T-Rex DNA

[Enmos]

They can't put the fragments back together, they aren't useful.

Yes, but it could be that they find a larger piece someday from which they can derive some information. It's not totally useless, right ?
Do you know whether or not research has been done on these type of fossils ?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's fragmentary and not useful for sequencing, even if you could find some.

It's perfectly possible to sequence fragmented DNA. The degree of fragmentation/degradation is the issue.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

if we were to go back say, pre 1000 BC we could well find life that we have no previous record for. This would mean that even if its contaminate it would possably show the nessary markers

Potentially, maybe. Without being any sort of expert in this area, I still think it would be possible to distinguish dinosaur DNA from many other unknown species that were contemporary to the dinosaurs. For example, I think we could distinguish dino DNA from mammalian, insect and fish DNA of unknown extinct species because of the strong molecular phylogenetic relationships and lineages we have for these evolutionary branches.


Edit: Oh, I just stumbled upon this by complete conicidence!

Protein shows chicken’s dino heritage - April 25, 2008

 

[FelixC]

It’s hard to comment without any specific links or info. Here is an interesting Q&A in which dissolving fossil bones is mentioned a few times.

]

HR: not to say too much on just appearances, but she looks like a nutjob, she has that Tom Cruise look, d'ah

 

[FelixC]

ok to ask a really stupid question but HOW?
We only know that human DNA is human because we have other human DNA to compare it too so its compleatly concivable that we could mestake dino DNA for the contaminate DNA we dont have a record for. If im wrong and there is some other way to verify it please correct me but the main way we verify things is either by DNA or by carbon dating as far as i know and you cant carbon date DNA

A: can I ask another stupid question, why is anyone entertaining & seriously discussing 65 million year old DNA? theres no way it could survive that long, it has to be contaminated, the implications are staggering
1. contaminated
2. hoax
3. miracle
4. young earth (Creationism)

use logic, postulate, hypothesize, theorize, whatever, lets get braincells firing

we have to answer these questions
under what ideal conditions could DNA survive for 65 million years intact,
then, was this sample found under these conditions,
was there a break in the chain of evidence (ok, too much CSI here, but could someone have contaminated the sample on purpose (Dr. Strange herself or someone trying to make her the fool)
could variant readings be had from the same sample (as a fossil under one test (real results) & as DNA with ATCG on an other (an error))?


nobody can't be seriously believing anything about this, can they?

 

[FelixC]

whoa, I killed the discussion that fast?

I half expected a few people to explain, "that yes, DNA lasts 65 million years, frozen near absolute zero, happens all the time, see here, this sample I retreived last year with perfect veloraptor DNA, cloned it myself, it hisses at me when I feed it"

I think that woman looks odd, some one pulled a joke on her, or maybe she is the joke