Article View: sci.archaeology
Article #836Re: Kennewick DNA
From: Doug Weller
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 00:00
42 lines
3297 bytes
3297 bytes
In article <7bp7eu$hc$2@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 5 Mar 1999 18:23:26 GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said... > Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:18:01 -0000: > : In article <7bmi74$6au$2@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 4 Mar 1999 18:08:36 GMT, > : yuku@globalserve.net said... > : > Superdave the Wonderchemist (thweatt@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. > : > > : > So are you saying that since the tests will be difficult to do, therefore > : > we shouldn't even try? > > : Not in the article I'm replying to, perhaps you have a different version that > : magically changes when you reply to it. I don't see anything that suggests it > : would be difficult, a lot that says it would be meaningless. > > 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! Doug -- Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated Submissions to: sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org Doug's Archaeology Page: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MPG.114a5a69ee605a6398a761@news.demon.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<36d04b02.15663466@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk> <19990224125041.00955.00002091@ng-fc1.aol.com> <7bcov9$492$1@newnews.serv.net> <7bd6sn$9sr@enews2.newsguy.com> <7bk00m$o9c$1@node2.nodak.edu> <7bmi74$6au$2@whisper.globalserve.net> <MPG.1148e20a90f64b6898a741@news.demon.co.uk> <7bp7eu$hc$2@whisper.globalserve.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1129f3,79223a0e55b2a814 X-Google-Attributes: gid1129f3,public X-Google-Thread: 1119a6,5091ad77d669fd2e X-Google-Attributes: gid1119a6,public From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) Subject: Re: Kennewick DNA Date: 1999/03/05 Message-ID: <MPG.114a5a69ee605a6398a761@news.demon.co.uk> X-Deja-AN: 451713815 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ramtops.demon.co.uk:158.152.30.117 References: <36d04b02.15663466@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk> <19990224125041.00955.00002091@ng-fc1.aol.com> <7bcov9$492$1@newnews.serv.net> <7bd6sn$9sr@enews2.newsguy.com> <7bk00m$o9c$1@node2.nodak.edu> <7bmi74$6au$2@whisper.globalserve.net> <MPG.1148e20a90f64b6898a741@news.demon.co.uk> <7bp7eu$hc$2@whisper.globalserve.net> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 920671039 nnrp-01:25025 NO-IDENT ramtops.demon.co.uk:158.152.30.117 Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,bionet.general X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net