Million year old mammoth - sequenced!

@metal-brain said
That is a stupid comparison.
You put an exclamation mark in your thread title like it was something to be super exited about. You don't even know they have the right sequences in order. As you already pointed out, that is a near impossible task.

Even the sequence itself is questionable unless some of your previous statements are incorrect.

I think you misinterpreted some of my previous statements. The accuracy of the sequence is very good, comparable to sequencing of living species (i.e. humans). That some parts of the genome might be difficult/impossible to definitively sequence is a general feature of DNA sequencing. It does not diminish these findings.

It received an exclamation point because it is biological information at the molecular level from a million years ago! You don't think that's cool?

@metal-brain said
9 edits? You must be very rattled.

0 edits? You must be very unthoughtful.
I do re-edits to correct mistakes and to keep adding content, moron.

@metal-brain said

You put an exclamation mark in your thread title like it was something to be super exited about.

What do you believe "super exited" means? When you just had Severe diarrhea? "exit" means when you (or something) leaves something so "exited" means when you (or something) already left something.
I assume you meant "super excited"? It is clear you should have made at least one re-edit.
An exclamation mark is normally used to indicate when, just like in this case, something either may or does cause surprise although it has several other common meanings but expressing excitement isn't the most common one so your assumption seems arbitrary and unreasonable.
That's assuming you meant "super excited" and not, as you typed, "super exited"; If you meant the latter then I, and I assume all the rest of us, have no idea what you are talking about.

@wildgrass said
I think you misinterpreted some of my previous statements. The accuracy of the sequence is very good, comparable to sequencing of living species (i.e. humans). That some parts of the genome might be difficult/impossible to definitively sequence is a general feature of DNA sequencing. It does not diminish these findings.

It received an exclamation point because it is biological information at the molecular level from a million years ago! You don't think that's cool?

So you are saying the sequence is right but attaching the parts of it are nearly an impossible task?

@humy said
0 edits? You must be very unthoughtful.
I do re-edits to correct mistakes and to keep adding content, moron.

Why do you feel the need to interject?
You seem to habitually troll into others conversations without the need. Why?

@metal-brain said
So you are saying the sequence is right but attaching the parts of it are nearly an impossible task?

No. I'm saying the vast majority of the genome is easy to sequence with high accuracy. They can sequence cells from patients with cancer and identify a single base pair change that is causing the disease. But SOME of the sequence (I think it's like 4% ) is very difficult to sequence. So we sequence the 96%. The 4% probably does contain some useful information but it is repetitive sequence that does not code for proteins. We know where it is spatially on the chromosome, just not the precise sequence.

I mentioned it as an anecdote but it is largely irrelevant to this conversation.

@wildgrass said
No. I'm saying the vast majority of the genome is easy to sequence with high accuracy. They can sequence cells from patients with cancer and identify a single base pair change that is causing the disease. But SOME of the sequence (I think it's like 4% ) is very difficult to sequence. So we sequence the 96%. The 4% probably does contain some useful information but it is repe ...[text shortened]... recise sequence.

I mentioned it as an anecdote but it is largely irrelevant to this conversation.

You are assuming repetitive sequences are not useful. How do you know that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

@metal-brain said
You are assuming repetitive sequences are not useful. How do you know that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I am not making that assumption.

@wildgrass said
I am not making that assumption.

Then that 4% might be important.

@metal-brain said
Then that 4% might be important.

Sure. It probably is. Can we do some analysis of the 96% first and then consider that?

@wildgrass said
Sure. It probably is. Can we do some analysis of the 96% first and then consider that?

What are they analyzing for? What specific differences from today's elephants are important to know if a complete intact genome is not accomplished? For example, why would it be more important than analyzing the difference between the Asian elephant and the African elephant?

@metal-brain said
What are they analyzing for? What specific differences from today's elephants are important to know if a complete intact genome is not accomplished? For example, why would it be more important than analyzing the difference between the Asian elephant and the African elephant?

Are you seriously asking why it just might be more important for a genome analysis to analyse a 96% proportion of the genome that includes nearly all if not all the dna coding for proteins as opposed to just a 4% proportion of the genome that doesn't and has no obvious function?
Do you really need someone to explain THAT one to you like you are a baby because you just can't figure THAT one out for yourself?

@metal-brain said
Why do you feel the need to interject?

Were you talking to somebody at the exact moment when I posted that?
Do you know what the word 'interject' means?
I tell you what; Try looking it up and then come back to us.

@metal-brain said
What are they analyzing for? What specific differences from today's elephants are important to know if a complete intact genome is not accomplished? For example, why would it be more important than analyzing the difference between the Asian elephant and the African elephant?

I find value in both approaches. In an earlier post, I highlighted three areas where I think this is a very important find. To reiterate, the sequence tells an evolutionary tale about species divergence from a looooong time ago where we previously only had bones as evidence. There were many different species of mammoths at that time adapted to different environments. The sequences of the protein coding genes also tells us a lot about cold adaptation. Is there anything different in the structure of cell membrane proteins, for example, that allowed for this adaptation millions of years ago. How have the protein structures, sequences and functions changed over the course of evolutionary history from ancient mammoths to modern elephants. The molecular data provides a detailed history of our world that would not be possible based on fossil records alone.

@wildgrass said
I find value in both approaches. In an earlier post, I highlighted three areas where I think this is a very important find. To reiterate, the sequence tells an evolutionary tale about species divergence from a looooong time ago where we previously only had bones as evidence. There were many different species of mammoths at that time adapted to different environments. The se ...[text shortened]... a provides a detailed history of our world that would not be possible based on fossil records alone.

Lots of species have adapted to cold environments that are not extinct. there is a horse breed in Siberia that can survive cold temps most other breeds cannot. Mammoths had hair and were big. It isn't a mystery why they were adapted to the cold.

Lots of species have been on the earth for a very long time without much physical change. The sharks and crocks are good examples. I think the amount of change is more important than how long ago it was. Some species can change a lot in a very short period of time relative to a shark.

Don't get me wrong, there is value in it. I just don't think it is as significant as you thought when you created this thread. Let me know when they GM a hairy elephant though. That would be neat.