<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: T. rex Trouble</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/25/t-rex-trouble/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/25/t-rex-trouble/</link>
	<description>A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:51:30 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Beth Shapiro</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/25/t-rex-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-9240</link>
		<dc:creator>Beth Shapiro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/25/t-rex-trouble/#comment-9240</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d  like to point out that this is isn&#039;t the first reply (in opposition) to the recent dino DNA/protein work, nor is it the first dino DNA study to be criticized by the scientific community. Indeed, such antics have been captivating the field since the early 1990s, when &quot;ancient DNA&quot; was at its innocent beginnings... 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/33c (although admittedly not as approachable as Dalton&#039;s intriguing piece)

and some older stuff:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&amp;res=9C00EFD61331F93BA25752C1A962958260
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020302.800-science--dinosaur-dna-fails-new-test-of-time.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d  like to point out that this is isn&#8217;t the first reply (in opposition) to the recent dino DNA/protein work, nor is it the first dino DNA study to be criticized by the scientific community. Indeed, such antics have been captivating the field since the early 1990s, when &#8220;ancient DNA&#8221; was at its innocent beginnings&#8230; </p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/33c" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/33c</a> (although admittedly not as approachable as Dalton&#8217;s intriguing piece)</p>
<p>and some older stuff:<br />
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&#038;res=9C00EFD61331F93BA25752C1A962958260" rel="nofollow">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&#038;res=9C00EFD61331F93BA25752C1A962958260</a><br />
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020302.800-science--dinosaur-dna-fails-new-test-of-time.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020302.800-science&#8211;dinosaur-dna-fails-new-test-of-time.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
