Posted on 09/14/2009 9:02:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
This artist's illustration shows what the skeleton of a so-called "dinochicken" might look like. By working to reverse engineer a chicken embryo to have some of the traits of its dinosaur ancestors, paleontologists are hoping to create a part-chicken, part-dinosaur creature in the lab.
Reading the rest of the 1st link, they have not done anything yet in chickens, they are talking about TRYING to create a tail and other features:
Laarson and his team are analyzing the genes involved in tail development and researching ways of manipulating chicken embryos in order to "awaken the dinosaur within."
From the 2nd link:
Larsson believes by flipping certain genetic levers during a chicken embryo's development, he can reproduce the dinosaur anatomy, he told AFP in an interview.
Again, He's doing the research, it's not already done.
From the 3rd link:
That skeleton started out as an embryo, he reasons, so why couldn’t we biochemically nudge a chicken embryo this way and that, “until what hatched was not a chicken but a small dinosaur, with teeth, forearms with claws, and a tail?” The book describes how this might be done—someday.
Again, it's a book about the DREAM OF DOING THIS, not a report that it has been done.
So please, try again. The poster asked for proof that these things you claimed have already been done, and you posted three current articles that say they haven't done them yet.
YOu posted 3 things that provide direct evidence that your statement was false. I have a feeling that if you didn’t post stuff that disproves you, it might be easier to accept your statements.
I saw a show on discovery channel that showed dinosaurs alive and dwelling among us.
Now that you mention it, did you notice our GOP congress men haven't stood up for us yet, either? Neither party nor the media stood up for us so we've been driven out into the streets to tell them all to stop stealing our money. We the golden eggs are being robbed and planted.
Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation. - Science and Unreason, Radner and Radner
Do you stutter or something?
Here, but I doubt any of you can even read it.
dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/122/5/1449.pdf
and yes, it’s 13 years old, so it gas been done on many different levels.
Wow, you’re really good posting graphics and quote bombs. Wiley-Coyote, is that you?
The GOP is too occupied trying to keep its junior members from blurting out that the man who would be emperor is butt-naked.
I think I had alligator jerky once. :)
Not very ground-breaking if someone did it 13 years ago.
In fact, the posted article does not provide evidence for your claim. And yes, most of us COULD read it, as it is not written in a foreign language. I did find this section hilarious though:
Rather, phase-specific Hox gene expression patterns appear to result from a context-dependent response of the limb mesoderm to Sonic hedgehog. Sonic hedgehog (the patterning signal from the Zone of Polarizing Activity) is known to be able to activate Hoxd gene expression in the limb.I don't remember a zone of polarizing activity in Sonic Hedgehog, but then again, I've never played the game. :-)OK, I'm just joking with you on that one.
The article is about limb buds. You mentioned beaks and tails. Got an article about a chicken with a raptor tail, like you promised?
An oligo(dT)-primed cDNA library was constructed from stage 26 wing and leg bud poly(A)-selected RNA.Wing, Leg. I eat wings and legs. Not tails and beaks.
Fig. 2. Expression of the Hoxc genes during normal limb development. This figure illustrates the expression of the Hoxc genes during normal limb development by in situ hybridization on sectioned (top two rows) wings (top row of each pair), and legs (bottom row of each pair), and whole-mount embryos (bottom four rows).
Wings and legs.
You probably wish by now that it was in a different language so we couldn't read it.
How wonderfully selective in your analysis.. Something I won’t soon forget.
So, what do you think? If they are able to create a chicken with a raptor tail, would that “prove” evolution?
It’s not hard to actually discuss the articles posted, especially when they ask for your opinion.
Why?
I’d be happy if they could just “re-engineer” them so they have 4 wings instead of just two. Makes sharing the wings difficult when there are only two on the whole roasted chicken.
But that’s just me.
I searched the entire article for “tail” or “beak”. I read the summary, the abstract, and their initial information. I scanned the article to determine what they were demonstrating.
I quoted from their summary, and from their labelling of the pictoral results of their cloning.
I certainly wasn’t trying to analyze their work or findings, merely trying to ascertain if their work or findings had any relationship to the things you claimed had already been done.
I felt confident enough in my “analysis” to post my conclusion that you were wrong, even though you could easily prove me wrong if I were wrong.
All you have to do to prove that I’m wrong is to quote a single sentence from your posted article that says anything about a raptor tail or a beak. That instead you responded with a non-sequitor about my analysis suggests to me and others reading that I was right about the contents of the paper.
Of course, they can also cut-and-paste your link, and read the article, and see for themselves whether my summary is accurate. I feel confident they would find it is, since I have no particular reason to lie about it — I would be interested in a study that actually grew a raptor tail on a chicken.
I can’t comment on your ability to remember things. But since it appeared you forgot what your original claim was, I’m not sure I’m worried about you remembering your meaningless opinion of my “analysis”.
Why do most politicians pay more attention to their colleagues and special interests than their constituents? It’s because, at least until quite recently, most of them have observed that the vast majority of their constituents haven’t taken their duty to be eternally vigilant seriously for quite some time.
The conclusion is the same.
The govermnent, our employees, thought we weren't looking while they robbed us blind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.