16 votes

Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-ol...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anyone interested in a real book by a real scientist ?

Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer Ph.D (geophysics/biology). It's about a 700 page book on something sort of like this.... But it has not been revised a 100 times.

Are people aware here that Darwin sort of knew how old most creatures were before he started his trip on the MS Beagle. Turns out his first legitimate job was as an archaeologist assistant, and the first place he was to come across had the oldest life on earth, the portion call the Cambrian (explosion). ()

(Evolution)science is stuck in between a rock and a hard place now. They have changed their stories so much it's becoming more and more unbelievable to those paying attention. How many other theories can you think of that have been revised so many times -- and went from extremely simple to being so overly complex it can't be reproduced or seen.

For instance Darwin's finches are about as evolutionary special as height in between humans. They are prone to dying from droughts and the ones with the biggest beaks live becuase they can break the harder seeds from the lack of water... Yeah, took them almost 100 years to find that out.

"Darwin himself was confident that fossils from the Precambrian would eventually be found, believing it to be a time when ‘the world swarmed with living creatures’. Although the importance of the Longmyndian supergroup in solving the dilemma has been recognised since Darwin first identified the puzzle, it is only now, with more sophisticated techniques for examining specimens, that the secrets of the Longmyndian rocks and their exceptionally preserved fossils can be uncovered."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm

Did you ever hear that part in your textbook at 11?

Well, there ya go.

Maybe neither the creationists nor the evolutionists know as much as they think they know. But, God does know. It's good to keep an open mind about things, since we don't know how God created the universe and everything in it, except that the had to be a First Cause.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Very Interesting.

The origin of man stories in the
Sumerian tablets take place about 400,000 years ago.

Written In 1974---Lucy!

Estimated 4 million years old:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lucy-the-first-hominid-skelet...

beesting

Lucy was/is a fraud

So is neandertal, piltdown, nebraska, archaeoptyryx.

Irregardless of evolution or creationism

One glaring fact anthropologists refuse to accept is the biological evidence that clearly shows that humans are an aquatic mammal. If you believe evolution, it was a result of it, or if you believe in creation, we were made that way. Irregardless, form follows function in nature and humans are biologically designed with aquatic adaptations that no land mammal has and most, if not all, aquatic mammals do. I see this as a conspiracy of science, when given overwhelming evidence the established scientific community will reject anything that does not support age old theories that may upset the status quo.

Human babies, born under water with insulating fat will immediately hold their breath and swim, any land mammal baby will immediately drown. From the diving reflex, to salty tears, sweating, hemoglobin, smooth skin, bipedalism, nose shape, ability to hold breath, layers of blubber under the skin, residual webbing between fingers and toes, limited thirst instinct and inability to stay hydrated. The list of adaptations provides irrefutable evidence. Humans are a semi aquatic mammal.
http://aquaticapehypothesis.com/aat.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbSCSHzXkrI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgRpwESWPLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokbVnZsN9I

Adaptations don't prove anything.

That's like saying because a pc can have OSx installed it's a mac. Not it's not and that is not how it works.

Imagine adaptation is like a blanket, but the only blanket - it will cover some but not all.

For instance the fact we have ear drums that are ran by pressure and gravity is not in proof of this. If you stayed under that water for longer than a month or so and tried to leave it you would never have a sense of balance. Combined with muscle atrophy you would be a blob.

We have actually tested this with mice. I would remind you plants actually have the same gene.

Also last but not least all genes can be turned on and off -- evolution claims to make new ones -- no one has ever seen it though.

Imagine if you were born in 2000 AD and how you are now -- just because you've adapted to this lifestyle does that mean that you're stuck? No, it merely means you're body has created itself around what it detects necesarry in this enviorment.

lmfao, maybe "god" created evolution

why is it that people who believe in god or are religious can't accept that maybe evolution is part of their god's plan.

To say evolution or devolution is not a part of life on this planet is quite simply ignorant. Regardless if you believe that the human form has ancestors in apes or if you believe humans are a product of ET genetic manipulation, you can't deny that animals can adapt and change physically over time.

Maybe becuase it's wrong.

At least people that believe in god (creationist) don't have alien taxis as their CURRENT THEORY. Panspermia look it up. I'm agnostic, but anything involving aliens is usually a group of physics drop outs.

rattlesnakes that don't rattle..

though herpetologists (fancy for study of creepin' things-type experts) are split on the issue:

first, healthy rattlers with equipment in good working order, do not always rattle.
(early stages of change)
second, some non-rattling rattlers have genetically inheritable atrophied tail muscles and/or deformed rattle tails...
(change in progress)
which may prove beneficial to long-term survival of the species.
(thousands of years from now, change becomes the norm & why the heck did they/ we ever call them 'rattlers' in the first place???)

Great! Then I'll pick devolution

and genetic load for $100 Alex.

I wouldn't laugh so much

You're closer to the truth than you know.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Do an image search for 'aborigine' on google

and compare images to above illustration. Which faces seem stranger?

Built on a false premise?

What of the wild Dingo in Australia, an island continent, and the wild hunting dog in Africa, to mention just two. Selective breeding of domesticated animals and plants has been going on for many thousands of years, I'd hardly call it evolution by natural selection.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

DJP333's picture

Dogs are proof of evolution

"God" didn't put dogs on this earth, they did not exist before humans created them. In the beginning there were only wolves. Through selective breeding, the wolf was developed into hundreds of varied breeds of dog. Most breeds of dogs are at most a few hundred years old, having been artificially selected for particular morphologies and behaviors by people for specific functional roles.

Evolution is real. Think about all the different types of dog, that came from one type of wolf, the grey wolf. Now, why is it so hard to believe that humans have some common links with the ape?

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

GoodSamaritan's picture

Speciation is testable, repeatable, and promised in Genesis

One kind of organism changing into another has never been observed.

This is a big yawn. Dogs can breed with wolves. They are the same kind.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Define "kind"

One kind of organism changing into another has never been observed.

Define "kind."

GoodSamaritan's picture

Kind is a genetic boundary for variation

Evolution requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and traits. Speciation is just recombination of existing traits. Wolves and dogs are recombinations. There is no new genetic information. They remain within the same genetic boundary.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati gives a good definition of kind at http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Can you be more specific?

Speciation is just recombination of existing traits. Wolves and dogs are recombinations. There is no new genetic information. They remain within the same genetic boundary.

Given two organisms, one a direct descendent of the other, what should a scientist do in order to determine whether a genetic boundary has been crossed?

GoodSamaritan's picture

I would think the first thing to check

is whether or not the descendent can breed within the parent species, assuming it's not sterile due to mutation or other defect that interferes with fertility.

Which brings up an interesting point. There would have to be both a male and a female of the new kind in order for it to reproduce, assuming it's not of the asexual variety. That would be an amazing coincidence.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

First thing to check

is whether or not the descendent can breed within the parent species, assuming it's not sterile due to mutation or other defect that interferes with fertility.

So then I assume you reject all the claimed cases of observed speciation in exactly that sense?

If the objection is that they may not be able to interbreed but "they're all still fruit flies" (or whatever species of fish, or sheep, or whatever) then it's back to the question of how to define "kind' in an objective way so that it could be evaluated scientifically.

Which brings up an interesting point. There would have to be both a male and a female of the new kind in order for it to reproduce, assuming it's not of the asexual variety. That would be an amazing coincidence.

I can't figure out what you mean by this. Are you assuming that the speciation is an event that happens at some point in time, in a single generation, rather than gradually over many generations?

Suppose in generation zero you have a population of males and females. You divide the group into two isolated colonies. Some generations later you have makes and females in each colony, but individuals from colony one can't interbreed with an individuals from colony two. What's the amazing coincidence?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Kind can breed with kind

We're discussing one of the major differences in Creation vs. Evolution.

In the Creation model, kinds cannot breed with other kinds (and please realize than I'm simplifying here because there are disagreements over taxonomy in both camps). So, the cat kind cannot breed with the dog kind, and one will never evolve into the other.

In the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), it's possible for any organism to evolve without limit. Given enough time, giraffes could evolve into alligators, or anything else.

Speciation rate occurs across a spectrum, from slowly to rapidly, generally depending on how specialized the breed. That is, selective breeding tends to remove genetic variability - a loss of information. The more genetic information lost (selected out), the slower the speciation.

If it were possible for one kind to give birth to another kind, then by definition the new kind could not breed with the kind it came from. That means in order for it to reproduce, it would have to find a mate of the same new kind. That would be an amazing coincidence for a male and female of the same new kind to be produced at the same time and place. Of course, this is whimsical nonsense because one kind producing another kind has never been observed in thousands of years of breeding.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

OLD BONES

How come they never talk about finding OLD BONES from Giants. Maybe it correlates to much with stories from the Bible.

Money talks and dogs bark

And the time for evolution just got

And time for evolution just got even shorter for it to happen.

Evolutionist are but jobs

They are constantly changing their theories (which a theory is all evolution is) on how old the earth is, how humans came into existence, and everything else the racist Darwin wrote in his fantasy book. I know people who are not religious at all who think evolution is bogus.

DJP333's picture

if it's bogus

how do you explain dogs? See my comment above. Also how do you explain the vast similarities between humans and apes?

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3298074

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

GoodSamaritan's picture

Good engineers reuse parts for efficiency

God using similar components and structures for different purposes is no surprise. Another yawn.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

There's an overwhelming

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence, in a variety of scientific disciplines, that supports the theory of evolution. Consider reading a handful of books on it and see if you maintain your skepticism.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

I already have read many books

I am a very open person, but for every so called "evidence" evolutionist present, there is proof to the opposite, not to mention they contradict themselves on every point. They say they have evidence for Y, then years later they present X that proves they were wrong on Y. That's why is called a theory, because there is no supporting evidence. If there was evidence, it would no longer be theory, but fact.