Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Researchers Decode T Rex Genetic Material

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Useful Info

unread,
Apr 12, 2007, 5:33:52 PM4/12/07
to
Full story via http://Muvy.org

Researchers Decode T Rex Genetic Material
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON - Researchers have decoded genetic material from a 68
million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, an unprecedented step once thought
impossible.

"The door just opens up to a whole avenue of research that involves
anything extinct," said Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at
the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

And, the new finding adds weight to the idea that today's birds are
descendants of dinosaurs.

..........

Useful Info

unread,
Apr 12, 2007, 5:33:29 PM4/12/07
to

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 12, 2007, 5:41:41 PM4/12/07
to
On 12 Apr 2007 14:33:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Useful Info"
<usefu...@yahoo.com> in
<1176413609.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Deceptive phrasing. They decoded protein, not DNA. Proteins are
suggestive of DNA, but there is not the one-to-one mapping.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

johac

unread,
Apr 13, 2007, 1:59:44 AM4/13/07
to
In article <oq9t13l27r2qtas8l...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 12 Apr 2007 14:33:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Useful Info"
> <usefu...@yahoo.com> in
> <1176413609.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Full story via http://Muvy.org
> >
> >Researchers Decode T Rex Genetic Material
> >By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
> >
> >WASHINGTON - Researchers have decoded genetic material from a 68
> >million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex, an unprecedented step once thought
> >impossible.
> >
> >"The door just opens up to a whole avenue of research that involves
> >anything extinct," said Matthew T. Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at
> >the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
> >
> >And, the new finding adds weight to the idea that today's birds are
> >descendants of dinosaurs.
>
> Deceptive phrasing. They decoded protein, not DNA. Proteins are
> suggestive of DNA, but there is not the one-to-one mapping.

I wish the people who write these releases would learn some science.
--
John #1782

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.

Al Klein

unread,
Apr 13, 2007, 8:24:33 PM4/13/07
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:59:44 -0700, johac
<jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I wish the people who write these releases would learn some science.

Maybe we should stick to the stories written by people who understand
the science.

johac

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 1:37:54 AM4/14/07
to
In article <0p70235ir1emt8q5j...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

That's what I try to do, but for purposes of posting here, most of the
peer reviewed journals require subscriptions so I have to make do with
press releases. Some, such as the pop science sites like Science Daily
are OK, but those from the science sections of the news services are
spotty at best. AP and Reuters are especially bad.

Al Klein

unread,
Apr 14, 2007, 7:41:27 PM4/14/07
to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:54 -0700, johac
<jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>In article <0p70235ir1emt8q5j...@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:59:44 -0700, johac
>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I wish the people who write these releases would learn some science.
>>
>> Maybe we should stick to the stories written by people who understand
>> the science.
>
>That's what I try to do, but for purposes of posting here, most of the
>peer reviewed journals require subscriptions so I have to make do with
>press releases. Some, such as the pop science sites like Science Daily
>are OK, but those from the science sections of the news services are
>spotty at best. AP and Reuters are especially bad.

<http://www.sciam.com/> is better than most of the news services too.

johac

unread,
Apr 15, 2007, 1:42:21 AM4/15/07
to
In article <akp223lpduf2g3l0v...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:37:54 -0700, johac
> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <0p70235ir1emt8q5j...@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:59:44 -0700, johac
> >> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I wish the people who write these releases would learn some science.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should stick to the stories written by people who understand
> >> the science.
> >
> >That's what I try to do, but for purposes of posting here, most of the
> >peer reviewed journals require subscriptions so I have to make do with
> >press releases. Some, such as the pop science sites like Science Daily
> >are OK, but those from the science sections of the news services are
> >spotty at best. AP and Reuters are especially bad.
>
> <http://www.sciam.com/> is better than most of the news services too.

Yes. They are good too. I also look for reports in Nature magazine:

http://www.nature.com/news/index.html

New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns

Those two also have many articles which you need a subscription to
access.

And my favorite:

http://www.eurekalert.org/

I like that one because you can browse by topic and is more
comprehensive than the others.

The point to remember that many of these are just press releases and do
not contain much in the way of data.

0 new messages