• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

alr1ght
bish gets all the credit :)
(Yesterday, 09:48 PM)
alr1ght's Avatar
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/sc...mysteries.html

Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries.

In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years.

The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans. Until now, Denisovans were known only from DNA retrieved from 80,000-year-old remains in Siberia, 4,000 miles east of where the new DNA was found.

The mismatch between the anatomical and genetic evidence surprised the scientists, who are now rethinking human evolution over the past few hundred thousand years. It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover. They might have interbred, swapping DNA. Scientists hope that further studies of extremely ancient human DNA will clarify the mystery.

“Right now, we’ve basically generated a big question mark,” said Matthias Meyer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and a co-author of the new study.

Hints at new hidden complexities in the human story came from a 400,000-year-old femur found in a cave in Spain called Sima de los Huesos (“the pit of bones” in Spanish). The scientific team used new methods to extract the ancient DNA from the fossil.

But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar.

“Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.”

The extra research confirmed that the DNA belonged on the Denisovan branch of the human family tree.

The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging in recent years based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa.

Their shared ancestors split off from humans’ lineage and left Africa, then split further into the Denisovans and Neanderthals about 300,000 years ago. The evidence suggested that Neanderthals headed west, toward Europe, and that the Denisovans moved east.

Humans’ ancestors, meanwhile, stayed in Africa, giving rise to Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Humans then expanded from Africa into Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago. They then interbred not only with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, too. Later, both the Denisovans and Neanderthals became extinct.

Hollywood Duo
Member
(Yesterday, 09:51 PM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar
Pretty cool. I'm not sure why the scientists were shocked though. It was 400,000 years ago, how could we ever know what really was going on back then with any accuracy.
V_Arnold
Member
(Yesterday, 09:53 PM)
V_Arnold's Avatar
Itshappening.gif!
Damaniel
Member
(Yesterday, 09:56 PM)
Damaniel's Avatar
Wrap it up, folks, creationism is confirmed!

No, not really. Sorry, creationists.
Escape Goat
(Yesterday, 09:57 PM)
Escape Goat's Avatar
Denisovans mated with the Mrwilsonsians.
V_Arnold
Member
(Yesterday, 09:59 PM)
V_Arnold's Avatar

Originally Posted by Damaniel

Wrap it up, folks, creationism is confirmed!

No, not really. Sorry, creationists.

You could say it is even further de-confirmed!
freenudemacusers
Member
(Yesterday, 10:01 PM)
freenudemacusers's Avatar
god created the DNA with age 10,000 years ago.
Opiate
Depressingly Realistic
(Yesterday, 10:01 PM)
Opiate's Avatar
New evidence arrives, scientists adjust their understanding of history. Even in pretty significant ways, as in this case.

It would be so much cheaper if scientific textbooks required no revision and no editing. If only they could avoid costly revision and editing like many religious texts do, I'm sure my Biochem textbook from Sophomore year would have been noticeably cheaper.
TCRS
Member
(Yesterday, 10:01 PM)
TCRS's Avatar
Fucking Denises always cheating.
gumby_trucker
Member
(Yesterday, 10:02 PM)
gumby_trucker's Avatar
I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.
~Devil Trigger~
Member
(Yesterday, 10:02 PM)
~Devil Trigger~'s Avatar
Azih
Member
(Yesterday, 10:03 PM)
It was a time traveler. Silly scientists not seeing the obvious.
Damaniel
Member
(Yesterday, 10:04 PM)
Damaniel's Avatar

Originally Posted by gumby_trucker

I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.

As time goes on, we get much better at reconstructing sequences from more and more deteriorated samples. You probably don't need very many intact markers to make the link to any particular genetic tree.
Khalifa Jayy
aka RJNavarrete
(Yesterday, 10:05 PM)
Khalifa Jayy's Avatar
My question is: How do we know that our fossil record and DNA dating methods are precise and accurate?
CorvoSol
Member
(Yesterday, 10:05 PM)
CorvoSol's Avatar
Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion on the internet!

Yeah!
Mariolee
Member
(Yesterday, 10:05 PM)
Mariolee's Avatar

Originally Posted by CorvoSol

Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion!

.

It really is uncalled for when the article itself makes no mention of religion at all. It's like if I brought up how much Sony sucks in a Mario thread or something.
gazele
Member
(Yesterday, 10:06 PM)
gazele's Avatar

Originally Posted by gumby_trucker

I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.

I think this is the biggest take away from this study personally
Juliet's 8½ Spirits
Junior Member
(Yesterday, 10:07 PM)
Juliet's 8½ Spirits's Avatar
Excited to see what extensive study of this fossil will tell us.
TheJollyCorner
(Yesterday, 10:10 PM)
TheJollyCorner's Avatar

Originally Posted by V_Arnold

Itshappening.gif!

PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
(Yesterday, 10:13 PM)
PantherLotus's Avatar

Originally Posted by CorvoSol

Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion on the internet!

Yeah!

You seem upset.
Trojita
Member
(Yesterday, 10:15 PM)
Trojita's Avatar


Which N don't they follow?
Septimius
Member
(Yesterday, 10:17 PM)
Septimius's Avatar

Originally Posted by Khalifa Jayy

My question is: How do we know that our fossil record and DNA dating methods are precise and accurate?

There are many great sources for this out on the internet. I'd try to form a reply, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the field to make a concise answer, and the question is a bit off of a tangent for the topic at hand. To me, it's a bit like asking how we know we revolve around the sun in a discussion of solar winds.
Byakuya769
She Touched Me
Ohhh She Touched Me
(Yesterday, 10:17 PM)
Byakuya769's Avatar
Wonder what they looked like.
Kenka
Member
(Yesterday, 10:19 PM)
Kenka's Avatar
No Metroidians ?

They could have given our grandfathers a cool name, at least. Awesome find nonetheless !
chris.trejo
Member
(Yesterday, 10:20 PM)
chris.trejo's Avatar

Originally Posted by gazele

I think this is the biggest take away from this study personally

I believe the oldest DNA known is about 800,000 so it's possible.
alr1ght
bish gets all the credit :)
(Yesterday, 10:20 PM)
alr1ght's Avatar

Originally Posted by Byakuya769

Wonder what they looked like.

Jackben
Member
(Yesterday, 10:22 PM)
Jackben's Avatar
I was shocked to learn the one on the far right with all the hair was actually a female.

Originally Posted by CorvoSol

Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion on the internet!

Yeah!

There is no need to be upset.
TheJollyCorner
(Yesterday, 10:22 PM)
TheJollyCorner's Avatar

Originally Posted by alr1ght

dat beard!
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
(Yesterday, 10:22 PM)
Agent Icebeezy's Avatar
I fucking love science.
speculawyer
clairvoyancy is no excuse for trollin'
(Yesterday, 10:22 PM)
speculawyer's Avatar
That's not human DNA, it is human ancestor DNA. They are not homo sapiens.
i-Lo
Member
(Yesterday, 10:23 PM)
i-Lo's Avatar
Wow, we've made a mind numbing tech leap in the last 50 years when put in context of our species' existence.
Mgoblue201
Member
(Yesterday, 10:23 PM)

Originally Posted by gumby_trucker

I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.

From Nature:

"By comparing the specimens' ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."
nateeasy
Member
(Yesterday, 10:23 PM)
nateeasy's Avatar
Just semen every where
happypup
Member
(Yesterday, 10:24 PM)
happypup's Avatar

Originally Posted by Khalifa Jayy

My question is: How do we know that our fossil record and DNA dating methods are precise and accurate?

Consilience

when multiple independent lines of evidence converge.

Originally Posted by speculawyer

That's not human DNA, it is human ancestor DNA. They are not homo sapiens.

Human has widely become a genus level term within the scientific community. Homo sapiens are the only known extant humans.
Last edited by happypup; Yesterday at 10:27 PM.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
(Yesterday, 10:25 PM)
-COOLIO-'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Opiate

New evidence arrives, scientists adjust their understanding of history. Even in pretty significant ways, as in this case.

It would be so much cheaper if scientific textbooks required no revision and no editing. If only they could avoid costly revision and editing like many religious texts do, I'm sure my Biochem textbook from Sophomore year would have been noticeably cheaper.

do ebooks get patched?
CrazyDude
Member
(Yesterday, 10:26 PM)
CrazyDude's Avatar
I am always confused, but are cro magnon are they modern humans or a different species?
chris.trejo
Member
(Yesterday, 10:29 PM)
chris.trejo's Avatar

Originally Posted by -COOLIO-

do ebooks get patched?

Not so far, I've had a few ebooks and they were just the new editions of the normal books, cheaper in price for rentals but no not updated.
Last edited by chris.trejo; Yesterday at 10:33 PM.
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
(Yesterday, 10:38 PM)
fallengorn's Avatar
Sentry
Still Alive
(Yesterday, 10:39 PM)
Sentry's Avatar
Pizarro
Member
(Yesterday, 10:40 PM)
Pizarro's Avatar

Originally Posted by CrazyDude

I am always confused, but are cro magnon are they modern humans or a different species?

It's an almost outdated term for European humans from the Upper Paleolithic
gumby_trucker
Member
(Yesterday, 10:42 PM)
gumby_trucker's Avatar

Originally Posted by Damaniel

As time goes on, we get much better at reconstructing sequences from more and more deteriorated samples. You probably don't need very many intact markers to make the link to any particular genetic tree.

Originally Posted by Mgoblue201

From Nature:

"By comparing the specimens' ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information."

I read that too, and I must be misunderstanding something about how this works, because 400,000 years is roughly 800 half-lives. And 1/2^800 is such a small number, I don't see how there would be anything meaningful left even the initial sample was all the DNA in all the cells in a million people.

According to the internet there are roughly 6 billion base pairs per human diploid cell, and roughly 100 trillion cells in the human body. So one human (or denisovan in this case) would contribute about 6*10^23 base pairs.

edit: That means a million people would contribute roughly 10^30 base pairs, but 1/2^800 is about 10^-240..

edit 2: In other words, conditions in this cave in Spain had to be such that the DNA's half life was closer to 5000 years than 500 years, in order to be able to retrieve a sample of length in tens or hundreds of bases long, assuming there were initially about 100-1000 individuals in the cave.
Last edited by gumby_trucker; Yesterday at 11:11 PM.
Wag
Member
(Yesterday, 10:44 PM)
Wag's Avatar
Divius
Member
(Yesterday, 10:44 PM)
Divius's Avatar

Originally Posted by fallengorn

holy shit
Opiate
Depressingly Realistic
(Yesterday, 10:49 PM)
Opiate's Avatar

Originally Posted by CorvoSol

Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion on the internet!

Yeah!

I'm sympathetic to this view generally, but this happens to highlight the primary contrast between science and religion.

Science adjusts its conclusions and understandings as new evidence is introduced; by definition, religion does not do this, as it is based on faith and not evidence-based conclusions. Most primary religious texts (e.g. The Bible, The Bhagvad-Gita, the Quran, etc.) are viewed as the inerrant word of God or of the Prophet.

This distinction is, again, the most significant difference between the two philosophies, which are otherwise not necessarily at odds. They agree on lots of things; most religions, for example, believe that helping people is a good thing, and most science operates on that pretext as well (e.g. medical science). Both science and religion view the universe as an awesome, beautiful place.

So science and religion aren't necessarily or always at odds. But in this particular way, they are; science corrects itself when new evidence is presented that contradicts previously held belief. Religion does not. Again, I completely agree that people often take gratuitous potshots at religion, and frequently view science and religion as absolutely antithetical, which they are not.
alr1ght
bish gets all the credit :)
(Yesterday, 10:53 PM)
alr1ght's Avatar

Originally Posted by fallengorn

10/10

the lady on the left reminded me of this lady for some reason.
DanteFox
Meticulously designed by GodManPig to be a few sticks short of a teepee.
(Yesterday, 10:54 PM)
DanteFox's Avatar
Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.
Hari Seldon
Member
(Yesterday, 10:57 PM)
Hari Seldon's Avatar
I really wish they came up with a better name than Denisovan. That sounds like amateur hour lol.
Slate Soda
Member
(Yesterday, 10:59 PM)
Slate Soda's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mariolee

.

It really is uncalled for when the article itself makes no mention of religion at all. It's like if I brought up how much Sony sucks in a Mario thread or something.

Well, that's proper etiquette on GAF.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
(Yesterday, 10:59 PM)
Funky Papa's Avatar

Originally Posted by CorvoSol

Cool new scientific discovery?

Must be a good reason to take a dump on religion on the internet!

Yeah!

Not religion, but a very particular, very nasty, highly malodorous branch of religious people whom have turned their very existence into a joke.

I'm sorry if I can't empathise with them like you do.

And BTW, this discovery is some radical shit.
Anura
Member
(Yesterday, 10:59 PM)
Anura's Avatar

Originally Posted by DanteFox

Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.

To be fair when it comes topics with religious/scientific implications being a jerk is almost par for the course for either side. And for whatever reason evolution is a controversy in some religious folks...

Thread Tools