

Compsognathus:


Archaeopteryx the earliest known bird[/i]:


edit: Forgot to ad a conclusion. Although I'd say it's impossible to reverse engineer a specific type of dinosaur, but in theory you could certainly engineer a creature which is a dinosaur for all intensive purposes.

taram wrote: »

Now, if we wanted neon pink glowing wolves or sabretooth tigers we could probably wrangle that

Doubtful. For one there has almost certainly never been a (naturally) pink furred mammal so there would be no 'pink fur gene' to reverse engineer. Also, while saber teeth have evolved independantly several times in history, it appears that all creatures to posess them have ended up extinct with no decendants. Therefore your best bet to give saber teeth to a tiger would be to somehow 'boost' the gene that grows a particular kind of tooth (although such technology is a long way off). Not to forget that the famous saber tooth cats were not tigers.

PS: Jack Horner is a quack :pac:

taram

Galvasean wrote: »

Doubtful. For one there has almost certainly never been a (naturally) pink furred mammal so there would be no 'pink fur gene' to reverse engineer. Also, while saber teeth have evolved independantly several times in history, it appears that all creatures to posess them have ended up extinct with no decendants. Therefore your best bet to give saber teeth to a tiger would be to somehow 'boost' the gene that grows a particular kind of tooth (although such technology is a long way off). Not to forget that the famous saber tooth cats were not tigers.

PS: Jack Horner is a quack :pac:

Some inserts work a lot better than others (fluroscence for one) but am sure some pink gene (pink bollworms perhaps?) out there can be taken and shoved into something fluffy I have perhaps too much faith in science creating freaks for my entertaintment

DapperGent

Galvasean wrote: »

Omg Satan's Skeleton.

Red Hand

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, where an engineer takes a completed product apart and figures out how it works. Why not reverse engineer evolution? Scientists are learning more about the double helix every day, taking it apart and examining its contents, attempting to understand how it works?

Jack Horner in his new book How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever advocates experiments to reverse evolution in chickens. With a bit of humour he calls it a "dinochicken" when being interviewed by WIRED magazine (March 2009). He summarized:

HORNER: "Birds are descendants of dinosaurs. They carry their DNA. So in its early stages, a chicken embryo will develop dinosaur traits like a long tail, teeth, and three-fingered hands. If you can find the genes that cancel the tail and fuse the fingers to build a wing -- and turn those genes off -- you can grow animals with dinosaur characteristics."

What if scientists do this? Turn-off, and perhaps turn-on parts of the genetic code in a contemporary species? By doing so, can they reverse engineer one of today's living species to what it may have been millions of years before, thereby providing support for the theory of evolution when producing living examples of extinct organisms that are consistent with the fossil record?

How will this impact on the creationism belief found in many religions, should a living example of an extinct raptor (that agrees with the fossil record) appear on the telly or walking about in local zoo?

Will it be considered a Jurrasic Park spoof created by mad scientists, or will many creationist theists reconsider their belief systems in the face of a living, breathing velociraptor (or some other dinosaur found in the fossil record)?

First of all, if I remember my Dinosaur magazines, that I read from age 8 upwards, Jack Horner is not a geneticist. He is a paleonthologist and was partly the inspiration behind Sam Neil's character in Jurassic Park. His was just a throwaway comment in this case, methinks (at least I hope!)

Reverse engineering when applied to genetics, isn't really possible in this case imo. The genetic recipe will have changed so many times over the aeons, with certain genes dumped, other genes mutated into existence, that you wouldn't even know where to begin.

People already ignore evidence. No matter what evidence you produce, these people will rather to believe what they feel than what they see.

Galvasean

DapperGent wrote: »

Omg Satan's Skeleton.

ZOMG

eoin5

Whatever about the creationists I think youd have PETA wreckin the buzz pretty quickly.

Galvasean

Well the first ever extinct animal was cloned recently to a certain degree of success;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59096475
As far as I'm aware neither the animal rights people nor the creationists complained. (they probably never heard about it)

Flamed Diving

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Reverse engineering has been around for decades, where an engineer takes a completed product apart and figures out how it works. Why not reverse engineer evolution? Scientists are learning more about the double helix every day, taking it apart and examining its contents, attempting to understand how it works?

Jack Horner in his new book How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever advocates experiments to reverse evolution in chickens. With a bit of humour he calls it a "dinochicken" when being interviewed by WIRED magazine (March 2009). He summarized:

HORNER: "Birds are descendants of dinosaurs. They carry their DNA. So in its early stages, a chicken embryo will develop dinosaur traits like a long tail, teeth, and three-fingered hands. If you can find the genes that cancel the tail and fuse the fingers to build a wing -- and turn those genes off -- you can grow animals with dinosaur characteristics."

What if scientists do this? Turn-off, and perhaps turn-on parts of the genetic code in a contemporary species? By doing so, can they reverse engineer one of today's living species to what it may have been millions of years before, thereby providing support for the theory of evolution when producing living examples of extinct organisms that are consistent with the fossil record?

How will this impact on the creationism belief found in many religions, should a living example of an extinct raptor (that agrees with the fossil record) appear on the telly or walking about in local zoo?

Will it be considered a Jurrasic Park spoof created by mad scientists, or will many creationist theists reconsider their belief systems in the face of a living, breathing velociraptor (or some other dinosaur found in the fossil record)?

*SIGH*

They will jump all over that one, so they will.

I can see it now.

'Evolutionists believe in half-chicken, half dinosaurs!'

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*SIGH*

They will jump all over that one, so they will.

I can see it now.

'Evolutionists believe in half-chicken, half dinosaurs!'

http://knowreligion.net/How_Evolution_Works.php

Galvasean

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

First of all, if I remember my Dinosaur magazines, that I read from age 8 upwards, Jack Horner is not a geneticist. He is a paleonthologist and was partly the inspiration behind Sam Neil's character in Jurassic Park. His was just a throwaway comment in this case, methinks (at least I hope!)

I'm fairly sure Jack Horner is what is known as an 'honouary palaeontologist' in that he recieved his title for discovering things as an amateur.
I find much of his science to be fairly poor, particularly his tabloidesque views on a certain large theropod, but I digress...
Long story short, take anything he says with a pinch of salt (he once mistook a hadrosaur skeleton for a T.rex).

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Doubtful. For one there has almost certainly never been a (naturally) pink furred mammal so there would be no 'pink fur gene' to reverse engineer.

Glad I specifically stated I was talking about pink fur when this guy showed up. :pac:

Simon.d

Galvasean wrote: »

Doubtful. For one there has almost certainly never been a (naturally) pink furred mammal so there would be no 'pink fur gene' to reverse engineer.

Scientists have already coded their own "pink" pigment gene (along with a whole rainbow of other pigments) and received the 2008 nobel prize in chemistry for their efforts..

Some interesting applications below..

Agar art:



Or a few fluorescing glofish for the tank:

Genghiz Cohen

Galvasean wrote: »

Glad I specifically stated I was talking about pink fur when this guy showed up. :pac:

That dolphin is awesome.
Could be the new gay-pride mascot!

Galvasean

Simon.d wrote: »

Scientists have already coded their own "pink" pigment gene (along with a whole rainbow of other pigments) and received the 2008 nobel prize in chemistry for their efforts..

Can it be used in hair/fur too?

Simon.d

Galvasean wrote: »

Can it be used in hair/fur too?

Indeed it can.. I've even found this step by step guide for you to try at your own leisure..