7 ms·

Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

143 points by Irene 13y ago

batbomb 13y ago
They 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/ http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/
- jrkelly 13y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/408327412250734592
  - batbomb 13y ago
    Yeah this article is actually quite good, better than most science articles I've read from most major media outlets. I wasn't meaning to belittle this specific article, but I thought I'd point an actual interview with author Svante Pääbo. Also, again, I think the Nature podcast is by far the best podcast for general science, so if "[people] fucking love science", I'd recommend listening to it weekly over liking a facebook page, especially as they cover their weekly publication on a slightly more accessible level. Also, Science (the periodical) has a pretty okay podcast too.
delicious 13y ago
fun 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave#History
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
terabytest 13y ago
It'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.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  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.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    It is possible for people to understand that you are joking, yet not like it and consider it conversational noise.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Conversational noise? Does one consider things one does not like to be "conversational noise?" Oh well. One learns, someday, to welcome dissent.
      - scott_s 13y ago
        There's a difference between "I do not like this, but it adds to the conversation" and "I do not like this, and it adds nothing to the conversation." The point of the moderation system here is to reduce noise and promote signal. One-liners and drive-by sarcasm do not add much to the conversation.
- adamors 13y ago
tokenadult 13y ago
As 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.092197.109 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/05/26/gr.092197.1... [2] http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1611-file_it-Barbujani%20Pigliucci%20CurrBio.pdf http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1611-file_it-Barbujan... [3] http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full
leot 13y ago
The 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.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  The way I think about it is that there is a tipping point in intelligence where a species can build on its own discoveries at a much accelerated rate, similar to the concept of a singularity in AI. As 10,000 years is not that long from an evolutionary perspective, we are about the dumbest that a species could possibly be in order to reach that singularity point, otherwise we would have done it earlier. Of course, this ignores factors such as non intelligence based adaptations (such as thumbs), antibiotic factors (climate). It also ignores the facts that intelligence is composed of many components, and our singularity might have happened after an improvement is some metric that does not contribute much to overall intelligence. For example, the ability to speak does not make an individual animal more intelligent, but it does facilitate the accumulation of intelligence through generations.
  - leot 13y ago
    Why do we need a tipping point? Proposal: 1) Human progress arises from the development and improved use of tools/technology (and I'm including concepts like "if", as well as skills, as kinds of technology) 2) Our tool use abilities interact multiplicatively/geometrically. E.g., [what I can do with a hammer and a shovel] is not the sum of the [things I can do with hammers] and [the things I can do with shovels] 3) Our tool-use-abilities started meagre 4) Tool use is not uniquely human, but humans are better at it 5) Accidents of history and human development have allowed for the accumulation of tools (agriculture, e.g.) ... this "explanation" (or what have you) yields exponential growth curves that, I propose, would look very similar to those of humans. If there was a "tipping point" perhaps it was (5) -- the introduction of some substrate upon which cultural knowledge could grow.
bushido 13y ago
Simpler explanation/story (Pun intended) == Battlestar Galactica

143 points by Irene 13y ago

They 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/ http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/

jrkelly 13y ago
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 https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/408327412250734592
- batbomb 13y ago
  Yeah this article is actually quite good, better than most science articles I've read from most major media outlets. I wasn't meaning to belittle this specific article, but I thought I'd point an actual interview with author Svante Pääbo. Also, again, I think the Nature podcast is by far the best podcast for general science, so if "[people] fucking love science", I'd recommend listening to it weekly over liking a facebook page, especially as they cover their weekly publication on a slightly more accessible level. Also, Science (the periodical) has a pretty okay podcast too.

delicious 13y ago

fun 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave#History

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

terabytest 13y ago

It'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.

chris_mahan 13y ago
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.
- scott_s 13y ago
  It is possible for people to understand that you are joking, yet not like it and consider it conversational noise.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Conversational noise? Does one consider things one does not like to be "conversational noise?" Oh well. One learns, someday, to welcome dissent.
    - scott_s 13y ago
      There's a difference between "I do not like this, but it adds to the conversation" and "I do not like this, and it adds nothing to the conversation." The point of the moderation system here is to reduce noise and promote signal. One-liners and drive-by sarcasm do not add much to the conversation.
adamors 13y ago

tokenadult 13y ago

As 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.092197.109 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/05/26/gr.092197.1... [2] http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1611-file_it-Barbujani%20Pigliucci%20CurrBio.pdf http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1611-file_it-Barbujan... [3] http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

leot 13y ago

The 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.

gizmo686 13y ago
The way I think about it is that there is a tipping point in intelligence where a species can build on its own discoveries at a much accelerated rate, similar to the concept of a singularity in AI. As 10,000 years is not that long from an evolutionary perspective, we are about the dumbest that a species could possibly be in order to reach that singularity point, otherwise we would have done it earlier. Of course, this ignores factors such as non intelligence based adaptations (such as thumbs), antibiotic factors (climate). It also ignores the facts that intelligence is composed of many components, and our singularity might have happened after an improvement is some metric that does not contribute much to overall intelligence. For example, the ability to speak does not make an individual animal more intelligent, but it does facilitate the accumulation of intelligence through generations.
- leot 13y ago
  Why do we need a tipping point? Proposal: 1) Human progress arises from the development and improved use of tools/technology (and I'm including concepts like "if", as well as skills, as kinds of technology) 2) Our tool use abilities interact multiplicatively/geometrically. E.g., [what I can do with a hammer and a shovel] is not the sum of the [things I can do with hammers] and [the things I can do with shovels] 3) Our tool-use-abilities started meagre 4) Tool use is not uniquely human, but humans are better at it 5) Accidents of history and human development have allowed for the accumulation of tools (agriculture, e.g.) ... this "explanation" (or what have you) yields exponential growth curves that, I propose, would look very similar to those of humans. If there was a "tipping point" perhaps it was (5) -- the introduction of some substrate upon which cultural knowledge could grow.

bushido 13y ago

Simpler explanation/story (Pun intended) == Battlestar Galactica