[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
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
It doesn't matter what living sequences you compare it to.
--- On Fri, 9/16/11, Roberto Takata <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Roberto Takata <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Friday, September 16, 2011, 12:10 AM
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:13 PM,
> Erik Boehm <email@example.com>
> > 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
> and, say, bayesian inference could help one in coming up
> with a bona
> fide ADN sequence with a good margin of error.
> Roberto Takata