3 ms·
It didn’t though, yeast is much older than this article claims. For one example. http://www.icr.org/article/a-45-million-year-old-brewers-yeast-still/ http://ww
by Semirhage 9y ago
It didn’t though, yeast is much older than this article claims. For one example. http://www.icr.org/article/a-45-million-year-old-brewers-yeast-still/ http://www.icr.org/article/a-45-million-year-old-brewers-yea...
45 million years old for that example.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596657/
350 million years old.
- drb311 9y agoThe article is saying that all yeast originated in the area we now call China, long before any civilisation appeared there. It's not saying the Chinese invented it. The Chinese might have been the first to find a use for it. But that's not what this article is about.
- icegreentea2 9y agoThe article carelessly switches between 'yeast' and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a specific species of yeast.
- dbasedweeb 9y ago...in the area we now call China... Which was part of the supercontinent Pangea only 250mya, and yeast is probably nearly a billion years old. We’re not even talking about the same crustal surfaces. Given how yeast spreads, what’s the theory for how it was constrained to one small part of a supercontinent? The article is just awful, and title aside is clearly talking about Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or is just full of shit. The claims of the article make perfect sense for Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which could plausibly have been traced through genetic studies to China. All yeast though? How do you get genetic info from a good sample size over hundreds of millions of years?!