From A Strand Of Hair – Copernicus
ID – Positive
Three years ago, archeologists in Warsaw, Poland unearthed a grave that they thought contained the remains of the 16th century astronomer, Copernicus. He was the man who proposed that it was more logical (and a heck of a lot easier, mathematically) to have the Earth go around the Sun in your models, instead of the Sun going around the Earth.
Jerzy Gassowski, head of an archaeology and anthropology institute in Pultusk, central Poland, said his four-member team found what appears to be the skull of the Polish astronomer and clergyman in August, after a one-year search of tombs under the church floor.
“We can be almost 100 percent sure this is Copernicus,” Gassowski told The Associated Press by phone after making the announcement during a meeting of scientists.
This week it was announced that DNA strands taken from those remains match DNA taken from strands of hair retrieved from a book known to be owned by the astronomer.
Allen said DNA from the bones and teeth matches that of hair found in a book the Polish astronomer owned. It is in a library at Sweden’s Uppsala University.
Facial reconstructions of the skeleton also resemble portraits of Copernicus.
The man who moved the Earth from the center of the universe died in 1543 at the age of 70.
In marginally related news, the NYT reports that resurrecting a live, wholly mammoth from DNA can be done for about $10 million today.
The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for DNA.
Ann Althouse takes that one step further and asks:“If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for Neanderthals.” Well, technically she asks if author Michael Crichton could be reconstructed from his fingernail clippings, but you get the point.
Clearly, the next step (or perhaps the step after that), is to recreate historical personages, like Nicolas Copericus, for our (presumed) benefit.
“Why?” you might ask. “Because we can!”, some answer.
Anyone besides me see a problem with that?