[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?



> Well, I'm not wrong because I didn't
> write that THE sequence could be reverse engineered, I wrote
> that "sequences can be reverse engineered", which is plural,
> and is in keeping with what you've written. 

Your "amino acid sequences" was also plural. It could still be interpreted that 
your statement implied each amino acid sequence could be used to derive a 
unique DNA sequence.

This is sort an example of trying to make sense of something that doesn't 
really make sense if interpreted literally.
If someone said to me "I don't have no water", I wouldn't take the double 
negative an interpret it to mean they have water.

When you speak of "reverse engineering" sequences, I assumed you meant 
something other than *randomly guessing* which of the 1-6 possible codons 
encoded a particular amino acid.

If you simply randomly guess which of the possible codons to use, you haven't 
you produced anything useful for any comparison. I assumed you wouldn't suggest 
doing something utterly pointless, so I assumed you were instead mistaken that 
amino acid sequences are produced by unique DNA sequences.


You can make a sequence that *could* have produced it. However, I think it is a 
stretch to call it "reverse engineering", as you don't arrive at the original 
DNA sequence. 
You haven't reversed the process from the original DNA to the observed amino 
acid sequence. 


I wanted to make sure that people didn't read your statement, and interpret it 
to mean that one can derive the DNA sequence that produced the protein from the 
amino acid sequence. (Although I assume most on this list are well enough 
educated to know that)

Being formally educated in Molecular Biology, and not any aspect of 
Paleontology, I took the opportunity to address an issue I could actually speak 
with certainty about (as my other messages are often clearly labelled 
speculation, or questions)