It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: whereislogic
Thanks for the reply, btw what's your opinion regarding the op I never saw it
a reply to: Barcs
Thanks for replying Also I didn't see yours, I'd like to know what you guys are debating
I dropped my 2 cents on the OP a while back, it has probably been lost amid the arguing.
Ok, doesent it take two chicken to make an egg?
Which is why I believe the chicken somehow had to come first.
originally posted by: ssenerawa
We were talking about the origin of biotic life, and how abiotic matter came to be biotic many millions of years after the Big Bang, not the origin of the universe, way to deflect.
And please don't say "well the origin of the universe was the origin of life" which would be true, but it holds no substance in regards to our conversation
youre perspective could be equivocated to saying the origin of this post is a keyboard. true in a sense but it wasn't until I arranged each letter specifically and into a particular sequence, that it could be regarded as information.
Yes I agree, I was talking to barcs too he has a couple valid opinions but he's dodging my questions
originally posted by: whereislogic
I got tired of repeatedly having to point out your dishonest debate tactics.
But have fun in pretending I don't have an argument or trouble laying it out (or that I conceded or don't have an answer or reply when I'm not making comments, including trying to give that impression to others) just because you're good at twisting whatever I'm saying and projection while you demonstrate your promise of elaborating on "something very simple..." wasn't genuine at all, even if you would admit I fulfilled your requirements (as if I have to first, which of course you were always going to deny or try to debate before we get to discussing details about your comment containing the mysterious and vague "something very simple...").
Talk of a "chickenosaurus" lit up the science world last week when researchers announced they had modified the beak of a chicken embryo to resemble the snout of its dinosaur ancestors. But although some experts have lauded the feat, a beak is just one of many modifications needed to revert a chicken into a dinosaur.
Given these obstacles, how close are scientists to creating a dino-chicken?
"From a quantitative point of view, we're 50 percent there," said Jack Horner, a professor of paleontology at Montana State University and a curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies. [See Images of the Chicken Embryos with Dinosaur-Like Snouts]
Horner has long supported the idea of modifying a chicken to look like a dinosaur, and unlike the researchers on the latest study, he actually wants to raise a live one. And why stop there? By understanding how and when to modify certain molecular mechanisms, countless changes could be within reach. As Horner pointed out, a glow-in-the-dark unicorn is not out of the question.
There are four major modifications needed to make a so-called chickenosaurus, Horner said. To turn a chicken into a dinosaurlike beast, scientists would have to give it teeth and a long tail, and revert its wings back into arms and hands.
The creature would also need a modified mouth — a feat accomplished by the researchers who did this latest study, he said.
"This dino-chicken project — we can liken it to the moon project," Horner told Live Science. "We know we can do it; it's just there are … some huge hurdles."
One of those "huge hurdles" was cleared in the latest study, published May 12 in the journal Evolution, in which researchers turned chicken beaks into dino snouts. But even that seemingly small step involved seven years of work. First, the researchers studied beak development in the embryos of chickens and emus, and snout development in the embryos of turtles, alligators and lizards.
It's likely that millions of years ago, birds and reptiles had similar developmental pathways that gave them snouts, but over time, molecular changes led to the development of beaks in birds, the researchers said.
you didn't ask me any questions,
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: ssenerawa
Yes, I've been posting rebuttals to your faulty claims, which have been ignored over and over again. I thought you wanted to have a conversation about life requiring intelligence, but apparently you just wanted to dictate your view as fact and ignore anything that conflicts. Yeah, good luck with that.