Speaking of ARROGANT dishonesty..
Amplifcation of ancient DNA is done using standard PCR techniques, but withthe inclusion of numerous extraction and amplifcation negative controls and the use of a large number of 'amplifcation' cycles. The PCR products are analyzed differently with ancient-DNA
As to the previous point:No How are creationists seen as a contributing to the understanding of these areas of consideration What can we say, are they even trusting labs or what?!?
Research too oftenly was sluffed over or given a gross over simplication? Seeing this is the case, wouldn't it boarder interpretational dishonesty ? For me to engage anyone on subjects as technical as these without first attempting to gain a better understanding (particularly when it touches on a controversial analyses) shows an disasterousness towards [the body of] data ..
Laboratoire de Biologie Molculaire du Gnome Eukaryote writes:
..fossils are always contaminated (the majority of which are unknown) the use of fossil extracts as probes does not allow the testing of their hybridization properties .. In the stability of human-chimpanzee DNA hybrids. DNAs were applied on a nylon membrane and were hybridized with human and chimpanzee DNA ..as probes
*******************************************************
Hasn't Spammers addressed a larger subject:
IMO 'It's not
quite that simple ...we simply don't know enough..'"
™ Version 4.2
