How realistic is to genetically engineer species to be phenotipically identical to extint fosil records?
>>16823473Prolly the way they're doing it now since that's the current technique.
>>16823473no one knows how genes work, they code for proteins and thats as far as the story goes. Theres parts of DNA that dont code for proteins that were believed to be trash and now their function was recently discovered, its also believed that theres biological information separate from DNA in other structures. Things are complicated
genetic engineering is just a meme from faggot sci-fi movies, only extremely ignorant ppl can't tell the difference between sci-fi and reality
>>16823473We're getting pretty good at identifying homeotic genes that have an impact on embryonal development and morphology, and it's common to see papers nowadays identifying the specific mutation that caused changes in a lineage (for example, the one that changed the digit rearrangement in birds compared to theropod dinosaurs.) Even without fossil DNA we can use that of surviving sister lineages to infer what the ancestral one must have been thanks to deep homology and molecular genetics.
>>16823996Vole. Checkmate.
>>16823996I should add, in many cases the basal genes that were expressed in the fossil lineages still exist but are dormant in extant lineages, so it's a relatively simple matter of turning them back on to restore limbs etc.for example:>We identified snake-specific sequence changes within an otherwise highly conserved long-range limb enhancer of Sonic hedgehog (Shh). Transgenic mouse reporter assays revealed that the in vivo activity pattern of the enhancer is conserved across a wide range of vertebrates, including fish, but not in snakes. Genomic substitution of the mouse enhancer with its human or fish ortholog results in normal limb development. In contrast, replacement with snake orthologs caused severe limb reduction. Synthetic restoration of a single transcription factor binding site lost in the snake lineage reinstated full in vivo function to the snake enhancer.>>16824002Dunno what you're trying to say, that the look of the living animal doesn't intuitively match what you'd expect from the skeleton? Sure, but we can at least mimic the skeletal morphology and limb development with reasonable fidelity, that's 75% of the work.
>>16824029>Dunno what you're trying to sayI am calling you an idiot. This rodent skull is a better fit for your made up dinosaur skull.
>>16824053What dinosaur skull? Are you retarded as well as blind?
>>16824058>dinochickenIdiot.
>>16824061That's just a cute name for a chicken genetically edited to look more like a basal archosaur.>To elucidate underlying developmental mechanisms, we examined candidate gene expression domains in the embryonic face: the earlier frontonasal ectodermal zone (FEZ) and the later midfacial WNT-responsive region, in birds and several reptiles. This permitted the identification of an autapomorphic median gene expression region in Aves. To test the mechanism, we used inhibitors of both pathways to replicate in chicken the ancestral amniote expression. Altering the FEZ altered later WNT responsiveness to the ancestral pattern. Skeletal phenotypes from both types of experiments had premaxillae that clustered geometrically with ancestral fossil forms instead of beaked birds. The palatal region was also altered to a more ancestral phenotype. This is consistent with the fossil record and with the tight functional association of avian premaxillae and palate in forming a kinetic beak.
>>16824068That's my point, you fucking idiot. An existing rodent skull is a better fit than your made up bullshit.
>>16824071Since the vole skull looks nothing like any of the 3 archosaurian skulls, I still have no fucking clue what your schizo ass is sperging about.
>>16824074Idiot
>>16824074I prefer to call dinosaurs by their original terminology: "Dragons".
