 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / March 2007Amateur's query
Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I need some help. Suppose a bone fossil reliably dated to 1.5 mya. Suppose DNA extracted from bone. (I know that's a stretch, but suppose.) Suppose the DNA is not even arguably terrestrial, yet compatible with humans. (No, it's not Jesus.) Of course nobody knows any of this yet. You have the specimen. You have the equipment and the lab. What, as a paleobiologist, might be the lab observation that made you say "Holy sh.t"? Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing religious wackos all welcome. Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about quantum mechanics. > Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I > need some help. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not even arguably terrestrial, yet compatible with humans. (No, it's > not Jesus.) I am unable to figure out what "not even arguably terrestrial, yet compatible with humans" would mean. > Of course nobody knows any of this yet. You have the specimen. You > have the equipment and the lab. What, as a paleobiologist, might be > the lab observation that made you say "Holy sh.t"? It's unlikely that a paleobiologist would be working with DNA in a lab. He/she would pass the bone off to a molecular biologist or systematist, somebody who knew how to sequence ancient DNA. I have no idea what the observation would be, but it would be the end of a long process: extraction, PCR under rigorously controlled conditions, sequencing, looking at the sequence file on a computer, alignment with other sequences, perhaps phylogenetic analysis. Still don't see any possibility of detecting weird aliens at any time during this process. > Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing > religious wackos all welcome. > > Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about > quantum mechanics. >> Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >> need some help. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Still don't see any possibility of detecting weird aliens at any time > during this process. The DNA code only has a few "letters" other combinations or "letters" are possible. Proteins that should not be in the sample might be found. The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something more complex though what you normally get in old samples is small fragments of the code. Get enough of them and you might be able to past the pieces back together like they are trying to do for Neanderthal. >> Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing >> religious wackos all welcome. >> >> Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >> quantum mechanics. The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The DNA code only has a few "letters" other combinations or "letters" are > possible. That wouldn't be "compatible with humans". The problem here lies in satisfying both his conditions simultaneously. While we're at it, the DNA code has 64 "words", and DNA has four "letters", but those aren't the code. If you changed one of the letters, you wouldn't have DNA any more, but some other nucleic acid. If there were some kind of non-standard nucleic acid, nobody would discover that by accident. The first clue would be that all your attempts at amplification would fail, but that's not unusual with ancient DNA anyway. I suppose you could scan with a spectrophotometer and get some odd absorption spectrum, but good luck getting a high enough DNA concentration for any such thing to be feasible. > Proteins that should not be in the sample might be found. Nor would that. And who's looking for weird proteins in a sample, and how? > The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something more > complex though what you normally get in old samples is small fragments of > the code. Get enough of them and you might be able to past the pieces back > together like they are trying to do for Neanderthal. Nor would that. >>>Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing >>>religious wackos all welcome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "letters", but those aren't the code. If you changed one of the letters, > you wouldn't have DNA any more, but some other nucleic acid. DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid. Local life may only use what you said but they are only a few of many possible molecules that would meet that standard. It is not clear if the fact none of the other molecules are used is anything more than an accident. > If there were some kind of non-standard nucleic acid, nobody would > discover that by accident. The first clue would be that all your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nor would that. And who's looking for weird proteins in a sample, and how? How do they find any protiens? They often find weird proteins due to damage or other factors. Figuring out it isn't something produced by accident would be the tough part. >> The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >> more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nor would that. The project on the Hsn is on going. Other ancient life forms are being studied. You are free to express any opinion you wish about it but they are getting results slowly. I don't think these people are listening. >>>>Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing >>>>religious wackos all welcome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > is not clear if the fact none of the other molecules are used is anything > more than an accident. This doesn't seem very relevant to my point. Are you saying that it's only the presence of deoxyribose that makes DNA, and that any set of four (or two, or six, etc.) bases, other than ACGT containing deoxyribose would be DNA also? You may have a point there. Still wouldn't be sequenceable, and it would take a lot of chemistry to discover that the problem was non-standard bases. >>If there were some kind of non-standard nucleic acid, nobody would >>discover that by accident. The first clue would be that all your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How do they find any protiens? Most commonly by making antibodies for known proteins, or some other test that detects a particular protein. Finding a protein you aren't looking for in fossil material would be difficult. > They often find weird proteins due to damage > or other factors. Figuring out it isn't something produced by accident would > be the tough part. Who often finds weird proteins? Where? >>>The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >>>more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > studied. You are free to express any opinion you wish about it but they are > getting results slowly. I don't think these people are listening. Who are "these people". How does a neanderthal genome project have anything to do with the question being asked here? >>>>>Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing >>>>>religious wackos all welcome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>>The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Who often finds weird proteins? Where? People in the life sciences. I was watching a special on current research on sea life and one research expedition came up with over 30,000 new proteins that had something or other to do with some form of photosynthesis or at least that was the claim. The really little stuff has seriously not been studied. >>>>The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >>>>more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Who are "these people". How does a neanderthal genome project have > anything to do with the question being asked here? Never mind. It's late, 11:18, and I want to go to sleep. >>>>>>Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing >>>>>>religious wackos all welcome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> >>>>The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > least that was the claim. The really little stuff has seriously not been > studied. I find this very hard to believe. How would you assay for "30,000 new proteins"? You understand we only have rough estimates of the number of proteins found in human beings, right? (Oddly, the current estimate is around 30,000.) And we've been working on that species intensively for over a hundred years. It's just not possible for one "research expedition" to do that. >>>>>The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >>>>>more [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>>> >>>>>The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>>>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>>>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > over a hundred years. It's just not possible for one "research > expedition" to do that. This is one of the leaders in the human genome project moved on to other things. What they can do now vastly exceeds what they could do then. If you want to argue with him be my guest but he's out of my league. >>>>>>The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >>>>>>more [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. >>>>>>>>>Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >>>>>>>>>need some help. [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > things. What they can do now vastly exceeds what they could do then. If you > want to argue with him be my guest but he's out of my league. I doubt I'm arguing with him. I think you have entirely garbled whatever he said. If you're talking about Craig Venters, I understand he's now into environmental sequencing. But what that looks for is unknown species, not proteins. Is it possible we're talking about 30,000 new species? That would be vaguely possible. >>>>>>>The DNA structure might be a loop like bacteria and yet for something >>>>>>>more [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The idea of "compatible" with not terrestrial suggests that. > Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I > need some help. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not even arguably terrestrial, yet compatible with humans. (No, it's > not Jesus.) If you mean as in they have kids forget it. You pretty much have to have almost exactly the same everything for this to work. If you mean as a parasite or simply live in the same space no problem. > Of course nobody knows any of this yet. You have the specimen. You > have the equipment and the lab. What, as a paleobiologist, might be > the lab observation that made you say "Holy sh.t"? The proteins don't match. That is possible. Okay maybe just having a DNA like structure that can last that long and not be junk under any likely conditions or even very unlikely conditions. > Hoots, ridicule, suggestions, threats of hellfire from passing > religious wackos all welcome. > > Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about > quantum mechanics. How arrogant! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591296471/qid=1069538287/sr=1-4/r ef=sr_1_4/002-4365255-7097608?v=glance&s=books >> Greetings. I'm a lawyer at work on a most unlawyerly novel, and I >> need some help. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >> quantum mechanics. > How arrogant! Ummm...huh? Who? Why? > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591296471/qid=1069538287/sr=1-4/r ef=sr_1_4/002-4365255-7097608?v=glance&s=books > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >>>quantum mechanics. We are... Who gets the body, the family or the lawyer, and we listen to this crap. The book I pointed at laughs at all of us. >> How arrogant! > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>>>Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >>>>quantum mechanics. > We are... Who gets the body, the family or the lawyer, and we listen to this > crap. The book I pointed at laughs at all of us. 1. Still "huh?" for me, I'm afraid. Were you trying to say something that's actually relevant to the thread, or were you hijacking? 2. Please stop top-posting if you're going to post at all. >>>How arrogant! >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>>>>Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >>>>>quantum mechanics. >> We are... Who gets the body, the family or the lawyer, and we listen to >> this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 2. Please stop top-posting if you're going to post at all. More like he wants to dump on us something we don't want to know because it's being dumped on us any time we try to listen/watch the news. The story isn't even real news. It should surprise no one in the broad details. It is nothing more than the expected outcome of a wasted life engaging in non stop pleasure seeking. Sad but nothing we can do anything about and very much off topic. >>>>How arrogant! >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>>>>Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >>>>>>quantum mechanics. >>>We are... Who gets the body, the family or the lawyer, and we listen to >>>this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > engaging in non stop pleasure seeking. Sad but nothing we can do anything > about and very much off topic. OK, it finally dawns on me that we're somehow talking about Anna Nicole Smith. How did that happen, and why? >>>>>How arrogant! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>>>>>Bear in mind I know about as much about biology as my cat knows about >>>>>>>quantum mechanics. >>>>We are... Who gets the body, the family or the lawyer, and we listen to >>>>this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > OK, it finally dawns on me that we're somehow talking about Anna Nicole > Smith. How did that happen, and why? How would I know? I didn't start the thread. >>>>>>How arrogant! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>>>>>>about >>>>>>>>quantum mechanics. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.