| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:02:58 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new-
effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than science.
They know that they can't recreate these extinct animals, and all they
are doing is replacing a few genes (sometimes not even the correct
mutations to recreate the pheontype of the extinct species).-a There is
no reason to do this, and there is absolutely no reason to try to
reintroduce such bogus pets into some niche where they have not been
adapted to belong to any longer.-a Adaptation to a specific environment
is more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video shows
manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off starting
with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be more closely
related than an ostrich and it was once a very large bird, but reduced
it's body size while maintaining a large egg size.
But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that tinamous
are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically farther from moas
than some other paleognath would be. There would be no good solution, if they were actually serious about this. Which they aren't.
On 7/14/2025 9:24 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new-
effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than science.
They know that they can't recreate these extinct animals, and all
they are doing is replacing a few genes (sometimes not even the
correct mutations to recreate the pheontype of the extinct species).
There is no reason to do this, and there is absolutely no reason to
try to reintroduce such bogus pets into some niche where they have
not been adapted to belong to any longer.-a Adaptation to a specific
environment is more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video shows
manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off starting
with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be more
closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very large bird,
but reduced it's body size while maintaining a large egg size.
But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that tinamous
are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically farther from moas
than some other paleognath would be. There would be no good solution,
if they were actually serious about this. Which they aren't.
Kiwis are still more closely related to moa than ostriches.-a Even emu
would be more closely related to moa than ostriches.
Are tinamou fast evolving?
They seem to be the only ratite that
retained flight capability.
Isn't it likely that the ancestors of Kiwi,
moa and elephant birds flew to their island homes?
I would think that
flightless ratites would have evolved faster in a more degenerative way
than tinamou.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new-effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.-a Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than science.-a They know
that they can't recreate these extinct animals, and all they are doing
is replacing a few genes (sometimes not even the correct mutations to recreate the pheontype of the extinct species).-a There is no reason to
do this, and there is absolutely no reason to try to reintroduce such
bogus pets into some niche where they have not been adapted to belong to
any longer.-a Adaptation to a specific environment is more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video shows manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off starting
with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be more closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very large bird, but reduced
it's body size while maintaining a large egg size.
On 7/14/25 12:46 PM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 9:24 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new-
effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than science.
They know that they can't recreate these extinct animals, and all
they are doing is replacing a few genes (sometimes not even the
correct mutations to recreate the pheontype of the extinct species).
There is no reason to do this, and there is absolutely no reason to
try to reintroduce such bogus pets into some niche where they have
not been adapted to belong to any longer.-a Adaptation to a specific
environment is more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video shows
manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off
starting with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be
more closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very large
bird, but reduced it's body size while maintaining a large egg size.
But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that
tinamous are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically farther
from moas than some other paleognath would be. There would be no good
solution, if they were actually serious about this. Which they aren't.
Kiwis are still more closely related to moa than ostriches.-a Even emu
would be more closely related to moa than ostriches.
Are tinamou fast evolving?
Yes, pretty much genome-wide.
They seem to be the only ratite that retained flight capability.
Technically, they're not ratites, which term applies to a polyphyletic
group of flightless birds.
Isn't it likely that the ancestors of Kiwi, moa and elephant birds
flew to their island homes?
Probably.
I would think that flightless ratites would have evolved faster in a
more degenerative way than tinamou.
Not clear what you meant by that. But genome evolution isn't
particularly correlated to morphological evolution.
On 7/14/2025 5:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 12:46 PM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 9:24 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new-
effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than science. >>>>> They know that they can't recreate these extinct animals, and all
they are doing is replacing a few genes (sometimes not even the
correct mutations to recreate the pheontype of the extinct
species). There is no reason to do this, and there is absolutely no >>>>> reason to try to reintroduce such bogus pets into some niche where
they have not been adapted to belong to any longer.-a Adaptation to >>>>> a specific environment is more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video shows >>>>> manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off
starting with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be >>>>> more closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very large
bird, but reduced it's body size while maintaining a large egg size.
But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that
tinamous are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically farther
from moas than some other paleognath would be. There would be no
good solution, if they were actually serious about this. Which they
aren't.
Kiwis are still more closely related to moa than ostriches.-a Even emu
would be more closely related to moa than ostriches.
Are tinamou fast evolving?
Yes, pretty much genome-wide.
They seem to be the only ratite that retained flight capability.
Technically, they're not ratites, which term applies to a polyphyletic
group of flightless birds.
They nest firmly within ratites.-a As far as I know tinamou are the only member of the lineage that retained flight capability.-a They all occupy
a lineage that is likely the oldest branch point for extant birds.
Isn't it likely that the ancestors of Kiwi, moa and elephant birds
flew to their island homes?
Probably.
I would think that flightless ratites would have evolved faster in a
more degenerative way than tinamou.
Not clear what you meant by that. But genome evolution isn't
particularly correlated to morphological evolution.
There would be relaxed selection all over the genome when the genes that were required for flight no longer had the positive selection pressure
that they once had.
Those genes and the region around them, due to
linkage drag, would have been expected to be subject to more neutral evolution.-a When mutations are selected against you don't just lose the mutation that is being selected against, but all the surrounding recent neutral mutations are also selected against due to linkage with the deleterious variant.
On 7/15/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 12:46 PM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 9:24 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new- >>>>>> effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than
science. They know that they can't recreate these extinct animals, >>>>>> and all they are doing is replacing a few genes (sometimes not
even the correct mutations to recreate the pheontype of the
extinct species). There is no reason to do this, and there is
absolutely no reason to try to reintroduce such bogus pets into
some niche where they have not been adapted to belong to any
longer.-a Adaptation to a specific environment is more than just
cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video
shows manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better off >>>>>> starting with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected to be >>>>>> more closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very large >>>>>> bird, but reduced it's body size while maintaining a large egg size. >>>>>
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that
tinamous are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically
farther from moas than some other paleognath would be. There would
be no good solution, if they were actually serious about this.
Which they aren't.
Kiwis are still more closely related to moa than ostriches.-a Even
emu would be more closely related to moa than ostriches.
Are tinamou fast evolving?
Yes, pretty much genome-wide.
They seem to be the only ratite that retained flight capability.
Technically, they're not ratites, which term applies to a
polyphyletic group of flightless birds.
They nest firmly within ratites.-a As far as I know tinamou are the
only member of the lineage that retained flight capability.-a They all
occupy a lineage that is likely the oldest branch point for extant birds.
Yes, they nest within ratites, which is the same as ratites being at
least paraphyletic. But as ratites are defined by flightlessness and the absence of a keel, we must suppose that this state arose at least four times, probably more, making ratites polyphyletic. The name of that
lineage is not "ratites"; it's "Palaeognathae".
And it isn't the oldest branch point for extant birds. That would be the separation between paleognaths and neognaths.
Isn't it likely that the ancestors of Kiwi, moa and elephant birds
flew to their island homes?
Probably.
I would think that flightless ratites would have evolved faster in a
more degenerative way than tinamou.
Not clear what you meant by that. But genome evolution isn't
particularly correlated to morphological evolution.
There would be relaxed selection all over the genome when the genes
that were required for flight no longer had the positive selection
pressure that they once had.
You must understand that only a few percent of the genome is under
selection in either flying or flightless birds. Most of the genome is
junk. And birds have short introns, but even so, the majority of the
average bird gene is still intron, and so mostly junk itself.
Those genes and the region around them, due to linkage drag, would
have been expected to be subject to more neutral evolution.-a When
mutations are selected against you don't just lose the mutation that
is being selected against, but all the surrounding recent neutral
mutations are also selected against due to linkage with the
deleterious variant.
Another thing: avian linkage groups seem by most accounts to be very
short, a few hundred bases at most. So hitchhiking is a very weak force
in birds, even if the genes affected by flightlessness were many.
Anyway, it turns out that the tinamou genomes evolve much more quickly
than ratite genomes, so your expectations are confounded directly. See,
for example, Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston C.J., Bowie R.C.K., Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball R.T., Marks
B.D., Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H., Steadman D.W., Steppan S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple
losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008;-a 105:13462-12467.
On 7/15/2025 2:12 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/15/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 5:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 12:46 PM, RonO wrote:
On 7/14/2025 9:24 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 7/14/25 6:18 AM, RonO wrote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/researchers-launch-new- effort-to-revive-extinct-species-243142725747
I do not know how long the video will be at this link address.
Colossal Bioscience efforts seem to be more of a scam than
science. They know that they can't recreate these extinct
animals, and all they are doing is replacing a few genes
(sometimes not even the correct mutations to recreate the
pheontype of the extinct species). There is no reason to do this, >>>>>>> and there is absolutely no reason to try to reintroduce such
bogus pets into some niche where they have not been adapted to
belong to any longer.-a Adaptation to a specific environment is >>>>>>> more than just cosmetic changes.
They claim to be using closely related species, but the video
shows manipulation of an ostrich egg.-a They'd likely be better >>>>>>> off starting with a tinamou or kiwi.-a The kiwi would be expected >>>>>>> to be more closely related than an ostrich and it was once a very >>>>>>> large bird, but reduced it's body size while maintaining a large >>>>>>> egg size.
But kiwis aren't very closely related to moas. They're closer to
elephant birds. It's the tinamous you would need, except that
tinamous are very fast-evolving and are probably genetically
farther from moas than some other paleognath would be. There would >>>>>> be no good solution, if they were actually serious about this.
Which they aren't.
Kiwis are still more closely related to moa than ostriches.-a Even
emu would be more closely related to moa than ostriches.
Are tinamou fast evolving?
Yes, pretty much genome-wide.
They seem to be the only ratite that retained flight capability.
Technically, they're not ratites, which term applies to a
polyphyletic group of flightless birds.
They nest firmly within ratites.-a As far as I know tinamou are the
only member of the lineage that retained flight capability.-a They all
occupy a lineage that is likely the oldest branch point for extant
birds.
Yes, they nest within ratites, which is the same as ratites being at
least paraphyletic. But as ratites are defined by flightlessness and
the absence of a keel, we must suppose that this state arose at least
four times, probably more, making ratites polyphyletic. The name of
that lineage is not "ratites"; it's "Palaeognathae".
And it isn't the oldest branch point for extant birds. That would be
the separation between paleognaths and neognaths.
Isn't it likely that the ancestors of Kiwi, moa and elephant birds
flew to their island homes?
Probably.
I would think that flightless ratites would have evolved faster in
a more degenerative way than tinamou.
Not clear what you meant by that. But genome evolution isn't
particularly correlated to morphological evolution.
There would be relaxed selection all over the genome when the genes
that were required for flight no longer had the positive selection
pressure that they once had.
You must understand that only a few percent of the genome is under
selection in either flying or flightless birds. Most of the genome is
junk. And birds have short introns, but even so, the majority of the
average bird gene is still intron, and so mostly junk itself.
That few percent is scattered around the genome.
Those genes and the region around them, due to linkage drag, would
have been expected to be subject to more neutral evolution.-a When
mutations are selected against you don't just lose the mutation that
is being selected against, but all the surrounding recent neutral
mutations are also selected against due to linkage with the
deleterious variant.
Another thing: avian linkage groups seem by most accounts to be very
short, a few hundred bases at most. So hitchhiking is a very weak
force in birds, even if the genes affected by flightlessness were many.
A centiMorgan is around 1/3 as long on macrochromosomes (around 300,000
bp compared with 1 million for mammals), but goes down to around 1/40 on microchromosomes (between 25,000 and 50,000 bp).-a It has taken around 60,000 years to reduce the Neanderthal genome sequence to around 25 kb fragments in extant human genomes.-a Linkage drag would still be
significant on the macrochromosomes of birds.
Anyway, it turns out that the tinamou genomes evolve much more quickly
than ratite genomes, so your expectations are confounded directly.
See, for example, Harshman J., Braun E.L., Braun M.J., Huddleston
C.J., Bowie R.C.K., Chojnowski J.L., Hackett S.J., Han K.-L., Kimball
R.T., Marks B.D., Miglia K.J., Moore W.S., Reddy S., Sheldon F.H.,
Steadman D.W., Steppan S.J., Witt C.C., Yuri T. Phylogenomic evidence
for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 2008;-a 105:13462-12467.
Just not what I would have expected.