Scientists Monkey With Evolution, Produce "Snouted Chicken"

Earnest Cavalli

New member
Jun 19, 2008
5,352
0
0
Scientists Monkey With Evolution, Produce "Snouted Chicken"



What happens when you regress a baby chicken in ovum to an earlier evolutionary state?

Though the above sounds like the premise for a Michael Crichton novel, it's actually a question posed by scientists working at Harvard University. Arhat Abzhanov and his team of evolutionary biologists realized that the the only valid way to answer that query was to just go ahead and engineer a chicken a few branches below our modern fowl on Darwin's personal Vitae Arborum.

The result has been dubbed a "snouted chicken." Courtesy Bethesda Softworks' upcoming The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, you can see a (tangentially related) artist's rendering at right.

The apt moniker actually describes a bird whose genes have been pushed just a few notches closer to those of its reptilian ancestors. The result is an avian facial structure that has more in common with the toothy grin of an alligator (or velociraptor) than the pointy beak of its feathered cousins.

That's neat and all, but how exactly do you "de-evolve" a chicken? New Scientist explains:

Abzhanov started by trying to pinpoint the gene changes that led to the myriad beak shapes of Galapagos finches. In 2004, he showed that all the finches share a handful of genes crucial to beak development, but instructions for the signalling molecules they control vary from bird to bird. Abzhanov realised that a similar process might underlie the much bigger evolutionary shift from snouts to beaks.

The tip of an alligator snout is made of a separate set of paired bones called the premaxillary, but in birds, these have fused with the main of the upper jaw to form a single, sharp bone.

Abzhanov scanned signalling molecules in alligator and chick embryos and found that two of them -- known as sonic hedgehog and fibroblast growth factor 8 -- show up before the snout and beak form. In gators, however, the molecules were only present along the sides of the face. Chicks express them both at the sides and centre of the developing face. What would happen, he wondered, if he turned that central expression off?

He developed a gel bead full of proteins that stick to the signalling molecules and deactivate them. As the molecules arrived at the centre of the embryonic chick face -- around day 5 -- Abzhanov added his bead to the mix. Sure enough, the chicks developed paired bones. "It looks exactly like a snout looks in an alligator [at this stage]," says Abzhanov.

As New Scientist also points out however, ethics regulations prevent Abzhanov from hatching any of the eggs created by his team.

Speaking of ethics, one must at this point wonder for what purpose exactly are these researchers turning back the evolutionary clock? Disease prevention? Genetic research?

Nope. Abzhanov wants to create dinosaurs.

"Long term Abzhanov, dreams of turning chickens back into Maniraptora, small dinosaurs thought to have given rise to the 10,000 species of birds around today," the article says.

While the science geek part of my brain is wildly excited for the potential this has to expand the field of genetics research, the part of me that read Jurassic Park at age 10 is frankly terrified. I like Jeff Goldblum! I don't want to see his legs smashed by a Tyrannosaur!

Source: New Scientist [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128264.200-reverse-evolution-chicken-revisits-its-dinosaur-past.html]

Permalink
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Pics or it didn't happen.

I don't really care why they are doing it, I just think it's neat. The Ethics of it? Well, this is probably the most ethical thing we are doing to chickens right now, and that says a lot.
 

Scytail

New member
Jan 26, 2010
286
0
0
I wonder if this could be applied to humans too. Just find a way to de-evolve us back to the "missing link."

For Science!
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
Does this mean we can make dinosaus? My inner child is squeeing with joy right now...
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Mmm, as excited as I am at the idea of prehistoric species coming alive, there's quite a few issues. The animals could never live in the wild as they would distrupt the 'balanced' ecosystem (as balanced as it can be with humans constantly mucking with it).

The only reason I can see for this research is the sake of being able to do it. That's...
Possibley the new animals could be used to research diseases and random stuff, but that means you're breeding animals to experiment on. Depending on the experiments it has the potential to be ethically wrong.

I would prefer if they used this method to ressurect animals that we humans have caused to go extinct due to our own selfish needs. However... I'm not sure how they would do that...

Devolve a close reletive of say the Dodo till the animal they produce is a common ancestor, and prey that animal may in the rare event evolve down the route of the Dodo. Still the animal would never be able to live in a real ecosystem. It would forever be in captivity.

Will be interesting to unravel mysteries of evolution. But I don't want this to happen at the expense of a life of an innocent laboritory manipulated animal.
 

TilMorrow

Diabolical Party Member
Jul 7, 2010
3,246
0
0
"They told me I could never turn chickens into dinosaurs! But I showed them! Muahahaha!" -Arhat Abzhanov, overlord of the feathersaurous Rex empire. It's either this or Jurassic Park he is striving for.
 

AugustFall

New member
May 5, 2009
1,110
0
0
"Speaking of ethics, one must at this point wonder for what purpose exactly are these researchers turning back the evolutionary clock? Disease prevention? Genetic research?"

Well of course it's one more step in cementing the idea that evolution is a valid theory for how one species becomes a new one.

"Long term Abzhanov, dreams of turning chickens back into Maniraptora, small dinosaurs thought to have given rise to the 10,000 species of birds around today,"

Oh... never mind. Love this guy.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Wait, sonic hedgehog?
They can't be talking about the blue rodent who runs a lot, so anyone know what they are talking about?

I don't see why they can't hatch them. What is ethically wrong with hatching something for science? How is it any worse than hatching something just to be killed and ate? Last time I checked, science is legal and murder is not. Then again, I don't think reptilian chicken strips will be as good as regular chicken strips.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
Scytail said:
I wonder if this could be applied to humans too. Just find a way to de-evolve us back to the "missing link."

For Science!
Every generation is a link in the chain of evolution. Every generation not completely accounted for is a missing link. :p

(And we will never find every missing link, since our remains are much too fragile for all of them to survive the passage of time.)
 

Beryl77

New member
Mar 26, 2010
1,599
0
0
He wants to create...dinosa- Screw ethics and Jeff Goldblum! Let this man do his job damn it!
 

YOUM@D123

New member
Dec 17, 2010
160
0
0
it's like we're asking for someone to step up and become a super villain

am i the only one that see's a super intelligent evil dino-fend being made form all this?...i am? oh ok ... what about if he manages to create dinosaurs then gets mad with power and starts creating his own army of fore mentioned beasts
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
I want to buy one as a pet.

It would be ADORABLE my widdle fuzzy wuzzy chikin dino
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
Wait, why is one of the genes named sonic hedgehog?

How is killing the eggs "ethical" but letting them hatch not? And compared to what we do to chickens daily...

Why aren't there any pictures?

So many questions...
 

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
Let's be abundantly clear about this:

He did not regress a chicken to an earlier evolutionary state. I know it's convenient to say that, but he didn't. He stopped the expression of signalling molecules in the center of the chicken's face, which caused the chicken to express features similar to a hypothesized earlier evolutionary state.

Just wanted to make sure we were all clear about that.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Earnest Cavalli said:
This is pretty basic stuff, they did things like this years ago.

Only it was giving chicken "teeth".

The clever thing was they genetic code didn't even have to be altered as the genese for "hens teeth" have always been there but dormant.

Another gene controls the EXPRESSIONS of the genes that MAKE hens teeth. You don't have to activate the gene, just emulate it. As when the gene is activated it releases hormones that stimulate cells in the bird's jaw to turn into teeth. Add the hormones and bob's your uncle, hen's teeth.

But somehow this never hit the news because it wasn't "altering the genetic code".
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
I think if things like "scientific ethics" are restricting him he should pitch cavemen supersoldiers to North Korea. I don't think they would let anything that mundane stand in their way.
 

KorLeonis

New member
Mar 15, 2010
176
0
0
"known as sonic hedgehog and fibroblast growth factor 8" Seriously, who the fuck is naming these things? Oh, right, nerds.

On topic: Damn the Ethics! Make the goddamn dinosaurs!
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
Chicken snouts will become the newest ingredient in those KFC famous bowls. Just you watch.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
So if they do successfully recreate dinosaurs, I only have 1 question, which is possibly the most important question of all: How will it taste?
 

Coffinshaker

New member
Feb 16, 2011
208
0
0
I kinda don't like all these "science ethics" restrictions. sure, there's a lot of bad things we can do, but if you don't allow science to progress, then you're just stunting our growth as a species. imagine if those scientists didn't do secret experiments on cadavers back when it was still forbidden? where would we be now?

and doing science for the sake of science is the best part of the field! I think "we do what we must because we can" is the perfect anthem for the whole of science!