If a mamoth is found frozen in ice, will it have DNA?
817681
Yes, it has DNA. A fair amount of DNA sequenciing has been done on DNA from a frozen mammoth. Researchers have also been able to assemble the complete sequence of the mitochondria.
596182
the NASA scientists found steam rising from underground and that might only mean one thing that there should be water underneath the frozen ice.  And.... whereever there is water there is life so there might be a possibility of having life in Pluto<the planet>
111296
mybelief is that ice can indeed carry germs , if by germs you mean bacteria. they ould probably have to be spore forming however
499459
A very good question.\n\nAlmost all common chemical will contract upon freezing, but not water. \nThe special hydrogen bonding that forces the water molecule to be very close to eacher other in liquid phase.\n\nThe molecule of HOH is not straight, but in a V shape. About 105 degree.\nIn liquid phase the V shape can over lap each other. Go look up the water structure at\nhttp://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html\n\nDuring freezing, the water molecule are force to line up, and the V shape molecule are line up side by side and no longer over lap.  This takes more room. So it expands.\n\nGo look up the ice molecule structure at http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/Ice%20Structure.HTM\n\nIts not easy to see the true structure, but these will at least gives you a picture.\n\nKeep asking questions, enjoy.
159608
Maybe ice worms, they live in glacial ice.  Some microbes have been found in Antarctica ice.  I can't find any information if Orcas or leopard seals hang out at the North Pole.  Emperor Penguins live at Antarctica.
874149
Yes.  Adding salt to frozen water lowers the melting point.  \n\nConsider that snow and ice are really the same thing, in different mass quantities - water in solid state due to ambient temperature.\n\nBest to you.
674771
In 1869 Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss researcher, stained a cell nucleus with bromine I think, and found that something in it would stain.  He extracted this something and determined that It was composed of phosphoric acid, nitrogenated organic bases and sugar.\n\nIn 1943 Oswald Avery, a Canadian researcher found that bacteria would transform when washed, when exposed to protease, but not when exposed to deoxyribonuclease.  This led him to conclude that the something Miescher found was by composition supposed to be called deoxyrybonucleic acid and that this DNA was in fact the basic unit of heredity because doexyribonuclease is an enzyme that eats up DNA.\n\nThat's the evidence.\n\nOut genomes aren't made of RNA because that is a single stranded chain. Nothing wrong with that, but it's less sturdy than DNA, which is double stranded and supercoiled and so on.  It's a matter of what is the better means of storing your genetic information.
786403
a) a lower freezing point than pure water
1166616
withont dna on their daughter who knows
863459
No, it will not survive, because it is an insect and has a short life cycle just like all other insects. Plus it needs flowers to feed on and live in warmer weather, which right now it is too cold out there for them. They will freeze to death and die.
664864
I'm not especially well informed on that subject, but I believe archaeological evidence support it.  Bones, DNA, etc. Pottery shards, all that sort of thing.  It's my understanding they crossed a land bridge that used to exist across the Bering Strait,  then the land bridge was gradually eroded away.
20815
You've probably heard the fact that our DNA is 98% the same as that of a monkey, what many people don't know is that our DNA is also about 80% the same as that of a fruit fly. Dog DNA probably comes in somewhere in between. I don't think anyone has ever done a study on that though.
275559
UPDATE: I've just read your comment so I'm leaving the difficult stuff below. \nFirst things first:\nProbably you know (but it's worth repeating) that the genetic information in each cell is kept as DNA. This DNA is able to copy parts of itself as RNA. RNA in turn builds proteins. Our bodies are not made only of proteins, but proteins are the ultimate regulators of what our body looks like and how it works. So, if a gene in your DNA synthesizes a specific RNA, and this in turn can make a particular protein, this protein will have to do with the way you look and function. Another person with a somewhat different "variety" of the same gene, will have a different appearance and/or function. Each gene codes for one protein, so it takes a really large amount of genes to code for all of them (and this is VERY simplified, the interactions are much more complex).\n\nNow for the second part: the fact that you have several really long DNA strands in each cell (these DNA strands are what can be visualized as chromosomes under special circumstances) does not mean that every single little gene in your DNA will generate RNA and ultimately produce a protein. Only a part of the DNA is actually active (and it's a small proportion), the rest is just "there" and doesn't code. And the expression of the gene (=when the gene's information becomes visible) depends on the interaction with other genes, with other substances that are cellular regulators, and many environmental factors. \n\nExample: you know Siamese cats? they have a genetic constitution such that the dark color proteins are formed especially at the body parts that are colder. So usually you get a sand-colored cat with black legs, tail, and ears. But for this pattern to show, there has to be interaction with the right temperatures. If the cat is not exposed to these colder temperatures, the dark parts don't develop. Or maybe other proteins or regulators "got in the way" of the process. And you get a cat with no dark parts (or the opposite, a very dark animal from excess cold). \nAnother example: suppose a baby is born from tall parents; they in turn had tall parents, so it's highly probable that the baby has the "tall" potential. But if this baby is not well nourished during his/her development, he/she will not reach the height that he "potentially should" have had. \nCan you see the difference? The genotype is ALL the genetic information that you have, and the phenotype is the result of the combination of this genetic information with other factors: the person/animal/plant as it is realized. \nI hope this helps you, I'll be around :-)\n\nCheck this site, it's great:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIA1Genotypevsphenotype.shtml\n-------------------------------\nThe genotype is the genetic information that the said individual carries in each of his/her body cells. Much of that information is never expressed (=becomes "visible" or translates into actual characteristics), and much genetic information can yield different characteristics depending on the interaction with many environmental factors (which occur both inside and outside the cell or organism in question). Thus, the final fully developed individual is the result of the genotype ("raw" genetic information) PLUS environmental/developmental factors; the characteristics of this final product, the real individual, constitute the Phenotype. \nFor instance, an individual with a perfectly "normal" genotype may develop many types of abnormalities due to problems during pregnancy, including drugs, lack of oxygen, etc. Identical twins have the same genotype (they come from a single cell) but are never completely identical; and of course they have different personalities. This is because of all the epigenetic phenomena that influence development. And it's also the reason why reductionist approaches that s
712484
I searched the ultimate source of all the stuff on net and here's what came out-\n\nhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=humans%20and%20shark%20dna&hl=en&lr=&oi=scholart\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=humans+and+shark+dna\n\nGood luck
402047
Yes, you can probably see the structure of DNA with a tunneling electron microscope.  \n\nIt's very unlikely that Watson and Crick deluded us, because their conclusions were subject to peer review by the scientific method, and other scientists would've taken delight in disproving their theory.
783548
The short answer is no.\n\nThe long answer is no, never, not ever, no how, no way, don't even think about it, impossible, etc... :)\n\nDNA is the instruction manual for every living multicellular organism and is contained in every nucleus of every cell in the body.  It is physically impossible to extract DNA from an organism without killing it, liquifying it, and separating the nucleic acids from all the other proteins.  Not something anyone would volunteer for, I would imagine.  Then you would have to figure out how to insert this into trillions upon trillions of cells before the receiving body dies due to lack of protein production.\n\nAlso, even if somehow you were able to extract DNA from every cell and replace it with some other DNA, you would end up destroying the organism anyway.   Changing the DNA is like using a cake recipe to build a car engine.  You would only end up with a mess under the hood.  \n\nEven if you replaced the DNA with another human being's DNA, there would be such severe rejection because of the production of non-self proteins and HLA mismatches that the body would almost immediately cease to function.  It is difficult enough to transplant a heart without causing rejection by the host body because of specific proteins found in the donor organ.  Imagine what would happen if every cell was doing the same thing... think of that senator character from the first X-men movie.
286063
Capture Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster!!!\n\nThis really happened:\n\nAt the 5th Annual Texas Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson, Texas, October 15-16, 2005, and the Bates College Cryptozoology Symposium in Lewiston, Maine, October 28-29, 2005, Loren Coleman unveiled the details of a $1 million bounty to encourage the public to assist in the safe capture of a Bigfoot, Yeti, Lake Monster, Sea Serpent, or other cryptozoological specimen.\n\nSo get your harpoons, stun-guns, rocket launchers, and nets ready---lets get rich by finding monsters!