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

Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?



Using statistics is still "guessing"
Your odds of guessing correctly may improve, but it is still not the original 
DNA sequence.

Also, I think the margin of error would be extremely high, what do you call 
good? less than 1 out of 10 codons being incorrect?

You cant take an old amino acid sequence, and know the DNA sequence that 
produced it.
It doesn't matter what living sequences you compare it to.

--- On Fri, 9/16/11, Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Friday, September 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:13 PM,
> Erik Boehm <erikboehm07@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> There is no need of random guessing. Comparative protein
> alingment
> and, say, bayesian inference could help one in coming up
> with a bona
> fide ADN sequence with a good margin of error.
> 
> []s,
> 
> Roberto Takata
>