Genetically modified lab-chickens resemble dinosaurs

One more thing to add just for fun. A chicken developing in the egg also has a rough scaly skin most akin to reptiles before it develops feathers

WHAT HAS SCIENCE AND KFC DONE!!!

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah it's obvious that scientists BELIEVE it in how they portray dinosaurs...Kind of difficult to know whether they are just spitting up your ass and telling you it's raining though...


Jaden

a reply to: SuperFrog

If they did it with pigs, we'd have Jurassic Pork.

*sorry, I'll sit quietly again*

that's awesome

a reply to: beezzer




ummmm...

This proves man's inclination to play Dr. Frankenstein far more than it proves anything else.

So now we have Snouted Chickens, Spider Goats, Glow-in-the-dark Cats, FrankenSwine, Fast-Growing Salmon, Banana Vaccines, Venomous Cabbage, Less-Flatulent Cows, Anti-Cancer Eggs, Super Carbon Absorbent Plants.

For a field that is still in its relative infancy, does it seem ethical to be messing around with the genetic makeup of living creatures?

Maybe just a bit more humility, and a lot less hubris should be exercised before doing things like this without fully preparing for the potential consequences.

I bet dinosaurs were actually cute and cuddly creatures who took care of their own and lived in harmony.

Then evolved into annoying birds and stuff that become food for the hairless ape.

Yep, I'm going with that

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

So how do you suggest we learn more about genetics??

What are potential consequences? Jurassic Park movie??

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

So how do you suggest we learn more about genetics??

What are potential consequences? Jurassic Park movie??

well since scientist love to make models to use on hypothetical theories that are not 100 percent proven they can do it on a computer right?

a reply to: yuppa

Actually I have better idea...

You can exercise belief that this was all God's wish to happen... after all, we are not reincarnating something millions year old, just something that God by mistake killed 4K years ago, if you believe Ken Ham, witch I am sure you do...

"I'll have the grilled chickensaur value meal please". Fast food orders in the year 2025.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

More like Paralution...

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah it's obvious that scientists BELIEVE it in how they portray dinosaurs...Kind of difficult to know whether they are just spitting up your ass and telling you it's raining though...


Jaden

I guess you missed the part about finding the fossilized arm with quills? Nah, it's just some massive conspiracy to make creationist look ignorant lolz.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

So how do you suggest we learn more about genetics??

What are potential consequences? Jurassic Park movie??

People just have this fear of science and the unknown. Too much TV or movies maybe? Too much brainwashing via religion? It's like how folks were hysterical when the LHC was introduced claiming it will create a black hole and suck in the whole earth when the actual chance of that is pretty much zero. Honestly, I trust the experts to work on this because they actually know what they are doing, unlike the detractors who act like they have this understanding that is above scientists that have studied the subject for decades. But yeah, those guys clearly know more about science from studying the bible and sitting home reading creationist websites all day.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: yuppa

Actually I have better idea...

You can exercise belief that this was all God's wish to happen... after all, we are not reincarnating something millions year old, just something that God by mistake killed 4K years ago, if you believe Ken Ham, witch I am sure you do...

WHo is ken hamm? And No i believe in evolution. Darwin was also relgious btw. ALso...Time is different depending on your perspective so for a force that exist outside of our space time billions of years might be liek a day to us. Its mighty big coincidence how life started according to science. Life being a fluke is so highly improbable. Didnt someone say before Science dont believe in coincidences?

7 days? actually the 7th nothing was done. SO divide 6 into the earths age. That is the scale of time the force that created the universe operates on. The raptor didnt die out it is literally the chicken according to scientist. it evolved to fit its environment. The picture above i posted applies to one of the stages of its evolution.

Stop taking everything personally. its bad form.

originally posted by: yuppa
Darwin was also relgious btw.

Yeah he was religious when he was a kid, but drifted away from religion later in life and certainly did not believe in a personal god.

Its mighty big coincidence how life started according to science. Life being a fluke is so highly improbable. Didnt someone say before Science dont believe in coincidences?

Once again you demonstrate ignorance of science. Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory, which means it has not been adequately verified to call it a fact. You keep attributing human characteristics to a method of study. Science doesn't believe anything. Science is a method that scientists learn information from.

Do you have statistics that show that life being "a fluke" is highly improbable or are you just making that up? Obviously you do not because we do not have enough information to even make an assessment on how rare or improbable the emergence of life is. You mistakenly think that "science" says abiogenesis is a fact, when no such assertion has ever been made. Abiogenesis is a work in progress that is still being tested and figured out.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: yuppa
Darwin was also relgious btw.

Yeah he was religious when he was a kid, but drifted away from religion later in life and certainly did not believe in a personal god.

Its mighty big coincidence how life started according to science. Life being a fluke is so highly improbable. Didnt someone say before Science dont believe in coincidences?

Once again you demonstrate ignorance of science. Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory, which means it has not been adequately verified to call it a fact. You keep attributing human characteristics to a method of study. Science doesn't believe anything. Science is a method that scientists learn information from.

Do you have statistics that show that life being "a fluke" is highly improbable or are you just making that up? Obviously you do not because we do not have enough information to even make an assessment on how rare or improbable the emergence of life is. You mistakenly think that "science" says abiogenesis is a fact, when no such assertion has ever been made. Abiogenesis is a work in progress that is still being tested and figured out.

DID I SAY HE BELIEVED IN A PERSONAL GOD? No i DID NOT. Stop putting words in my mouth.

As for your second point.Where DID I state it was a fact? I am Sooooooooo sorry that i Should had said SCIENTIST instead of just using SCIENCE btw.
The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.

Life requires so many things to go right that its statistically almost impossible to had not been guided by something. IF it was not guided it was a FLUKE.

You seem to be singling me out So Im going to ignore your replies from now on.

a reply to: yuppa

This is flawed thinking due to looking at the finished product versus tracing back what happened from its inception. For instance, life could have sprung up on a completely different planet and it would have completely different characteristics. The point is that, yes life AS WE KNOW IT has to align with all these variables precisely, BUT if it didn't that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist. It would just look different. You also have to establish that life is a requirement of the universe and not just a product that resulted from the laws of physics interacting together.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

This is flawed thinking due to looking at the finished product versus tracing back what happened from its inception. For instance, life could have sprung up on a completely different planet and it would have completely different characteristics. The point is that, yes life AS WE KNOW IT has to align with all these variables precisely, BUT if it didn't that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist. It would just look different. You also have to establish that life is a requirement of the universe and not just a product that resulted from the laws of physics interacting together.

True. But isnt is strange that everything lined up perfectly? I know that different planets have different variables so its prolly varies. Life might not be a requirement of the universe. If it was... alot more planets would have life right?

AS to the physics interacting THAT is the coincidce i actually am speaking to. It just happenned is too big a step for me to take. Universe is too orderly i think.