Slashdot Mirror


Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago

Hugh Pickens writes "Scientific American has a story on researchers from the University of Utah who have calculated that 1.2 million years ago, at a time when our ancestors Homo erectus, H. ergaster, and archaic H. sapiens were spreading through Africa, Europe, and Asia, there were probably only about 18,500 individuals capable of breeding in all these species together (PNAS paper here). Pre-humans were an endangered species with a smaller population than today's gorillas and chimpanzees. Researchers scanned two completely sequenced modern human genomes for a type of mobile element called Alu sequences, then compared the nucleotides in these old regions with the overall diversity in the two genomes to estimate differences in effective population size, and thus genetic diversity between modern and early humans. Human geneticist Lynn Jorde says that the diminished genetic diversity one million years ago suggests human ancestors experienced a catastrophic event at that time as devastating as the Toba super-volcano in Indonesia that triggered a nuclear winter and is thought to have nearly annihilated humans 70,000 years ago."

70 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Pfft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's nothing. I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?

    1. Re:Pfft... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      And a mere 6000 years ago too. All that business about 70,000 and 1.2 millions years ago is a distraction to test our faith.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Pfft... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, the whole race started from just two people, right?

      More like from a guy having sex with his rib.

    3. Re:Pfft... by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine how much smarter we'd be if our parents weren't related.

    4. Re:Pfft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You call a book evidence? How is a book evidence? So, if I write a book refuting your book, then do I negate your evidence? Funny how you call a book that contradicts itself evidence, but real evidence you call pseudo-science because it doesn't fit your belief.

    5. Re:Pfft... by toriver · · Score: 5, Informative

      We also have written evidence that Frodo set forth from the Shire in order to destroy the One Ring before it fell into the hands of Sauron. But so what?

    6. Re:Pfft... by Zoolander · · Score: 5, Funny

      So that's what 'Ribbed for Your pleasure' comes from!

      --
      Meep.
    7. Re:Pfft... by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christians? I thought Genesis was a Jewish story, first.

    8. Re:Pfft... by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While this is written with a "troll" tone, it does present an excellent point on the use of evidence. Religious documents typically present themselves as fact (apart from L. Ron Hubbard's at any rate), and these can be (not speaking of whether they should... that's probably a different argument altogether) tested using legal / historical methods. The Bible as it is written should be evaluated as if it were a legal brief. Does its evidence pass muster? This is completely distinct from the testing of evidence in a scientific sense. We are looking for probabilities, not testable hypotheses.

      Written evidence as well as word-of-mouth evidence across many cultures would point towards a fairly recent beginning to civilization. Current scientific methods point towards something older. The situation calls for a reevaluation of the reliability of both methods of evaluation - is historical evidence testable? No. Is scientific evidence subject to human error? Yes. Should we throw out either because one seems to contradict the other? Not necessarily (though we should certainly look towards re-evaluating the bases for our positions). If God created the world in the past 10,000 years, then we should be actively seeking to demonstrate this as fitting with the collected data or not. What we have instead is two completely distinct groups each operating on different originating assumptions. One developed out of 19th century "scientific" assumptions, the other out of particular approaches to reading the text of the Bible / other religious works. Organizations existed in the past to bridge the gap between these two approaches (though they are fewer today).

  2. We were saved! by Daevad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.

    1. Re:We were saved! by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Luckily, magic underwear was discovered and humans survived the event.

      I'm reading about a new theory that argues H. Sapiens actually DID die out and was replaced by the nearly identical H. Idioticus. Personally, I could see such a genus appealing to magic underwear for survival.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  3. This means ... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this means that we're really all brothers and sisters, right?

    1. Re:This means ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if you believe in evolution. Or creation.

    2. Re:This means ... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More than that, I read a year or so ago (it may have been covered at slashdot, I don't remember) that it was mathematically proven that everyone on earth shares common anscestors from as little as a thousand years ago.

      Besides, there was the other near extinction 70K years ago. Wht I find interesting is the near extinctions were probably what led to modern humans' intelligence and other traits (like humor) that makes us so different from other species.

    3. Re:This means ... by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ones that died had wings, could shoot laser beams out of their eyes, and could mind meld using their ponytails. And all we got was 'intelligence' and 'humor' and looking over the unwashed masses, I see not even most of us got that. Bah.

    4. Re:This means ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean we survived a near extinction event and all I got was this lousy intelligence and humor?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:This means ... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can find just about any belief "in some societies" if you look hard enough. The reality though is that in the English language the words brother and sister have a specific meaning: persons who share at least 1 biological parent. Some relatives from millions of years ago don't count.

      Besides, from a biological standpoint, once you're to the genetic "distance" of only first cousins (1/8th DNA in common) the chance of birth defects drops off to the point of being completely fine. Indeed "in some cultures" marriages between cousins is very common (heck even in the US with all the attached stigma it's still perfectly legal for cousins to marry in most states). Thinking "we're all related man!" is only a problem from the standpoint of cultural taboo. Beyond the very immediate family it's not a problem.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:This means ... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I heard something.
      I am not sure I remember it right.
      I can't be bothered to look it up.

      Clearly a prime candidate for an Insightful mod.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:This means ... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, the family tree doesn't really branch out. It's more like a piece of rope that weaves in and out. Some ropes are just more narrow than others. ;-p

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:This means ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      I read somewhere the the most removed any two humans are from each other is 53rd cousins

      First cousins have a common ancestor two generations back. So 53rd cousins should have a common ancestor 54 generations back.

      54 generations ago, you had (theoretically) 2^54 ancestors (~180,000 trillion). Which means that statistically speaking, every human alive ~1200 years ago was about 200,000,000 of your ancestors.

      In other words, such a number is pretty much meaningless....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:This means ... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that it truly matters. There are roughly 27 states in which you can marry your FIRST cousin. To many, this seems "sick" because of the social implications it presents (100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime. Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives). However, you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    10. Re:This means ... by al.caughey · · Score: 4, Funny

      However, you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.

      And of course, sharing undesirable relatives

  4. So... BSG was right. by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously this is when Adama and the fleet landed on Earth. BSG was right all along!

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:So... BSG was right. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Glen Larson made of the story of BSG, he changed "Noah" to "Adama" to make it seem fictional.

  5. Do the same tests on different species by CubicleView · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There should be some sort of correlation in the results.

    1. Re:Do the same tests on different species by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. I think you'd see the same correlations in some species, but not necessarily all.

      Let's posit some kind of catastrophic event that puts pressure on early hominids. It does not follow that every species is put under evolutionary pressure, only those that rely on the certain ecological resources to survive. So it doesn't have to be an event like nuclear winter.

      Furthermore we might not see these effects in other species because most of the species that survived found the changes brought on by the event favorable to them. The ones that didn't for the most part may not have survived, or may have only survived in certain niches.

      Hominids are a special case. Except in a few circumstances migration is not part of their lifestyle, but they have a tremendous latent capacity to migrate, probably greater and certainly more flexible than any land animal. So our posited "disaster" happens, but it doesn't look like a disaster to most of the species that survived. As for those for whom it was a disaster, many perish and a few manage to hold on in isolated geographic niches. These are almost certain to include hominids, with their adaptability and latent capacity to migrate great distances. Most of the hominids either don't get moving quickly enough or don't find a place to survive in, but enough of them do to maintain a breeding population.

      Of course, this scenario isn't a scientific one. It's more of a counterscenario demonstrating that we wouldn't necessarily expect to see the same genetic phenomena everywhere we looked.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Informative

    The end result is the same as that predicted for nuclear winter. Radiation is not the primary danger from a "real" nuclear winter, it's the smoke and soot that would spread through the atmosphere, drastically reducing the amount of sunlight received at the surface, killing plants and reducing temperatures everywhere. When a supervolcano goes off, the effects are nearly identical.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  7. Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 18500 people quoted is not the number of people capable of breeding, but the "effective population", an abstract measure of genetic diversity in a species. According to TFA, the effective population of modern humanity is about 10000, and the argument in the article is that this much lower diversity indicates that a lot of genetic material must have been lost in a near-extinction event.

    1. Re:Summary is wrong by Zarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 18500 people quoted is not the number of people capable of breeding, but the "effective population", an abstract measure of genetic diversity in a species. According to TFA, the effective population of modern humanity is about 10000, and the argument in the article is that this much lower diversity indicates that a lot of genetic material must have been lost in a near-extinction event.

      Yes, the idea that the "effective" population of today's human race is only 10,000 is the most disturbing thing in the article. If that's true then the vast majority of us are not contributing anything worth noting to the gene pool. That's not a very nice thought.

      --
      [signature]
    2. Re:Summary is wrong by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the idea that the "effective" population of today's human race is only 10,000 is the most disturbing thing in the article. If that's true then the vast majority of us are not contributing anything worth noting to the gene pool. That's not a very nice thought.

      Other species would develop thicker fur in colder climates. We simply wear thicker clothes. It's not like all diversity is necessary or useful for people that reshape the environment to fit them instead.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. say that to the tasmanian wolf by chichilalescu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (not trying to rain on your parade or anything)
    Back on topic. Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis... In terms of survival requirements, we should have already sent a few groups to the moon and mars.
    People enjoy watching disaster movies like 2012 (I saw it as a comedy myself), but they should realise that focusing all your resources (as a species) on "I want a TV in every room" is a losing strategy.
    If I had the money, I would be long gone. "Yes, 21st century society is very advanced and we have everything we need, but if they have a power outage or similar in a hidden bunker in Russia, we all die".

    --
    new sig
    1. Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      I think humans are more resilient than we appreciate. I think it would take more than a nuclear war to completely wipe out a species as adaptive as we are. I suspect that nothing short of an earth-destroying asteroid or some sort of weapon far more destructive than nuclear missles would completely wipe us out (and I don't mean a Yucatan asteroid, I mean one that rips the planet to pieces). We're not a passive species like the dinosaur, we can adapt to *much* more hostile environs. And, short on the earth-killing asteroid, earth remains by far the most habitable ball within reach. Surviving anywhere else in a solar system (not to mention the problem just getting there) would be way tougher than surviving on a nuclear war devastated earth.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crysis [sic]

      Nuclear war would not have wiped out humanity. It could've killed tens of millions of people immediately, and maybe hundreds of millions more after two years of poor crops and contaminated water, but large pockets would've survived pretty much unscathed. Most of South America, Africa, and Australasia (with the obvious exception of Australia itself on the coasts) would not have been hit at all, in all likelihood. And life would've been rough for those people for a few years, the earth has phenomenal ability to heal itself. Hell, people live in Hiroshima and have picnics at ground zero; I hardly doubt later nuclear weapons would've had longer-lasting effects than the first weak, but extremely dirty, bombs did.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Humans nearly went extinct during the nuclear missile crisis

      In that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided. With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know... for a species that has gone to every continent but Antarctica with stone-age technology, I think we are doing just fine with our natural "TV in every room" instincts. As a society, we haven't been able to muster enough resources and organization to put colonies on the moon and Mars for scientific and exploration purposes. But say a private company starts moon holidays with a private spaceship, and some young couple on their honeymoon decide that the moon is a really beautiful place...

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:say that to the tasmanian wolf by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Growing all the time though, both individually and collectively.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. There's a message in this somewhere by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think this means we are a stubborn infestation, successfully resisting the Universe's attempts to exterminate us thus far. The Universe realized that we are harder to kill than cockroaches, and concluded that the only way to wipe us out is to place the means of our destruction in our own hands. Now, it's just a waiting game.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    1. Re:There's a message in this somewhere by MattSausage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. Well done sir!

  10. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because 1.2 million is the same as 70,000, right? You must work for Goldman Sachs.

  11. Nuclear Volcano? by Drethon · · Score: 2, Funny

    What happened to those? Sounds like an excellent power source...

    1. Re:Nuclear Volcano? by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      What happened to those? Sounds like an excellent power source...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

      "The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%)"

      In a sense, those "green geothermal" power plants are really nuclear power plants.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Nuclear Volcano? by lena_10326 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In a sense, those "green geothermal" power plants are really nuclear power plants.

      Oh no. We better get greenpeace on that to put a stop to that nuclear nonsense.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
  12. Nuclear winter? Volcano? Paging xenu... by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm just saying, there's some suspicious congruencies there.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  13. That was the reason! by dangle · · Score: 2, Funny

    More evidence supporting the B Ark theory of human origins...

  14. Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ? by laejoh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Aight, Bloodninja was his name!

  15. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The effects might be similar, but the fact remains that they're different things. The end effect of a brain aneurism is also "nearly identical" to being shot in the head - you die due to loss of brain function. There's nothing "nuclear" about climatic changes brought about by volcanic activity. It's a thoughtless grasp for "gee-wiz" vocabulary, and thus bad journalism.

  16. So, Only 18,500 Individuals Capable of Breeding? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like where we'll be at after another three seasons of American Idol.

  17. Re:The new dogma of genetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The DNA that creates different physical traits does mutate in (more or less) unpredictable leaps and bounds as time goes on. But that's not the DNA they look at in cases like this. There's long strings of junk DNA that does nothing at all - random leftover of mutations that didn't happen to affect our survival one way or the other. Because these don't affect physical traits, they aren't selected for or against and are subject to only one 'force', genetic drift. That's why they're fairly constant.

  18. Re:The new dogma of genetics by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Informative

    But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?

    See, here is your problem, you're assuming evolutionary theory is correct to begin with.

    Indeed, much of science is based on a giant leap of faith in linear regression; physicists, chemists, doctors, engineers, all use linear regression without questioning its assumptions.

    No, they use linear regression and then test to prove it's a reasonable assumption.

  19. The Ancients died of a plague and most of them asc by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Ancients died of a plague and most of them ascended.

  20. Re:The new dogma of genetics by Rhaban · · Score: 5, Funny

    But why should we assume a uniform rate over time, when evolutionary theory says that genetic differentiation happens in leaps and bounds?

    Sources should always be cited when making this kind of argument. I'll do it for you this time:

    Pr. Charles Xavier, X-Men movie introduction speech

  21. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by harris+s+newman · · Score: 2, Informative

    The proper description would be volcanic winter.

  22. Re:Insightful Troll! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this is a troll, it must be a kick-ass troll ...

    I think parent poster should be getting insightful instead; talking about not trusting blindly; even if it is science ... It's only with an open mind, more options can be found. Remember; there used to be science about the earth being flat ages ago.

    "not trusting it blind, even if it is science", "open mind", "science used to be wrong" etc are expressions and phrases very heavily overused by creationists. He gives the game away by saying things like, "I used to be an Atheist", "science wants simple answers", "Science is as irrational as Wahhabism". It is very difficult to tell a troll from a true believer in Creationism. If Creationist walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, let us just call him a duck and be done with it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  23. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I agree that it's a totally inaccurate term (unless the disaster were a criticality event of an underground uranium reservoir, or similar) it's also the simplest way to get accross to a non-technical public the intended image. I don't expect them to use the term 'catastrophic clamactic event' in a flowing sentence. A better phrasing would have been "nucler winter-like disaster" or "a 'nuclear' winter", though.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  24. Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ? by EllisDees · · Score: 4, Funny

    From The Onion:

    Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

    "Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.
      YIR numbers web 5

    According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians--the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government--were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

    "I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  25. Re:The new dogma of genetics by SpeZek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet, as we're discovering, "junk" DNA is really a misnomer.

    It was never meant to denote that it did nothing, just that we hadn't discovered its function yet, so it got put aside for the moment.

  26. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't expect them to use the term 'catastrophic clamactic event' in a flowing sentence.

    Quite right. Such terms should be reserved for events like the 1912 San Francisco Shellfish Riots.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  27. Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ? by corbettw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The flood story is most likely a composite of semi-historical and mythological events surrounding the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It may also be related to the flooding of the Persian Gulf at the end of the last glacial period, when trillions of gallons of sea water flooded into what was a very large (and possibly very fertile) valley. Since the destruction caused by this event, and the resulting 10,000 years of salt-water erosion, would've wiped out any sign of an ancient hunter-gatherer or subsistence civilization in what is now the Persian Gulf, it's impossible to prove. But it's still fun to speculate.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  28. alternative: small population left africa by peter303 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The TWO (only two) genomes analyzed were from the subpopulation which left Africa. If you fully sequence a native south African more genomic variety, this hypothesis may not hold up.

  29. Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

    So... an alternate headline would be "Ancient Sumerian on grass hears voice of God".

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  30. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But, the effect was spread on all H. Sapiens level species more or less equally, giving the more adaptable group the advantage of a sparse landscape. If the near-extinction event hadn't happened, H. Sapiens would likely have been out competed by entrenched specialists.

  31. So what you're saying is by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

    In that event, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts.

    Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  32. Re:Toba volcano ? Nuclear winter ? by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have you heard of the Black Sea Deluge Theory?, basically, they found ruins at the BOTTOM of the Black Sea. Combined with geological records, many speculate that there was a single, massive Flood in the area that wiped out entire cities. This could be the basis for Noah's flood.

  33. Re:We get around by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    You also forgot the Giant Redwood. The Larch. The Fir! The mighty Scots Pine!
    The lofty flowering Cherry! The plucky little Apsen! The limping Roo tree of Nigeria.
    The towering Wattle of Aldershot! The Maidenhead Weeping Water Plant!
    The naughty Leicestershire Flashing Oak! The flatulent Elm of West Ruislip!
    The Quercus Maximus Bamber Gascoigni! The Epigillus! The Barter Hughius Greenus!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  34. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course, when the range between eruptions is 660K to 800K, the low end of that would still make it another 20K years before the next eruption, or roughly twice the entire length of the history of human civilization. "About due" in geological time is very different from most people's view of "about due".

    Yes, I'm aware the eruption could come earlier than previously observed, but it's not really worth worrying about events with astronomical odds that you can do nothing about now is it?

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  35. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by Sanguis+Mortuum · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or they could have just said 'volcanic winter' like the Wikipedia page they link to.

  36. Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bah, you call that news? Try:
          "Humans Nearly Went Extinct 27 Years Ago"
    the commander's Wikipedia entry says he:

    "deviated from standard Soviet doctrine by correctly identifying a missile attack warning as a false alarm on September 26, 1983.[1] This decision most likely resulted in preventing an accidental retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western Allies."

    You can follow any of the links in the above search, or here's a particularly lively read.

  37. Re:So... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More importantly, gene patents existed back then. Most humans were forbidden to express some of their important genes due to patent issues.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  38. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn you, I actually tried looking those up.

  39. Re:"Nuclear" Winter by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An equally valid hypothesis is that there was no environmental change, but that in an otherwise genetically diverse population one small group gained a genetic competitive advantage over other proto-humans and began to multiply wildly, killing off or starving out the rest of the gene pool

    World wide? That's not an equally valid hypothesis.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.