Reverse Evolution

[crazy650c]

This is not reversed evolution. What it is...is the removal of information...a.k.a. man made entropy to create the mice without the ability to do something and then re-introducing the missing information which allows function to return. There is no re-creation...it is just re-assembling a deconstructed gene. 500 million years....LOL.

[dsgraphita]

I am that mouse- and I can't laugh about it

[Phyerbyrd]

I'm sure glad I'm not that mouse.

[funincluded]

Holy poo!

We just learned about the relevance of gene duplication to this kind of thing at 1:03

[simsoy55]

I don't see how this is going to help us in any way? Wouldn't it be a better use of money trying to speed up evolution instead of undoing millions of years of better advancements?

[Darkada]

It's important to understand what's under the hood of the car before deciding to turbo charge everything. Experiments like this are giving us vital information on what goes where and why.

[megamanium]

Observations of how these genes can be reintroduced can show the intricacies of evolution in action.

[HankF89]

I'm a little confused. Is the mouse at the beginning (that couldn't blink or move its whiskers) the genetically altered one, or is that how mice normally are?

[TwiggyJack]

I'm pretty sure it's a disorder that's been fixed by repairing a certain gene.

[sphinxrising58]

I understand what you are saying, but you seem somewhat confused as to what I am saying.

By altering just that one gene, you are also effecting a whole series of genes it interacts with in ways science does not yet fully understand.

[xKCBEx]

ummm, I think the title should be changed. I saw reverse evolution, and I thought something else. It might be titled "mice smile" or "rewinding genes," to be more accurate.

[sphinxrising58]

OK, so we have this one guy making this fantastic claim, while science in general states the exact opposit, pointing out that as science seeks to minipulate genes, that the closer they come in studying genes, the more complex the sytem becomes, in that one gene does not do just one function, but works with other genes in ways science clearly do not yet understand. This poses a risk, for in minipulating one gene, you effectively are minipulating the way genese work together also.

[wOoL87]

Well, then you must forbid breeding. All those thousand genes mixing and we don't know that they do. That poses a great risk, doesn't it?

[sphinxrising58]

Breeding is one thing, manipulating genes is another.

Had you othered to read my text, you would see that scientists have discovered that a gene often work in colaboration with other genes in ways scienc does not yet full conprehend, so mucking about with one gene would effect how all the other genes it can & does effect work also, duh.

[wOoL87]

I know what you mean, but you say in a way that one should not modify genes. How is science to comprehend it, without trial and error? It is a very trivial to mention that there are risks, and my point is, that they are not *that* high as many believe, if one only changes one gene at a time and looks at the results. There is much FUD going on.

[sphinxrising58]

You are still missing the point. You cannot change just one gene without also chaing the combined outcome of all the other genes the one you are altering interacts with.

That is the part you seem to be missing, science does not fully understand how all the genese interact with each other, but they do realize that the closer they get, the more complex the interactions seem to be.

[wOoL87]

Let me make my viewpoint clear: Humankind was alway changing the genome of plants or animals, just by selective breeding (so to speak the old way of gene manipulation). We so created "new" plants (corn, grain, potatoes) and "new" animals (chicken, dogs, cows, cat). (New is kind of strong, but they came a long way.) And that selective breeding is by far more dangerous, than altering just ONE gene. I hope you understand now, what I am getting at.

[sphinxrising58]

You cannot just effect one gene by itself without also effecting the entire system since it is known that genes working in various combinations, not just alone.

Now, do you see what I am saying ?

If you mess with ( gene A ), the outcome of " X " will be effected because ( gene G ) & ( gene T & Y ) might also work together with ( gene A ).

Simplified example, but will surffice.

[wOoL87]

Perfectly, but you are overstating the problem.

[sphinxrising58]

How can you say I am overstating the problem when even the collective body of science does not know what the problem is yet, much less have the ability to understand how it all works together ?

[wOoL87]

Because if you really cared about this problem, you wouldn't dare to have a child -- 50% of your genes (a wild mixture of the genes of your parents) randomly interacting with 50% (a wild mixture of her parents) of your wife's gene; not knowing that sth functional come out. That's all I am saying.

[sphinxrising58]

OK, point taken, but it is not that same.

Let's end by saying we agree to disagree.

[wOoL87]

I can always agree on that one :)

[MingQing]

thanks for the nice video :)

[BinkieMcFartnuggets]

When was the last time anyone really frowned. I thought frowning was just for dramatic effect. If you're sad about something you usually just stick your head in the oven for awhile right? I mean right?