[geocentrism] dino a mammal kangaroo???
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:45:16 +1000
from, http://discovermagazine.com/1995/may/dinosaurmine510
look at,
http://www.xammon.com/Community/World_News_Archives/~S/Strange_Stuff/(2005-03-25)-Scientists_Recover_T_Rex_Soft_Tissue.html
and
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009738.php
To get as close as possible to what the ancient gene would have looked like,
Woodward derived a consensus sequence--a sequence consisting of the 112 bases
that all nine fragments shared, and at each of the other positions, of whatever
base was most common among the nine. Then he and his colleagues compared that
sequence with the cytochrome b sequences from living animals. While the ancient
DNA was unlike that of anything alive, it turned out to be more similar to the
DNA of mammals--in particular, whales- -than it was to birds, reptiles, or
anything else. That result is surprising indeed: dinosaurs were reptiles, after
all, and most paleontologists think they were the ancestors of birds.
And in fact, many paleontologists are skeptical that Woodward has isolated
dinosaur DNA at all. Some flat out don't believe that it's possible to recover
80-million-year-old DNA. Others, like Rob DeSalle of the American Museum of
Natural History, who studies DNA from insects preserved in amber, grant that
Woodward's DNA might be that old but doubt it's from a dinosaur. I am willing
to believe they have gotten ancient DNA out of bone because the way they've
described their experiment seems adequate for obtaining DNA, says DeSalle. But
they have simply not shown that they have dinosaur DNA. There is no way. I
don't think there is enough information in the small sequence they have to do
this kind of analysis. If they got a lot more sequence and showed that the DNA
came out as either the sister group to reptiles or the sister group to birds,
then that would convince me.
Says Woodward: Some people have said that if this sequence is not more closely
related to birds, then it isn't a dinosaur sequence. Well, I don't think that
is a good reason to throw out the sequence. I don't believe that all dinosaurs
necessarily had to be related to birds. The dinosaurs were on the Earth for 200
million years, and some certainly had enough time to diversify as far away from
birds as they moved from reptiles and mammals.
Other related posts:
