3 ms·
Click bait. It’s an old family tree, yes, but not a large one as you might expect. It’s 5 successive generations living 5.7k years ago (still impressive).
by polycaster 5y ago
Click bait. It’s an old family tree, yes, but not a large one as you might expect. It’s 5 successive generations living 5.7k years ago (still impressive).
- ChrisKnott 5y agoI really think dang needs to add something to the guidelines about calling stuff clickbait. This is a perfectly reasonable headline.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- OJFord 5y agoI wouldn't call it clickbait, but I did read it the same way - a tree from now reaching back to the oldest ancestors made possible by DNA, rather than (as it means) the oldest 'sub-tree', incomplete on both ends, created using DNA. If it were to be improved I think the archaeological dig aspect could be highlighted, i.e. I assume using DNA samples on a dig to create a family tree for the entombed isn't novel; what's new here is that these are older samples than that's previously been achieved with (and probably they had to do some novel things to make it work, hence the paper that I haven't read).