Dinosaur-like lower leg created on bird through molecular experiment

Science Daily ^ | March 10, 2016

[Mellonkronos]

[I posted this under science and food. Why? Because it's a story about genetically engineering a chicken so it's legs will grow like a dinosaurs, from which it evolved. But think about it. Instead of drumsticks you can eat dino-legs! And what will they taste like? Chicken, of course! Yummy!

Dinosaur-like lower leg created on bird through molecular experiment

Any one that has eaten roasted chicken can account for the presence in the drumstick (lower leg) of a long, spine-like bone. This is actually the fibula, one of the two long bones of the lower leg (the outer one). In dinosaurs, which are the ancestors of birds, this bone is tube-shaped and reaches all the way down to the ankle. However, in the evolution from dinosaurs to birds, it lost its lower end, and no longer connects to the ankle, being shorter than the other bone in the lower leg, the tibia. In the 19th century, scientists had already noted that bird embryos first develop a tubular, dinosaur-like fibula. Only afterwards, it becomes shorter than the tibia and acquires its adult, splinter-like shape.

Brazilian researcher Joâo Botelho, working at the lab of Alexander Vargas (University of Chile) decided to study the mechanisms that underlie this transformation. In normal bone development, the shaft matures and ceases growth (cell division) long before the ends do. Botelho found that molecular mechanisms of maturation were active very early at the lower end, ceasing cell division and growth. When a maturation gene called Indian Hedgehog was inhibited, this resulted in chickens that kept a tubular fibula as long as the tibia and connected to the ankle, just like a dinosaur.

Botelho and collaborators believe that early maturation at the lower end of the fibula occurs because of the influence of a nearby bone in the ankle, the...

[Domestic Church]

So an indian hedgehog gene results in a dino chicken...there is a cartoon somewhere in this story.

[Bellflower]

A lot of assumptions here. The biggest being that dinosaurs evolved into modern day birds.

Yep, but if they say it enough it will make it so, right?

[Bellflower]

homogeneous extrapolations- some features ‘look similar’ therefore they are related- but homologous features do not a relative make.

But homologous features do the same design source likely make, as they come from the same design perspective. Which is much more reasonable to think than that blind, materialistic, mindless evolution could ever produce the myriads and myriads of design complexities of the finest precision. A precision which is often beyond the scope of the mind of man to begin to understand (even though he often thinks he knows just about everything).

The mind of man, which is often brilliant, depends on the brilliant designs God has first placed in nature. It is interesting to note that the inventions of man are often predicated upon that which already exists in the realm of nature. From flight, to medical treatments to all kinds of technical advancements man first learns them from the designs found in nature.

[Bob434]

[[But homologous features do the same design source likely make, as they come from the same design perspective. ]]

Exactly- A Designer- An intelligent Designer

[SunkenCiv]

Wow, a man out walking with a huge cock!

[PLMerite]

Yes, that was the original name of the image...

[BroJoeK]

DouglasKC: "A lot of assumptions here.
The biggest being that dinosaurs evolved into modern day birds."

Seriously, do you understand the distinction between an "assumption" and a conclusion based on evidence?
The idea that birds came from dinosaurs is quite old -- it goes back to the discovery of Archaeopteryx fossils beginning in 1861, in Germany.

Yes, over the years there has been debate as to whether birds came from dinosaurs, or if they simply shared common ancestors.
But today we have fossils of dozens of species of early dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs.
These include many obviously transitional forms.
So the conclusion -- not "assumption" -- that birds came from dinosaurs seems reasonable and warranted.

Archaeopteryx fossil & reconstruction:

[DouglasKC]

But today we have fossils of dozens of species of early dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs. These include many obviously transitional forms.

How many?

So the conclusion -- not "assumption" -- that birds came from dinosaurs seems reasonable and warranted.

Nah, I think assumption is the right word here.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks BroJoeK -- my view is that minority view, that ancestors of birds and ancestors of dinos are in common, and that birds are not dino survivals.

[JimSEA]

No assumptions. There are tens of thousands of bird and bird ancestors in numerous locations but best preserved in China. Birds are descended from a dinosaur Suborder Theropoda, Clade Coelurodauria. Hollow legged, feathered dinosaurs similar to the Velociraptors of movie fame. They weren't birds but had a common ancestor. The study of the bird / dinosaur relationship continues in earnest today with the study of many thousands of fossils.

130-Million-Year-Old Fossil from China is the Oldest Relative of Today's Birds

Feathered fossils from China reveal dawn of modern birds

[BroJoeK]

DouglasKC on transitional fossils: "How many?"

I would say, "all of them" since every fossil, without exception, is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.

But this link lists seven transitional fossils, including archaeopteryx.

This illustration shows four pre-bird dinosaurs before we even reach the first bird.

And here is a more complete diagram:

DouglasKC: "Nah, I think assumption is the right word here."

The difference between "assumption" and "conclusion" is that conclusions can and sometimes do change with new evidence and better ideas.
Conclusions are reviewed & debated based on acknowledged facts, and that has certainly been the case with bird evolution.

So they are conclusions, albeit based on key assumptions underlying all of natural-science: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today worked the same in Deep Time.