metamorph axie ???

Technically the moon could fall from its orbit or hang on was that the sky or no thats right it was chicken little. Great story.

A bit like the one about humans morphing back into infants or salamanders back into axolotls.

A bumblebees body mass in relation to its wing span and size mean that technically it can't fly. Pity no-one told the bumblebee.

I read alot of books, which books were you specifically referring to?

philbaker76 said:

...I don't know anything about morphing - but if they can re-generate limbs why not gills?

Feel free to call me stupid

Click to expand...

The process of metamorphosis is much more complicated than the loss of gills. There are complex hormonal, biochemical and physiological changes that occur in the salamander. Gills are lost, lungs are formed and a variety of other changes. It can't just grow back its gills and be a larvae again.

chantiandeanie said:

Technically an adult human can morph into an infant. Every cell in you body contains your entire genome which holds within it the instructions to do anything anything a human cell has ever needed to do going back millions of years. Of course the chances of this happening are minuscule but you can't rule it out completely. If you want scientific proof of this read some books.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't the same at all. An adult human is very close to being the same as an infant, physiologically and biochemically. Sure there are the sexual differences, but much is the same. We don't grow lungs and liimbs when we reach puberty. Even with that, reversing puberty would probably be impossible without some futuristic hormone/genetic/molecular therapy

The situations where stem cells are created from adult cells is a very different circumstance that takes place under elaborate, controlled conditions. Comparing the reversion of a few types of dissociated cells that are adhering to culture flasks in growth medium to the hundreds of cell types in a human body is a bit of a stretch.

If you have a source, I would like to see you cite it.

I'm not the one who made the comparison, someone else did, all I said was it was technically possible. Also I never said it wouldn't take some kind of crazy hormone therapy, that's what I meant by the right stimuli. All I said was it is technically possible which it's proven independently by both genetic science and physics, if you want evidence you could start by reading, The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins but most good books on DNA or evolution will agree directly with my argument and books on Physics will agree with me in theory.

I think for your cells to be able to 'morph' back into an infant they would need to mutate, as they did in the first place.

Biology is not one of my specialist subjects, but to my knowledge Abrahm is correct. Physics, however, is. I cant think of any proven theory in physics which could be used to support your argument, chantiandeanie.

On that note I'm not going to bother posting in this section of the forum anymore on account of the fact that I am STILL recieving negative feedback for a post which I did not make, and have apologised for. Infact more nagative feedback in 2 weeks than I've had positive in 3 months, which really says alot about people here.

inkozana said:

I think for your cells to be able to 'morph' back into an infant they would need to mutate, as they did in the first place.

Click to expand...

To say that the somatic and gamete cells of an infant "mutated" into its fully developed adult form is incorrect.

Also, I don't see how physics plays a role in the reversal of maturation. But the again, "Back to the future" could've popped into your mind and suddenly we had the ability to bend time.

Jay.

I'm sorry I put growth and evolution together when they are different things I mean that for things to evolve they need to develop something new in their cells or a mutation or something, right?

If it's been 'independently proven', it would be nice to see some research that supports that. I know when I make an argument such as this, I need to cite sources that prove my point in order to convince others. That's how science works: You put forth a theory, and the research that leads you to believe that theory, otherwise you come off sounding like a Raelian.

I've read 'The Ancestor's Tale' (all of Dawkins's work actually) and don't recall anything in there that agrees with the idea that humans can revert to infant form so which chapter were you referring to in particular? I am curious about your claim now but yea would like to read some of the evidence you have mentioned exists.

Firstly, you guys need to relax. This is a forum for amphibian keepers, and not the Noble Prize Committee so don't get ahead of yourselves.

Secondly, I am not, as some of you seem to have concluded, under the delusion that salamanders make a habit of reversing puberty and morphing back into their larval form. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this has never happened and in all probability will not do so in my life time. I merely stated that it was possible, which it is. If you'd care to re-read my posts you will note I used the word 'technically' 4 times. Technically, if you can't comprehend this, you are a moron.

Now, for those of you who are still with me, the evidence. Apparently, on this board of aquarium-keepers, it is a crime to put forth an opinion without sighting resources; God forbid we should drop to that level. What would become of us should we waltz around freely claiming e=mc2, two parts Hydrogen compounded with one of Oxygen creates water, or even the far-out claim that night follows day, without first dusting off our old text books and scribbling down a big juicy old-fashioned reference. This board is, after all, dedicated to none other than the distinguished art of axolotl care.

Well, since you all have been so kind as to put forth the evidence to support your claims, I shall do the same. Of course if I were to produce evidence of everything that has lead me to the opinion to which this post is dedicated, I would be writing an autobiography. And as I assume this would be of little interest here, I shall resign myself to quoting but two of my influences, the scientific prowess of whom you cannot deny.


"Fairy stories are filled with frogs turning into princes, or pumpkins turning into coaches drawn by white horses metamorphosed from white mice. Such fantasies are profoundly unevolutionary. They couldn't happen, not for biological reasons but mathematical ones. Such transitions would have inherent improbability value to rival, say, a perfect deal at bridge, which means for practical purposes we can rule them out. But for a Caterpillar to turn into a butterfly is not a problem: it happens all the time, the rules having been built up over the ages by natural selection. And although no butterfly has ever been seen to turn into a caterpillar, it should not surprise us in the same way as, say, a frog turning into a prince. Frogs don't contain genes for making princess but they do contain genes for making tadpoles. My former Oxford colleague John Gurdon dramatically demonstrated this in 1962 when he transformed and adult frog (well, an adult frog cell!) into a tadpole (it has been suggested that this first-ever cloning of a vertebrate deserves a Nobel prize)."


"A frog 'knows' genetically how to be a tadpole, and a tadpole how to be a frog. The same is true of salamanders and they are rather more like their larvae than frogs are like theirs."

- Richard Dawkins, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life: The Ancestor's Tale, (2005), Phoenix, London. pp. 323-324.


"To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

- Stephen Hawking, 'Lecture - Does God Play Dice?', Stephen Hawking Website, Accessed via www.hawking.org.uk. [Accessed: 2/05/08]


Now, I know, interpreting the reasoning behind my theory from the above-mentioned quotes may take a little reading between the lines, but I am confident that the great patrons of caudata.org are up to the challenge.

It's weird, before I stumbled onto this forum, I never realized what scientific geniuses aquarium-keepers were. But as it turns out, we are a rather intelligent bunch. Aren't we?

chantiandeanie said:

It's weird, before I stumbled onto this forum, I never realized what scientific geniuses aquarium-keepers were. But as it turns out, we are a rather intelligent bunch. Aren't we?

Click to expand...

...I love this thread!

chantiandeanie said:

My former Oxford colleague John Gurdon dramatically demonstrated this in 1962 when he transformed and adult frog (well, an adult frog cell!) into a tadpole (it has been suggested that this first-ever cloning of a vertebrate deserves a Nobel prize)."


"A frog 'knows' genetically how to be a tadpole, and a tadpole how to be a frog. The same is true of salamanders and they are rather more like their larvae than frogs are like theirs."

- Richard Dawkins, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life: The Ancestor's Tale, (2005), Phoenix, London. pp. 323-324.

Click to expand...

Interesting read...

I read up on the work of John Gurdon and it turns out that he removed the nucleus of a frog egg by using UV radiation. He then inserted the nucleus of a fully differentiated tadpole intestinal cell into the enucleated egg. This means that all the DNA/RNA was lost from the frog cell. Hence, the ability to revert back into a tadpole is not inherent to a frog; and the DNA/RNA had orginally come from the tadpole, not the frog.

I don't quite know where you were getting at with the reference quote from Stephen Hawkins and the postulated theory of "black holes" which is foreign to me. I do know one thing though, for a frog to revert back to a tadpole would result in loss of mass. I believe in the conservation of mass. So what happened to the rest of the frog?

Jay.

I'm not sure how one cell of a frog equates to an entire frog. Sure, within the genome of a cell is all the programming necessary to carry out the vital functions of life. This is how Dolly the sheep was cloned from an ear cell. But that doesn't mean Dolly can go back to being a lamb.

Additionally, quoting from books is great. However, it is not peer-reviewed scientific research that supports your claims. It's just a book, not research.

And you should probably know that MOST of the people here hold advanced degrees. I know John's Ph.D. has something to do with biochemistry. My degree is in Wildlife Management, focusing on herpetology. I also have a degree in Animal Biology.

So before you jump on a high horse, you might want to look into who you're insulting.

Chantiandeanie, I don't ask people for sources usually when they say something that is common sense or well known to me. I do ask for sources and proof when people say something like "humans can morph into an infant" or claim they can dowse or have psychic powers. Basically anything that rings false to me on first hearing.. or something I have never heard before (which is what I would classify your statement under). It is not something you should be defensive of, especially when you claimed something so radical (in my opinion anyway).

Anyway, I think you are quoting Dawkins out of context, and also if you read the full section on axolotls (including the paragraph you quoted) the author was merely stating that a butterfly, for example, turning back into a caterpillar would not be as surprising as a frog turning into a Prince as species like butterflies, frogs and salamanders, must contain the genetic information for each larval stage. And that this genetic material does not disappear when a creature moves to its next larval stage. As the Gurdon experiment showed, a cell from a frog was used in the cloning of a tadpole (I am simplifying yes but Jay has explained the process already).. A frog did not turn into a tadpole. So I really don't see how this supports your original statement. I believe the chapter you quoted was mainly to discuss paedomorphosis actually...and perhaps that is why you are confused as he is talking about how juvenile characteristics can be retained in adult species.

Also, I am not sure how the Uncertainty Principle applies to what you are saying, so if you could elaborate that would be great.

chantiandeanie said:

"A frog 'knows' genetically how to be a tadpole, and a tadpole how to be a frog. The same is true of salamanders and they are rather more like their larvae than frogs are like theirs."

- Richard Dawkins, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life: The Ancestor's Tale, (2005), Phoenix, London. pp. 323-324.

Click to expand...

Yes, a frog cell knows how to be a tadpole cell. But there are NO genetic instructions in that cell that would allow the cells in the frog to transform that frog back into a tadpole (or even to recreate a part of that tadpole, let's say the gills). We humans are developing all sorts of methods for tricking single cells into becoming embryonic again, and we will probably eventually develop tricks and technologies for re-creating entire tissues and organs out of those cells. We could probably find a way to force adult salamander cells into becoming functional gills. But the instructions for these processes aren't in the cells themselves.

I'm impressed with your tenacity, chantia, and impressed with your digging up the sources that you did. I see your point, but I think we're all going a little overboard. Almost every established scientific "fact" (especially in biology) can have outlandish exceptions and ways to artificially get around it. I would still accept as "fact" that a salamander cannot regrow gills. Sure, it could happen under some very unnatural sets of circumstances, but as a rule it just won't happen. When someone asks if it can happen, they aren't asking about outlandish circumstances - the answer is a simple "no".

Jennifer
M.S., molecular biology

I'm not going to elaborate anymore on anything in this thread. There's no point, I can see I'm not changing anyone's opinion's nor are they changing mine. Thank you to those who argued logically, it was fun.

chantiandeanie said:

we are a rather intelligent bunch. Aren't we?

Click to expand...

Yes, and capable of logical and civil debate when engaged in kind.