It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists to Resurrect Ancient Gene to Replay Evolution

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

The movie "Jurassic Park" was a lesson in how resurrecting extinct organisms can go awry. A new project plans to take a safer route: resurrect a single gene from an extinct species of bacteria. This tiny snippet of DNA will be implanted in modern-day bacteria, with the goal of seeing whether evolution can be replayed in the lab.


source

This is pretty cool. There is volumes to be learned from evolution research, and hopefully this will yield some usable results. It is going to be interesting to see where exactly this research leads us. I really don't want to see dinosaurs brought back to life, but if the knowledge learned from this can cure some disease or help us to live longer, then it is justified.


TA




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate

The movie "Jurassic Park" was a lesson in how resurrecting extinct organisms can go awry. A new project plans to take a safer route: resurrect a single gene from an extinct species of bacteria. This tiny snippet of DNA will be implanted in modern-day bacteria, with the goal of seeing whether evolution can be replayed in the lab.


source

This is pretty cool. There is volumes to be learned from evolution research, and hopefully this will yield some usable results. It is going to be interesting to see where exactly this research leads us. I really don't want to see dinosaurs brought back to life, but if the knowledge learned from this can cure some disease or help us to live longer, then it is justified.


TA



Question "I really don't want to see dinosaurs brought back to life"

How come?


Personally they play no threat since we can easily put them down, they could provide a good source of food! if needed!


Edit: Thanks for bringing this to our attention :>!

[edit on 5-5-2009 by allsop]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Its good to see they are experimenting with DNA like this. There is always the alarmist view of oh my god what are they doing it will mean the end of the world!!! Nice find, I look forward to seeing more of this research.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   


If this genetic anachronism evolves forward along one of the branches that the researchers have computed, then this will provide some verification of this molecular genealogy technique, as well as give support to the notion that evolution is repeatable and not simply a matter of chance.

*snip*

Gaucher and Kacar now plan to insert one of these ancient genes into a modern E. coli bacteria.

"These bacteria are going to be sick," Gaucher explains. That's because this gene codes for an essential protein, but the outdated version being inserted into the organisms works best at a temperature of 55 degrees Celsius, far above the 37 degrees Celsius that E. coli prefers.

Like a molecular Rip Van Winkle, the ancient EF gene will feel strong evolutionary pressure to adapt to its new cooler surroundings.


how much did this cost exactly? the e-coli will either adapt or die out, there are two freaking branches. if it adapts, evolution is repeatable, we're supposed to swallow that!!! if it dies out, they try again until they get the correct result, maybe try a different protien?

this stuff is just quack science, it's a ridiculous idea. the person providing funding for this needs their asses kicked. all it can possibly tell us is that life has the ability to adapt, this we know, thanks.

[edit on 5/5/09 by pieman]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


"how much did this cost exactly? the e-coli will either adapt or die out, there are two freaking branches. if it adapts, evolution is repeatable, we're supposed to swallow that!!! if it dies out, they try again until they get the correct result, maybe try a different protien?"

Ever hear of "research"? If they did it, stood back and watching without learning anything and sharing what they've learned, it would, indeed, be a waste of time. However, scientist don't do that.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
it cannot possibly fulfill its stated aims, to show that evolution is repeatable, and has no real advancement potential because we know quite well that life adapts as well as how it adapts.

this is a study in retro engineering lifeforms and little else, basically stuffing genes that have been selected out by nature back into lifeforms to see what happens. it's quack science.

it has no useful application, unless of course it is as a weapon. given the fact that it has been funded by a governmental organisation i would think americans would like to know what a chunk of their taxes is going to fund, exactly.

"scientists don't do that"??? sounds like blind faith to me.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it cannot possibly fulfill its stated aims, to show that evolution is repeatable, and has no real advancement potential because we know quite well that life adapts as well as how it adapts.

this is a study in retro engineering lifeforms and little else, basically stuffing genes that have been selected out by nature back into lifeforms to see what happens. it's quack science.

it has no useful application, unless of course it is as a weapon. given the fact that it has been funded by a governmental organisation i would think americans would like to know what a chunk of their taxes is going to fund, exactly.

"scientists don't do that"??? sounds like blind faith to me.


"Of what use is a new born baby?"

You are nicely demonstrating the anti-science bias in fundamentalist mentalities. Thank you for that.

"scientists don't do that and get away with it", at least for long. (Having to restate the obvious is something I'm still getting used to here, forgive me.)



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
what are you on about? seriously?

"scientists don't do that and get away with it" in what way, are the quack science police going to come along and arrest them? is there going to be a quack science tribunal?

and what fundamentalist mentality? i'm a fundamentalist what, exactly?

pull your head out kid.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
what are you on about? seriously?

"scientists don't do that and get away with it" in what way, are the quack science police going to come along and arrest them? is there going to be a quack science tribunal?

and what fundamentalist mentality? i'm a fundamentalist what, exactly?

pull your head out kid.


Ad homs aside, the scientific community polices itself. You just need to review the literature to see what kind of reception a poorly thought out idea gets. The peer review process is good at filtering out most of the trash. That's why demands for publications from peer reviewed journals are so frequently requested. Honestly, you didn't know that?

Please, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and poops through feathers, it's a duck.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ad homs aside, the scientific community polices itself. You just need to review the literature to see what kind of reception a poorly thought out idea gets.


are you trying to tell a fellow member of a conspiracy website that he should accept the word of a scientist because they are monitored by other scientists? in relation to research connected to nasa? that seems to be based on retro engineering bacteria which are sometimes toxic to humans?

good one



Please, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and poops through feathers, it's a duck.
what? what ducks? there are no ducks, just little green men with tin foil hats. go play some sports or something. clean your room.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by piemanare you trying to tell a fellow member of a conspiracy website that he should accept the word of a scientist because they are monitored by other scientists? in relation to research connected to nasa? that seems to be based on retro engineering bacteria which are sometimes toxic to humans?

good one


I would never try to force reality on someone. The fewer people who accept reality, the better the chances for those that do. "It's a Darwin thing, you wouldn't understand."



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I would never try to force reality on someone. The fewer people who accept reality, the better the chances for those that do. "It's a Darwin thing, you wouldn't understand."


reality as dictated by you? by the new "don't ask and you won't get a stupid answer" scientific/religious elite?

yeah, if you want to swallow that stuff, you can have it and welcome, hope it doesn't choke ya.

i'm sure it'll be a great comfort for you that you held faith when whatever scenario you envisage, where my questioning of the official line becomes a problem for me, comes to pass.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by piemanreality as dictated by you? by the new "don't ask and you won't get a stupid answer" scientific/religious elite?

yeah, if you want to swallow that stuff, you can have it and welcome, hope it doesn't choke ya.

i'm sure it'll be a great comfort for you that you held faith when whatever scenario you envisage, where my questioning of the official line becomes a problem for me, comes to pass.



If you believe evolution isn't real, good for you. It's a plus for the rest of us. For example, you'll be wanting the OLD remedy for TB, the one that worked before the disease evolved. Doesn't work now, but heck, that's only because evolution isn't a fact.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by allsop
 





Question "I really don't want to see dinosaurs brought back to life" How come?


I'm just not the dinosaur type.


As for the flame war this thread seems to have started, i'm not getting involved but please keep it civil.


TA



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Pieman, I think you misenterpreted the possible outcomes.

1 It dies out, experiment failed.

2 It lives and mutates along modern lines, repeating the same evolution.

3, It lives and mutates into a new adaptation, proving that evolution is not a scripted to a specific outcome, but an open ended system.

(I disagree with the interpretation of number 3, A kangaroo and a termite have different ways of dealing with temperature variations. They both share the same basic genetic materials of every living thing. Failure to adapt in a novel way only means that this particular genetic model has limited options or is inclined toward a particular preferred solution.)

I still agree with you that someone needs a wakeup call.

I've never heard of anyone who believes that evolution is scripted toward a specific outcome.

I think the diversity of life on this planet is enough to show that life has a lot of options. And this experiment is so narrow it's laughable, it would not sway my opinion about the general variations possible within the range of genetic coding.

More bad science, because everyone needs to eat, even bad scientists.




[edit on 5-5-2009 by Cyberbian]




top topics



 
1

log in

join