|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
12-01-2004, 12:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
reconstucting our first mammal ancestor
using genemapping for 19 modern mammals scientists have come up with a map of what the genenome of the first mammal may have looked like. They estimate that this ancestor lived more than 70 million years ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0411.../041129-5.html kind of neat that they were able to 'turn back the clock' so to speak. I'll be intrested to see what they do with this in the future, and if they can push the clock back further. wa:do 
|
|
#2
12-01-2004, 01:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is it just me, or did the author of that article suggest that a chicken is a mammel?
Quote:
Anyway... this is fascinating stuff.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -forever.-GEORGE ORWELL
|
|
#3
12-01-2004, 11:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It will be neet to compare the chicken and the mammals to see just how different we are, and how alike. I also wonder how close the chimp will be to us, what parts of the genome seperate us from them.
wa:do
|
|
#4
12-02-2004, 05:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Haussler's exercise seems to have been more a test of his regression algorithm than an actual investigation of archaic morphology. We have actual fossils of 70 million year old mammals.
|
|
#5
12-02-2004, 11:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
we have fossils of mamals from 200 million years ago as well. However you cant get DNA from a fossil so old. This will mostly help determine which mammals branched off when, and in what order. I find this 70 million year date interesting because we have fossil evidence of mammals much older. Like I said I wonder if they will be able to push the date back with more reserch. Perhaps they should work on the genome of more marsupials and the Monotremes.
wa:do
|
|
#6
12-05-2004, 04:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting that they did all of this using only ten genes ????
Considering that they use nine genes to do a genetic test for a biological father ... and then they are only 99.99% sure if the test proves positive { 100% if negitive } . Me thinks that someone is playing with their new computer program , and that is about it .  Kinda cool though .
|
|
#7
12-05-2004, 04:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't follow your point, kreeden. Could you restate it, por favor?
|
|
#8
12-05-2004, 12:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok , I don't know much about genetics .
 But they said that they focused on ten genes . A genetic test for parenthood uses nine genes , and still isn't 100% . It just seems to me that it would be easier to trace a father back one generation that to trace an ancestor back a thousand or so ??? But as I said , I really wouldn't know . This is all kinda interesting , but personally I would like a little more proof before I get too excited . That is all that I'm saying .
|
|
#9
12-05-2004, 01:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
They wanted to keep the test run simple. They also only serched for one particular type of mutation that occures in the genes. This was just to prove the method sound so that others could do more reserch.
The methods used to find a father and a ten thousand year old ancestor are different. The father leaves half his DNA with the child. Going back further you count the mutations on the genes, these mutation have been shown to happin in a fairly regular pace. wa:do
|
|
#10
12-05-2004, 01:35 PM
|
||||
|
