Oldest DNA Recovered From 7,000-Year-Old Skeletons In Spain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oldest DNA Recovered From 7,000-Year-Old Skeletons In Spain

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 1, 2012 @08:52PM from the original-markers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers published a paper in the current issue of Current Biology detailing their analysis of DNA from 7,000-year old cavemen in northern Spain. From the article: 'The bones of the two young adult males were found in a cave in the Cantabarian mountain range in 2006 by a handful of explorers, 4,920 feet above sea level. The cold atmosphere is what preserved the DNA in the remains of the two bodies. The cavemen lived during the Mesolithic period and were hunter-gatherers, as determined by an ornament one of the skeletons was holding. They have named the two skeletons Braña1 and Braña2 after the Braña-Arintero site in which they were discovered. They were in near-perfect condition.'"

104 of 146 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

JP by kh31d4r · 2012-07-01 20:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

When are we cloning dinosaurs?
1. Re:JP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft, dinosaurs?
  When are we cloning skeletons?
  I'd imagine they would walk like Jason and the Argonauts' skeletons
2. Re:JP by azalin · 2012-07-01 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  They already did that. There are several documentaries about it. It's called Juicy K Park or sth like that
3. Re:JP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 23:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No time soon. Despite earlier signs, there has been no legitimate DNA recovery from the Mesozoic, the time of the dinosaurs. All the earlier discoveries from amber of that age have turned out to be bogus, as have claims of obtaining DNA from dinosaur bone (it was contamination). In fact, the story is the same for most younger examples too. The oldest legitimate DNA is no more than a few tens of thousands of years old, and very fragmentary. So, we may get information from mammoths, moas, and giant sloths of the Pleistocene, but apparently nothing from extinct dinosaurs. Check this paper [PDF] and this one [PDF] for short reviews, and this one for a longer review.
4. Re:JP by arthurpaliden · 2012-07-02 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it is easier to regress chickens into dinosaurs by screwing around with the on/off switches in their DNA. Which by the way is already being done.....
  
  --
  Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
5. Re:JP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your links are a little dated since as of the most recent, dinosaur soft tissues have been discovered intact. Like T. Rexas blood vessels. See here. Granted it was only in 2006, but I was surprised none of the links were more recent.
  While this particular discovery didn't provide us with DNA, it does give more hints to the biology of dinosaurs in light of the absense of DNA. Though not equivocal, still very important to our understanding, as some conclusions can be drawn from soft tissue structure.
6. Re:JP by silentbrad · 2012-07-02 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I saw that in the discovery channel. I think the guy was talking about doing the same with emus or ostriches. Of course, it might also be that I saw the chicken embryos he'd been messing with and started thinking about an ostrich with teeth, scales, arms with clawed digits, and a tail as long as the rest of its body.
7. Re:JP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Excellent TED talk on this. Jack Horner's team is taking a novel...somewhat terrifying approach since there's no DNA available, but he spends a LOT of time talking about trying to get some viable DNA from various sources:
  http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html
8. Re:JP by jd · 2012-07-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  We have perfectly intact microbial DNA from 45 million years.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
9. Re:JP by RockDoctor · 2012-07-03 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  When are we cloning dinosaurs?
  We are already. Interesting, commercially useful dinosaurs, like chickens and ducks ; rare ones like various raptors ; perhaps interestingly commercial ones (could we back-breed moa, for food?).
  Oh, you meant cloning long-extinct dinosaurs. You provide the genetic material, I'm sure someone will want to do it. Could be interesting - but not more interesting than having the genetic material itself.
  (I disagree with Bob Bakker. Birds Are not Dinosaur Descendants ; birds are dinosaurs. For any meaningful meanings of "bird", "dinosaur" and "are".)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Santa is just an anagram by bmo · 2012-07-01 20:55 · Score: 4, Funny

They were planted there by Satan to test your faith in the Earth being 6000 years old.
--
BMO
1. Re:Santa is just an anagram by buybuydandavis · 2012-07-01 20:59 · Score: 2
  
  Whaddya mean?
  Everyone knows humans and dinosaurs lived side by side. It was on tv, for Christ's sake. Ever hear of the Flintstones?
2. Re:Santa is just an anagram by turkeyfeathers · 2012-07-02 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows humans and dinosaurs lived side by side.
  This article proves it. These cavemen were only 6000 years old, not millions of years old. Dinosaurs were also around 6000 years ago, when God created the planet. After these two cavemen died their pet dinosaurs dragged them up on a mountain and ate them, leaving the bones for archaeologists to discover now. Then the dinosaurs died in a flood.
3. Re:Santa is just an anagram by LurkerXXX · 2012-07-02 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  Then the dinosaurs died in a flood.
  Why? Were they witches?
4. Re:Santa is just an anagram by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-02 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty tricky for Satan to plant those skeletons before God created the world. For that he'd have had to have the plans for human beings before God made them. Did he steal the plans and that's what got him in trouble with the Almighty? Or did he invent us and God had to wait for his patents to expire before he could create his own people?
5. Re:Santa is just an anagram by Rude+Turnip · 2012-07-02 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Current Internet thinking is that the Flintstones takes place in the future, concurrently with the Jetsons.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
6. Re:Santa is just an anagram by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-07-02 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  We're not sure if they died in a flood, but they were wearing the right pants for it.
7. Re:Santa is just an anagram by buybuydandavis · 2012-07-02 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You've got it backwards - if they were witches, then they'd be made of wood, and they'd float.
8. Re:Santa is just an anagram by LurkerXXX · 2012-07-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you are right. I remembered that shortly after I posted. You could also weigh them vs a duck, because ducks float!
9. Re:Santa is just an anagram by formfeed · 2012-07-02 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Then the dinosaurs died in a flood.
  Why? Were they witches?
  Eh, nooo. Witches float.
10. Re:Santa is just an anagram by metaforest · 2012-07-03 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's all fun and games until The Powers That Be find a large reptile skeleton imbedded in the parking structure next door to your Math...
11. Re:Santa is just an anagram by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-04 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well at least if push comes to shove, we have all the protractors.
But where are they? by jaymemaurice · 2012-07-01 20:56 · Score: 1

Where are the 7000 year old cavewomen?!

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
1. Re:But where are they? by Nyder · 2012-07-01 21:03 · Score: 2
  
  Where are the 7000 year old cavewomen?!
  They were vacationing in the South part of Spain.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
2. Re:But where are they? by bmo · 2012-07-01 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't heard of a 7000 year old woman, but the 2000 year old man is still alive.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLqLHWDg5E
  --
  BMO
3. Re:But where are they? by bmo · 2012-07-01 21:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You know when you tell a joke at a party and the entire room goes silent at the punch line?
  --
  BMO
4. Re:But where are they? by flyingfsck · 2012-07-01 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  The women were shopping for shoes in the mall of course.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
5. Re:But where are they? by ThatOtherGuy435 · 2012-07-01 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  They all stopped aging at 29, of course.
6. Re:But where are they? by hvm2hvm · 2012-07-02 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  Look up the movie "The Man From Earth" - pretty good one.
  
  --
  ics
7. Re:But where are they? by tverbeek · 2012-07-02 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Do I have to spell this out for you? Two young adult males hiding in a cave, one of them with some kind of hunter-gatherer "ornament"? Too bad we haven't identified the genes for homosexuality yet, or we could test these boys' DNA for it. :)
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
8. Re:But where are they? by buybuydandavis · 2012-07-02 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I second the film recommendation.
Why ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-01 20:59 · Score: 1

When are we cloning dinosaurs?
Why should we?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Why ? by lazarith · 2012-07-01 21:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So that we can create an amusement park and sell tickets? Duh.... It's not as if it could end badly or anything.
2. Re:Why ? by zero.kalvin · 2012-07-01 21:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Science doesn't ask why should we! Science asks why the heck not put chainsaws on bears and fit them with jetpacks you insensitive clod!
3. Re:Why ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 21:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  food of course, they are basically just giant chickens
4. Re:Why ? by tsa · 2012-07-01 21:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Of course we should, just to show we can. We'll worry about other things later.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
5. Re:Why ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-01 21:45 · Score: 2
  
  Of course we should, just to show we can. We'll worry about other things later.
  You're right, of course
  Please accept my sincere apology
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
6. Re:Why ? by tsa · 2012-07-01 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  LOL :)
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
7. Re:Why ? by Rogerborg · 2012-07-01 22:18 · Score: 2
  
  Not because it's easy, but it because it gets nerds hard.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
8. Re:Why ? by Nidi62 · 2012-07-02 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  When are we cloning dinosaurs?
  Why should we?
  You never stopped to think if you should, you only stopped to think if you could.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
9. Re:Why ? by CptNerd · 2012-07-02 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  We do what we must because we can.
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Oldest human dna by tinkerton · 2012-07-01 21:41 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not the oldest dna, but the oldest human DNA that they've found. This site reports DNA extracted from a 20 million year magnolia leaf.
1. Re:Oldest human dna by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 00:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes, it's not the oldest DNA, but on further study, that plant example is thought to be bacterial contamination [PDF]. The oldest-known current examples are things like extinct mammoths and mastodons that are much younger than 20 million years.
2. Re:Oldest human dna by arobatino · 2012-07-02 00:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A few months ago an entire high-quality 30,000-year old Denisovan genome was published.
3. Re:Oldest human dna by Dr+La · 2012-07-02 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the oldest human DNA is that of the Sclayn Neandertal dating to 90,000 BP.
  
  --
  Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
4. Re:Oldest human dna by tinkerton · 2012-07-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Bummer, is that so? Wait, I have a way out: definitely a neanderthal is no homo sapiens. Now there! My reputation is saved. Sorta.
This kind of surprises me by bhartman34 · 2012-07-01 21:42 · Score: 2

I thought that the earliest DNA recovered from early man was much older than this. Haven't we compared Neanderthal DNA to modern human DNA?
1. Re:This kind of surprises me by lbbros · 2012-07-01 21:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As far as I can remember, these studies on Neanderthal used mitochondrial DNA (i.e., the DNA stored in the mitochondria, which is separate from the one in the nucleus) rather than genomic (i.e. the DNA in the nucleus of the cell).
  
  --
  A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
2. Re:This kind of surprises me by Dr+La · 2012-07-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Early studies into Neandertal genetics concerned MtDNA: but the latest studies concern nuclear DNA. By now, there is a complete Neandertal genome (pieced together from genomic fragments of various Neandertals).
  
  --
  Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
Re:Gays! by RivenAleem · 2012-07-01 22:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes, but one was holding a Football. The Scientists believe this to be the original Real Madrid and Barcelona FC captains.
Oh how I wish Slashdot would consider... by outsider007 · 2012-07-01 22:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Not perpetuating the stereotype of spaniards as gay cavemen.

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
1. Re:Oh how I wish Slashdot would consider... by azalin · 2012-07-01 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  They did find a rainbow Oreo in the cave though...
an ornament? by C0R1D4N · 2012-07-01 22:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seems to be jumping to a conclusion saying they were hunter gatherers by an ornament one was holding. I mean, they probably were just by the lack of agricultural evidence from that era, but what you are holding when you die hardly indicates the nature of your entire culture.
1. Re:an ornament? by cmdr_tofu · 2012-07-01 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I could not find out what the ornament was. (Will have to wait until I can get to the University library to download the paper). I would believe something like fossilized poop or teeth abrasions as evidence of what they ate, but "an ornament" warrants more description and explanation. Was it a pictographic manual of hunter-gathering?
2. Re:an ornament? by arth1 · 2012-07-01 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Seems to be jumping to a conclusion saying they were hunter gatherers by an ornament one was holding. I mean, they probably were just by the lack of agricultural evidence from that era, but what you are holding when you die hardly indicates the nature of your entire culture.
  This is the problem I have with mainstream archeology - the jump to conclusions based on scant evidence, often "supported" by jumps to conclusions others have made before, based on even scantier evidence.
  There's a round dimple in this wall? Obviously they were sun worshippers! The skeleton's tibia was broken? Obviously this was part of a human sacrifice, because they were sun worshippers!
3. Re:an ornament? by epine · 2012-07-01 22:56 · Score: 2
  
  ... but what you are holding when you die hardly indicates the nature of your entire culture ...
  Depends whether it's an iPhone. Twenty years ago I might have agreed with you.
4. Re:an ornament? by turkeyfeathers · 2012-07-02 00:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yeah I could not find out what the ornament was.
  It was a medallion that said "Member of the Hunter-Gatherer Club of Braña-Arintero". How much more proof do you need?
5. Re:an ornament? by tomhath · 2012-07-02 01:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's hard to tell from the article, but I got the impression these two were carefully buried in the cave by other humans. Articles that are buried along with a body tell a lot about the culture. These ornaments depict red deer, which they very likely hunted.
6. Re:an ornament? by ElectricTurtle · 2012-07-02 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In the first place, you're talking about anthropology, not archaeology. In the second place, that's how science works. If you have a hundred artifacts, you try to find a pattern from them, and then if somebody finds a hundred more that invalidate all or part of the previous hypothesized pattern, so be it. You come up with a new one that fits the available data.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
7. Re:an ornament? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-07-02 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably something made from an animal they would have had to hunt, maybe complete with tool marks showing they ate the meat. But maybe these two STOLE the ornament and really came from a robber-gatherer culture. Minus 50th century gangsters.
8. Re:an ornament? by PerfectionLost · 2012-07-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  I can see it now--what future archeologists are saying about us:
  "We found his bones clutching an iPhone. He must have been one of these Scenesters we have culturally read about."
9. Re:an ornament? by Disfnord · 2012-07-02 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, no archaeologist does that. Nice straw-man, though.
10. Re:an ornament? by SexyHamster · 2012-07-02 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is the problem I have with mainstream archeology - the jump to conclusions based on scant evidence, often "supported" by jumps to conclusions others have made before, based on even scantier evidence.
  There's a round dimple in this wall? Obviously they were sun worshippers! The skeleton's tibia was broken? Obviously this was part of a human sacrifice, because they were sun worshippers!
  You know Prometheus wasn't a documentary on proper anthropology, right?
11. Re:an ornament? by arth1 · 2012-07-02 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  You know Prometheus wasn't a documentary on proper anthropology, right?
  If you mean the myth, I don't think that any a*ologists have suggested a religious connection for mastering fire. Yet. But give them a sliver of wood and they'll construct a temple from it. Preferably involving both murder and sex - it sells better that way.
  If you mean the movie, I haven't seen it and hope not to. The same might or might not apply, except that the murders and sex would be in 3D.
12. Re:an ornament? by dargaud · 2012-07-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think he has a point. In archeology, and even more so in anthropology, it seems that every new discovery invalidates or parallelizes the previous one. One example pisses me off: every >1Myo humanoid skeleton found is used to define a new branch of humanity (see 'flores'). You don't see this happen with other animals: if it looks like a coelacanth and it's been in a rock for 110 million years, then it's a coelacanth and they don't build bridges on it.
  
  Interpretation of artifacts and symbols is even more crazy: on my desk I have a paper illustrated by 'the oldest human carving': it's a circle with a vertical line on it. Comment from the article: "the oldest vagina representation" ! Omg, as soon as they invented carving, they drew porn with it, right, just like the internet!!! But think that only a cuople thousand years later when have the insanely developed Chauvet paintings ! So something is off.
  
  . Closer to home, when I read R. Graves as a teen I kept shaking my head at how naive it all was. Very poetic, insightful and interesting, sure, but a complete pipe dream nonetheless. I wasn't surprised to read later articles saying that it was basically either horse manure or bull shit.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
13. Re:an ornament? by bakes · 2012-07-02 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they might not actually be 7000 years old. They could be 4000-year-old archeologists who dug up 7000-year-old hunter-gatherer tools.
  
  --
  Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
14. Re:an ornament? by formfeed · 2012-07-02 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, no archaeologist does that. Nice straw-man, though.
  Straw-man ?
  They believed in Voodoo?
Re:Blue eyes by azalin · 2012-07-01 22:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Did you know that all blue man are descended from a single individual who lived only 10,000 years ago ?
That's why we call them the blue man group.
Re:Oldest? by Michael+Woodhams · 2012-07-01 22:22 · Score: 1

You are right. Neandertal DNA must be at least about 30,000 years old for a start. As I'm not at a university now, I can't check the full paper, but the abstract makes no claim to 'oldest', so this may be a stuff-up by an over-enthusiastic university publicity hack. The paper does claim a full mitochondrial genome, and I'm unaware of whether the older DNA sequences are complete, so maybe this is the seed from which the excessive claim grew.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Re:Gays! by master_p · 2012-07-01 23:17 · Score: 1

The first joke that came to my mind...
Buried the lead by EvilSS · 2012-07-01 23:39 · Score: 1

I'd be much more interested in the DNA from these explorers that are so tiny that you can measure them by the handful.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
This is bad by Errol+backfiring · 2012-07-02 00:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Can't you even have privacy if you are dead for 7000 years?

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Re:Gays! by RivenAleem · 2012-07-02 00:33 · Score: 1

Picture of the ornament they were found holding: Clicky
Re:Oldest? by vipw · 2012-07-02 01:02 · Score: 2

Read the headline again carefully. It's the oldest DNA extracted from these 7000 year old skeletons. Obviously you can extract older DNA from older tissue, but good luck extracting older DNA from these skeletons!
Misquote in article by tomhath · 2012-07-02 01:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

What the scientist actually said:

“These are the oldest partial genomes from modern human prehistory,” said researcher Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogeneticist at the Spanish National Research Council.
He qualifies it with "modern human", which makes sense for a 7000 year old skeleton.
1. Re:Misquote in article by steelfood · 2012-07-02 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's also worthwhile to note he said "partial genomes." You can't make little Brana kids from it.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Oldest? by vipw · 2012-07-02 01:04 · Score: 2

After reading the headline just one more time, I have to conclude that there is another possibility. It is possible to extract older DNA from these skeletons if you move the skeletons out of Spain.
Irony by b_dover · 2012-07-02 01:13 · Score: 2

Anyone else find irony in the fact that a journal named Current Biology publishes an article about 7000 year old DNA?
1. Re:Irony by jd · 2012-07-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  They have their Raisins.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
2. Re:Irony by fibonacci8 · 2012-07-02 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  Nope, in the scale of known existence, 7000 years back is still pretty current.
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
3. Re:Irony by Kittenman · 2012-07-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Good one. Mod parent up, etc etc.,..
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Must be fake. by Titan1080 · 2012-07-02 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative

The sad thing is, most Americans actually believe that.
You aint been clubbing... by Dareth · 2012-07-02 01:39 · Score: 1

You aint been clubbing...until you have been clubbing with Cavemen!

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Re:CREMATE ME PLEASE by Titan1080 · 2012-07-02 01:41 · Score: 1

If they found your DNA, and cloned you, it wouldn't be YOU. It would just be a copy of you, like a twin.
Oldest? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 01:49 · Score: 1

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

Radiocarbon dating on two bones excavated from the pond by the backhoe, paid for by the developers, yielded dates of 7,210 years and 7,320 years Before Present
You are citing from them ? by aepervius · 2012-07-02 01:58 · Score: 4, Funny

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

You gotta kidding me , right ? You are DAMN fucking me ? "Creation magazine" ? Pleeease.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:You are citing from them ? by tinkerton · 2012-07-02 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I wouldn't fuck you with a 6 foot pole. Do it yourself. As for the link. blame Google. It was harder than i thought to find a good link. There are lots of other links listing ancient dna , some claiming 40 million year old snippets, and couldn't find out which claims are still standing. Most of the old ones appear to have been abandoned though, if wikipedia is a guide.
2. Re:You are citing from them ? by dave420 · 2012-07-02 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Blame Google for your laziness? Eh?
3. Re:You are citing from them ? by tinkerton · 2012-07-02 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why not, if it works with Microsoft? To be fair, the page I googled looked sensible. It's a defensible approach to use a sensible quote independent of the source - if it's not too much out of context.
Alien abductions by FridayBob · 2012-07-02 02:21 · Score: 1

Once we compare it to our modern DNA, this 7,000 year old sample will finally reveal to us the changes that the aliens have made to our DNA after thousands of years of genetic manipulation!
Neandertal DNA is much older by peter303 · 2012-07-02 02:38 · Score: 2

And more detriorated. But shot-gun fragment analysis has recovered over 85% of a Neandertal genome. Enough to make detailed analysis to say how its related to homo sapiens.
1. Re:Neandertal DNA is much older by monkeykoder · 2012-07-02 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  And contrary to racist beliefs Europeans and Asians are more closely related to Neanderthals than Africans.
2. Re:Neandertal DNA is much older by Khashishi · 2012-07-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean by "contrary"?
3. Re:Neandertal DNA is much older by steelfood · 2012-07-02 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  shot-gun fragment analysis
  It was once a zombie?
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
4. Re:Neandertal DNA is much older by monkeykoder · 2012-07-02 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean by "What do you mean by "contrary"?"
Re:Must be fake. by Sentrion · 2012-07-02 02:57 · Score: 2

Remember, when arguing with a creationist, that the "possibility" of their argument is all that matters, not the "probability". The creationist counter-argument is:
1. A light-year is a unit of distance, not time, so does not prove age older than 6,000 years.
2. God created "light" as a separate creation event, so the light from the star is just the illumination of God-created light. If you deny that God created the light, then you have to presume that the light traveled for millions of years from the apparent source. An analogy is if you see an arrow in a tree, you might reasonably presume that someone recently used a bow to shoot it, but reality might be that I just jabbed it into the wall with my hand. The point supposedly being that unless you know the whole story [as revealed in the Bible] your deductive reasoning is going to fall short.
Re:CREMATE ME PLEASE by Sentrion · 2012-07-02 03:01 · Score: 3

I'll be damned if one day I wake up inside the fortress of DOOM
Sounds like a reasonable definition of damnation to me.
What about ... by PPH · 2012-07-02 04:15 · Score: 1

... Larry King?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Blue eyes by Baldrson · 2012-07-02 06:17 · Score: 1

And did you know that as of 1900 half of the babies born in the US had blue eyes and the figure is now less than 20%?
Natural selection in action! Well, maybe not natural selection but we certainly have no right to interfere in artificial selection because that would be, well, artificial selection.

--
Seastead this.
Finally a test of the 10k year explosion theory! by Baldrson · 2012-07-02 06:21 · Score: 1

The ten thousand year explosion theory of human evolution is that there has been an enormous change in the genetic character of humans during the last 10000 years.
OK, so now we have a data point.
Hmmmmm... maybe someone should inject formaldehyde "on a accident" to denature all the DNA before hate-facts surface.

--
Seastead this.
Re:Gays! by TheoMurpse · 2012-07-02 07:10 · Score: 1

And they both date back to the Peléstocene.
Re:Blue eyes by excelsior_gr · 2012-07-02 08:40 · Score: 1

That's why we call them the blue man group.
Over here we call them the "Smurfs".
Re:Blue eyes by formfeed · 2012-07-02 13:46 · Score: 1

Did you know that all blue man are descended from a single individual who lived only 10,000 years ago ?
That's why we call them the blue man group.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot of prejudice against them
good by KingBenny · 2012-07-03 21:12 · Score: 1

that oughta give hardcore 'jeezes created the world 33 years before he got nailed to a board' creationists something else to think about

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?