Slashdot Mirror
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
Ant writes "ABC News reports that scientists are bringing the past to life by hatching eggs once thought to be dead and producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago. They are calling it 'resurrection ecology,' and it's a whole new field that quite literally allows scientists to observe evolution as it occurred, using animals that were quite different than their kinfolk today."
Just KNOWING that creatures an be a hatched after that long stalled period makes you wonder about what life really is.. Offtopic, but this seems to help imply that death and birth don't really have beginnings or ends. Kind of scary to me at least.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
This is freaking awesome. Jurassic park, except less Jurassic and more like last week, but I think anything that aids with understanding how evolution occurs is good for our possible survival as a species. We should make entire ecosystems of our own private galapagos, with different generations of creatures, to see if survival mutations end up being the same. I think it's an interesting idea, to really think of species as more as a temporal thing than just genetically different from others of their kind, they are different from others of their own family minus generations.
Human beings of eighty years ago would have been able to deal with this impending crisis much more efficiently, let's bring some of that natural genetic drift back, for example. Sort of gets away from another accidentally arbitrary classifications.
I thought "de-volving" DNA was a 50's sci-fi movie myth. I understand that it is sometimes possible, at least in theory, to "turn on" suppressed DNA, and that one could mutate and selectively breed modern species into creatures with traits resembling extinct species, but without the full genome of the extinct species to "rewrite" your modern genome into a copy of, you would just end up with a vaguely dinosuar-like modified bird, which would exhibit any mistaken assumptions of the breeders.
Simply put, a bird would not "revert" into a real dinosaur, it would evolve into an immitation dinosaur. As far as frozen mammoth thread goes, I think it should be possible to reconstruct the mammoth genome from frozen DNA, as I understand that DNA is much more stable than most other organic structures. Once you had your genome to work from, if you had the time and money to devote vast biotech rescources I suppose a mammoth zygote could be synthesized, but it would be immpossible to guess the cost or time involved anywhere within several orders of magnitude. I have no proffesional training in any of this, I'm just an informed interested person throwing in my $0.02 worth in. However, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the mammoth resurrection group over the bird devolution group without a second thought!
Iran captures three CIA agents
Poached or Bulls Eye? Over easy?
Nope, I like 'em alive and kicking.
Jokes aside, this is cool - but wasn't it already known that only the fittest survive? How is the Red Queen Hypothesis any different?
Or are they both saying the same thing, and the resurrection ecology is merely confirming it?
There's a lot of evidence for Intelligent Design, too, (Bombadier Beetle) but I guess left wing nut-jobs like you are to busy knee-jerking yourselves to face reality.
Just keep telling yourself how bright you are for not seeing the obvious (the existence of a Creator) and keep denigrating those who you disagree with. Chances are, your boorish personality will prevent you from mating, and the rest of us will just have fewer dumbass secular humanists to deal with.
adaptation is not evolution (or proof of evolution) nor is extinction evolution (or proof of it) There is only one way to prove that evolution is possible: run an experiment in which speciation occurs. An experiment in which an actual new species develops from an existing one.
Organisms are considered of the same species if they are capable of producing offspring which can also reproduce. (I am not sure how to define it for asexual organisms, though obviously the first experiments will take place in this regime)
Lets hold off on judging people having faith in creation until the theory of evolution no longer requires a similar faith.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I'm not a Creationist. But I can't help thinking critically about stuff like this. There are a few holes in the picture that make it hard for me to buy TFA's conclusions.
For instance, the bugs grew uglier so they wouldn't get eaten. How did they do that? But let's suppose they did. The article claims their DNA actually changed. I don't get that at all.
It seems more likely that when there were more predators only the ugly bugs survived to leave eggs. The others got eaten. But their DNA didn't change, the tasty-looking bugs just got weeded out.
In other words the DNA of the uglier bugs looks different because their parents were ugly. The problem with calling it an evolutionary change is that a subsequent generation was pretty again. If the DNA had in fact changed, they would have stayed ugly.
Or is it late and I'm missing something obvious?
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I mean, bringing back extinct critters, what could possibly go wrong??? Then again, I wonder what a t-rex steak tastes like. Better living (and eating) through science I always say.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
There is a size limitation of about 14 micrometers beyond which scientists are unable to resurrect dormant eggs, or so a biologist uncle of mine explained. They hope to break that barrier by first reanimating the constituent cells of the eggs as opposed to merely attempting to reanimate the entire egg. He also stated that this latent capability is singular to oceanic life forms, and even in theory does not extend beyond oceanic life forms, because only oceanic eggs are inherently anhydrous, even completely immersed in water, which contributes remarkably to their longevity. I don't see what practical purpose any of this information serves, but if it eventually makes lobster cheaper, then I'm game. Also, all the aforementioned is completely made-up.
Actually maybe you should...
Here in my country (not the states), even if you want an IT degree, you have to attend some courses about history and philosophy of science. It is essential, to say the least, that people have an open mind and actually know things like, what is (scientifically) a proof, or fact, or how science is progressing, how does the total knowledge of humanity grow, if it grows at all, etc. Amongst other things, it's taught that there is no universal all-time fact, you cannot prove anything forever because of this either. Only theories exist (scientifically speaking).
Faith can be proven, by logic. "God is omnipotent, created everything, etc.". You cannot find a hole in that reasoning, logically speaking not from experience. But you cannot disprove it either, which makes it faith not science. That's the logic behind the distinction.
More of this topic can be read in the books of famous and respected people, like Thomas Kuhn or Imre Lakatos.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
for samples of microorganisms from Lake Vostok
Imagine an n-dimensional graph, with each possible bug quality expressed as one axis on the graph. In fact, to make it easier to visualize, let's simplify the problem down to just two dimensions for now: spininess and helmet size. We'll have have spininess indicated by the position along the X axis, and helmet size indicated by the position along the Y axis.
Any particular bug will have a given amount of spininess and a given size helmet, and thus we can assign it a point on the 2-D graph. Now, when that bug has children, its children will either be identical to it (and thus be represented by the same point on the graph), or slightly different (in which case they will be represented by nearby points). We'll assume that since the differences in the children are due to chance (i.e. random gene mutations, luck of the draw in selecting a mate, etc), that the childrens' locations on the graph will show up as a small "cloud" of points, roughly centered on the parent's point.
Now we throw some predators into the mix. These predators will (for whatever reason) have a preference for eating bugs of a certain quality -- in this case, they prefer bugs with smaller helmets and less spines, since they are easier to swallow. So, to represent the predators eating the bugs, we will randomly erase some of the dots on the graph -- and the key point is -- we will make it so that the closer the bug's dot is to the lower left (i.e. low spininess and small helmet size) the more likely that bug is to get eaten and his dot erased.
Now, run the simulation for a few generations, and it should become clear what happens -- at each generation, each bug spawns, causing his dot to be surrounded by his children's dots, in a small cloud centered on him. But the dots in the lower left portion of the cloud get eaten more than the dots at the upper right portion of the cloud. So, when it's time for the next generation to spawn children, the grandchildren are (on average) a bit farther up and to the right than before.
Now speed up the simulation to a good 30fps, and here's what you will see: it looks like the little clouds of dots are moving up and to the right! Of course, none of the dots themselves ever actually move
And of course in reality the graph has any number of dimensions, not just two... and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying a number of other factors as well... but that is the gist of it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"There are numerous speciation events on record."
Most rational creationists accept that micro-evolution - the development of new species, sub-species, and distinct populations - occurs regularly, thanks to adaptive survival and the remarkable propensity of the genome to re-activate inactive DNA. I remember a recent example where a species of bacteria unable to digest lactose developed that ability within a few generations after being grown in a lactose-rich solution. The bacteria didn't gain this ability through random mutations, but by the activation of a previously unknown gene in the "junk DNA" part of the genome.
There's also an excellent article in the latest American Scientist detailing the specifics of spider speciation in the Hawaiian islands. There seems to be little doubt that this sort of micro-evolution occurs constantly.
However, many people (like myself) believe there is little or no persuasive evidence for macro-evolution, the spontaneous generation of radically new organisms marked by completely new genes, chromosomes, and physiological characteristics. There is pretty much no explanation of how such changes could occur at the molecular level. Michael Behe refers to it as a black box problem, since such macro-evolution can currently only be explained by treating very complex biological and chemical systems as black boxes. It's easy to imagine in macroscopic terms how a freckle might turn into an eyeball. It's impossible, however, to explain the process in molecular-evolutionary terms.
In other words, macro-evolution is not really a theory, because no theoretical framework even exists yet. Note that one need not be a creationist to reject macro-evolution and abiogenesis as viable scientific theories (though there are admittedly few other options).
Incidentally, I have read a fair amount on the subject, including the online article "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" and the relevant rebuttals. Nothing was persuasive; every "evidence" offered (1) were not necessary indicators of common ancestry, and (2) would not disprove the theory by their absences. They were simply interesting facts that could explained both by macro-evolution and by creation.
(Please don't flame me here, I'm trying to make some honest and intelligent points about a topic that gets a lot of crazy people into an irrational frenzy. Don't be one of those people!)
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Just because gravity isn't a force doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things fall to earth, mass is attracted to other mass and we call that phenomenon "gravity". The curvature of space-time is an explanation of gravity and the behaviour we see.
GR, and SR, are really good in certain circumstance, but break down in others. Certainly scientists are looking to both test relativity in the places it works (like the recent satalite frame dragging experiments) and come up with new theories where it breaks downs, ones that will explain both quantum and macro level behaviour.
Evolution isn't like GR, it doesn't have a equations, it is a much more general observation. In fact, it's more like gravity, stuff falls, animals evolve, the interesting science is in figuring out how and why. Scientists aren't looking to replace evolution but refine it and figure out the specific details.
The discovery of DNA had a huge impact on evolutionary theory. There is research into how much impact spontaneous mutation has vs gradual section, and is evolution slow and steady vs sudden bursts.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist. If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
There are so many accounts of passenger pigeons *darkening the daytime sky*. It's hard to imagine an animal that was alive in great numbers just a few generations ago, that is now *completely* extinct.
It went from being *the* most abundant species of bird, to *extinct* in the span of maybe 50 years, during a period of relatively low population and industrializaion, compared with today.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Aren't biologists looking for a better theory than evolution to replace it one day, or have they accepted it as a religion and begun treating it like a faith?
Not all theories are infinitely reducible. Sometimes science "gets it right." By diligent application of the scientific method, the correct theory may be found. For instance, I doubt many scientists are out there still trying to figure out why the sky is blue, or why fire is hot. The existing theories are sufficient.
Similarly, I don't think there are a lot of scientists out there looking for the next big thing to replace evolution. Instead, they're trying to work out the details (the mapping between genotypes and phenotypes, etc.) They're attacking sub-problems.
It may be that examining the details will expose a problem that torpedos the whole theory, but it's specious to assume that just because something is a theory, it must be wrong. If that were the yardstick for measuring beliefs, faith wouldn't stand a chance.
We appear to be having one right now.
Aren't biologists looking for a better theory than evolution to replace it one day
No, not at all; there is not even the slightest hint that Evolution needs replacement; it is simply a very general and succesful a principle. All that is being done is filling out the details.
Creationism [...] doesn't try to explain the origin of the diverse creatures
Uh, last time I looked, it did. For instance:
Believers of creationism [...] accept themselves as created in the image of God as children of God
You appear to be trying to explain Man's origin right here.
Many scientists are creationists
Do you work in science ? I have been working in science (lifesciences) the last 15 years, must have met hundreds of scientists. Only 3 or 4 of them believed in creationism, none of them biologists, and none of them at professor level. It may be different in the U.S., though.
Do you see how evolution doesn't even really enter the argument for creationists
Most creationists (and you appear to one of them) are hellbent on 'disproving' evolution and 'proving' 'Intelligent Design' (newspeak for Creation) using nothing more than the bible (itself a text of debatable origin).
Grow up.
"producing colonies of animals as they existed decades ago"
Not so. They are producing colonies of animals hatched from eggs that failed to hatch decades ago. The resurrected colonies could be drastically different from those that did hatch and were active in the past. Unfortunately there is no way to tell how different/divergent the resurrected sample is.
This just proves the need for genetic diversity within a species
This research doesn't show a change in the animal, just a change in population ratios. During the time when there were a greater number of predators more of the small helmeted animals were eaten and therefore produced fewer eggs. Once the threat was over the ratios returned to normal levels.
Get a free ipod.
"Most creationists (and you appear to one of them) are hellbent on 'disproving' evolution and 'proving' 'Intelligent Design' (newspeak for Creation) using nothing more than the bible (itself a text of debatable origin)."
:-)
From my vantage point it appears that evolutionists are often hellbent on wrecking people's faith. Regardless of the origins of the Bible, there's nothing that can prove or disprove that God wasn't the architect of life and the mechanism that unfolded fits into the framework of evolution. Those who are content with the notion that they are worm food at the end of life can stick to evolution, I'll place my bet on Intelligent Design with a sprinkling of evolution
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I don't think that the Fountain of Youth is really required in this case as the critters have very short life spans (months vs. years)
Sure, if they were elephants or tortoises, then you'd have some issues.
That's the good thing about these zooplankton is that you can see many many generations over a short period of time.
Kind of cool, actually.
"...a faith with a significant following..."
There are billions of Buddhists, and billions of Hindus. While you are arguing that any group with a significant following should have their (non-scientific) view point discussed in a science class, what you are really arguing for is the christian creationist viewpoint be discussed in the science class. Noone is arguing that all viewpoints be exposed- you know that as well as I. Its really not fair to express this as an argument of "let all views be known!", because ultimately you are interested only in your own.
I tend to agree with the grandparent. If your prerogative is to teach your kid creationism, take him to sunday school. If you're going to start teaching metaphysical things in school, teach all viewpoints, even the ones that creationist christians might find offensive. (Yes, we exist because of an unending battle between Tiamat and Bahamut.)
Right...?
It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn