It's over!

[argentum]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm
It was mtDNA

[cochra]

Actually, that article says that studies of currently living people showed that. The question specified "from human fossil sites" and I am pretty sure that it isn't possible to extract mtDNA from fossils as they have been mineralised.

In addition, where in question 7 do you get that the mutation occurred in the somatic cells? i can't find anything to show that in there.

[argentum]

Actually, that article says that studies of currently living people showed that. The question specified "from human fossil sites" and I am pretty sure that it isn't possible to extract mtDNA from fossils as they have been mineralised.

In addition, where in question 7 do you get that the mutation occurred in the somatic cells? i can't find anything to show that in there.

It said Breast Cancer.

[simpak]

Actually, that article says that studies of currently living people showed that. The question specified "from human fossil sites" and I am pretty sure that it isn't possible to extract mtDNA from fossils as they have been mineralised.

In addition, where in question 7 do you get that the mutation occurred in the somatic cells? i can't find anything to show that in there.

I think they will have to accept both answers if they're going to be that ambiguous.  I assumed that it did not occur in somatic cells, and therefore said green or red.

[shinny]

I think the issue despite whether it's possible or not to date it is whether this actually helps in proving the hypothesis. My knowledge of all this stuff is pretty much non-existent now, but I don't see how dating it can reliably help. Plus, I vaguely recall from a textbook that they've shown that the majority of the mtDNA in present day people can be traced back to I think it was 3 Africans. So yeh, D? (And no, I am not authoritative on evolution at all.)

[shinny]

Actually, that article says that studies of currently living people showed that. The question specified "from human fossil sites" and I am pretty sure that it isn't possible to extract mtDNA from fossils as they have been mineralised.

In addition, where in question 7 do you get that the mutation occurred in the somatic cells? i can't find anything to show that in there.

It said Breast Cancer.

I went through this earlier on, but p53 is a gene which can be inherited which pre-disposes you to breast cancer. Hence, it could have been inherited, or have spontaneously occurred in the mother.

[argentum]

Yea... VCAA always manages to make mistakes...
Imagine how many times they have the exams looked through, if they had one high school student look through it, half the errors and mistakes wouldnt occur.

[fdsfsgdfgdf]

smiley, for the last question it says" solution ll complementary strand from DNA of person with breast cancer, labelled with red fluorescent dye"  and for the last question whether the daugther has a red green or black test, doesnt the colour eg, red or black come from the fluorescent dyre therefore the colour doesnt represent the person being affected but being tested [ having fluorescent dyre attached to DNA]

[cochra]

But that the mother had breast cancer doesn't show whether she had inherited the mutation from her parents or a somatic mutation. Somewhere earlier in the thread someone (may have been me, thinking about it) said something about how the mother was probably homozygous for this mutation, as the microarray only showed one red band, and the green band was pure green, and not green tinged with red, which it would have been if the mother's DNA had bound there too... Wouldn't this mean that the daughter would get the allele, and therefore show up red?

[simpak]

"In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

Not the most reliable source but it seems to like the idea that mtDNA can be extracted from fossils.

[fdsfsgdfgdf]

But that the mother had breast cancer doesn't show whether she had inherited the mutation from her parents or a somatic mutation. Somewhere earlier in the thread someone (may have been me, thinking about it) said something about how the mother was probably homozygous for this mutation, as the microarray only showed one red band, and the green band was pure green, and not green tinged with red, which it would have been if the mother's DNA had bound there too... Wouldn't this mean that the daughter would get the allele, and therefore show up red?

umm what i'm sayign is doesnt the red dyre represent the DNA of the person tested. instead of having the what ever

[silva]

I think the issue despite whether it's possible or not to date it is whether this actually helps in proving the hypothesis. My knowledge of all this stuff is pretty much non-existent now, but I don't see how dating it can reliably help. Plus, I vaguely recall from a textbook that they've shown that the majority of the mtDNA in present day people can be traced back to I think it was 3 Africans. So yeh, D? (And no, I am not authoritative on evolution at all.)

is theres variation if mtdna doesnt that mean that its supports Multiregional, because for it to SUPPORT out of africa there should be little variation in mtDNA cos theyve all come from the same area
because these are of worldwide sites, variation would indicate different groups of fossil populations ie Multiregional thereby disproving Out of Africa

by looking at decompostion, if fossils in regions outside of africa are less decomposed than fossils in africa, this would indicate original populations in africa and later around the world ie supporting Out of Africa theory

i dont think U-235 dating can be used for 100,000 years bc its half life is 700 million or something like that ruling A out i think

[cochra]

The red dye is the DNA from the person tested. This implies that the red dye would be used whenever they used this test. so the red, green or black would be whether she had the allele or not.

[shinny]

smiley, for the last question it says" solution ll complementary strand from DNA of person with breast cancer, labelled with red fluorescent dye"  and for the last question whether the daugther has a red green or black test, doesnt the colour eg, red or black come from the fluorescent dyre therefore the colour doesnt represent the person being affected but being tested [ having fluorescent dyre attached to DNA]

But the DNA of the person being tested won't bind to the complementary strand of mutated DNA if it isn't mutated as well. Hence, the fluorescent dye won't show.

[shinny]

But that the mother had breast cancer doesn't show whether she had inherited the mutation from her parents or a somatic mutation. Somewhere earlier in the thread someone (may have been me, thinking about it) said something about how the mother was probably homozygous for this mutation, as the microarray only showed one red band, and the green band was pure green, and not green tinged with red, which it would have been if the mother's DNA had bound there too... Wouldn't this mean that the daughter would get the allele, and therefore show up red?

How could it be tinged with red? The green well only has green dye in it. I think you're misunderstanding how DNA chips work. She's definitely heterozygous.