Basically, it ws about some biologists and palentologists who came upon an interesting phenomenon - they delved deep into DNA and genes, and found that birds still had dormant genes from dinosaurs in their DNA. I wasn't able to catch how they did it, (busy eating dinner) but these guys were able to create a virus which they injected into a chicken embryo, which would activate the 'genetic memory' of the chicken embryo, cling to its DNA, and reactivate the controller gene that formed certain body parts, i.e. teeth and scales.
They were able to create a chicken which had developing teeth on its beak, as well as one which started to grow feathers on the normally scaly legs of the bird.
Of course, this type of thing rarely happens naturally in mutations - dolphins with vestigial legs or flies born without an abdomen of wings, for example.
This doesn't prove macroevolution, but it does provide a cryptic piece of evidence - birds have dormant genes in their DNA that lead to the development of distinctly reptilian features, or those of feathered dinosaurs.
Sooo. . .anything to debate? Or are we just gonna oooooooh and aaaaah over the awesomeness of the discovery? *thinks of asking some non-evolutionists peeps to stroll in*
lso 100,000 years isn't near long enough for a T-Rex to become a chicken think millions.
I said 100 000 to have a number, not to be precise...anyway, t-rex didn't evolved into chicken... It's some species of dinosaurs-birds that finally turned into what seems to be a chicken right now...
I thought about glow in the dark beers...so you can find it even if you lost it in a field at night...
I thought about glow in the dark beers...so you can find it even if you lost it in a field at night...
Bears are beers? If you meant bears...
Creating animals that are designed to be easy to kill? Animals already don't have a fair enough chance while being hunted. Anyway, isn't the "fun" part of hunting tracking the animal?
I already find it stupid for people to hunt just to prove how tough they are (it's a very unfair fight. Armed human vs defenseless animal) but this would just be ridiculous.
If you meant beers, I don't really see the point of that...but ok. Pretty off topic.
Just think if we made a Bear, pig, chicken or whatever we would be messing with their genes and problem ruin some in the process so it would mess them up which is cruel
Errrrrf I meant beers of course... and yes, that was not only off-topic but also lame... But I like beer, so I don't care!
Lol, oh well. You gave me something to debate and get back on track after the little fiasco I caused on another site. Troll + stupid people = fun xD But anyway...
My concern is what kind of monsters could we create by doing this? I mean these genes are from hundreds of thousands of years ago when animals needed to survive in a harsher environment. We don't want chickens to run around with deadly fangs now, that would greatly disrupt many ecosystems. And imagine animals that are already fierce now getting more dangers.
True like making a loin stronger a cheetah faster,it sounds pretty cool but in the end it changes a lot of things. I just think we should leave them the way their are cause there has been no problems with the food chain.
