Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Sdashiki, Oct 2, 2006.
I dont know what to say other than, holy hell, I can't believe it!
Got to be a fake or contamination, or a switcheroo with a KFC Zinger.
Somehow, I sincerely doubt that.
That picture makes me kind of hungry.
<goes off and makes dinner>
That would be so cool!!!!! Godzilla come to life.
this is just amazing. great and acidental find. love it.
its for real , I have seen various articles of this in the academic journals for the last month or so
I don't think they will get much useful protein/dna from it though
well, even if they dont, this is some scientific find, for paleontologists AND geologists.
the fact that "living" tissue can survive 70,000,000 years is new, at least survive in that they didnt turn to dust.
i say "living" because bones, most fossils, are not "alive" as they are just calcified minerals etc. whereas this stuff seems to be stuff that was once actually beating with blood.
I mean cmon, did you ever think as a kid that the fossils you saw in museums actually might have "blood" still in them?
gives free reign to the hacking up of various other fossil specimens I am sure.
eventually I think this may lead to ONE complete DNA sequence from long ago. maybe.
Museums, hide your T Rex skeletons! Those pseky scientists who like to make sure stuff is repeatable will go around breaking every T Rex skeleton they can get their hands on....
Incredible, if true (there seems to be doubters) then this is just insane.
Forgive me, but what does this have to do with resurrecting T-rex's? is the DNA more "pure" or something. I really don't know anything on the subject
nothing to do with resurrecting a TRex, unless DNA strands can actually be found as we have little to nothing about their composition as it is now.
but this small sample will teach us a lot about these creatures, some things which never were thought to be learned.
Just that DNA is not present in bone, but is found in soft tissue like blood vessels. If there actually is viable DNA in this sample (unlikely) then that could lead to possible clones being developed. This wouldn't be possible without the soft tissue that was discovered. Fossilized bones don't cut it.
that is so ridiculously awesome. I know that the chances of usable DNA surviving 70 million years is essentially nil, but as soon as I read the beginning of that article I already had Jurassic Park images going through my mind
actually dna is present in bone.
I make a decent living extracting aDNA from bone and teeth.
I stand corrected then. Thanks!
So, is the aDNA not suitable for cloning work, then? I'm obviously not a paleobiologist .
well any dna that is recoved from specimens older than 50 years requires special techniques and a special lab, this stuff is generally called ancient DNA ( aDNA), the older it gets the more fragmented the DNA gets plus it is easier to get mtDNA than the nDNA, mtDNA codes for the energy producing organelles in cells where as nDNA or cDNA codes for who you are, the ratio is 1:1000's nDNA to mtDNA per cell so you are most likely to recover the mtDNA and that is only good in most cases for 10,000 years then it fragments into meaningless pieces.
If they do manage to get mtDNA out of the t rex bones it would be interesting way to test the molecular clock hypothesis, and dino-birds etc but you would not be able to make a t-rex out of it.
So most aDNA is NOT suitable for cloning work, its in too many pieces and parts are missing.
Um dude, Jurassic Park.
"them thar holes in them thar DNA strands mr DNA! Oh, boy howdy, we can just plug dem der holeses with FROG DNA kiddies! WHEEEEEEE!"
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the whole system they use for dating finds is highly suspect, with several paleontologists saying the system could be off by orders of magnitude......
Umm... NOT jurassic park
IF they recover any dna it will be mtDNA not nDNA, which does NOT code for the individual. When I say highly fragmented I mean it, pieces of less than 300 base pairs would be the best you can hope for.
Maybe you ought to take high school biology - the difference between all living things is less than 2% of coding DNA, so even a couple of base pairs off may mean a completely different creature.
Think how one letter mutation causes havoc in humans! here you would be missing entire "sentences"
Ummm... YES jurassic park. sorry we can't all be biologists. i took high school biology and it sure as hell didn't teach us about mtDNA and nDNA. I remember RNA and DNA that's about it. And just so you know: Jurassic Park Please Read
oh damn please don't try to correct me about what time period either meszoic, cretaceous, jurassic, whatever.
ok here you are talking about 10,000 years ago versus millions of years ago.
the maximum useful ever recovered is at 100,000 years from frozen specimens
second every living eukaryotic cell contains two types of DNA: mitochondrial and nuclear (cellular), most plants have a third type- chloroplast, each type has a independent mutation rate, and the number of each type per cell is different , usually there is one copy of cellular, and 1000's of mtDNA and Chloroplast so you will most likely recover the mtDNA which does not code for the individual only the energy organelles.
look it up on wikipedia...
Dood, Jurassic Park.
Cmon, cant we just dream, jeez. I was once a child who wanted a pet dinosaur, werent you? Dont be such a killjoy.