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."
Resurrection Ecology Gives Life to Old Eggs
;-)
Maybe this will put an end to those viagra emails I keep getting too.
Can this possibly be used as an argument for evolution?
How does this demonstrate evolution? Don't they know the eggs were planted there just to fool them???
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. (> <)
More SEA MONKEYS!
http://ut.water.usgs.gov/shrimp/ "The life cycle of Artemia begins from a dormant cyst that contains an embryo in a suspended state of metabolism (known as diapause). The cysts are very hardy and may remain viable for many years if kept dry."
As the article says (in the headline, at least), scientists made dormant eggs hatch by putting them under the right conditions. "They found that eggs that had been trapped beneath the sediment years ago had never hatched, but miraculously, were still alive."
It may be a landmark - I have no idea - but it's not resurrection.
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.
What more is there to be than "just" a theory?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
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
This is a Unix system. I know this.
Most eggcellent!
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
Let's hear it for the Dodo Bird!!!
Those things must have been tasty if they went so extinct.
Maybe I'll get to taste one in my lifetime...
The startling point is that we're talking about only 100 years. Given the number of generations the Daphnia can manage in that time, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
But think: if you can get that much useful change in such a short amount of time, how much more can occur over hundreds of thousands of years?
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Hatching long dormant eggs is interesting, I wish the article had more about that in it. I have always been fascinated by the fact that wheat from Pharoh's tombs in Egypt has been sprouted.
However, this article merely takes that interesting subject and attempts yet again to twist it into another prove of the theory of evolution. The mass media does that with any major story in the life sciences area.
This should probably be phrased as: "Can this possibly be used to show that evolution is more than just a theory?"
What more is there to be than "just" a theory?
Evolution is "just" a theory because, although a theory is a statement of what we think something to be like, that includes in itself an inherent understanding that we can't know more than that, that we could always possibly be wrong . . . so evolution has trouble standing up to things like Creationism and it's masquerade/reinvention as "Intelligent Design", which offer eternal and proclaimed truths at their core. They have the gift of certainty; and unreal concreteness is often more persuasive than truthful equivocation.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Why, was he trying to hatch them himself?
Slashdot poster brings back memes thought to be dead and produces jokes as they existed decades ago. He calls it "resurrection karma".
Unfortunately, no good can come of it, as those memes are the same ones we have today.
Just wait till researchers bring back a disease that that has been laying dormant for millions of years that wipes the entire human race out.. lol, but i do think what they are doing is cool. I'm sure alot will be learned.
If you guys had taken the time to read the article prior to posting a response, you would have realized the article talks about evolution throughout its entire contents. It then goes on to explain that "sunlight and warmth" (page 3, website) were given to the eggs, and they hatched. This, is NOTHING like Jurassic Park. This is basically just preservation of eggs from long ago which were able to be warmed and hatched many years later. It then talks about how they could see evolution take place within these new life forms. Hopefully, in the future, you guys can appreciate the fact that a submission was made and accepted because it was a genuinely interesting article/topic, rather than another attempt for someone to be the 'first post'. You guys are not trolls, nor do you have to be. That isn't how you get on in life. Being a troll will get you nowhere. If you can troll, then you probably have enough skill to get a job making $10/hour at minimum. Go out there and get that job. If you are a troll making more than that, however, then I look at you in disgust.
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
for samples of microorganisms from Lake Vostok
As for the difference between unwilling and unable, give it time. Any reasonable estimate as to how long such an event would take runs into hundred(s) of generations. We simply haven't had enough time for one to take place. Now, you can prove that it has taken place, but you have to accept genetic evidence for it. There is tons of genetic evidence for 'speciation' that has resulted in 'unable' but creationists don't seem to be willing to accept such genetic evidence.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
I refer you to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/aoc/ , in the 2001 conference, paper 61 "Evolutionary Isolates and Cryptic Species in Australian Birds, Basis Nature: What to call Species" for a reasonably recent discussion of this issue.
However I was first aware of this in 1992, I can't recall the original source, but it was fairly well known in Population Ecology Circles in Australia at the time.
I can also refer you to www.geocities.com/pb56_au/mtbuffalo/ student/activities/speciation.PDF which illustrates the debate on this issue. Note that the species in central NSW have vanished, so in the map in this document imagine varieties that filled the concave side of the curved range shown.
You are of cource correct that my "definition" was too lax, and I'll accept your correction on this. It doesnt dilute the point I was making however.
I mean, you have heard of Albert Einstein and the general theory of relativity? Gravity doesn't exist. It's not a force. It's a pseudo- or false force.
Timespace is curved, and it's that curvature that gives the acceleration. There is no such thing as gravity, just as there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
So there is a consensus on gravity - and that is that it isn't a valid theory.
I'd like to point out that there is no real discussion between evolution vs. creationism, except in the minds of people who misunderstand science. Evolution is a really great theory, just like the General Theory of Relativity is a really great theory. You do know that physicists do not accept it as gospel truth and in fact are looking for a better theory to replace it, right? 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?
Creationism is a completely different concept. It doesn't try to explain the origin of the diverse creatures. Believers of creationism instead look towards all things in the world around them and accept it as testament of the glory and intelligence of God. They also accept themselves as created in the image of God as children of God. Many scientists are creationists. That isn't contradictory. They treat science the same way as people did from previous generations: By understanding the natural world around us, we will understand the nature of God, and thus ourselves, better. In fact, for many of these scientist, it was a sort of divine inspiration to discover new intelligence or knowledge. Each point of science, each bit of evidence, each theory that seemed to work, was treated as a gift from God.
Do you see how evolution doesn't even really enter the argument for creationists?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Also, show me a mutation that was for the better of the species.
Pesticide/herbicide resistence, happens with increasing frequency. Predicted by evolution: change the environment and a mutation that confers an advantage in dealing with the new environment will rapidly spread through the population.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/
Them pesky biologists! Cut their funding, that'll teach 'em to contradict your gut feelings about the world!