Oldest Intact Red Blood Cells Found on Iceman

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oldest Intact Red Blood Cells Found on Iceman

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 2, 2012 @04:21AM from the next-on-discovery-cloning-the-iceman dept.

sciencehabit writes "A team of researchers has zoomed in on two spots on the body of the Iceman, a mummified, 5300-year-old hunter found frozen in the Alps in 1991: a shoulder wound found with an embedded arrowhead and a hand lesion resembling a stab wound. The scientists used atomic force microscopy, a visualization method with resolution of less than a nanometer, to scan the wounds for blood residue. They discovered red blood cells — the oldest in the world to be found intact — as well as fibrin, a protein needed for blood to clot. The presence of fibrin indicates that the Iceman, nicknamed Ötzi, didn't die immediately after being wounded."

104 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by crazyjj · 2012-05-02 04:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Scan reveal Ötzi asshole who no respected bro?

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-05-02 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Off our meds today, are we?
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
2. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Chonnawonga · 2012-05-02 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Scan reveal Ötzi asshole who no respected bro?
  Funny, but based on a "Flintstones" understanding of neolithic humans. Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it. Check out Sex at Dawn: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335976553&sr=8-1
3. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by geekoid · 2012-05-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Monogamy is relativity new. A few hundred years old. There is a reason the penis is shaped in such way as to try to remove semen from a previous mate before ejaculating.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by geekoid · 2012-05-02 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  There was a big protest yesterday, and I could help but notice the number of business men, and elderly who where involved.
  Just sayin' that maybe you should actually talk to them instead of just watch the nut jobs the media puts on the air?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  [citation needed] x 2
6. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure it was an XKCD reference about intelligent design.
7. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by rilian4 · 2012-05-02 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Monogamy is relativity new. A few hundred years old.
  
  Your ignorance of history is astounding. Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years. The Apostle Paul's letters on the subject date back to the first century and the Ten Commandments(Do not commit adultery) to before 1000 BC.
  
  --
  
  ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
8. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by nedlohs · 2012-05-02 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is no citation for the first since it's clearly not true (without using a strange definition of few) - there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old.
  For the second: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf
9. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  A roughly conical head wider than the shaft...basic physics man. And it makes evolutionary sense, all issues of monogamy aside.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
10. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by PRMan · 2012-05-02 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Moses is closer to 1500 BC. It would be interesting to do a DNA search to see how many mutations he has in his DNA. I think Genetics gives a much more scientific and reliable date than radiometric dates, which are shown to be wrong on materials with known dates.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
11. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by mrclisdue · 2012-05-02 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  ...except that adultery only seemed to apply if the female was married. The Bible mentions that David had quite a few concubines when he moved into the house of Jerusalem.
  Not that I disagree that monogamy has been preached and practiced for more than just a few hundred years....
12. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that the bible has been rewritten a ton of times, right? Like a TON of times...by almost every biblical "power"...to remove things that they believe were incorrect or to add things that were "missing"?
  I didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly.
13. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  And it makes evolutionary sense,
  No it doesn't. It goes counter to other sexual physiology -- like the nap-inducing refractory periods in men. Evolution would favor the men who could stay awake and make sure no other dudes were encroaching on their lady, yet here we are -- clocking out within 30 seconds after blastoff. The dude who dozed would be replaced by the dude who didn't.
  What you're proposing is just modern mythology instead of... you know... science.
  Also, the sexual dimorphism of men being, on average, slightly larger than women, means that humans tend more toward polygamy than polyandry -- at least based on observations of other animals.
14. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Polygamy is not the same as adultery. Early Christians were polygamous, according to historical record. Paul and Solomon were polygamous and so was Jacob (Father Israel). With the exception of Jacob, all of these practiced under Mosaic Law or at least the "Do not commit adultery" continuance (that Paul made) of that law.
  However, monogamy was far more typical than polygamy, polygamy being more an exception to the rule under specific circumstances (i.e. post-war, when half the men had been killed)
15. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Creationist propaganda. No one listen to this idiot.
16. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Fned · 2012-05-02 06:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes, it does, really. They researched this. Humans are the only mammal with a glans shaped like ours, and in simulations it proved to be dramatically more effective at removing recently deposited semen than the glansless penii of other primates.
17. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by gstoddart · 2012-05-02 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years.
  And people have been ignoring it just as long.
  Which may or may not suggest that from a biological perspective, monogamy is a purely social construct. Quite possibly one which doesn't work so well.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
18. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by nedlohs · 2012-05-02 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sure it has. And there are lots of parts that we have copies of that are more than a few hundred years old. So how is that relevant in the slightest.
  If you have some strange irrational fear of the bible as a set of documents then we have a bunch of records from China related to marriage significantly older than a few hundred years.
  Confucius talked about it a lot, for example. Or is that all edited by the illuminai in your paranoid world?
19. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by mcgrew · 2012-05-02 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  A link to Amazon.com is useless as a citation here, so do you mind explaining how they could possibly know the sex habits of people who all died before the invention of writing?
  BTW, the book you linked was written by a psychologist, not a paleontologist. So the guy has no more credibility in that field than you do. Sorry, but your citation is even worse than at first glance.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  I have no strange irrational fear of the bible...I'm simply saying that if you are using it as a reference point, you need to get specific as to the references you're basing your argument off of if you want anyone to pay attention because it is not exactly accurate to the time period that you're asserting it is. Even the parts that we have copies of are exactly that...copies. Granted, some few documents are from near that time period and maintain historical accuracy (at least to the specific historical period in which they were written), yes, but the majority were rewritten from memory after the most accurate "original" document burned. Also, most of the documents that can be considered historically accurate only share similar base concepts with the current iterations of the same passages in what we now know as the bible.
  If you were to say that the specific passage you are referring to is also recorded in historical documents from the actual time period and to provide references to that, I would assume that you were not just basing your argument off inaccurate data. As it sits, you just said that the bible refers to monogamy and therefore it existed as a standard societal concept for more than a few hundred years and, as I said, the bible is largely historically inaccurate.
  I have spent 15 years researching the bible and its iterations and also happen to have been a pastor at one point in my life. I have quite a bit of respect for the bible so I'm not sure where your illuminati references come from or how you have come to the conclusion that I live in some paranoid world...all I've said is that the bible is not a reliable resource for specific or even generalized historical references like the one you randomly threw out there.
21. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by nedlohs · 2012-05-02 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  That says nothing about evolutionary reasons. Sure it's a feature of the anatomy but you can't leap to declaring an evolutionary cause from that. Well if you are a real scientist, if you are a psychologist or a sociologist or an economist then go right ahead as usual.
  Maybe the mutation that resulted in the changing of the shape also had other effects. And those effects are what gave a fitness edge and the anatomy just came along for free.
  Maybe there was a population bottleneck at some point and that feature just happened to make it through by pure chance.
  You can't just pick your favorite reason and claim it as a fact with no evidence.
22. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by uncqual · 2012-05-02 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  clocking out within 30 seconds after blastoff.
  I always figured that was an evolutionary adaptation that allowed the female to get away before the male got around to his second list of priorities and demand she cook and clean and beat her if she didn't.
  
  --
  Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
23. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  It struck me as off-topic to go into great detail, but since you insist, their argument rests on many pillars. For example, there is (as mentioned in another post) the shape of the human penis. There is also the size of the male testicles. Both of these point to high rates of sperm competition, and are not seen in more monogamous species. There is also anthropological research on current hunter-gather societies, where group sex and shared parentage are common. As a professional historian (no, really) I appreciate your scepticism about such indirect reasoning, but it's actually a compelling and interesting read, which is why I recommended it.
24. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  So basically the GP says that monogamy is no more than a few hundred years old with absolutely NO references or citation, and the poster responds with documented counter-examples, yet you grill him for not specifically being able to exactly pinpoint the date they were written.
  By the way, what's a few hundred years? 3? 4? 6?
  I don't know much, but I'm pretty sure monogamy wasn't invented in the 1400s.
  dumbass
25. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by nedlohs · 2012-05-02 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter that what we have is copies. If the copy is more than a few hundred years old then it is irrelevant if it was edited before then. It established the reference as older than a few hundred years.
  The ten commandments would be the obvious passage. Don't commit adultery. We have copies that are 2000 years old - the nash papyrus and the dead sea scrolls.
26. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  So you just made my argument for me. You have gone from saying that the bible references monogamy more than a few hundred years ago to saying that portions of the bible are old enough to reference it and then to saying that original materials that the bible was based upon have references to it. All I said was that your original argument that "the bible says so means it is so" is incorrect.
  If you had started with a reference to the dead sea scrolls you would have been unequivocally correct. Also, in your initial response if you had specified one of the copies that makes these references and that was also more than a few hundred years old, you would have again been correct. As it is, you made a poor argument and I pointed out that your argument was incorrect because you were using generalizations that prove nothing. I may be labeled a troll or you may think I'm nitpicking, but I'm absolutely tired of these generalized arguments that everyone uses now to prove their points. In this case, your original argument was correct but not for the reason that you stated. We DO have historically accurate documents FROM THE TIME PERIOD (again as I stated above) that are not a mishmash of collective remembrances, edited documents, and modified copies and you finally made a valid argument proving your point.
  I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
27. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  It should be obvious - if the woman gets pregnant from YOU and not the guy who fucked her just before you, that's an evolutionary advantage to YOU. More kids for you = evolutionary win.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
28. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
  Statements are not hard evidence, Dr. Logic.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
29. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it.
  I can believe that, but I don't believe for a second that they didn't have the concept of jealousy.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
30. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Chris+Burke · 2012-05-02 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Today was No Meds Day and nobody told me?!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
31. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Sique · 2012-05-02 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  But why have polygamous monkeys penisses shaped quite different from a human one, while the penisses of males of more monogamous monkeys are more similar to ours? Wouldn't that be completely wrong from a "penis shaped to throw out concurrent's semen" point of view?
  (And why, o why, are half of the offspring in a orang-utan harem with one dominant male, the silverback, not related to said dominant male? Maybe those simplicistic world views that can't imagine something quite far from a one-man-one-woman situation are not very imaginative at all? And maybe conclusions drawn with that little imagination stray somewhat from the observed reality?)
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
32. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by GameboyRMH · 2012-05-02 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not linking it to monogamy or polygamy, I'm only saying that the human penis is shaped to clear semen and it's evolutionarily advantageous.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
33. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by StikyPad · 2012-05-02 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can't be the only one who just threw up in their mouth a little after reading that.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
34. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by drkim · 2012-05-02 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars
  It's in this book...
35. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Not everyone cares about such trivial matters...
36. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by tibman · 2012-05-02 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  .. you're talking about the people who don't give a damn about the people they're having sex with.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
37. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by nedlohs · 2012-05-02 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  All I said was that your original argument that "the bible says so means it is so" is incorrect.
  I never claimed that so have fun with your straw man. I gave one example that most people will have heard of in reply to a statement in a slashdot comment. If you expect rigorous citations in this forum you are a moron. I intentionally qualified my claim, which you ignored in order to build with that straw.
  
  I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
  You are a spectacularly bad professor of logic, but to each his own.
  Seriously read it: "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old".
  Do you disputed that there are parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old? Apparently not, and you'd have to be really stupid to do so since we have plenty of copies that are more than a few hundred years old.
  Do you disputed that some parts of the bible reference monogamy? Apparently not, since you claim to know a bit about it and didn't challenge that part.
  So, you disputed that there's an intersection of those two? Obviously not since you took my completely unsourced claim that the dead sea scrolls do in fact contain such references without challenge.
  Changing the statement to the dead sea scrolls just excudes a whole bunch of other copies that are more than a few hundred years old. We have a vulgate from the 8th century, for example. Why would I want to do that.
  And how does your logic zealotry lead you to " didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly". An obviously factual claim is just silly?
  There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any biblical manuscripts that are more than a few hundred years old and hence don't believe your claim". It'd be wrong of course, but that's fine.
  There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any such references in the manuscripts that are more than few years old, it's just in more recent ones". Again, it'd be wrong but perfectly fine to state and await evidence.
  But you didn't do any of those. You just declared it "silly". An true statement that lacks rigorous citation is "silly"? In a slashdot comment?
  Of course asking for a citation would be to much for your professorship, so instead declare it "silly" and don't bother with an unrelated point that clearly was a citation all by itself.
  In summary, you are a fool.
38. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by ozduo · 2012-05-02 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Early Christians owned as many wives as they could afford. As there were lots of poor people there were lots of monogamy.
  
  --
  I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
39. Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! by Jens+Egon · 2012-05-09 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  So, excuse me for putting a hypotheses out there, but are the strongest, highest ranking member of a gang, the last one to have a go during a gang rape?
Excellent! by DWMorse · 2012-05-02 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Now we can clone this caveman creature, on a private island, with a theme park tourist-attraction setting! Spare no expense, of course!

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
1. Re:Excellent! by MassiveForces · 2012-05-02 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Although RBCs don't have any DNA on-board, just about every other cell does - so it's a question of quality if you want to resurrect a clone. But why? He's anatomically a modern human. If you were going to clone him why not yourself? ;)
2. Re:Excellent! by Tyr07 · 2012-05-02 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  The power went out! The electric fences containing the cavemen are down!
3. Re:Excellent! by Walterk · 2012-05-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  They already did that, I do believe he was POTUS for 2 terms and started wars in Iraq & Afghanistan..
  
  --
  
  "If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
4. Re:Excellent! by hackula · 2012-05-02 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  We need to clone him, let him grow to an adult, stab him with a spear, and then put the clone back into the ice. Leave no trace!
5. Re:Excellent! by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-05-02 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Oh my God. Do you know what this is? This is a caveman egg. The cavemen are breeding.
6. Re:Excellent! by Jeng · 2012-05-02 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Not the movie reference I was expecting, I was expecting something more like this one.
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087452/
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7. Re:Excellent! by geekoid · 2012-05-02 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you clone a 'caveman' you will have a lot less outrages then if you did it with a 'normal' person. Mostly because the people who are against it are idiots.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Or, just take the survivors of the 2012 elections, much cheaper than clone a caveman.
9. Re:Excellent! by geekmux · 2012-05-02 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  We need to clone him, let him grow to an adult, stab him with a spear, and then put the clone back into the ice. Leave no trace!
  Following that logic, what makes you think this has not already happened before...how do we know we're not working with a clone already?
10. Re:Excellent! by crazyjj · 2012-05-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  They should build a historical themepark set in the time when Timothy Hutton was considered an A-list actor.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
11. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if we clone him, we should be able to tell pretty easily. I mean, you know a copy of a copy is never as clear as the original, so if our clone comes out really blurry with a bunch of artifacts on the edges, we'll know the one we found was a clone.
12. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say the typical ancient burial site, with a disjointed skeleton and surrounded by a few burial items is almost precisely "blurry with a few artifacts on the edges." I guess everything we dig up is a clone.
13. Re:Excellent! by hackula · 2012-05-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that just means the Prime Directive is working.
14. Re:Excellent! by tibman · 2012-05-02 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  mmm, i wouldn't say "they" are against cloning people because of stupidity. It's more like they are against unregulated cloning specifically. What rights does a clone have? Trying to build sane regulation for cloning would be a nightmare that no politician could navigate successfully.
  Also, it's a popular viewpoint that anything sub-human is ok to experiment with. I am not ok with it, but many are. But i think cloning of people SHOULD be pursued with oversight and transparency. No clone slave armies and all that :)
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
15. Re:Excellent! by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-05-02 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  What rights does a clone have? Trying to build sane regulation for cloning would be a nightmare that no politician could navigate successfully.
  Yes, we face that problem all the time with identical twins - deciding what rights they have is a political nightmare! The fact that clones are not just identical twins, but time-shifted identical twins makes the problem more complex than the human mind could unravel.
16. Re:Excellent! by tibman · 2012-05-03 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Way to be a dick. In this case cloning is the act of artificially creating a person.
  Also, lol! So a natural birth with identifiable mother and father is the same as a child born via a research institute? In that case, you wouldn't mind if the US gov phased out the volunteer army and gets darpa to fill the ranks via clones.
  The problem isn't just the cloning. The problem is also ownership and property. You can own a research mouse but can you do the same with a human? If every experiment results in a (hopefully physically normal) person that has to be supported until adulthood then it would get extremely expensive for a company. The kid is also "working" for the company since birth. Or can a company abandon a clone to society? How many research clones would get adopted each year? Can the company kill a clone (or abort if it is still unborn)? Probably not since companies are typically not moral.
  Was your intention to add something to the conversation or just barge in and act like a ass?
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
17. Re:Excellent! by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-05-03 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  So a natural birth with identifiable mother and father is the same as a child born via a research institute? In that case, you wouldn't mind if the US gov phased out the volunteer army and gets darpa to fill the ranks via clones
  Who's being a dick now? Of course you can't own a person - we settled that about 150 years ago (at least in the US; YMMV). If the darpa clones WANT to join the army, they're entitled to do so same as anyone else; if not, they can't be forced into it any more than anyone else. If you start with the common-sense premise that the rights and responsibilities of a person arise because of their personhood, and are independent of how they came to be a person, it all pretty much sorts itself out.
  
  Perhaps there are as many as three separate issues:
  - are babies whose genes come from one parent legally different from babies whose genes come from two parents? I can't think of any reason they would be.
  - are babies who develop outside of wombs legally different from babies who develop inside wombs? Again, I can't think of any reason they would be.
  - are babies born of surrogate mothers who were paid by a corporation legally different from babies born of surrogate mothers paid by an individual? I still can't think of a good reason why they would be different.
  Plus of course there are many possible combinations, but even if you mix all 3 (a corporation pays for a single person's DNA to be cloned into a human and somehow has the fetus develop without the aid of a womb) I still can't see how the legal system could or should allow the corporation to "own" the person (or kill them, or whatever). Once the person reaches adulthood they're no different than anyone else; the only thing even slightly tricky is the first 18 years.
  
  Yes, if the company somehow ditches responsibility for the person's upbringing the expense would fall on society at large - but that already happens all the time (via orphanages, adoptions, etc) and given the likely expense of the cloning process I can't see there being a significant additional burden to society.
  
  As for being physically normal, random birth defects do and probably always will occur, but if it can be shown that the company's actions (or inactions) were negligent, I'd expect the system to treat the company much like it does a pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, does other drugs, etc (I'll admit I don't actually know how high the bar is, or what happens to the parents who exceed the threshold). Companies could go out of business, but then again mothers who smoke and drink and whatnot die and somehow we muddle through.
18. Re:Excellent! by tibman · 2012-05-04 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds like a good discussion :) It's difficult to hand-wave away the first 18 years though.
  Is the company Mother and Father? Kids aren't property but their parents are responsible for them. Obviously there are already companies that raise kids (orphanages) so it is more than possible. But the difficulty lies in where the kids come from and the purpose in raising them. Is it acceptable to "brain wash" kids to worship the company? It happens everyday with normal parents and religion. Kids are products of their upbringing and normally it is acceptable for parents to raise their kids any way they please as long as it adheres to the current laws. Racism mostly persists today because it is passed from parent to child. It just seems like a difficult thing to have kids born into a company without parents who are raised (and schooled) completely within the confines of that company. The kid can leave just like any kid in the world can run away. What percentage do? Only the brave and the stupid. We're completely sidestepping genetic manipulation and experimentation too.
  So while yes, you are right that people are not property. They are certainly managed by someone until grown. Parents can withhold giving their kids shots or inject any acceptable drug. Typically that is done by the parents for the benefit of the child. A company typically exists not for the benefit of it's employees or "property".
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re: red blood cells have no nucleus by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 04:33 · Score: 1

all they do is truck oxygen around until they are absorbed and eliminated. Nothing to clone. Useful if you want to give them a coating to attract and leach out viruses, too, since such viruses cant do anything once they land in one.
Don't get all that excited.... by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-02 04:34 · Score: 1

About this article. At least I'm not. Yes, they found some secondary evidence of blood cells which presumably helps forensic analysis in some unspecified way. The authors don't think Otzi exsanguinated immediately because they found, again secondary, evidence of something-that-could-be-fibrin. Fibrin is found in blood clots so they assumption is that he lived long enough for his clotting system to figure out that something bad was happening and it ought to try and do something about it.
Although hardly an expert in Neolithic spear damage analysis, I wouldn't expect someone speared to just keel over and die in a couple of breaths like one sees on TV. Even if he bled out over 20 minutes or so, I would expect some (ineffective) clot formation.
So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by aardwolf64 · 2012-05-02 04:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's groundbreaking! Scientists have proved that people 5000 years ago had blood! Expect it to be in the newspaper headlines tomorrow morning...
2. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-02 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and to further go into AM pedant mode - I would not characterize the RBCs found in Otzi as 'intact' using any typical definition of the word. "Not completely trashed and identifiable by complex, detailed molecular analysis" would be closer.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Guppy · 2012-05-02 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.
  Already been done, Otzi was Type-O, Rh+:
  http://www.science-fare.com/article/%C3%B6tzis-entire-genome-sequenced-first-time
  Most interesting part to me was the finding that he had Lyme Disease (or something very closely related to Lyme).
4. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by hackula · 2012-05-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the same thing when I read:
  
  The scientists used atomic force microscopy, a visualization method with resolution of less than a nanometer, to scan the wounds for blood residue.
  
  I am no expert, but isn't a RBC typically visible under a standard microscope?
5. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  FAIL. God didn't create the universe until about 500 years later than that. Icemen are just something extra the jews threw in while they were burying all those dinosaur bones.
6. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-05-02 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Its a unique glimpse into a long vanished way of life and people, an ancient culture of which very little if anything survives today. Some of us find every little detail to be quite fascinating, and who knows, maybe we'll be able to put a few more pieces together and build a more complete picture of our ancestors.
7. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You're not wrong -- you're just not completely right.
  Otzi's blood type is old news -- I wrote the story you sourced.
  But, since its publication, it's been advanced -- they actually found blood cells, not DNA telling us what kind of blood cells they'd be.
  I'm just waiting to interview Dr. Zink and I'll put a relevant story up on the site!
8. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  OMG, there were ticks 5000 years ago! Shocking revelation!
9. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by what2123 · 2012-05-02 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Prove that you are Lee Flohr and I'll concede.
10. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by gstoddart · 2012-05-02 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case?
  Other than the fact they've never found red blood cells that old before? Probably not.
  The point here is that they continue to uncover a wealth of information from this Iceman.
  In this case, the "crime" isn't so much important as what all they've been able to reconstruct from this body.
  Identifying clotting agents in a 5000 year old corpse is definitely getting into uncharted territory. Probably more about the archeology and anthropology as much as anything.
  
  I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.
  LOL, have you recovered red blood cells from a 5000 year old mummy? You make it sound like what they're doing is common place or something.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
11. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Send me a business email: lee.flohr@sciencefaremedia.com -- I'll send you one back :)
12. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  He was frozen due to all the carbon stuff causing made made global warming, see its happened before all you non-believers!
13. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by tomhath · 2012-05-02 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  As I read it the interesting thing is that the blood is well preserved, which implies he was frozen immediately after he died. There has been some debate over whether he died where he was found or whether he was carried there for a ritual funeral. Kind of sounds like he died pretty close to where he was found.
  It's not clear to me that he was a hunter though. There are other signs that he and some companions were in a big and bloody fight shortly before he died (I believe he had blood from other people on his clothes and knife). Sounds more like a raiding party or warriors than hunters.
14. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by dasunt · 2012-05-02 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Its a unique glimpse into a long vanished way of life and people, an ancient culture of which very little if anything survives today. Some of us find every little detail to be quite fascinating, and who knows, maybe we'll be able to put a few more pieces together and build a more complete picture of our ancestors.
  Considering when Otzi lived, if he had any children that has present day descendants, odds are he is everyone's direct ancestor. The period of is life is before the identical ancestors point, before which, everyone who alive is either the ancestor of all human beings alive today, or the ancestor of nobody alive today.
15. Re:Don't get all that excited.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Here's my report after talking to Albert Zink -- due to a lack of time, I'm still anonymous coward.
  Lots of the reporting has been rather brutal, so I hope you'll find my version interesting and factual!
  http://science-fare.com/article/%C3%B6tzis-red-blood-cells-recovered-researchers
Now you know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 04:39 · Score: 0

We should call the CSI people to find the murderer !
1. Re:Now you know what to do... by Norwell+Bob · 2012-05-02 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Allow me to... [sunglasses]
  Spearhead this one.
2. Re:Now you know what to do... by geekoid · 2012-05-02 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2KRpRMSu4g
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:Now you know what to do... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-05-02 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  YEEEAAHHHHHH!!
4. Re:Now you know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  He used to be an caveman like you, then he took an arrow in the shoulder.
5. Re:Now you know what to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong tune. That's for CSI NY, the only remotely tolerable CSI (the "I'll create a gui interface using visual basic to see if I can track down an ip address" nonsense notwithstanding).
  For the Horatio flavor you want "Won't get fooled again"
  YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
ace by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 04:42 · Score: 0

Soon they'll discover that the iceman's DNA contains ace of base pairs.
1. Re:ace by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Kimi Raikkonen is finnish, not swedish. So it'll contain Lordi, of course, none of this Ace of Base lamo techno-pop for him.
Tyrannosaurus Tissue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 04:42 · Score: 0

Wait, I thought I remember reading about some tissue that was recovered from a T-Rex. Wouldn't that contain the oldest?
Iceman? by bhcompy · 2012-05-02 04:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Iceman isn't dead. Goose is.
1. Re:Iceman? by Norwell+Bob · 2012-05-02 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's not your FAULT, Maverick! Now, let's oil up and go play some volleyball. I love the way you flex when you check your watch.
2. Re:Iceman? by geekmux · 2012-05-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Iceman isn't dead. Goose is.
  You sure about that? Seems Icemans career has pretty much melted away into nothingness.
Maverick... by TheTruthIs · 2012-05-02 04:45 · Score: 1

Must be quite pissed off.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! by bmo · 2012-05-02 04:59 · Score: 4, Funny

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS!
--
BMO
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING
1. Re:THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Where is the +1 Lebowski mod when I need it?
2. Re:THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  For context, this is the television-edited quote from The Big Lebowski, which originally was "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass."
  They did good work cleaning that one up, I have to say.
  Captcha: CLASSY
You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-02 05:02 · Score: 1

The people who are against human cloning happen to be the people who believe that "cavemen" were just as human as you or I.
1. Re:You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and they also believe cavemen lived when dinosaurs roamed the earth and that all this happened just a few thousand years ago.
2. Re:You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and they also believe cavemen lived when dinosaurs roamed the earth and that all this happened just a few thousand years ago.
  The guy lived 5300 years ago. This is good. If it was significantly more than 6000 years ago, all of bible-toting America would be against it (it's hard to deny something exists if it's growling and throwing rocks at you).
3. Re:You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-04 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and what does that have to do with cloning? Nothing. Thanks for the offtopic post.
Good News/Bad News by The+Wild+Norseman · 2012-05-02 06:18 · Score: 1

Good news is that after waiting more than five thousand years, Ã-tzi finally was able to be seen by the ER docs for the wound in his hand and shoulder.
Bad news is that, in the meantime, his insurance policy lapsed.

--
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
didn't die immediately after being wounded." by mapkinase · 2012-05-02 06:47 · Score: 2

>didn't die immediately after being wounded."
>a shoulder wound found ..and that implies that the shoulder of our ancestor did not have vital organs, like heart or brain.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Cold Case! by oldmac31310 · 2012-05-02 07:17 · Score: 1

But just you wait. We'll get the bastard that did this to Ötzi!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Looks like Otzi used to be an adventurer like us by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 08:23 · Score: 0

but then he took an arrow to the shoulder
Not much of a caveman by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 11:28 · Score: 0

He would be indistinguishable from us. Well maybe if we put a some fur speedos on you..