So far, the researchers are sure that 3.3 billion bases out of the 4 billion bases extracted from the hairs of two mammoths belong to them and not to bacteria or fungi that contaminated the samples. They are waiting for the completion of sequencing the elephant genome to try to find which of the remaining genes also belong to mammoths
Scientists at Penn State University lead a team that was the first to report the first floor of an extinct animal above the surface of the earth. This is what Webb Miller, a professor of biology and computer science and one of the two lead scientists in the project, claims.
The scientists sequenced the genome of a woolly mammoth, an extinct species of elephant that adapted to life in the cold environments of the northern hemisphere. They sequenced 5 billion DNA bases using the latest DNA sequencing instruments and new approaches to efficiently read ancient DNA.
"Previous studies of extinct animals have only produced small amounts of data," says Stephen Schuster, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State and the other co-lead of the project. "Our database is 100 times larger than any previously published database of an extinct animal, demonstrating how the ancient gene sequencing project can be brought to the same level as modern genome projects."
The researchers suspect that the complete genome of the mammoth has over 4 billion DNA bases, about the size of the genome of the African elephants today. Although their sequence includes over 4 billion bases, only 3.3 billion of them, slightly larger than the size of the human genome, may belong to the mammoth genome. Some of the remaining bases may belong to the mammoth but some may belong to other animals such as bacteria and fungi from the environment that contaminated the DNA sample. The team used a draft version of the African elephant genome sequence, currently being completed by researchers at MIT and Harvard, to identify the sequences belonging to the mammoth from the suspected contaminated sequences.
The team extracted DNA from the nucleus of the hair cells of two mammoths, one buried in the Siberian snow 20 thousand years ago and the other, at least 60 thousand years old. It is easier to remove infectious DNA from hair than, for example, from bones. In addition, the hair root maintains its core like plastic, protecting it from erosion and exposure to pollutants. The researchers announced that they will complete the sequencing of the entire mammoth genome, when the project receives additional funding.
By the way, this is not the first attempt to extract the DNA of a mammoth. preceded him Experience of Japanese researchers who wanted to bring about the birth of a living mammoth, but as mentioned did not succeed in doing so.
For information on the Penn State University website
On the same topic on the science website:
30 תגובות
to turn upside down:
Thanks for the explanation.
Although I directed my question to Hugin, your answer is probably better than any answer she could give
Hogen's poison glands were overflowing so she decided to unleash them on Michael
Hugin:
what was that?
Michael
The talent you are gifted with to the contrary in anything and everything that is gifted with even a sliver/spark of the truth and to distort its main points is astonishing, if not below it.
It is obvious that the teacher who will be able to teach you has not yet been born...unless a book is published that will be called: "Michael's Theory of Absolute Lies".
Isaac:
You miss the point.
What you understood from our words is not what we said and in fact very far from it.
Science is not truth because science is not a claim and only claims can be attributed truth or false values.
Science is a doctrine of thinking according to which, in order to find out the truth, experiments must be used - to get the data, and logic to draw conclusions from the data.
The logic that the scientist is supposed to use is the mathematical logic.
It can be said that behind this doctrine of thinking is hidden one and only claim (for which a truth value can indeed be attributed) and that is the claim that through this doctrine, and only through it, one can get closer to the truth and also know that one is doing so.
As part of the scientific doctrine, all kinds of theories have been developed that try to explain the observed phenomena.
Observing the observed results is the experiment and the theories are the laws of nature that the scientists guessed as the best explanation for these phenomena.
The theory continues to be developed through logic and mathematics in order to derive from it predictions about what will happen if we do this and that - these predictions are tested in additional experiments and thus the theory can be confirmed - if the experiment is successful or disproved if the experiment fails.
Such a theory is not seen as "truth" but, as mentioned, as the best description of reality that we have been able to develop so far.
Science is, therefore, the bringing from the particular to the general of the well-known sentence "Who is wise? He who learns from the experience of others".
It's no wonder, because we - humans - actually don't have any other way of knowing things. Everything we know is the fruit of experience and the fruit of the logical conclusions we draw from experience.
The Torah of Moses - like the Torah of Relativity - is Torah.
It includes a collection of prophecies about the world.
The problem is that these predictions are not correct (see the Rabbit and Hare entry).
Therefore the Torah is a disproved theory.
The requirement to "believe" is a requirement that contradicts the spirit of science because it basically tells a person that he is not allowed to try and check to what extent his belief corresponds to reality.
In the Torah there can be true claims and false claims.
Those who act in the spirit of science are able to distinguish between them.
Those who act in the spirit of religion should accept them all as truth.
Ok, so not the Hottentots, but what about all the Pacific Ocean Polynesians?
Anyway I guess you get my point.
Father, you wrote
"
For me, they are all 'religious', and for the purpose of this specific matter, I see no difference between Jews and Hottentots. All of them are against common sense and logic, and they are the majority in the media presence, on whatever scale you take it.
"
And I want to protest that "Hottentots" is not a religious group, it is the European name that is considered a derogatory name today for the African population that lived in the south of Africa, but is not related to the widespread ethnic group Bantu, this population was destroyed with the European settlement in South Africa and its remains mixed with the Bantu. This is an ethnic group that is completely separate from the Bantu, a population that subsisted on hunting and herding cattle, in contrast to the Bantu farmers. To claim that they are "against logic" is really a meaningless statement.
'to make wind':
I found that since you base your understanding on science, and science bases many of its wisdoms on the matter of a theory that is subject to confirmation and refutation, that is, most of it is made within the framework of the idea and logic, and both the idea and the logic from them are the product of the act of the spirit, and in this we find that you and my little brother make a spirit and even A storm and trying to make it grow and move away from the glass of water.
Many congratulations,
Itzhak.
And to my brother,
Say, that's how it is between us...
Would you mind reading my reasoning? Because we will surely find that there is some logic in them and some of the points that exist in both of us...
your cute brother,
Itzhak.
My little brother,
Love the praise... (I'm sure it's all true).
I'm making fun of my friend, but I don't find the reason for my comments to be dependent on who manages the site.
And regarding the apropos and the reality of spirit making:
I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me in my poverty on the way to understanding the concluding sentence.
Itzhak.
Yitzchak, you are cute to record-breaking levels! ! !
Apropos, logic/ science/ truth. You still haven't been able to understand that my father is the owner and manager of the site, Michael is great, but in your eyes, my father HE IS THE MEN...
And speaking of wind, 'making wind' is not such a big bargain.
To my father and Michael,
I found from your responses that in your logic science is truth, well it is appropriate for the scientist to know that science is the sincere pursuit of the absolute truth, but as my colleagues know the absolute truth has not yet been found and is far from being found by a person. And in order for science to meet the criteria of absolute truth, it must be:
which does not depend on time and holds the absolute truth in the absolute sequence.
Let us not be divided into different beliefs and logics, because he is the absolute truth and there is only one such truth.
that it does not decrease and increase, but only increases.
For this is the nature of truth, its very being absolute and complete.
My friends will agree with me that as long as science is based on truths that depend on time, theory and common sense, it is like faith in everything, except that it is based on matter and not on spirit.
And what is religion? Because if the science that really deals with the spirit and not with that of matter, but in all matters of matter is also known to many of my colleagues, it is the space, that is, the matter of the spirit.
To the limits of my logic, the significant debate between the theory of creation and the one in your mouth is:
Is it the spirit that works in the matter, or is it the matter that does its work in the spirit.
And until we can bring the absolute truth about the matter (that is, a practical and independent proof), we all stand embarrassed in front of the tremendous power that exists around us at all times.
Best regards,
Itzhak.
Isaac:
I am amazed by the link you make between religion and the truth, the meaning, and the search for it.
All these have nothing to do with religion and nothing.
The religious claims are ignorant claims that someone chose to claim without any substantiation or reasoning.
The only way to discover the truth is through experiment and logic.
All other "truths" that are "revealed" in different ways are nothing but hallucinations and results of brainwashing.
As some of the leaders of Judaism said that "even if the state enacts a law requiring Sabbath observance, this law will be invalid because it was legislated by man and not by God" (forgive me for choosing the words myself because I only remembered the meaning), so I say that even if no Which of the religious statements are true, should not be treated as such until it is scientifically tested.
All human beings search for meaning, but the longing for meaning should not overwhelm a person to such an extent that he decides that he has "found" it even if he has not.
Every claim about the meaning should also be true and as long as there are no tools in religion to test the truth and even more so - as long as it does not allow it to be criticized and does not accept the scientific refutation of its claims as evidence of the falsity of the claims, the search for meaning in religion is lacking.... meaning.
Good night.
Small point:
I only read the article in Hidan after reading a similar article on the YNET website, where I found the evolution issue and the whole order of things from the comments.
About the filters:
My friend Abi, indeed you build your truth in a healthy way by combining expert consultation and logic, but me, what about me if I am a nice person who finds himself perusing and looking for every bit of understanding and meaning whether in the pages of the commandments, whether in the science or in general. After all, it is found that my reasonings base themselves from your truth and the truth of the other, surely that way I will build my reasoning as more correct and complete.
A matter of logic:
Reasoning in a person is built and exists on the basis of his studies and what he experiences, it is found that the person and all his reasonings are not the absolute truth, but his vision based on his limited understandings. And so it is common to both of us on the basis of logic and grasping the wisdom of science, because truth will be absolute when it appears in all its glory without any contradiction or obfuscation.
Itzhak.
PS The connection is very loose.
Last comment for today, I have a busy day tomorrow.
It is not as far as it seems to you. Although you only see "your" religion, it also receives extra exposure on television, and even in the Channel 2 franchise tender they required religious programs and not science programs, despite my and Prof. Elia Leibovitch's face.
Second, when did you last see channel 2 and 10 after eight in the morning. It seems that everything goes - card readers, coffee, palm readers, energy experts (not cooking gas...), astrologers, numerologists, members of various sects (we all remember Odette and her Scientologists), and also Kabbalists. And when did you see the local channel lately that became the Zamir Cohen and Rabbi Lightman channel?
For me, they are all 'religious', and for the purpose of this specific matter, I see no difference between Jews and Hottentots. All of them are against common sense and logic, and they are the majority in the media presence, on whatever scale you take it.
post Scriptum. I don't mind investigating. If anyone in any communications department wants a doctorate who will check the public's access to scientific knowledge versus their access to knowledge that denies science, I am available....
All the media, with the exception of the scientists, let everyone decide and the result - astrology, New Age and Judaism sections abound. There is one nature reserve where those who are tired of the nonsense can find the one and only truth - the scientific truth. Why spoil her?
Good night.
Avi,
Finding the truth:
The statement regarding finding the truth from sites like these is somewhat exaggerated, since truth exists in everything, and in order to find it, it is certain that you have to deal with and examine everything.
Reciprocity as a compromise:
Of course reciprocity is a compromise, but that is not what we are dealing with. We are engaged in finding the truth, and the whole truth is absolute, since in its absolute there is no room for compromise.
The government:
The rule is certainly not mine, because I in my smallness seek the truth as I explained.
recoil issue:
If it is found that the secularists do their truth in reluctance, it must have been that every time I turn on the television, turn on the radio or any major news site, content that is all religious preaching and all the understanding of the Creator will appear in front of me. At every step I would find it a matter of modesty and observance of all the mitzvot, and I know my friend that this is not the reality and surely that is far from the case.
I don't see secularism as a reluctance to rule and religious thought, there may be a certain aversion among certain people, but it is certain that people's affection for religion has grown somewhat. And I tell you between us, the tendency of human beings to search for meaning is a phenomenon that is actually built into the genetic sequence of each and every one of us.
Let's let everyone decide what the absolute is and let's not leave a point of understanding that reason seems to us and our defense, is the last word...
Itzhak.
Thanks for your response
What we both have in common is the understanding of the truth and its surrender to all that exists. But your understanding of the truth passes through filters that remove logic on the way, while mine passes through peer review and through logic. It's a difference between heaven and earth.
I don't believe in this nonsense of postmodernism.
The arguments raised in the article you referred to regarding the dating are well-worn arguments that have been refuted long ago, and which are simply repeated because you have no other arguments.
Avi,
The matter of connection:
There is a connection to the article in the link and most of it is about the dating of the years which is surely the subject of a difficult debate on the issue of the universe.
Reciprocity matter:
See response 9.
Affiliation matter:
Where exactly did you place me when you said "you". I really seek to understand at any given moment what truth and meaning are, and I do not see any understanding in finding the truth, neither due to a matter of control nor superiority. If it is found and I think it is necessary to think quantitatively, surely it is from me (what to do), belongs to the human family, and what's more, your many and special actions are so that the people will understand the understandings in your hand, surely that way they can come to your thinking.
We human beings, the more caring and the deeper we try to give our environment the understanding according to the purpose we believe in. And it is certainly something that we both have in common: the understanding of the truth and its delivery to all that exists.
Best regards,
Itzhak.
There is no way, even by accident, to arrive at the truth from sites of converts. Reciprocity is also a compromise.
Reciprocity is meant to at least show you that your rule, based on average secular people's aversion to conflict (which they are), cannot last forever.
to my father,
Reciprocity is not a characteristic of absolute truth, but rather an attitude that takes respect and revenge into account.
Science in its purpose, is a search for the absolute existing and finding the tangible truth. If we wish to grasp and cling to truth, we must be faithful to it, whether reciprocated or not.
Thanks for the reference,
Itzhak.
Isaac. Not Michael the remover, I am the site owner and I removed it. Michael explained my considerations to you.
First of all, the specific article was not related in any way to the article it was linked from. Second, reciprocity is a sacred matter for me. With you, first of all, you have to prove control and superiority, therefore you believe that everyone should think like you, and that your opinion (full of ignorance) is better.
To Michael,
I didn't bring the link to give publicity, or to add a score in the search engines to the website, but really so that people can read and think.
It is possible that the website does not run and publishes any comment that does not agree with the idea it holds, but it is you and the website under your control that is obliged to allow this type of link. Because the science site, in my poor judgment, tries to be free and accepting.
I honestly think that removing the link to the article is a form of pettiness or alternatively (and I say this carefully) cowardice.
thank you for your response,
Itzhak.
Yitzhak, after several incidents I had recently, I decided that from now on in every area of life I will go for reciprocity.
Isaac:
Why are you complaining about this site?
You have been offered a solution! Make sure that the proposed link is inserted on the website and then they will agree to insert your link as well.
What else?
You know that the truth is not sought on the chatbot site, but the opposite - they do everything possible to hide it - and therefore you do not try to convince them at all.
I didn't understand what the connection is between the removal of the link and the link to the article in question? Is there some principle section of exchanging links or something?
I just brought a link to an interesting article that shows another side and another understanding of existence and its essence...
In my opinion you just need to loosen up a bit.
Understand, even if people keep the commandments of the Torah and believe in the Creator, it will not bring you to hell.
After all, your meaning is an understanding of existence from the search for the truth and not from the fear of what will happen to me after I die...
So people will read the article and it may be that some of it will be nonsense and others holy. What will happen? They will believe that there is a creator for the world. So?
Either way, your work is not impaired, certainly not according to your method. After all, you are not dealing with the essence and meaning, but with understanding the how.
Thanks again to the science team! And also I would be happy if they return the link, and this is because everything they did is a real matter.
Thanks!
If you are not afraid of the truth then read the following article:
recommendation:
Try to come with an open mind, neither secular nor religious.
You decide!
And thanks to the scientist team who confirmed the response!
(((A link to the Hidravot site has been removed here, which will only be returned if the Hidravot site has a link to the next article on the Hidav site https://www.hayadan.org.il/zamir-cohens-changeover-blofs-140908/
And the doctor will give you 500mg ratomycin ointment. Twice a day and it goes away.
They will try to clone the mammoths and apparently will not succeed. But then one day someone will get a fungal infection and when they look at it under a microscope, they will see a herd of woolly mammoths grazing on their skin.