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

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 !!!

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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