SPEAKER_04

Anything – and the stuff is several hundred years old.

Anything that old, you won't get a lot of good DNA out of it.

But just – they did the same thing with the Denisovan and the Neanderthal.

You have to correct the chemical errors that occur over time.

There are ways to what's called bioinformatically correct.

You need to do what's called over-reading of the genome where you do so many reads of it that you stack them all up line by line.

Like if you had a thousand versions of an ancient Bible, you would stack up the lines one by one.

And finally, you find one line that has this letter that's correct and then this one correct.

And then you basically do a summation of an averaging of the correctness.

And so they say, oh, well, 90% of the genome is non-human.

It's probably garbage.

It's probably these mistakes.

It's probably bacterial contamination that you're reading.

There's ways to deal with that, but that requires money and not one-off DNA sequences put on the interwebs.

for some amateur genomicist to make a claim about.

So there's ways to do it.

I mean, you would want at the end of the day to get the results to the level where you could go to the guys who did the Denisovan and the Neanderthal DNA, the Max Planck, who won the Nobel Prize for it, and say, hey, what do you think?

But you don't dare take it to people like that until you've done your homework.

You don't put them under a flashlight.

And people, I think, have gotten used to this click mentality of impatience where I want the result today.