Yes, some are really RATS.
1 posted on
08/14/2003 10:17:26 AM PDT by
AdmSmith
To: PatrickHenry
Of Mice and Men...
2 posted on
08/14/2003 10:18:17 AM PDT by
AdmSmith
To: AdmSmith
DNA is a language written in 4 letters. That means that for every double mutation (where a gene mutates twice), there should be roughly a 1 in 4 chance of the mutation being reversed. Do they take this into account?
To: AdmSmith
For example, the work shows that humans are more closely related to rodents than to dogs or cats. Shows, but not for the first time. Our relationship to the Rodentia has been pretty clear from the dawn of gene sequencing. This looks interesting, but what we really need is a little information about a lot of species, rather than a lot of information about a few. Once you've gotten phylogenetic trees using 10 or 20 genes, I'm not sure adding another 30,000 improves things much.
To: AdmSmith
"The scientists were most surprised with the comparison of Bill Clinton's DNA with that of a horny toad. While not a completely exact match, the scientists expressed optimism that such a match might be obtained using the DNA of his wife, Hillary."
To: AdmSmith
Kind of gives a person a warm fuzzy feeling to think he's closer to rats than pigs.
9 posted on
08/14/2003 11:50:02 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson