How is he arrogant? Is it because he knows something you don't know? Then, for you, the world must be full of arrogant assholes.

lol! I WAS going to say out of a window, I don't know why I changed it. I do that a lot... would it help to say that english is not my native language? :P

But Hey, Bob..it's "off" a bridge.."out of" a window...try to get that straight next time, okay?

Right

Actually, Bob sounds like someone who might have some idea what he's talking about.

I think the arrogant people are the ones who talk about things they don't know anything about.

Oh, really? Well then let me go jump out of a bridge...

bob1, you're kind of an arrogant asshole, you know that?

Which is why I used the word POSSIBLY. Because we all know that scientific methods of research never advance or anything, by your logic. Not being able to do something *now* says absolutely nothing about being able to do so in 100 years. This is obvious by the fact we didn't even know what DNA WAS or how the body *actually* worked up until only a very few centuries ago.

Nope, it's not. Scientists have tried and have long given up on it. The problem is not being able to detect the DNA found within the specimen. The problem is that the pieces of DNA you might be able to recover are so tiny that you would need thousands of specimens in order to stitch together a segment of DNA of any real size. And of course (assuming you even HAVE that many specimens) that requires the destruction of all those specimens, and there is a huge danger of contamination. It's just not worth it.

Possibly. The realm of DNA recovery, especially for the field of forensics, is inproving all the time.

Nope. DNA disintegrates way too soon for that.

can we get some DNA out fo it.

Awesome!