Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#2They have more on this on the Nature podcast. I also highly recommend listening to the Nature podcast. It's free, and they usually interview authors of these articles, and it's presented in an elevated fashion that you won't get by reading the NYTimes.
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#3They have more on this on the Nature podcast. I also highly recommend listening to the Nature podcast. It's free, and they usually interview authors of these articles, and it's presented in an elevated fashion that you won't get by reading the NYTimes. http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/
That NYT author, Carl Zimmer, is also pretty solid. He's doing a twitter Q&A now if you want to ask him Qs: https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/408327412250734592
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#4fun fact: Denisovan sounds a bit like Dennis, doesn't it? Surely a coincidence... The remains were found in the Denisova Cave, which was named after a hermit who live there, Denis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave#History
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#5fun fact: Denisovan sounds a bit like Dennis, doesn't it? Surely a coincidence... The remains were found in the Denisova Cave, which was named after a hermit who live there, Denis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave#History
[deleted]
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#6It's so mind boggling to think that the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution.
What the heck happened between 1 million years ago and now? The human race changed a lot and matured very much, but it's so incredible that such a big evolution only happened in the last few thousand years and the rest has taken hundreds of thousands of years.
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#7As another comment says, the author of this New York Times article, Carl Zimmer, is a very solid science writer who knows a lot about evolution. I have occasion to discuss human population genetics with psychologists who study behavior genetics, and when population genetics issues come up in those discussions, some of the new discoveries are surprising even to them. It's hard for reporters, us, and even the working researchers to keep up with the new findings in human population genetics. I'll share a finding here that surprised some researchers I discussed it with this week.
The first human genome to be sequenced was that of Craig Venter, who would be called a "white" man in the United States. The second human genome to be sequenced was that of James Watson, who is also regarded as "white" in either the United States or Britain. One of the first dozen or so human genomes to be sequenced was that of Korean scientist Seong-Jin Kim,[1] and his genome, even though "Asian," is more similar to Venter's than Venter's is to Watson's, and more similar to Watson's than Watson's is to Venter's.[2] Even though lineages are traceable in broad outlines by looking at human genes, there are quite a few human beings who resemble someone in someone else's group more than they resemble people in their own group. "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."[3]
So what's going in these studies of early hominid DNA is that we necessarily have tiny sample sizes, and we actually have no idea how much genetic variation there was in the population we call Neanderthal, how much in the population we call Denisovan, and so on. We will want to sequence as much ancient DNA as we can, and meanwhile sequence more modern human DNA from more people from more places around the world. But we won't be able to trace back the ancestry relationships unerringly, no matter what we do.
[1] http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/05/26/gr.092197.1...
[2] http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1611-file_it-Barbujan...
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#8It's so mind boggling to think that the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. What the heck happened between 1 million years ago and now? The human race changed a lot and matured very much, but it's so incredible that such a big evolution only happened in the last few thousand years…
Nothing of interest, really. Just grunts and horrible screams. And lots of f*cking, of course, to compensate for the massive losses due to disease, wild animals, and famine cycles (which, thankfully, modern age shields us from--well, not the f-ing, I mean the rest.)
Sadly, I must once more indicate that this post is sarcastic, for the humor-challenged ones.
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#9The age of this DNA reinforces just how much of what we value today about "what makes us human" (creativity, intelligence, language, etc.) has lots to do with the knowledge accumulated via our culture, and relatively little to do with genetic differences.
Whenever someone talks about how smart we are genetically, ask yourself if this is the kind of smart we were 10,000+ years ago.
Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries
#10It's so mind boggling to think that the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. What the heck happened between 1 million years ago and now? The human race changed a lot and matured very much, but it's so incredible that such a big evolution only happened in the last few thousand years…
In the Chauvet Cave there are cave paintings that are 32,000 year old[1]. But what's even more interesting, is that some of these paintings are only 27,000 year old. Meaning, that these people knew about the place for almost 5000 years. Can you imagine that kind of continuity?
The documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams[2] presents the cave in a breathtaking detail, definitely worth a watch.