Scientists are devolving chickens into dinosaurs. How long until they escape into the wild?
If they escape into the wild and breed their offspring would be normal chickens, so they won't be a threat after one generation. They are not changing the chicken genome, they are changing how they develop in the egg using hormone treatment.
hormones effecting gene expression can be passed down, though. How and to what extent we're still not sure. we found that out in that one experiment where mice developed an instinctual fear of certain scents in just one generation.
>I hope they master this technique in chickens soon so they can start doing it with [...] cassowaries and all kinds of badass birds.
There are easier ways to let the world know that you hate life, man.
Do you think this adorable ball of fluff could even hurt a fly?
Unless flies are suddenly immune to six in talons, then yes, yes I do. Cassowaries may prefer not to be bothered with humans and our bullshit, but that doesn't mean one would think twice about ripping a grown man a new asshole if he did something stupid around them.
How much do I have to pay someone to breed these dino birds to the size of ostriches, and breed a featherless version.
I want a fucking velociraptor to ride.
>They where actually aborted before they had a chance to hatch for 'moral' reasons.
I think you mean "were."
the 'moral' reason is that they can't survive to birth.
the mutations that remove the beak also make it impossible for them to eat and probably to breathe. So if they weren't killed they'd die anyways.
we aren't anywhere near creating a chickensaurus, and that's not at all what those scientists were trying to do anyways.
a degree in dinosaur cranial anatomy.
the hard palate (palatine bones) in birds are fused to the maxillae. If they don't fuse the bird won't be able to swallow, and without a beak it's going to have a hell of a time picking up food as well. Also since the palatines participate in the interior nares (choanae), having them floating free is very likely to cause the bird to suffocate when it's eating because it can't breathe through the nostrils.
These burds can't survive, not like that. OP's pic is enough to show the problem. It'd be like you trying to eat and breathe with a severely cleft palate or your face shattered with a baseball bat.
WAIT THAT WAS RIBS?
I THOUGHT THAT WAS LIKE AN ACOUSTIC SOUND JIGGER HOLY FUCK
jokes on him anyways.
I wasn't talking out my ass but I was drunk enough to mix "internal nares" and "anterior nares" to make "interior nares," which isn't even a thing.
makes me laugh, but I'm apparently the only person that noticed. Fucking autistic person jokes....
If crocs have the feather gene couldn't we activate it somehow to make feathered crocs as they were intended by nature?
And what about turning the feather gene of birds back into making the armoured scutes like crocs have?
>If crocs have the feather gene
they have the feather protein as embryos. Not the gene(s) for feathers.
if they had the genes for feathers that would mean feathers evolved long before dinosaurs existed, and there's no evidence at all that that's true.
the degree is technically for comparative vertebrate anatomy.
I did my thesis on Allosaurus skull morphology.
It's not a random convenience, I've been hanging out on /an/ for the dinosaur threads for years. I do take an interest in some of the discussion, some of /an/ is surprisingly bright and well-informed when it comes to dinosaurs.
No. That would be silly.
I'm retired, I retired before I went back to school to finish up my Master's.
>Everytime he was called crazy he proved he was right. Man is a genius.
THERE'S NO BETTER WAY TO DIE THAN BY KILLING HUGE, CARNIVOROUS BEASTS WITH BOWS AND ARROWS.
the neck muscles and the teeth don't work.
it's also really damn heavy. Other than that it looks ok. Probably needs gastralia. And earholes.
lots of things. I served in the Marines, I worked fast food, I worked in mining. The thing that got me retired was when I got into environmental contracting for mining. I own a business that deals with hazardous waste in mining. It makes enough to keep me on my ass.
There's no hidden "dinosaur DNA" inside of a chicken just waiting unlocked. They can make it look superficially like a dinosaur, but that doesn't make it one. It's not de-evolution, it's convergent evolution, the same thing that makes whale sharks look like whales despite being cold-blooded fish.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know enough about evolution to know that it doesn't happen all at once like with the X Men. Modern day birds are obviously the result of thousands of little mutations happening gradually over time.
So at some point, there really was a "chicken dinosaur" a living flesh and blood creature that was, in essence, half modern day bird and half ancient dinosaur.
So if THESE "hybrids" wouldn't survive having a mix of both bird and dinosaur features, then how did their ancestors survive long enough to pass on the superior genes carrying the traits that allowed the modern day bird to come into existence?
Once again, not saying you're wrong, I am genuinely confused about how a species can transition from muscled jaws full of razor sharp teeth to a birds beak.
>it's convergent evolution,
no, chickens are literally dinosaurs, and the descendents of other dinosaurs. They look like dinosaurs because they are.
the results of deactivating the genes for beak growth aren't equal to any stage in bird evolution.
because genes get lost and new ones show up and build on the old ones, so just deactivating one has effects on hundreds of other traits. Or thousands.
So turning off beak development produces unwanted effects that obviously weren't present when birds first evolved beaks.
Ultimately the questions you ask point to the problems we have de-evolving a chicken.
for example these scientists were excited to notice that turning off the beak development resulted in a wider snout (rostrum). The reason they were excited is because both traits, the lack of beak and the wider snout are ancestral traits. So engineering one ancestral condition also produced another.
this would at first glance seem to be significant progress and encouragement along the lines of unraveling evolution.
However the two traits evolved at very very different times and weren't ever related to each other. The narrow snout in theropods evolved BEFORE DINOSAURS EXISTED. The beak evolved long after birds evolved, tens of millions of years later.
so wide rostra and lack of beak shouldn't actually be related in any particular way, the genes that produced narrow rostra aren't the same ones that produced beaks. This means the relationship in this study isn't meaningful information about the evolution of birds. It's just a random pathology that's associated with turning off beak production.
the fact that people would see the two as somehow related from an evolutionary standpoint points to a certain naïve error in thinking about evolution. The two events weren't related and occurred at vastly different points in the animals' evolution, so interpreting them as somehow related is grossly simplifying bird evolution. This is the error behind the belief that we can de-evolve chickens: a gross oversimplification of how evolution actually affects the genes.
trying to think how to simplify this point.
In OP's pic the scientists compare the width of the engineered chicken's snout to that of an alligator.
this implies the alligator's wide snout is ancestral, and birds and alligators share a common ancestor with a wide snout.
this is false.
the wide snout in alligators evolved quite recently and the last common ancestor between birds and alligators didn't have a wide snout.
in fact none of the ancestors or birds or alligators had a wide snout. So interpreting the wide snout as ancestral is a pretty big mistake. The similarity between alligators and the modified chicken is purely coincidental.
>chickens are terrible lizards!
>they have teeth and scales and solid bones
>they have weak arms and a tail!
No they aren't. No they don't. You're a fucking retard. According to you, humans are shrews.
>No they aren't. No they don't. You're a fucking retard.
>The fossil record indicates that birds are the last surviving dinosaurs...
>Phylogenetic taxonomy places Aves in the dinosaur clade Theropoda.
>Many authors have used a definition similar to "all theropods closer to birds than to Deinonychus."
>Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialized subgroup of theropod dinosaurs, and more specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.