Canadian scientist aims to turn chickens into dinosaurs

Enlarge

Chicken at a market. After years spent hunting for the buried remains of prehistoric animals, a Canadian paleontologist now plans to manipulate chicken embryos to show he can create a dinosaur.

After years spent hunting for the buried remains of prehistoric animals, a Canadian paleontologist now plans to manipulate chicken embryos to show he can create a dinosaur.

Hans Larsson, the Canada Research Chair in Macro Evolution at Montreal's McGill University, said he aims to develop dinosaur traits that disappeared millions of years ago in birds.

Larsson believes by flipping certain genetic levers during a chicken embryo's development, he can reproduce the dinosaur anatomy, he told AFP in an interview.

Though still in its infancy, the research could eventually lead to hatching live prehistoric animals, but Larsson said there are no plans for that now, for ethical and practical reasons -- a dinosaur hatchery is "too large an enterprise."

"It's a demonstration of evolution," said Larsson, who has studied bird evolution for the last 10 years.

"If I can demonstrate clearly that the potential for dinosaur anatomical development exists in birds, then it again proves that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs."

The research is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs program and National Geographic.

The idea for the project, Larsson said, came about during discussions with renowned American paleontologist Jack Horner, who served as technical advisor for the Jurassic Park films.

Horner recently wrote a book entitled "How to Build A Dinosaur," in which he refers to the embryo experiment as part of a quest to create a "chickenosaurus."

Larsson's team has previously worked to uncover prehistoric animal remains, including eight unknown species of dinosaurs and five new types of crocodile in Niger. He also recently uncovered the remains of a new carnivorous dinosaur in Argentina.

   

• laserdaveb - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
  Crap.....go watch that movie maybe...365 times..then go REAL slow....on a space station!jurst in case..
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• gmurphy - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
  physical characteristics are one thing, subtle neurological constructs which might constitute instinct are very different, and we may never know if the reconstituted dinosaur phenotypes are in any way true reflections of their ancestors
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
  Do we really have to go all Dr Moreau just to prove chickens descended from dinosaurs?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• defunctdiety - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

  "It's a demonstration of evolution," said Larsson, who has studied bird evolution for the last 10 years.

  
  Close... it would be a demonstration of DE-evolution, actually, sir...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
  It's unclear to me just exactly what this guy plans to do. The title of the article is "Canadian scientist aims to turn chickens into dinosaurs", but the article says "a dinosaur hatchery is too large an enterprise." So what exactly *does* he aim to do? Grow chickenosaurus embryos and kill them before they hatch? Create a computer simulation? A theoretical proof?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• LariAnn - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
  Actually, wouldn't it be a demonstration of intelligently-directed evolution (or de-evolution), since an intelligent human mind is the motive factor for the execution of the experiment? The chicken is not going to turn into a dinosaur randomly, after all, now, is it?
  
  Also, it would not prove that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, but that birds are genetically related to dinosaurs, which is definitely not the same thing scientifically.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• defunctdiety - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

  Actually, wouldn't it be a demonstration of intelligently-directed evolution (or de-evolution), since an intelligent human mind is the motive factor for the execution of the experiment? The chicken is not going to turn into a dinosaur randomly, after all, now, is it?
  
  Also, it would not prove that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, but that birds are genetically related to dinosaurs, which is definitely not the same thing scientifically.

  
  De-evolution is not a naturally occurring process, I might argue that it therefore connotates "third-party" influence by default... and intelligently directed evolution is still just evolution, so long as it makes the given life form more likely to successfully procreate, even if just in the context of the intelligent direction. So he's not evolving anything. I'm actually rather surprised that what he's proposing isn't laughed out of the scientific community...
  
  And this is because it 1.) would never prove anything that we don't already know by more sound means and 2.) it would only demonstrate that the DNA of a chicken can be altered to phenotypically and morphologically resemble what is observed in a small segment of the dinosaur fossil record. i.e. he'd just be engaging in ethically unsound practices to make a chicken look like a dinosaur, not creating a dinosaur.
  
  Chances are it will also probably result in something pretty inhumane (crippled? sterile? dead at birth?)...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• thales - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
  Gives new meaning to the phrase, "Hmm... tastes like chicken."
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  "No, no more doctors... no more experiments... I thought that you, of all people, would understand..."
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  (note for the classic-movie-challenged: that's a famous Dr Moreau quote, spoken by a genetic experiment gone wrong)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
  ....which I horribly butchered. :-P Here's the actual quote:
  
  "No. No more scientists. No more laboratories. No more experiments. I thought you'd be able to understand that."
  
  (Imagine this as spoken by the chickenosaurus. :)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  House cats into Smilodons
  Anteaters into Glyptodonts
  Women into ...Raquel Welsh?
  
  -Would a chickenosaurus still cluck or shriek like a banshee in the night?
  Housecats hunting in packs taking down cattle
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I want to see a phorusrhacid Terror Bird. Im sure it would shriek like a banshee in the night.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• rfw - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Chicken little comes to mind. The sky is falling, the sky is falling,the sky is falling... When chicken little becomes chicken BIG, after the sky has fallen chicken BIG will go hunting... and not for bugs!
  
  OK peeps, how many more B movie plots can we think up?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• eric_in_chicago - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  And, what would this new organism say if it could talk in response to the question, "What does the McGill University staff taste like?"
  
  "Tastes like chicken."
  
  I can't wait to see half-chicken, half thunderlizards with razor sharp rows of teeth.
  
  "I am Chicken. Hear me ROAR!!!"
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 25, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Alligators into mosasaurs for tourists at seaworld
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ZeroDelta - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  maybe I can finally get dino-Mc nuggets
  
  
  proves evolution by unleashing dino DNA
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Danie - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  To be quite honest, since that show some years ago where they dug up the Mammoth, I was wondering how long it will be for something like this to happen...
  
  Granted, Mammoth is a few years younger than dinosaurs, but just the general idea of trying to bring back extinct animals.
  
  All I have to say is, there is a reason as to why they went extinct without the help of modern humans...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• bloodonthescarecrow - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  maybe the chickenosaurs and the geico cavemen can finally team up and hunt the afflack goose into extinction. im just saying, its a noble cause.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• CreepyD - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I saw a tv show about scientists doing this at least 6 months ago, complete with pics of little chicken embryos with razor sharp teeth developing.
  
  Why can't they let them hatch and see what they look like!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• david_42 - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
  The point of the research is to demonstrate that the dinosaur traits are preserved in the chicken genome. This is arguably the strongest possible validation of evolution. Growing teeth in chicken embryos is an interesting demonstration of the same principle, just not as much fun.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)

  Also, it would not prove that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, but that birds are genetically related to dinosaurs, which is definitely not the same thing scientifically.

  
  Why wouldn't it prove they're descendants? Since the scientist is merely activating genes already in the chicken's genome, it seems like this would prove that the dinosaur genome is embedded within the chicken genome, and that could only happen if they're direct descendants, not cousins. Humans are "related to" flying squirrels, but that doesn't mean we have the gene for glider wings somewhere in our DNA. You can only inherit genes from direct ancestors.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• SmartK8 - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  I see a promising Ig Nobel candidate for this year. I hope, he can still make it on the list. Not to sound too pessimistic. I can give him a direction for the next research. Proving the gravity by jumping from a roof of a skyscraper. There's a possibility for the Darwin award as well. Anyway I can drop my charges for a free ticket to enter that park. I know the whereabouts of the chaos theory quite well.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• arrowrod - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  It occurs to me that a catalog of "Characteristics" can be developed and the resultant animal built (created) in the not to distant future.
  
  My nomination: the Rachel Welch build.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Damon_Hastings - Aug 26, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

  It occurs to me that a catalog of "Characteristics" can be developed and the resultant animal built (created) in the not to distant future.

  
  Not just animals...
  
  When children are custom-designed for maximum beauty, will beauty still have meaning? I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" for intelligence, but I'm not sure about beauty...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 27, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  When children are custom-designed for maximum beauty, will beauty still have meaning? I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" for intelligence, but I'm not sure about beauty...

  You mean people dont you? When disease- and deformity-causing defects are removed from the gene pool? We have no idea what people will want by then. You are assuming that future people will have your values and that your values would be good or right for them.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• defunctdiety - Aug 27, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  We have no idea what people will want by then. You are assuming that future people will have your values and that your values would be good or right for them.

  
  It's arguable none of it would be good for society. As it's not going to be available to anyone except those with the money. Seems like all kinds of discrimination and neo-racism or eugenics issues could stem from it.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 27, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  It's arguable none of it would be good for society. As it's not going to be available to anyone except those with the money. Seems like all kinds of discrimination and neo-racism or eugenics issues could stem from it.

  We dont know if these things will be true or not. Govt-mandated 'healthcare' would ensure that genetic diseases and deformities will be treated prenatally. Our definition of 'attractive' may not apply to people without defect-caused depression, confusion, sloth, gluttony, addictions, gluttony, thyroid problems, etc. We suffer from these things and would not want to be rejected because of them but would rather do without. Happy, healthy people are much better looking. They might appreciate what we do not in others and realize that what we have been taught to covet is no longer important.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 27, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I said gluttony twice- must be dinnertime. Think I'll have ice cream.
  
  By the way, we have already been 'designed' for maximum beauty by selection- isnt that in a recent thread?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Infernobones95 - Aug 27, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  does that mean that we will soon be able to dine on some genetically engineered dinosour? t-rex burgers sound delicious.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• otto1923 - Aug 28, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  No they will soon be able to dine on us. Human mcnuggets. MuaHaHahahaaaaaaaa.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Tachyon8491 - Aug 29, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I suggest that male Chickenosaurs be devocalised in the embryonic stage as a 128db 1MJ wake-up crowing at dawn might be discovered to be too destructive for anything less resilient than prestressed concrete structures apart from possibly causing cerebral acoustic impact damage to the brains of researchers.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Shaffer - Aug 31, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  "It's a demonstration of evolution," said Larsson, who has studied bird evolution for the last 10 years.

  
  
  So, how much have the birds evolved in ten years?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5