tampering with DNA

[kevin55521]

it seems totally sci fi but i was just wondering, is it phisically possible to mix animals through dna? i was thinking of if u could, transform the dna and then mix that with something like stem cells could you play god and create your own new creature?

 

im guessing no but id like a scientific view to it all, and maybe if it was possible to even somehow mix say, a bat and a lizard to create a dragon-like creature (and i only mean physical looks like it would be the size of a baseball and would not breath fire, and maybe not even possess the ability to fly...)

[foodchain]

Here is a good place to start.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/

[kevin55521]

i read through the first little part of that and it says that the genotype parts of dna are the looks which is the only thing we are trying to change but it also says that the dna is mixed during reproduction so if u actually mixed 2 animals the "old fashioned way" they would end up with the genotype of the female and maybe the phenotype of the male, which is why you would have to genetically alter the females genotype dna to create a new species?

 

also ive heard about this kind of treatment being done with fish, creating new patterns and designs on them, even one experiment where they successfully created glow in the dark fish

[foodchain]

i read through the first little part of that and it says that the genotype parts of dna are the looks which is the only thing we are trying to change but it also says that the dna is mixed during reproduction so if u actually mixed 2 animals the "old fashioned way" they would end up with the genotype of the female and maybe the phenotype of the male, which is why you would have to genetically alter the females genotype dna to create a new species?

 

I don’t know if the link is the latest and greatest but from what I do know it gives a very good overall description that would pertain to your question greatly.

 

also ive heard about this kind of treatment being done with fish, creating new patterns and designs on them, even one experiment where they successfully created glow in the dark fish

 

Yes, people have changed the DNA of other life forms. The common term for such is GMO or genetically modified organism. You can google such for information, far more then I can really muster. Yes, people also modify or change life to induce bioluminescence, and naturally it can occur from other avenues such as the chemicals(enzymes) like luciferases or luciferin(funny ass name) or even symbiotic relationships with bacteria that induces or creates light, plus even more.

[SkepticLance]

Moving DNA from one organism to another is now commonplace. It has even been done by Mother Nature herself, with snake DNA being found inside a local rodent genome. This appears to have been carried by a retrovirus, and is now passed on from rodent generation to generation.

 

There is no reason in theory why the number of genes implanted cannot be increased indefinitely, till a new organism is formed that is half one, half another. It would take care, and more understanding of physiology than we now have, but seems doable.

[kevin55521]

just spent a chunk of free time reading up on the gmo's and its looking like it may be possible to genetically cross breed animals, allthough you may have some trouble with the government> but i just recently got the idea of scientists actually making a breed of animal similar to a dragon (looks) allthough all i can see at the moment for the gmos is that most or the worlds scientists are too busy working on plant life and learning how to create bug resistant crops as compared to creating a who new species of animal!

[MrSandman]

Guys! Look at this scientificly. You can cross genes only as long as the genes are fairly similiar if they're not the reciever will reject them. It's like breeding a chicken and a dog. They're are too diferent, so will reject genes from each other. However animals that are similiar for instance donkey and a horse can breed. If you could figure out how to take pieces from other animals and see if you can have another animal except it you could very well get NPP. There is also dominance in genes that has to be taken into consideration. It's a lot more complicated then just mis-matching. Tell me if I'm totally wrong. It has happened, but not on a very different scale.

[Mr Skeptic]

Bacteria seem to swap genes all the time. It is also possible to transfer genes via a retrovirus (apparently, rats got snake genes in them in this manner). Those are examples of natural gene swapping.

 

Humans have already given some genes from one critter to another, eg fluorescence from jellyfish to fish, genes from something to make rice produce beta-carotene (vitamin A, "golden rice"), and such. So far, we only do small if interesting changes, but the more we understand, the more we can do. I don't think we are anywhere near replacing mammalian skin with reptilian scales or changing body shapes like you want, though.

[ecoli]

We don't know enough about genetics to do this in the way you're thinking.

 

Perhaps we could identify the genetic codes for all the proteins in reptile scales (to borrow Mr. Skeptic's example). But even then, we don't know exactly how these proteins are put together... including alternate proteins that build structures, chaperone proteins to secrete this structures... There is a lot of associated genetic material we don't necesarily know about.

 

And even if we could figure all that out, there may be associated mechanisms with various uses that the animal uses for other functions specific to that animal.

 

For example (hypothetically) perhaps we cannot grow scales without also becoming endothermic...

[MrSandman]

Yeah, I see what your saying. However, I bet the DNA was similiar in structure if they transfer DNA. They should try transfering DNA to an intelligent animal and observe its habits.

[foodchain]

Yeah, I see what your saying. However, I bet the DNA was similiar in structure if they transfer DNA. They should try transfering DNA to an intelligent animal and observe its habits.

 

I support the start small or ground up thinking. Such as working with microbes until mastery then the next level. I don’t support however just grabbing say a tiger and seeing what changing various codons will produce. I am sure its possible to fully realize what genetics can hold, heck maybe even eternal life is possible there, but it also holds an equally disturbing side effect of how do you get there from here? To the reality that environment is pretty meshed into the whole thing. I know the concept of morality has driving most research like that out of America, but from what I understood as soon as cloning for instance was realized it was Clinton that put a ban on any attempts at human versions and started a large scale mess of it all. Cloning as predicted by botanists of all things also did not produce exact copies, such was evident in various ways.

 

I am sure in time a large degree of life will be purely designer, if not biology and entire ecosystems being synthetic, but in many ways the relationship of say a genome to the various phenotypes possible from it is a culmination of various complexities is currently lacking absolute understanding, from reproduction to just about anything else. So yes, I do support some degree of control on simply just changing codons for the time being.

 

Do you for instance know what an aye-aye is? Its a very primitive primate species on the verge of extinction. They look very weird to say the least and from looking at various images it would seem as if the white guard hairs come in before other aspects. It also has a very weird middle finger "perfectly" suited for how it eats. Basically its another example of natural selection at work, and I think understanding that relationship to a genome and various phenotypes really needs to be understood before true genetic studies will make any real serious leaps.

[MrSandman]

Well I mean with mice or something a little better than microbes.

[ecoli]

Well I mean with mice or something a little better than microbes.

 

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by 'we don't know enough about genetics yet'.

 

More likely then not, if we just play around and introduce random bits of DNA into the code, either nothing will happen or the animal will never develop into a viable adult.

 

The expression of genetic material into proteins is more complicated then 1 gene = 1 phenotype.

[SkepticLance]

ecoli said

 

More likely then not, if we just play around and introduce random bits of DNA into the code, either nothing will happen or the animal will never develop into a viable adult.

 

A bit late to start worrying about that. In research laboratories, literally hundreds of such modifications have already been carried out. Hell, it is now a standard research tool. People wanting to know what a particular gene does will take mice and knock out that gene to see what happens. Alternately, they will introduce a new gene to see the effect.

 

Lots of DNA from one species has been placed into a second species, and the results tested. Of course, we get Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and lots of other nutters vehemently opposing it. So far, no serious harm has resulted, and there is no indication that it ever will.

[ecoli]

ecoli said

 

More likely then not, if we just play around and introduce random bits of DNA into the code, either nothing will happen or the animal will never develop into a viable adult.

 

A bit late to start worrying about that. In research laboratories, literally hundreds of such modifications have already been carried out. Hell, it is now a standard research tool. People wanting to know what a particular gene does will take mice and knock out that gene to see what happens. Alternately, they will introduce a new gene to see the effect.

 

Lots of DNA from one species has been placed into a second species, and the results tested. Of course, we get Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and lots of other nutters vehemently opposing it. So far, no serious harm has resulted, and there is no indication that it ever will.

 

Yes, but these experiments are performed with a specific goal in mind, with a clearly defined goal with well-studied genes...

 

In my post I said sticking random bits of DNA in random places in an organism's genetic code... as MR. Sandman seemed to be suggesting. This, I don't think would be a very fruitful endeavor.

[kevin55521]

well i do agree that at the moment we are not close to changing such dna but if some one would like to simply answer my question that it indeed IS possible to create a creature bread of a bad and a lizard?

[ecoli]

it's possible, IMO, but only theoretically

[kevin55521]

sweet, so what kind of a process would it take to actually mix the dna together (equipment, matierial,how to do i, ect)

[Mr Skeptic]

sweet, so what kind of a process would it take to actually mix the dna together (equipment, matierial,how to do i, ect)

 

It's not so much a problem of how to mix the DNA... That can be done by various means such as retrovirus. The big problem is knowing what the result will do. Sure, we can introduce a protein here, replace one there, but if you eliminate a vital process, your experiment will die. Plus, it is not just proteins (which we somewhat understand), we also need the infromation on what to do with these proteins, which is less obvious. Coding DNA can be identified from the protein chain it produces, but we hardly understand what the so-called "junk" DNA does.

[MrSandman]

Yes, but these experiments are performed with a specific goal in mind, with a clearly defined goal with well-studied genes...

 

In my post I said sticking random bits of DNA in random places in an organism's genetic code... as MR. Sandman seemed to be suggesting. This, I don't think would be a very fruitful endeavor.

 

You don't always need a goal you can try just discovering something. Like rutherford didn't ever expect to find the nucleus of an atom. He did an experiment with what he tought would have a set result. It didn't do what he thought it would. When I was 8 I took water and oil. I knew what they would do, so I took sugar and poured it in to the combination. I thought that the sugar molecules would just stay a the top or just sink through it in little bits. It didn't. Try doing it. I still think it looks cool. I'm just saying use a little knowledge and try it on a few mice. See what happens. Unless your the type that are against animal testing entirely. If you are there is a discussion for that.

[foodchain]

You don't always need a goal you can try just discovering something. Like rutherford didn't ever expect to find the nucleus of an atom. He did an experiment with what he tought would have a set result. It didn't do what he thought it would. When I was 8 I took water and oil. I knew what they would do, so I took sugar and poured it in to the combination. I thought that the sugar molecules would just stay a the top or just sink through it in little bits. It didn't. Try doing it. I still think it looks cool. I'm just saying use a little knowledge and try it on a few mice. See what happens. Unless your the type that are against animal testing entirely. If you are there is a discussion for that.

 

 

Mice have a brain or CNS, are actually quite intelligent and can even read moods of a human. Thusly they can suffer, and for what its worth I have a little but to much empathy to really want to do that for the sole purpose of a garage experiment. Microbes on the other hand don’t share in this really, so for what its worth its not like torture really. Plus microbes are not as heavy in complexity as say a mouse and react faster to changing environments, which for the purpose of selection experiments or messing with dna period I think would be faster. Plus starting and microbes and following phylogenics I think would be the best way to understand evolution and its various mechanisms, thusly I think it would help genetics greatly. Everyone wants to focus directly on nothing more then DNA to explain everything, while it has a very profound place in biology and life it surely is not everything which is already documented.

[MrSandman]

I don't care about understanding evolution. I want the scientists to get going with the studies of DNA. Obvisiously your against animal testing? Here is a novel idea. Why don't they try both at the same time. I'll be happy and you'll be semi-happy.

 

You know that mice are quite plentiful. They breed like rabbits only worse.

[Mr Skeptic]

foodchain, Just think of humans as a more advanced sort of predator that doesn't necessarily derive nutrition from its prey. We're all part of nature, and, like kittens, we sometimes play with our prey for educational reasons.

[foodchain]

I don't care about understanding evolution. I want the scientists to get going with the studies of DNA. Obvisiously your against animal testing? Here is a novel idea. Why don't they try both at the same time. I'll be happy and you'll be semi-happy.

 

You know that mice are quite plentiful. They breed like rabbits only worse.

 

I don’t really think you can have one without the other, DNA and evolution that is. I am not against animal testing, but I mean if you support trying to turn a mouse into a dragon that’s fine I guess...

 

I don’t plan to do any animal testing actually, its not the field of biology I am interested in. Plus the reality is there are also plenty of humans, but I think it would be easy to see the outrage if we started blasting them with chemicals looking for signs of cancer, that being said I don’t care to inflict pain for the sake of not even knowing what I am doing in the first place, I think that’s how we got the Iraq war. Even understanding how DNA works in one microbe does not automatically denote that same understanding to the next, I don’t know how to get any more simple on that one. Simple example, just look at the variance in people.

 

Trying to just do biology from a DNA only angle is not only silly its profoundly dumb really, and its never going to get anywhere and any progress it does make will be retarded by such a view and slow. I mean if we could just do DNA alone don’t you think we would already be doing that at levels much higher then what we are now? Understanding evolution is prime in the understanding of genetics, its quite simple really.

 

foodchain, Just think of humans as a more advanced sort of predator that doesn't necessarily derive nutrition from its prey. We're all part of nature, and, like kittens, we sometimes play with our prey for educational reasons.

 

We are relative to the environment, in a few hundred years we could easily also be extinct.

[MrSandman]

I don’t really think you can have one without the other, DNA and evolution that is. I am not against animal testing, but I mean if you support trying to turn a mouse into a dragon that’s fine I guess...

 

I don’t plan to do any animal testing actually, its not the field of biology I am interested in. Plus the reality is there are also plenty of humans, but I think it would be easy to see the outrage if we started blasting them with chemicals looking for signs of cancer, that being said I don’t care to inflict pain for the sake of not even knowing what I am doing in the first place, I think that’s how we got the Iraq war. Even understanding how DNA works in one microbe does not automatically denote that same understanding to the next, I don’t know how to get any more simple on that one. Simple example, just look at the variance in people.

 

Trying to just do biology from a DNA only angle is not only silly its profoundly dumb really, and its never going to get anywhere and any progress it does make will be retarded by such a view and slow. I mean if we could just do DNA alone don’t you think we would already be doing that at levels much higher then what we are now? Understanding evolution is prime in the understanding of genetics, its quite simple really.

 

 

 

We are relative to the environment, in a few hundred years we could easily also be extinct.

 

You just keep thinking that we will be extinct. However, I think that both areas can be covered. I agree totally with Mr Skeptic. In fact I like his name. Experimenting is how we learn.