Ping!
I'm not sure what it would prove, but the coolness factor makes it a must-do.
Think of all the possibilities! I’m sure KFC is involved. :)
“Would a Reverse-engineered Chicken Demonstrate Evolution?”
Evolutionary science is in a unique position of having to be researched and perhaps someday being demonstrated in a lab and yet hold to the assumption that all this could happen naturally by random chance.
I’m not sure I’d like to reverse engineer chickens. The result might be both scary and prolific...
The have already done it.. turning genes back on that produce “beak teeth”, long bony tails, and other prehistoric (raptor) genetic traits.
No, but it would prove (semi)intelligent design
God is omnipotent, all powerful and created everything. That is what makes him GOD.
I can wait to hear the details later, direct from the source.
Sounds delicious. Dinosaur noodle soup, dinosaur and dumplings, KFD.
would it still want to cross the road?
bump
SUch an act is a necessary, but no sufficient, evidence for Evolution.
If you CAN do it, it doesn’t prove that this is HOW things happened.
But if you CAN’T do it, it proves that it is impossible that we evolved.
In fact, if you can’t reverse-engineer each plausible mutation, and prove that the intermediate steps were viable and could reproduce, that would disprove evolution.
And even though we have all the genetic mappings, nobody’s bothered yet to show how we got, mutation by mutation, from some common ancester to the current genetic makeup of Humans and Chimps.
And if that can’t be done — if there is no viable series of step-by-step mutations — evolution is disproved.
It is not enough that we can find commonalities and differences in the genetic makeup of different species. We have to show that the evolutionary steps that take us from one to another are, each and every one, viable.
By viable, we mean absolutely that each intermediate step would be alive, and that it would be able to reproduce with the non-mutated version, passing along the genetic change.
And while every single mutation doesn’t have to yield a direct advantage, it is necessary that a preponderance of the millions of genetic changes be beneficial to the one representative of the species that gets that mutation, in order for those unique representatives to be able to compete and thrive so their mutation drives out the previous genetic pool.
BTW, if you accept “intelligent design”, or a “creator” into your science, then that last step is not necessary anymore, because a creator or designer can simply force each mutation step to become dominant, regardless of whether it improves the species or not.
This need for million of genetic changes across thousands of species to ALL be viable, and for most to be beneficial (each individual step) is what makes Evolution so implausible.
In his recent book How to Build a Dinosaur...
Didja really read that book, Brian?
by purposeful design
Ooooo....."design"....say it again...."design"...does that mean this researcher is God?
demonstration of evolution
I prefer the next statement, as it's a little more concise, but a reader has to look it up themselves.
"If I can demonstrate clearly that the potential for dinosaur anatomical development exists in birds, then it again proves that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs."
Does it show this? Dunno....but I bet Brian will now go use the word "kind" and then finish this up with a false conclusion.
A long-tailed chicken would not truly demonstrate evolution. This “reverse-transitional” form would be less fit than its peers, having to drag around a uselessly long tail.
Brian here doesn't even "get it", but must get the reader to keep the image of a long-tailed chicken running around to have his great "research article".....hey Brian, the point is not to generate a chicken with higher genetic fitness than other chickens. It's to demonstrate that identifying mutations and playing with them, you can generate a dinosaur tail...ONE PART.....sort of a look at reverse evolution. But you don't even "get it" Brian, so get to the false conclusion already.
However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropods throughout the Mesozoic poses fundamental problems for such a relationship.
Gee, Brian....are you showing evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old?
kind
There's the "kind"......how about a definition of "kind"? Last 2 times it was "species" and "taxa"...what EXACTLY is the definition of "kind", Brian?
the amount and precision of genetic and cellular alterations that would have to be bioengineered to transform a chicken into a legitimately dinosaurian creature are so vast that no natural process could achieve it.
So now Brian here knows what the exact genetic make-up of dinosaurs was. Where'd you get your complete dino-DNA sequence, Brian? In addition.....baseless conclusion, Brian.
Rather than demonstrate evolution, these attempts to transform chickens will certainly demonstrate the precise and intricate design of this created kind.
Can't say I know what it will truly demonstrate, Brian, as I am not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist....but I surely can recognize a false conclusion.
Does this prove that Man walked the Earth with hundreds of species of large meat eating dinosaurs?
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
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.
It would definitely prove that some outcomes are the result of Intelligent Design.
No.