In article <7brvsb$sm1$2 at whisper.globalserve.net>, on 6 Mar 1999 19:32:27 GMT,
yuku at globalserve.net said...
> Doug Weller <dweller at ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <MPG.114a5a69ee605a6398a761 at news.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <7bp7eu$hc$2 at whisper.globalserve.net>, on 5 Mar 1999 18:23:26 GMT,
> > yuku at globalserve.net said...
>> > > You're too clued out, Doug, sorry... Obviously the scientists who were
> > > doing these tests, before they were stopped by the US govt, didn't think
> > > they were just wasting their time?
> > >
> >
> > How about responding to what's written once in a while, Yuri, instead of going
> > off on a new tangent. I was commenting on your earlier inability to do this,
> > so you respond by doing it again!
>> You're too clued out, Doug, sorry... There are other examples of
> comparable ancient DNA having been extracted successfully. Please get
> yourself a clue.
>
I don't disagree with that, I'm just trying to get you to make a direct
response to people's comments rather than reply off tangent. It's much more
useful to say 'No, you can get good results out of older bones, look at Smith,
Jones and Henriquez, look at Willington, etc.' Eg the identification in 1997
of mitochondrial DNA in the type specimen of Neanderthals.
As usual, you've cut so much out of my article it's hard to see what I was
responding to.
And I see you've crossposted to bionet.general. Ah well, don't guess they'll
care. But I should add the post that started this particular round:
Superdave the Wonderchemist (thweatt at prairie.NoDak.edu) wrote on 3 Mar 1999
18:45:42 GMT:
>> : > : The problem with DNA testing on such old specimens is that DNA decomposes
> : > : over time. In fact, DNA in your cells is constantly getting damaged and
> : > : decomposing. There are enzymes in your cells that constantly travel up
> : > : and down strands of DNA looking for damage. If the damage is repairable,
> : > : other enzymes come along and fix it. If not, the cell commits suicide.
> : > : In rare cases the cell becomes a cancer cell. Most cancer cells ae
> : > : destroyed by your immune system before they cause any problems, though.
> : > : Without these inspectors and mechanics running around repairing DNA, it
> : > : eventually fragments and decomposes. Ten thousand year-dead mammoths,
> : > : even frozen in permafrost, have little left of their DNA longer than ten
> : > : thousand base pairs. A ten thousand year-old human skull which was not
> : > : frozen, should not yield anything very useful in any DNA test.
To which you, with your inimitable style of either not being able to
understand what others have said or deliberately twisting what they've said,
replied:
> : > So are you saying that since the tests will be difficult to do, therefore
> : > we shouldn't even try?
(& I pointed out that the issue raised by superdave wasn't if they would be
difficult, but if they would be useful).
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeology-moderated at medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
