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 Make Fish Grow "Hands" in [Evolution] Experiment

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" in Experiment That May Reveal How Fins Became Limbs


www.medicaldaily.com...


Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land instead of only in water.

To understand how fins may have evolved into limbs, a team of scientists led by Dr. José Luis Gómez-Skarmeta at the CSIC-Universidad Pablo de Olavide-Junta de Andalucía, in Seville, Spain, and his colleague Dr. Fernando Casares injected zebrafish with the hoxd13 gene from a mouse.

Researchers said that the hoxd13 gene, known to play a role in distinguishing body parts, codes for a protein that controls the development of autopods, a precursor to hands and feet and paws.

Researchers explained that a full 24 hours after extra copies of the gene were introduced to the embryos, fish whose cells had taken up the gene began developing autopods instead of fins. While they maintained growing for four days, they later died.


Fish grow ‘hands’ in genetic experiment


www.theregister.co.uk...


The group, led by Dr José Luis Gómez-Skarmeta of Spain’s CSIC-Universidad Pablo de Olavide-Junta de Andalucía in Seville, found that zebrafish injected with a mouse gene, hoxd13, developed leg-like limbs where fins should be. This indicates that the hoxd13 gene – which occurs in the fish, but at lower levels than in mice – helped drive the genetic changes that eventually become arms, legs, hands and feet.

There’s no hint that Dr Gómez-Skarmeta plans to try the same trick on sharks, thankfully.




Fish grow ‘hands’ in genetic experiment


macedoniaonline.eu...

It’s a pretty safe presumption that hands evolved from fins, since fish evolved long before anything remotely resembling an opposable thumb.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Jokes on them, I grew my hands with no help from anyone



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
This would be a very controversial experiment where scientists try to be god by genetically engineering the evolution of mankind and other species on this planet.

The question will be whether or not tampering with genetics does explain anything about where humans came from. Whether it is evolution, space and or aliens, or GOD, this still remains a mystery.

Knowing this experiment was "successful" leads me to question what other experiments are going on behind closed doors that remain TOP SECRET.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
hmmm a bit too 'frankensteinian' for my liking. the picture is of an axolotl, which i think are very cute.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   


Well... regardless of what you all say or think, he seems a happy little fellow with his new little hands!




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Not reallly. There is exponentially more evidence for evolution than the other two options you've floated.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by v0ice0freas0n
 


I am not so sure in this case actually. The scientists took a gene from an existing species (mouse) and injected that into another species embryo (fish). How does that confirm the evolution theory?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 

Except that that is a salamander.
animals.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I call bull#, that picture is of a Axolotls (a type of salamander from Mexico). Certainly no zebrafish...

edit: Damn you PHAGE!!

edit on 12/20/2012 by goochball because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by goochball
 

Here's the actual embryo. And that's as far as it got.


One full day later, all of those fish whose cells had taken up the gene began to develop autopods instead of fins. They carried on growing for four days but then died

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
That picture was used to show what the hands would look like if they evolved from this experiment. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the article publisher



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hello Phage, didn't you click on the external image in the second quote in my first post???? I think you skipped that step in reading.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by windlass34
 


I'm not saying that this specific case solidifies the argument for evolutions, thought it does supplement an already mammoth argument (no pun intended). Obviously you believe that physical traits are determined by genetics if you understand how the experiment works. Once you accept that fact there is an insurmountable trail of evidence backwards from where we are today. None of it leads to god, much less of it leads to aliens, all of it indicates evolution. The theory is pretty well understood by a majority of the world. Are there particular issues you have with it that I could address specifically rather than running through evolutionary bio 101?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
That picture was used to show what the hands would look like if they evolved from this experiment. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the article publisher


Yea...I see what they did now. Hate how they intentionally try to lure viewers in with a bogus image. I know it's not you...thanks for sharing.
edit on 12/20/2012 by goochball because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011





I feel like I want to hug it or fight it against pikachu. You know if they coulda released this by Christmas, every kid would want one.

The real trick would have been opposable thumbs to create an army of underwater workers.

I think ethically ...I'm drawn, it's interesting but do we have the right to do it? And, if we do see ethical issues, how is it different than selective breeding to turn aurochs into cattle or a wild fowl into chickens?

Edit: well, real or not, and I did question why a pink, fluffy thing like that would be called a zebra fish, doing so still begs the questions about ethics.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
So what conclusion are we to assume from this experiment? Does this experiment actually modal how evolution works? The concept of Evolution is something that happens naturally over time for life to adapt to its environment for the sake of survival.

This experiment does not show the process of Evolution, but maybe something greater! That intelligent beings can and probably have in the past as well, manipulated DNA to change life forms into something more advanced.

Creationism + Evolutionism + Intelligent Design = Interventionism


Edit: Not sure if this experiment is actually real or not, but my conclusion to any experiment where scientist Intervene in the natural genetics of a specimen can only prove interventionism not evolutionism.
edit on 20-12-2012 by iwan2ski because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by iwan2ski
 


Evidence please? Other than "we can mess with genetics, so someone must have done it to us!"

We are not designed particularly intelligently.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by iwan2ski
 

It's quite real and the point was to try to find out what gene may have led to the transition from fin to foot.
www.cell.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by v0ice0freas0n
reply to post by iwan2ski
 


Evidence please? Other than "we can mess with genetics, so someone must have done it to us!"

We are not designed particularly intelligently.


Are you serious? The evidence was the experiment itself. Again, real or not, we know that scientist are playing with genetics, so even if this is not a real story, there are others that are.

Now, if the experiment is being used to help prove the theory of Evolution, then its a fail because it took a scientist to "Intervene" in the genetic code to create the mutation. It didn't happen naturally, so the only thing this experiment and others like it, are demonstrating the theory of Intervention not Evolution.

Does this mean I do not support Evolution? No, I believe in evolution, just over long periods of time when things need to adapt to their environment, mainly for the purpose of survival.

Does this mean I do not believe in Creationism? No, I believe that, while things do evolve over time, it doesn't explain why this happens or why there's life in the first place.

Ok, so if Evolution proves life does mutate to adapt over long periods of time. Interventionism proves that intelligent beings (Humans, Aliens, God etc...) can manipulate life to mutate quicker. Then the only piece missing from the equation is Creationism: What created everything, gave it order, design and a purpose.

This is why I state all are true with this formula: Creationism (God or Source of creation) + Evolution (Ability to adapt) + Intervention Theory (God, Aliens, Humans as catalyst for rapid evolution) = Intelligent Design (there is a method to the madness).

Now, I did catch the mistake in my original formula and fixed it above. My original point was the experiment demonstrates Intervention Theory. My formula was meant to show that in the end there is Intelligent Design behind the process.

Now, Your quote, "We are not designed particularly intelligently", while this is your opinion and jokingly I would agree at times. However, I ask you to define "Intelligently" or in that matter "Intelligence". In order define it, we must use something to compare it with so it can be measurable. If we take the most "Intelligent" life form that we have actual proof of, what would it be? Man, dolphin, monkey...?

Let's just take Man for argument sake. Even though we may be able to dabble in genetics and robotics, we as a human species cannot replicate or recreate the order in which all things are able to live, reproduce, adapt, heal itself, have feelings, the ability to learn and have understanding...etc.

Now if that's not intelligent design, then the word intelligent has no meaning and should be removed from the dictionary and all verbal language for it not measurable and therefore cannot be used for comparison. Which means we are not having a discussion right now about this since there is nothing to talk about.

Logic tells us otherwise, hence Intelligence Design is real.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join