h a l f b a k e r yA dish best served not.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
genetic D&D
once we have DNA figured out, let the computer simulate the outcome of various DNA pairings | |
Pick DNA components from various species and add them into a computer simulation that lets you see what the new species would look like/perform. new animals/plants could be pitted against one another in a virtual survival of the fittest war theatre. inputs from players all round the world would create
the necessary diversity for evolution and the ultimate survival winner.
Spore -- Create completly new creatures
http://www.spore.com/
[xxobot, Sep 18 2008]
Impossible Creatures -- Combine existing creatures
http://www.microsof...mpossiblecreatures/
[xxobot, Sep 18 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
not as simple as that. But [+] for the idea... |
|
| |
oh and... hasn't this been baked already... see spore and numerous other games |
|
| |
How many species at this point
have their entire genome
decoded, let alone knowing
what each gene is for? The
processing power needed just
to compute a change in an
existing decoded species is
too big for any home cluster
of processors, let alone
compiling a new one. |
|
| |
I'd like to see a glow in the
dark bunny take on Dolly the
sheep. |
|
| |
Genes are not 'for' anything - they just are, and, if in combination whith other genes, they tend to produce developmental arrangements that allow the host to assist them in their replication, then all well and good, roll again. |
|
| |
//a computer simulation that lets you see what the new species would look like/perform// |
|
| |
What everybody already said. It's not
theoretically impossible (genes are just
code), but we're orders of magnitude
away from being able to do it at
present. |
|
| |
Given one gene for, say, a transcription
factor (which regulates other genes), we
have no way to accurately predict the
structure of the protein it encodes. |
|
| |
If we cheat and derive the structure of
the protein by crystallography etc, we
still can't deduce (except in a few
special cases, and with a large error)
what DNA sequence it will bind to. |
|
| |
If we cheat again and do experiments to
see which DNA sequence it binds to, we
still can't tell (in general) whether it will
up-regulate or down-regulate the gene
it controls. |
|
| |
If we cheat again and do experiments to
find out whether it up- or down-
regulates the gene it controls, we're
then back to square one, one layer
further in. |
|
| |
And all this is just local metabolism. We
don't even know how to start asking
how genes determine the shape of
jawbone or the aggressiveness of a
goldfish. |
|
| |
why can't we just wade in, give the programe the constraints we want to give it (hence saving us the time taken in actually knowing) and the just TELL everybody through an agressive marketing campaign that this is 'the real thing'? |
|
| |
Shhhh, //the aggressiveness of a goldfish.// Shhhh, ah, you mean the spirit/soul/character factor? Shhhh. As what I know, a robot presses on aggressively because the human controller yank the joystick more than enough! |
|
| |
[williamsmat] You mean use misleading marketing to gloss over the lack of any kind of scientific rigour in the DNA-analysis service you're selling to a gullible public? Well, yes, that usually works (e.g. homeopathy, vitamins, herbal supplements, chiropracty, fish oil, etc., etc...) |
|
| |
The basic idea is a very good one. Genetic engineering is widely used in the scientific (and agricultural) communities and has been utilised to a very low amount of its possibility. |
|
| |
A computer simulation would be a very interesting, and very possibly popular tool. The coding would be extremely difficult if the simulation were to actually take DNA though, as we still only know a very small amount of the functions DNA performs, and even with several projects, only know what 5-10% of DNA even does. |
|
| |
The idea is amazing though. Especially if you factor in multiple generations, mutations, and other genetic factors to make the simulation even more interesting. Croissant for originality and the thought of a program like that. |
|
| |