Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" In Experiment Revealing How Fins Became Limbs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" In Experiment Revealing How Fins Became Limbs

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 17, 2012 @08:11AM from the hands-to-hold-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "While fossils have long shown that limbs evolved from fins, scientists have shown live in the laboratory how the transition may have happened. Researchers said that the new study published in the journal Developmental Cell offers evidence revealing that the development of hands and feet occurred through the acquisition of new DNA elements capable of activating specific genes."

110 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just wrong! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:15 · Score: 0

The fish think it's very wrong, but they can't just find where to lay a finger...
1. Re:Just wrong! by aicrules · 2012-12-17 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  This may have been a good joke if you'd just given it a few more minutes of thinking.
2. Re:Just wrong! by rhyder128k · 2012-12-17 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  No doubt, this new development will lead to some finger pointing.
  
  --
  Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
3. Re:Just wrong! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's a handy achievement!
In a related story... by Genda · 2012-12-17 08:15 · Score: 4, Funny

New fish applaud scientist for hands...
1. Re:In a related story... by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  New fish applaud scientist for hands
  Since they are only a 10th done, they got The Finger instead.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:In a related story... by dywolf · 2012-12-18 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  New syfy movie...Lionfish
  A researcher working with Zebrafish gave them hands.
  He expanded his research to Lionfish...
  Now he's awakened an insatiable hunger...
  And they're no longer stuck in the fishbowl!
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
3. Re:In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  New fish applaud scientist for hands...
  Now we will be getting real fish fingers. lol
Now if only... by Genda · 2012-12-17 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

The scientist would give them noses, they'd have something to do on those interminable waits between feedings.
1. Re:Now if only... by DigitalReverend · 2012-12-17 08:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I hope not, there's nothing worse than fish that smell.
  
  --
  I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
2. Re:Now if only... by mattack2 · 2012-12-17 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not worse, but equivalentâ¦ visitors after 3 days.
  http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_franklin.html
  Apparently he didn't actually originate all of themâ¦
  "Fish and visitors smell after three days."
The meaning of Life... by Genda · 2012-12-17 08:18 · Score: 1

Now the Pythons will need to change the FISH scene in "The Meaning of Life" (ala George Lucas) and have the fish in the tank shaking hands.
All you need to know by GODISNOWHERE · 2012-12-17 08:22 · Score: 5, Informative

From TFA:

"Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," Casares told New Scientists
1. Re:All you need to know by gewalker · 2012-12-17 08:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And the fish died 4 days after being treated with the new gene. A complete success otherwise.
2. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Slashdot: Scientists make fish grow hands!
  Scientists: No we didn't...
3. Re:All you need to know by jlv · 2012-12-17 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Mod this up.
4. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Title of the FA:
  
  Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" in Experiment That May Reveal How Fins Became Limbs
  Next line in the FA, synopsis:
  
  Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land instead of only in water.
  First line of the actual article:
  
  Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land instead of only in water.
  and near the end of the article, the line of the OP:
  
  "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," Casares told New Scientists
  So it's not Slashdot, it's scientific journalists (or maybe just MedicalDaily, but it's so convenient to say just "Scientists" or "Scientific journalists" to make you think that scientists form an hivemind) who take everyone for bloody idiots. Really pitiful...
5. Re:All you need to know by slew · 2012-12-17 10:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But apparently they grew "hands" (which is apparently what pseudo-journalists call autopods) not hands (sans quotes)...
  However, from the truth is stranger than fiction department, a possible reason that it didn't really work might be the lack of a mediating factors like Sonic Hedgehog expression signalling (yes, that's the name of a real gene, which was named after the video game character by the Harvard researchers who discovered it) which has to something to do with making limbs from autopods, but is mostly used in the formation of scale structures in zebrafish.
6. Re:All you need to know by argStyopa · 2012-12-17 13:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be fair, the article ITSELF is pretty confused.
  1st sentence:
  "Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land instead of only in water."
  Near the end:
  ""Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," Casares told New Scientists..."
  So I'd submit that the summary being a little confusing isn't really the summarizer's fault this time.
  
  --
  -Styopa
7. Re:All you need to know by lxs · 2012-12-17 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  More specifically, it's New Scientist which has a proud tradition of behaving like a tabloid.
8. Re:All you need to know by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, the article ITSELF is pretty confused.
  1st sentence:
  "Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land instead of only in water."
  Near the end:
  ""Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," Casares told New Scientists..."
  So I'd submit that the summary being a little confusing isn't really the summarizer's fault this time.
  Wow. That's 2 firsts for /. There's a good reason for the botched summary and someone here actually read the article.
9. Re:All you need to know by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-12-17 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Reading "comprehension" fail.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Just one more... by Genda · 2012-12-17 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Masturbation will still be dicey, but the kissing gouramis are now hugging and kissing gouramis. My work is done!/p?
Intelligent design by Alien+Being · 2012-12-17 08:26 · Score: 1

God made these scientists with his own two fins so that we would recognize the potential of our water-breathing brothers. Fish have always been seen as low forms of life but now it's time to balance the scales.
Yay, god!!!
1. Re:Intelligent design by Spaseboy · 2012-12-17 08:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  (Phil-Ken-Sebben)balance the scales...Ha Haaa!(/Phil-Ken-Sebben)
  
  --
  "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
  -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
Bizarre by cfulmer · 2012-12-17 08:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

So, the hand genes were just sitting around, waiting to be 'activated' by specific DNA?
I think that means that either Intelligent Design is real or we don't have really good terminology to describe what actually happened.
1. Re:Bizarre by viperidaenz · 2012-12-17 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ....or you don't have a good understand of what happened.
2. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't grow human hands. The genes "sitting around" were apparently genes for fins.
3. Re:Bizarre by LateArthurDent · 2012-12-17 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So, the hand genes were just sitting around, waiting to be 'activated' by specific DNA?
  I think that means that either Intelligent Design is real or we don't have really good terminology to describe what actually happened.
  According to the article, the fish embryos continued to grow for 4 days, developing autopods, a precursor to hands. Then they died.
  Hilariously enough, this article which is headlined "Scientists Make Fish Grow 'Hands'", contains a quote from one of the scientists involved, "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands." Basically, this isn't intelligent design, it's exactly how evolution is described to work: You have existing code for fins, a slight modification of which appears to cause differentiation into autopods. This particular change is only one piece of the puzzle, so it wasn't a viable modification.
4. Re:Bizarre by Chris+Burke · 2012-12-17 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So, the hand genes were just sitting around, waiting to be 'activated' by specific DNA?
  Kinda maybe but not really? There's no gene for hands. There are genes involved in growing those tissues which comprise limbs, which are in turn controlled by other genes. Control those genes one way, you get fins, another way, you get "hands". The controlled genes were already present in the fish, and being used to make fins. Add a new mouse gene that controls those other genes a different way and you get something more like a hand.
  As a ridiculously coarse analogy, it's like saying the standard C library has the code for a chess game because if you take a tic-tac-toe game and then re-arrange a bunch of the code that controls how the stdlib functions are called you get chess instead. Yes there are important pieces being re-used but there's more to it than that.
  There's no problem with the terminology, and absolutely no need to resort to ID to explain this. Our bodies re-use the chemical machinery of life forms from billions of years ago. Just in different ways. Evolving new mechanisms for controlling that machinery is still evolution.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
5. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  So, the hand genes were just sitting around, waiting to be 'activated' by specific DNA?
  Nope. If you read the article you will see they used mouse genes.
  Next on the agenda: 3 billion men candidates for the horse cock gene transplant (would you call it that?).
6. Re:Bizarre by JesseMcDonald · 2012-12-17 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  First, they didn't actually manage to grow hands. The closest they were able to achieve was "autopods", a precursor somewhere between hands and fins. The cause of this difference was a transplanted mouse gene which increased the production of a certain protein involved in selection and development of different kinds of tissue.
  The real lesson from this is that small changes in DNA can have large effects on physiology. A bit more of a certain protein at the right point in development and you get autopods instead of fins. A few other minor changes and you might even get something approaching real hands.
  It isn't that fish have unused DNA lying around which can be "activated" to produce hands; rather, the genetic codes for fins and hands are very similar, perhaps differing by just a couple of mutations. This similarity is evidence in favor of common descent. Why would a "designer" put in the effort to make the DNA so similar? No doubt, if our own experience as designers is anything to go by, it would be far easier to achieve ideal fins and ideal hands without that constraint. Hands and fins differentiated only by the presence of a few specific proteins is perfectly consistent, however, with inherited genetic traits and natural selection.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
7. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, the hand genes were just sitting around, waiting to be 'activated' by specific DNA?
  No. But this is like a game of telephone. It starts and ends like this,
  1. Scientists try to do some experiments to see if they can manipulate genes to see which ones differentiate limbs from fins. You know, since evolution says fish => land. (also land to fins, like whales)
  2. After lots of work, scientists get a 4-day embryos that die that have different shaped fins, like autopods. So they found gene that may be a candidate.
  3. Scientists communicate to press "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands!"
  4. Slashdot links to an article "Scientists Make Fish Grow Hands!!!!!!"
  5. you,
  
  I think that means that either Intelligent Design is real or we don't have really good terminology to describe what actually happened.
  6. Scientists: "WTF?"
  I guess next week in the news, "Scientists discover green man on Mars!!" and then someone will poast "It is a sign of creator!" and will be modded +5 Insightful.
8. Re:Bizarre by InterArmaEnimSil · 2012-12-17 09:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  the genetic codes for fins and hands are very similar, perhaps differing by just a couple of mutations
  Except for the fact that while the effect of the transplanted gene was relatively small - an increase in the quantity of a protein - there is nothing saying that the code of the mouse genes which produced the change was "just a couple of mutations." My guess is that the scientists probably imported at least several Kb of already-functional code into the fish genome to produce the marginal change in the protein production. Could be more, could be less.
  Saying that the genetics are similar because the effect is similar is akin to going, "Hey, this custom Cinnamon theme on Fedora looks a whole lot like Windows XP - it must be just a few tweaks to get from one to the other!" The underlying code might be similar, or it might not, (In the case of Fedora and Windows XP, it is not) but the presumption of code similarity from product similarity is unfounded. Likewise, the presumption that the functional mouse genes are just a simple tweak or two away from functional fish genes is nonsense. In this case, they might be, or they might not, but there is simply no way to make that judgment based on the effect the code produces.
  
  Why would a "designer" put in the effort to make the DNA so similar?
  Code similarity is far from a "constraint." Libraries, modularity, and code reuse are the bread-and-butter of effective and efficient programming. Why make something similar? As a designer of code, I have an answer - because if similar code works in similar cases, then you don't have to bother doing it all twice, ten, or ten thousand times, saving work and reducing the likelihood of error or corruption.
  Of course, that doesn't support Intelligent Design. However, claiming that experience designing code suggests that it would be easier to re-implement a feature from scratch for every use case rather than to re-use code is a bad idea.
  On a related note - Hey, let's make this an argument about religion on a tech news site, right where arguments about religion belong! Again....
9. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  The same Intelligent Design that made us crave sweet/fat foods that cause us to grow fat and die?
10. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Speak for yourself, I don't need no horse gene transplants.
11. Re:Bizarre by jonadab · 2012-12-17 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  > Basically, this isn't intelligent design
  
  Of course not. That would imply that the scientists who designed the genetic modification did so intelligently -- a preposterous notion. Since their custom GM fish all died as embryos, it's obvious that this was in fact a very unintelligent design.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
12. Re:Bizarre by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-12-17 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I could, probably starting with pointing out that your proclaiming it was the Christian deity.
  Clearly, the development of hands is more reasonably attributed to His Lord Majesty Noodle the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is clearly His divine wish that we become more like Him, so He allowed us to grow appendages in his likeness. We should praise Pasta that our fins have evolved into something more resembling Spaghetti.
  Can you imagine making Pasta with fins? The horror!
13. Re:Bizarre by TapeCutter · 2012-12-17 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it's not intelligent design, fish don't need hands. Intelligent design would give them something useful to a fish, like an outboard motor, .
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
14. Re:Bizarre by viperidaenz · 2012-12-17 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  It makes it sound like adding DNA from an animal that has already evolved hands(feet) reprograms the genes that build body parts.
15. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Then how do you explain rigatoni, fusilli, farfalle, gnocchi, conchiglie, etc.?
  Are these not pasta?
16. Re:Bizarre by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-12-17 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine making Pasta with fins? The horror!
  Yes, the tasty tasty horror!
17. Re:Bizarre by JesseMcDonald · 2012-12-17 11:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My guess is that the scientists probably imported at least several Kb of already-functional code into the fish genome to produce the marginal change in the protein production.
  I see your guess and raise you actual science. What they did, from the article, was take a gene the fish already possessed and multiply it. The fish already produces this protein, but with fewer copies of the gene. Increasing the number of copies, and thus the amount of protein produced, resulted in autopods.
  
  Saying that the genetics are similar because the effect is similar...
  I didn't say that. We already know that the genetics are similar, because we've sequenced the DNA of a number of organisms and determined that they're really very similar, even when the organisms appear quite different. Plants and animals, for example, share far more DNA than one would naively expect. What I said was that the fact that a small change in the expression of certain proteins changes the development of the fins to something much closer to hands is consistent with common descent. It shows how small changes over time could have changed fins (or fin-precursors) into hands. That this actually occurred requires other evidence, which we have from a variety of sources.
  
  Code similarity is far from a "constraint." Libraries, modularity, and code reuse are the bread-and-butter of effective and efficient programming.
  No argument there, but where is the modularity in DNA? Where are the boundaries between the libraries and the rest of the organism? Code reuse is possible because we carefully avoid making every piece interact with every other piece. We deliberately restrict the ability for small changes in one are to have global effects on the rest of the program, preferring to create small, self-contained modules with well-defined interfaces. DNA is just the opposite: a single huge parallel program, with patches layered on top of patches, and no organizing structure to be found anywhere. What it most resembles (for obvious reasons) is the output of a genetic algorithm, the difference being that genetic algorithms are configured with fitness functions to achieve specific goals, while natural selection has no goal apart from the survival of the genes.
  
  On a related note - Hey, let's make this an argument about religion on a tech news site, right where arguments about religion belong! Again....
  You're the one that brought up religion. Up till now, we were discussing common descent ("evolution") and Intelligent Design, a term invented specifically to avoid the religious connotations of Creationism. However, you're probably correct that it's more honest to classify ID as religion rather than science.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
18. Re:Bizarre by kbg · 2012-12-17 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  There are actually gene sequences for example in Dolphins that can grow "feet" but are simply deactivated and no longer used. These are simply remnants of previous species that used to walk on land. So actually these dormant genes actually support evolution.
19. Re:Bizarre by shaitand · 2012-12-17 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  He is a Flying Spaghetti Monster not a Flying Rigatoni Monster.
20. Re:Bizarre by cusco · 2012-12-17 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a "designer" put in the effort to make the DNA so similar?
  
  Laziness?
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
21. Re:Bizarre by shaitand · 2012-12-17 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you sir. And since fish do not have outboard motors we have now proven that there is no god. Unless someone wants to contend that outboard motor designers simply have a better understanding of fluids than god?
22. Re:Bizarre by Scarletdown · 2012-12-17 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine making Pasta with fins? The horror!
  Meh, I would rather make pasta with flour and either water or eggs.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
23. Re:Bizarre by Scarletdown · 2012-12-17 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. If you read the article you will see they used mouse genes.
  Next on the agenda: 3 billion men candidates for the horse cock gene transplant (would you call it that?).
  That would be a good way to prevent a future Idiocracy scenario. If the transplant was a success, then the 3 billion stupidest guys on the planet would no longer be able to breed, as no woman would want them to get anywhere near them with a schwanzstucker like that.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
24. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  No, hands and fins develop from more or less the same gene sets. The difference is how, when, and to what extent all of the genes are expressed during development. By changing those attributes of expression, identical (or very nearly identical) gene sets can produce astoundingly different morphologies.
25. Re:Bizarre by jbengt · 2012-12-17 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  As a ridiculously coarse analogy, it's like saying the standard C library has the code for a chess game because if you take a tic-tac-toe game and then re-arrange a bunch of the code that controls how the stdlib functions are called you get chess instead.
  Actually more like saying the standard C library has the code for a chess game in it because if you take a tic-tac-toe game and repeat it several times, a chess game appears (and loses in four moves)
26. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  BTW, I forgot to add: These differences in expression would fit quite well into both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design.
  In an evolutionary settings, it stands to reason that relatively small changes (like gene expression) are more likely to happen, and hence would be heavily represented among visible mutations.
  In an intelligent design setting, anyone sufficiently intelligent to be manipulating life on a genetic level would intuitively find it much more efficient to simply manipulate the expression of genes than to start from scratch, and to whip up entirely new gene sets.
  Overall, if you're looking to prove either of those theories is right or wrong, there are better places to invest your efforts. But if you want to debate intelligent design or evolution on a genetic basis, it would behoove you to first learn a bit more about genetics.
27. Re:Bizarre by Richy_T · 2012-12-17 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  But fish don't have hands to work the gas pumps. Oh wait...
28. Re:Bizarre by The1stImmortal · 2012-12-17 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Gnocci is potatoes, not pastas!
29. Re:Bizarre by cas2000 · 2012-12-17 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  If this were found to be true, then no one could argue against the existence of God.
  That's exactly what's wrong with religious thinking - or any other kind of magical thinking: the instant leap from "something weird has been observed" to "wahh! i don't understand" and then immediately to "god(*) must've dunnit".
  fucking idiots.
  the correct response is "more investigation is required".
  the best moments in science have always come from someone thinking "that's odd..."
  (*) which god, anyway? there's so many of the stupid imaginary fucking things, and so many minor variations of the same ones (each one "worth" torturing and murdering for), to choose from.
30. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, yeah... Computational fluid dynamics is a relatively new field. It didn't exist 5,000 (or is it 6,000?) years ago when God designed fish.
31. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  If this were found to be true, then no one could argue against the existence of God.
  One can certainly argue against the existence of "God" or "Yahweh", the immoral and schizophrenic overlord of the Abrahamic religions.
32. Re:Bizarre by stenvar · 2012-12-17 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Code reuse is possible because we carefully avoid making every piece interact with every other piece. We deliberately restrict the ability for small changes in one are to have global effects on the rest of the program, preferring to create small, self-contained modules with well-defined interfaces. DNA is just the opposite: a single huge parallel program, with patches layered on top of patches, and no organizing structure to be found anywhere
  You can think of a DNA program like the output from an optimizing compiler: it will reuse storage locations and share blocks of code, but there may still be high level modularity that you simply don't see easily at the binary level.
33. Re:Bizarre by drkim · 2012-12-17 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Next on the agenda: 3 billion men candidates for the horse cock gene transplant (would you call it that?).
  ...Why would I want it to be smaller..?
34. Re:Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad fucking morons like you aren't around to take important decisions. Jesus fuck you're stupid.
35. Re:Bizarre by InterArmaEnimSil · 2012-12-18 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  I see your guess and raise you actual science. What they did, from the article, was take a gene the fish already possessed and multiply it.
  I stand corrected, provided that hoxd13 is chemically identical in the two species, and it probably is However, I would still maintain that the scientists had to import more code, per my original guess, in more subdued fashion, into the genome - if not, then a copy-paste of a function alongside a copy of itself would not increase the size of a source file.
  
  We already know that the genetics are similar, because we've sequenced the DNA of a number of organisms and determined that they're really very similar, even when the organisms appear quite different.
  True.
  
  changes the development of the fins to something much closer to hands is consistent with common descent. It shows how small changes over time could have changed fins (or fin-precursors) into hands.
  Also possible. However, if I were the scientists behind this study, I wouldn't be really publicizing it. Not that I expect fish to grow actual functional hands, but the fact that the fish died in the embryonic stage tells me that, while the work produced a cool-looking mutant, it also destroyed any fitness the animal had. Autopods? Yes. Incompatibility with life? Also yes. I do not mean to overgeneralize this "Hah, see! It couldn't have happened in nature!" I merely mean to comment on this particular individual case. Mutating an animal to produce a weird-looking result in a way that kills it before it even hatches seems a lot like flipping bits in the kernel then cheering as it begins to boot, then crashes and bricks. We already knew that misregulated hoxd13 expression produces mutation in appendages...is it really an increase in knowledge that forcing misregulation of hoxd13 by means of genetic engineering produces....mutation in appendages?
  
  No argument there, but where is the modularity in DNA? Where are the boundaries between the libraries and the rest of the organism?
  
  What we have in DNA are effectively the equivalent of binaries. As I can't read DNA "binaries" (or actual binaries), I can't tell you. However, as you stated, organisms share much more genetic code than we realize. Also, the percentage of genomes relegated to "junk dna" is shrinking. Identical code with identical or similar function in more than one place is inherently the use of libraries and modularity. Now, one might argue that we will never be able to reverse-assemble or reverse-compile genetic code because there are no actual operative organizational principles along which to do so. This is speculation either way - however, we had better hope that there are, if we ever want genetic engineering to become anything resembling practical for comprehensive programming.
  As a side note, as impressively knowledgeable as genetic engineers are, and I greatly value genetic engineering, no human can really comprehend DNA binaries with anything resembling the robustness with which we can understand, say, Java source. If we handled production releases of code the way we handle genetic engineering, our software testers would quickly descend into sobbing, screaming madness.
  
  You're the one that brought up religion.
  Perhaps, but from my perspective that's not the case. From the GP...
  
  Why would a "designer" put in the effort to make the DNA so similar? No doubt, if our own experience as designers is anything to go by, it would be far easier to achieve ideal fins and ideal hands without that constraint.
  Postulating about what a designer should do, or why it would do one thing or another, I would say, descends (or ascends, depending on one's point of view) into religion, just as it would do the same for someone to argue what morality a god should endorse, or how extra-terrestrials might choose to behave toward us. Though, I will admit that the line between "religion" and "not religion" is more of a huge, foggy, land-mine-pocked demilitarized zone than it is a clear and definite line.
36. Re:Bizarre by cfulmer · 2012-12-18 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, so I wasn't really trying to claim ID was involved (although I'm amused by how many people thought so -- see below). The point was that the idea that genes are sitting around waiting to be 'activitated' isn't really what happens. Thus, the need for a better way to explain what does actually happen.
  The structure of my argument was "A or B." If A is absurd, then "A or B" -> B, where B is "need a new way to describe this." However, a lot of people apparently thought B was absurd and concluded A,
37. Re:Bizarre by Chris+Burke · 2012-12-18 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, so I wasn't really trying to claim ID was involved (although I'm amused by how many people thought so -- see below).
  
  Yes I know, which is why I devoted the majority of my post to the fact that the terminology is fine. In your argument of "If A or B if A is absurd then B" your "B" that the new way to describe this is needed is untrue.
  
  The point was that the idea that genes are sitting around waiting to be 'activitated' isn't really what happens.
  Except it is. That's exactly what happened. Or at least, the description in the summary -- "the development of hands and feet occurred through the acquisition of new DNA elements capable of activating specific genes" -- is exactly what was demonstrated in this experiment.
  It's your assumption that [the summary implied that] the activated gene is.a complete gene for hands that was wrong. There is no gene for hands. However there are genes involved in the development of limbs that were already there, and were activated by the addition of a new gene.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
38. Re:Bizarre by cfulmer · 2012-12-18 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. So, the summary made it sound like evolution happens when new DNA elements occur which activate individual genes, as if you could take a fish cell, feed it the right programming and out would pop a walrus or an eagle. That entire model, though, is wrong -- DNA is not a program being fed into a machine. In many ways, it's both the program and the machine itself. Adding "new DNA elements" is actually the process of adding genes (or, more precisely, adding things which when combined with other parts of the DNA, become genes), which means that you're adding information about how to do something at the same time that you're adding information about when to do something. The verb "activate" does not adequately describe this.
39. Re:Bizarre by Pav · 2012-12-19 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  >I would still maintain that the scientists had to import more code, per my original guess, in more subdued fashion, into the genome - if not, then a copy-paste of a function alongside a copy of itself would not increase the size of a source file.
  This kind of mutation and the mechanisms involved have been understood for 25 years or so. Multiple copies of a DNA sequence can expand a genome in this way.
Hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:31 · Score: 0

Hoxd13 Contribution? Sounds like a Hoax
Thank you, scientists by Spaseboy · 2012-12-17 08:37 · Score: 1

I've been waiting for you to give sharks opposable thumbs...

--
"I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
-Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
1. Re:Thank you, scientists by viperidaenz · 2012-12-17 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  How else are they supposed to put the lasers on their heads?
What makes the hand-held lasers any better ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 08:41 · Score: 0

The head-mounted ones worked just fine for both the sharks and the Predators...
I for one by sjames · 2012-12-17 08:55 · Score: 2

I for one, welcome our tool using piscine overlords.
I have to ask... by Okian+Warrior · 2012-12-17 09:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Was there a thunderstorm raging outside when this experiment was conducted?
This just seems like the kind of experiment that would be conducted with a thunderstorm raging outside.
Just saying...
So whats in our existing code? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 09:42 · Score: 0

If the code for hands was just siting around waiting to be activated. What code is sitting around in us waiting to be activated? Is it possible to activate it ourselves through our thoughts and actions or only through many generations of humanity bringing forth their expression? I'm not sure if this supports or denies intelligent design. I do think this shows that all life is much more closely related then any of us realize.
1. Re:So whats in our existing code? by aiht · 2012-12-17 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the code for hands was just siting around waiting to be activated. What code is sitting around in us waiting to be activated? Is it possible to activate it ourselves through our thoughts and actions or only through many generations of humanity bringing forth their expression? I'm not sure if this supports or denies intelligent design. I do think this shows that all life is much more closely related then any of us realize.
  Wow. All this shows is that you have not learned much about genetics. Yes, all life is much more closely related than you realized. But now you have realized, so... keep up the good work!
naturally by PopeRatzo · 2012-12-17 09:49 · Score: 1

This just in: Fish learning to jack off.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Tried to ... by PPH · 2012-12-17 09:57 · Score: 1

... grow a hot looking blond with a fish tail but screwed up.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Tried to ... by domatic · 2012-12-17 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess, got a fish torso with human legs?
  Put a bag on it's head and have fun anyway.
When we used to do stuff like that at the lab by HangingChad · 2012-12-17 10:16 · Score: 1

When we used to do experiments like that at the lab we would get death threats from the religious crazies.
The only death threat I got was in college doing research on skewing the sex ratio in horses toward females. I was surprised a few people got so wrapped around the axle by that, doesn't seem like any big deal, even in hindsight.
Not like making fish grow hands or anything.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
So they didn't really have hands... by CannonballHead · 2012-12-17 10:18 · Score: 1

Did they have fins? Useless "hands" + no fins = dead fish.
Already have those: by mill3d · 2012-12-17 10:26 · Score: 1

Lawyers...

--
Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
Fish with hands is fine... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 10:31 · Score: 0

But birds with arms is where it's at.
Eat them up-- by seven+of+five · 2012-12-17 10:48 · Score: 1

Yum.
Quite a jump by ehaggis · 2012-12-17 11:31 · Score: 0

Quite a jump to make a string of organic material attached to a fish and claim that it somehow is the way fish developed legs. If I pump a fish full of air and it farts, is that the explanation I can use for my flatulence; "It's evolution!"

--
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Now that they have hands... by ehaggis · 2012-12-17 11:32 · Score: 1

...they can play scales.

--
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
1. Re:Now that they have hands... by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  ...they can play scales.
  Of course, they are chordates after all.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Now that they have hands... by ehaggis · 2012-12-17 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny you took note of that.
  
  --
  One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
They were trying to develop.... by m.shenhav · 2012-12-17 11:49 · Score: 1

.....lab grown FISH FINGERS! (how did it take this long for a fish finger joke to appear?)
So... by Greyfox · 2012-12-17 11:55 · Score: 1

When doing stuff like this, do you have some evil scientist laugh you practice so you can do it and yell "IT'S ALIVE!"? Because if I were making fish grow hands, I'd pretty much have to do that. Hell, I did my evil scientist laugh and yelled "IT'S ALIVE!" when I got my C++ version of our perl-based satellite ephemeris code working. It's the first time I've ever heard the entire CM team shut up for like, ten seconds.
Honestly though, how big an achievement is this, really? Fish be growing, like, 2 heads and shit up around Idaho.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I am far more interested in prokayote=eukaryotes. by WindBourne · 2012-12-17 12:27 · Score: 1

There is little that shows how the organelles, or the difference in DNA came to be.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The opposite process was already known by fatphil · 2012-12-17 12:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Scientists have long known that consumption of (sufficient quantities of) Koskenkorva can make Finns become legless.

Although strangely, when in this state, we tend to call them "our 4-legged friends" as they tumble off the ferry. So maybe they were gaining two legs after all.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Bad summary by bigsexyjoe · 2012-12-17 13:02 · Score: 1

TFA:
"Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands," Casares told New Scientists
Read more at http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13545/20121217/scientists-make-fish-grow-hands-experiment.htm#3malsWejISVWX0hh.99

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Worst headline ever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 13:32 · Score: 0

This has to be one the worst, sensationalistic, bulls#!t headlines I've ever seen. The article quotes one the experimenters as saying "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands,".
1. Re:Worst headline ever by drkim · 2012-12-17 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  This has to be one the worst, sensationalistic, bulls#!t headlines I've ever seen. The article quotes one the experimenters as saying "Of course, we haven't been able to grow hands,".
  You must be new here...
  Surely you enjoyed these other fabulous Slashdot articles:
  "Steve Jobs Rises From The Dead To Sue Everyone!"
  "Linux Market Share Now Larger Than Windows And Mac Combined!"
  "Inexpensive New Gadget Promises Time Travel!"
  "Big Media Company Orders Executions Of Online Pirates!"
Hoax! They really came from Fukushima! by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-12-17 14:09 · Score: 2

They're just trying to take credit for naturally evolved fish with hands found in the ocean at Fukushima.
Next thing you know, they'll try to take credit for creating Godzilla too.
Shameful...
Code Reuse and God by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 14:38 · Score: 2

Regarding "code reuse", a perfect creator wouldn't need to worry about abstractions and "generic" libraries: he/she/it would make each item with what it needs and only what it needs. Abstractions are largely to help save human developers time and effort under our limited abilities, not to streamline the code-base.
Then again, "omnipotent" and "perfect" are not necessarily the same thing. Maybe "God" is a Linux admin-like being running us a simulation/emulation. He/he/it has omnipotent power from our perspective because he can change or delete any parts of the simulation that he wants. But this doesn't necessarily make him "perfect". He may make mistakes or be sloppy in some areas.
(Don't tell him I said that, otherwise he may click on my "cancer" check-box or something.)

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Code Reuse and God by aiht · 2012-12-17 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  (Don't tell him I said that, otherwise he may click on my "cancer" check-box or something.)
  A Linux admin-like being wouldn't click on no fancy-schmancy checkbox!
  More like
  echo 1 > /proc/`pidof Tablizer`/cancer
2. Re:Code Reuse and God by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Only Allah would use GUIs!" There, that'll start yet another Holy War in the middle east.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
3. Re:Code Reuse and God by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  Just to be clear, since the thread has migrated to religion, with respect to biology, nowhere does it say in the bible that God's intent was to make us, or animals in general, "perfect". It says we were made "good".
  Assuming that we're even referencing anything scientifically coherent talking about a "perfect biology" that we supposedly should already have (as supposedly should all the other highly-variant biological forms be equivalently perfect while simultaneously being completely different), this would give us nothing to progress toward, and make our proposed state of existence in heaven superfluous.
  This particular, intentionally logically impossible, "goalpost shift" we can put down directly on the atheist side of the ledger. It never was the theistic position.
4. Re:Code Reuse and God by Mindcontrolled · 2012-12-17 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Heretic. You know perfectly well that Allah is the guy forbidding all imagery. You think he'd use a GUI? He's the command line guy here!
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
5. Re:Code Reuse and God by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Earth civilization is definitely MS-Windows
6. Re:Code Reuse and God by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  this would give us nothing to progress toward
  You mean it's humanity's job to re-engineer the animals?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
7. Re:Code Reuse and God by InterArmaEnimSil · 2012-12-18 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, presuming some kind of designer - omnipotent God, sneaky genetic-engineer alien, whatever - how would we know whether that designer would or wouldn't use things like abstractions and libraries? Saying that a perfect creator wouldn't use such things (and I said nothing about a perfect creator in the first place), is presuming that we know, despite not being perfect programmers ourselves, exactly how a perfect programmer would write code. There are plenty of human programmers who are better than me, and I'm not even sure of all the details of how they write code. If I did, I'd be as good as they are. We can't presume that some sort of non-human creator, if such a thing even exists, would conform its work to what we think, based on our snapshot of programming knowledge, it should do.
  Also...not streamline the codebase? Really? Man, I'd get fired if I didn't concern myself with not bloating the codebase..
8. Re:Code Reuse and God by Tablizer · 2012-12-18 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  A perfect creator doesn't need abstractions, period. They would put in only what is needed to define the creature, not all the baggage that comes with libraries and abstraction. Why would you include a math library that has a cosine function if you never use cosines?
  But it could be the Bible is partly wrong and God is imperfect.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Two fish walk into a bar by Tablizer · 2012-12-17 14:50 · Score: 1

one says to the other, "I need a hand finishing my ale here". The other says, "Well, Bud, I would fetch a scientist to help you grow arms, but I'm afraid you'd drink like a fish."

--
Table-ized A.I.
Wake me up... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 17:47 · Score: 0

Wake me up when they can make humans grow fins, ...or better yet, gills.
Quotation marks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 22:32 · Score: 0

A "hand" is not a hand. The fish developed autopods instead of fins, which according to TFA are precursors to hands and feet.
captain birdseye... by queBurro · 2012-12-18 01:12 · Score: 1

captain birdseye what have you done you monster

--
sag
I've heard of this before... by highphilosopher · 2012-12-18 05:27 · Score: 1

So this story is interesting:
1. Scientists create mutants
2. Mutants die
3. Scientists are happy about their discovery.
What about this is NEWs?
Re: Scientists are NOT the Messiah by retroworks · 2012-12-18 05:39 · Score: 1

It's a miracle! A miracle? The Scientists are a very naughty boy.

--
Gently reply
This doesn't prove evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 06:13 · Score: 0

... it doesn't preclude evolution, it just doesn't serve to prove it. It does, however, prove intelligent design though. It's funny how most tests of evolutionary theory require reverse engineering and excitation that is clearly intelligent design, and not random mutation.