Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FastCoyote
I think the bone was very soft due to chemical action, thus likely no DNA.

Hi, Coyote!

Yeah, I have run into problems with soft bone. I tried three samples on one skeleton and got nothing. But one just about 500 years older had a nice tooth, and the lab got mtDNA on the first try.

The Hobbits are more than twice as old as the ones I had, which makes it much more difficult, but there are a few labs now that are having pretty good success with those older samples.

And they sequenced a couple of Neanderthals, so I think its just a matter of time before they are successful with a Hobbit tooth.

9 posted on 04/28/2008 9:47:52 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Coyoteman
...from Wikipedia:

The specimens are not fossilized, but were described in a Nature news article as having "the consistency of wet blotting paper" (once exposed, the bones had to be left to dry before they could be dug up). Researchers hope to find preserved mitochondrial DNA to compare with samples from similarly unfossilised specimens of Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. It is unlikely that useful DNA specimens exist in the available sample, as DNA degrades rapidly in warm tropical environments, sometimes in as little as a few dozen years. Also, contamination from the surrounding environment seems highly possible given the moist environment in which the specimens were found.

11 posted on 04/30/2008 9:32:43 PM PDT by MissCalico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson