#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11983169/
The rock that fell to Earth. As the article says, they didn't find DNA. Well....DUHHH!! I can't believe they would even hint at such a totally stupid thing. They can't even find DNA in fossils on Earth!! The idea that DNA may be found on a eons old rock from Mars that travelled here is totally laughable...HAHAHHAHAHAHAH |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
The rock that fell to Earth. As the article says, they didn't find DNA. Well....DUHHH!! I can't believe they would even hint at such a totally stupid thing. They can't even find DNA in fossils on Earth!! The idea that DNA may be found on a eons old rock from Mars that travelled here is totally laughable...HAHAHHAHAHAHAH I am really confused. They say that they can extract DNA from fossil bacteria. I have never heard that before. They can't even extract DNA from higher multi-cellular organism fossils. ie. DINOSAURS....BUGS IN AMBER...OR ANY OTHER OVER THE WHOLE EXPANSE SINCE THE BIOLOGICAL BIG BANG 600 MILLION YEARS AGO !!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:09:45 GMT, "Mike" Miker@Good God y'alll.net
wrote: I am really confused. They say that they can extract DNA from fossil bacteria. I have never heard that before. They can't even extract DNA from higher multi-cellular organism fossils. ie. DINOSAURS....BUGS IN AMBER...OR ANY OTHER OVER THE WHOLE EXPANSE SINCE THE BIOLOGICAL BIG BANG 600 MILLION YEARS AGO !!! But they can. DNA _has_ been extracted from bugs in amber, and even from some petrified soft tissue. It is tough stuff. Nowhere near enough to play Jurassic Park games, of course, but enough to have generated a few interesting papers in the last few years. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:09:45 GMT, "Mike" Miker@Good God y'alll.net wrote: I am really confused. They say that they can extract DNA from fossil bacteria. I have never heard that before. They can't even extract DNA from higher multi-cellular organism fossils. ie. DINOSAURS....BUGS IN AMBER...OR ANY OTHER OVER THE WHOLE EXPANSE SINCE THE BIOLOGICAL BIG BANG 600 MILLION YEARS AGO !!! But they can. DNA _has_ been extracted from bugs in amber, and even from some petrified soft tissue. It is tough stuff. Nowhere near enough to play Jurassic Park games, of course, but enough to have generated a few interesting papers in the last few years. They are talking of bacteria. NOT multicellular organisms. BACTERIA and MULTICELLULAR are the operative words here Mr. P. Pay attention. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:01:12 GMT, "Mike" Miker@Good God y'alll.net
wrote: They are talking of bacteria. NOT multicellular organisms. BACTERIA and MULTICELLULAR are the operative words here Mr. P. Pay attention. What am I supposed to pay attention to? DNA has been extracted and sequenced from fossilized soft tissue. It has been extracted and sequenced from insects in amber. It has been extracted and sequenced from bacteria in amber, and from bacteria in insects in amber. It has been extracted and sequenced from Miocene plant fossils. In other words, DNA has been extracted and sequenced from ancient, fossilized remains of both bacteria and multicellular organisms. It has also been detected in truly ancient, completely petrified material, although damaged beyond any possibility of sequencing. This has been going on for several years now. While I think the likelihood of finding DNA in martian meteorites is exceedingly small, looking for it if you see physical structures suggestive of life seems like a reasonable thing to do. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
Chris L Peterson wrote:
But they can. DNA _has_ been extracted from bugs in amber, and even from some petrified soft tissue. It is tough stuff. It is my understanding that those results were falsified; they turned out to be laboratory contaminants. Greg -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
Chris L Peterson wrote:
What am I supposed to pay attention to? DNA has been extracted and sequenced from fossilized soft tissue. It has been extracted and sequenced from insects in amber. It has been extracted and sequenced from bacteria in amber, and from bacteria in insects in amber. It has been extracted and sequenced from Miocene plant fossils. Citations? -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:37:17 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
wrote: It is my understanding that those results were falsified; they turned out to be laboratory contaminants. Which results? There have been a number of papers published recently, by different workers using different samples. And "falsified" is not the same as "false". _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:38:14 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
wrote: Citations? You can google as well as I can. Try "fossil dna" and you will see lots of good material (and bad too, of course). All the articles I've read in the last few years have been in Science (you can search that directly from www.sciencemagazine.org ). I've also read online summaries of papers published elsewhere. Certainly, in the case of amber fossils, DNA is abundant. The biggest problem seems to be isolating the DNA of the specimen itself from the DNA of ancient microbes living in or on the specimen when it was entrapped. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Rock !
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:37:17 -0700, Greg Crinklaw wrote: It is my understanding that those results were falsified; they turned out to be laboratory contaminants. Which results? There have been a number of papers published recently, by different workers using different samples. And "falsified" is not the same as "false". Please note I never said it was. I just recently saw an episode of Nova that you seem to be contradicting. Not exactly a research journal, I know, but not exactly junk from the UFO channel either... I know you deal with a lot of loonies here on usenet--idiots I generally just ignore--but is it really necessary to treat everyone who comments as if they were the enemy? This is why I hate usenet... Not generally a friendly sort of place. Oh well. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html To reply take out your eye |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
$5M Moon Rock Stolen From Malta Museum | Rusty B | Policy | 96 | June 12th 04 08:46 PM |
$5M Moon Rock Stolen From Malta Museum | Rusty B | History | 116 | June 12th 04 08:46 PM |
Mars Rover Finds Rock Resembling Meteorites That Fell to Earth | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 18 | April 19th 04 11:14 PM |
Volcanic Rock in Mars' Gusev Crater Hints at Past Water | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 5 | March 7th 04 06:24 AM |
AN EDITORIAL -- Princeton -- Explaining What Pseudos See | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 21st 03 04:43 AM |