Early Evolution called into question

[Chuckt]

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...

400,000-yr-old ancestral fling throws evolution into doubt

New tests on human bones that were hidden in a Spanish cave for 400,000 years have revealed the oldest human DNA ever sequenced - and thrown boffins’ picture of early evolution into question.

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone ? but that's not the only boning going on... ? The Register

Apparently you need billions of years and lots of gullibility to be so sure about something they're not.

 

[Steven_R]

Neat. It doesn't throw evolution in doubt, though. It just means what we thought we knew about human evolution needs to be adjusted to take the new data into account.

That's the wonderful thing about science; everytime we turnaround there is new information about the universe. Our preconceived notions are always under attack and there is some new piece of the puzzle under every rock we overturn. I'm not mourning the fact that this new DNA upsets our timeline of human development. I'm celebrating that we now have a clearer picture of the timeline than we did before this bone was found.

Science rules!

 

[Chuckt]

But that is what the article says...It throws Evolution in doubt.

 

[Steven_R]

The article is wrong. It throws the established timeline in doubt and poses some new questions that need to be answered, but it isn't like anthropology departments are going to throw their hands up and proclaim evolution is a lie. They'll just take this new information and figure out how to incorporate it into our understanding of human development. Maybe some older models get kicked to the curb in the process, but that's just part of the scientific method.

Every new piece of information we get will either A) conform to what we already know o B) make us rethink what we thought we knew and come up with a new paradigm. That's not a flaw of science, it's a feature.

 

[Chuckt]

The article is wrong. It throws the established timeline in doubt and poses some new questions that need to be answered, but it isn't like anthropology departments are going to throw their hands up and proclaim evolution is a lie. They'll just take this new information and figure out how to incorporate it into our understanding of human development. Maybe some older models get kicked to the curb in the process, but that's just part of the scientific method.

Every new piece of information we get will either A) conform to what we already know o B) make us rethink what we thought we knew and come up with a new paradigm. That's not a flaw of science, it's a feature.

If you're off by 400,000 years, was it ever right to begin with? It seems like a big miss to me and how can you say they know when they obviously don't know?

 

[Steven_R]

That's not how science works. We come up with a conclusion based on the information at hand. As new information comes to light the original conclusion is either validated or overturned. Repeat forever.

What we have is almost two centuries of data that has painted a picture of a framework. We're adding in details into that picture. Occasionally, some new detail comes along and forces us to repaint a section of our picture, but so far nothing has come along that would force us to simply throw our current work away and start fresh.

At some point along the way we have amassed so much data and seen so many points of information that is just becomes unlikely that anything will overturn our picture. Science is always open to new ideas and information, but there comes a point where scientists realize there isn't going to be contradictory information forthcoming. We know cell theory is right because we can see individual cells. We know the heliocentric model is right because we can see the planets orbiting the Sun. We might argue the details of certain mechanics of cells or how a solar system works, but we know the overall framework is right because of our observations and experiments. We know evolution as a whole is right for the same reason, but scientists are able to say there are some grey areas that will be filled in over time and some ideas will be discarded entirely in favor of fresh ideas based on new evidence.

We though modern humans only went back 250k years. now we know it's 400k years. We'll adjust the model to fit that information.

 

[Hollie]

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...

400,000-yr-old ancestral fling throws evolution into doubt

New tests on human bones that were hidden in a Spanish cave for 400,000 years have revealed the oldest human DNA ever sequenced - and thrown boffins’ picture of early evolution into question.

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone ? but that's not the only boning going on... ? The Register

Apparently you need billions of years and lots of gullibility to be so sure about something they're not.

On the other hand, would you suggest that the gods snapped their eternal digits and *poofed* an ape-like creature into existence as some cosmic joke?

Those gods - their such kidders.

 

[PredFan]

Evolution is thrown in doubt by the examination of bones that are 350 thousand years old?

Seems to me that the only theory being thrown into doubt is the one that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What theory says that? Oh yeah, Creationism.

350,000 > 10,000

 

[JakeStarkey]

The article clearly demonstrates the strength of science, generally, and evolution, particularly: new evidence needs to evaluated in context, which strengthens evolution. Fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not how science works. We come up with a conclusion based on the information at hand. As new information comes to light the original conclusion is either validated or overturned. Repeat forever.

What we have is almost two centuries of data that has painted a picture of a framework. We're adding in details into that picture. Occasionally, some new detail comes along and forces us to repaint a section of our picture, but so far nothing has come along that would force us to simply throw our current work away and start fresh.

At some point along the way we have amassed so much data and seen so many points of information that is just becomes unlikely that anything will overturn our picture. Science is always open to new ideas and information, but there comes a point where scientists realize there isn't going to be contradictory information forthcoming. We know cell theory is right because we can see individual cells. We know the heliocentric model is right because we can see the planets orbiting the Sun. We might argue the details of certain mechanics of cells or how a solar system works, but we know the overall framework is right because of our observations and experiments. We know evolution as a whole is right for the same reason, but scientists are able to say there are some grey areas that will be filled in over time and some ideas will be discarded entirely in favor of fresh ideas based on new evidence.

We though modern humans only went back 250k years. now we know it's 400k years. We'll adjust the model to fit that information.

Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Evolution is thrown in doubt by the examination of bones that are 350 thousand years old?

Seems to me that the only theory being thrown into doubt is the one that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What theory says that? Oh yeah, Creationism.

350,000 > 10,000

Almost NO ONE believes the Earth is only 6000 plus years old. That is a red herring. Creationism does not say it. Some people that believe creationism make the claim based on the bible when God clearly said one could not establish a time line from said Book.

 

[flacaltenn]

Imagine how many Nova documentaries on the origin of man are gonna have to be locked up in the "Whoops" Vault because of this.. You know -- all those reactments of our ape-looking ancestors on the African plains just discovering that they had a brain and opposable thumbs. A mere 40,000 yrs ago.

This WOULD BE HUGE.. And NOT a minor disruption to the science.. How many ape species do you know that existed way back into the Ice Ages?

Guess I remain skeptical about this.. Habeus Corpus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...

400,000-yr-old ancestral fling throws evolution into doubt

New tests on human bones that were hidden in a Spanish cave for 400,000 years have revealed the oldest human DNA ever sequenced - and thrown boffins’ picture of early evolution into question.

World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone ? but that's not the only boning going on... ? The Register

Apparently you need billions of years and lots of gullibility to be so sure about something they're not.

Do me a favor, anytime you know less about something than you do about eschatology, shut the fuck up. This doesn't do a fucking thing one way or the other to prove, or disprove, evolution. All it does is show that we still have a lot to learn, and that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is at least as dumb as you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The article is wrong. It throws the established timeline in doubt and poses some new questions that need to be answered, but it isn't like anthropology departments are going to throw their hands up and proclaim evolution is a lie. They'll just take this new information and figure out how to incorporate it into our understanding of human development. Maybe some older models get kicked to the curb in the process, but that's just part of the scientific method.

Every new piece of information we get will either A) conform to what we already know o B) make us rethink what we thought we knew and come up with a new paradigm. That's not a flaw of science, it's a feature.

Actually, all the models have to get kicked to the curb. No one has ever proposed that there were 4 separate branches of humans before, much less that they could interbreed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution is thrown in doubt by the examination of bones that are 350 thousand years old?

Seems to me that the only theory being thrown into doubt is the one that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What theory says that? Oh yeah, Creationism.

350,000 > 10,000

Nice to see that all the idiots aren't on the religious side of the argument.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's not how science works. We come up with a conclusion based on the information at hand. As new information comes to light the original conclusion is either validated or overturned. Repeat forever.

What we have is almost two centuries of data that has painted a picture of a framework. We're adding in details into that picture. Occasionally, some new detail comes along and forces us to repaint a section of our picture, but so far nothing has come along that would force us to simply throw our current work away and start fresh.

At some point along the way we have amassed so much data and seen so many points of information that is just becomes unlikely that anything will overturn our picture. Science is always open to new ideas and information, but there comes a point where scientists realize there isn't going to be contradictory information forthcoming. We know cell theory is right because we can see individual cells. We know the heliocentric model is right because we can see the planets orbiting the Sun. We might argue the details of certain mechanics of cells or how a solar system works, but we know the overall framework is right because of our observations and experiments. We know evolution as a whole is right for the same reason, but scientists are able to say there are some grey areas that will be filled in over time and some ideas will be discarded entirely in favor of fresh ideas based on new evidence.

We though modern humans only went back 250k years. now we know it's 400k years. We'll adjust the model to fit that information.

Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..

The ice ages started about 2.6 million years ago, so this does not pre-date most of the ice ages. And this does not pre-date our 'monkey' ancestors. It does not even predate Homo Erectus. And our 'monkey' ancestors never existed. We are related to the great apes, not monkeys. And diverged from them millions of years ago.

I suggest you do a bit of research before displaying such massive ignorance concerning the human line of evolution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Imagine how many Nova documentaries on the origin of man are gonna have to be locked up in the "Whoops" Vault because of this.. You know -- all those reactments of our ape-looking ancestors on the African plains just discovering that they had a brain and opposable thumbs. A mere 40,000 yrs ago.

This WOULD BE HUGE.. And NOT a minor disruption to the science.. How many ape species do you know that existed way back into the Ice Ages?

Guess I remain skeptical about this.. Habeus Corpus.

Damn, you are totally bone ignorant. Homo sap dates at least to 200,000 years.

Evolution of Modern Humans:* Early Modern Homo sapiens

All people today are classified as Homo sapiens. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals. It is now clear that early Homo sapiens, or modern humans, did not come after the Neandertals but were their contemporaries. However, it is likely that both modern humans and Neandertals descended from Homo heidelbergensis.

Homo erectus

Where Lived: Northern, Eastern, and Southern Africa; Western Asia (Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia); East Asia (China and Indonesia)
When Lived: Between about 1.89 million and 143,000 years ago

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not how science works. We come up with a conclusion based on the information at hand. As new information comes to light the original conclusion is either validated or overturned. Repeat forever.

What we have is almost two centuries of data that has painted a picture of a framework. We're adding in details into that picture. Occasionally, some new detail comes along and forces us to repaint a section of our picture, but so far nothing has come along that would force us to simply throw our current work away and start fresh.

At some point along the way we have amassed so much data and seen so many points of information that is just becomes unlikely that anything will overturn our picture. Science is always open to new ideas and information, but there comes a point where scientists realize there isn't going to be contradictory information forthcoming. We know cell theory is right because we can see individual cells. We know the heliocentric model is right because we can see the planets orbiting the Sun. We might argue the details of certain mechanics of cells or how a solar system works, but we know the overall framework is right because of our observations and experiments. We know evolution as a whole is right for the same reason, but scientists are able to say there are some grey areas that will be filled in over time and some ideas will be discarded entirely in favor of fresh ideas based on new evidence.

We though modern humans only went back 250k years. now we know it's 400k years. We'll adjust the model to fit that information.

Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..

The ice ages started about 2.6 million years ago, so this does not pre-date most of the ice ages. And this does not pre-date our 'monkey' ancestors. It does not even predate Homo Erectus. And our 'monkey' ancestors never existed. We are related to the great apes, not monkeys. And diverged from them millions of years ago.

I suggest you do a bit of research before displaying such massive ignorance concerning the human line of evolution.

Hey --------

Did I say or CARE when the Ice Ages STARTED?? No I didn't.. I put 400,000 BCE into perspective. The LAST couple of the glacial periods being much milder than the previous ones..

That 200,000 yr difference is SIGNIFICANT. Because previous knowledge was based on Homo Erectus being the first early hominids to migrate from Africa to Northern Europe and Asia about 60Kyrs ago.. But BEFORE THAT happens -- about 200,000 BCE the first DISTINCT human species emerged from these indigenous species of the icy North..

Lemme clue into what the OP is about..

Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture

New tests on human bones hidden in a Spanish cave for some 400,000 years set a new record for the oldest human DNA sequence ever decoded—and may scramble the scientific picture of our early relatives.

Analysis of the bones challenges conventional thinking about the geographical spread of our ancient cousins, the early human species called Neanderthals and Denisovans. Until now, these sister families of early humans were thought to have resided in prehistoric Europe and Siberia, respectively. (See also: "The New Age of Exploration.")

But paleontologists write in a new study that the bones of what they thought were European Neanderthals appear genetically closer to the Siberian Denisovans, as shown by maternally inherited "mitochondrial" DNA found in a fossil thighbone uncovered at Spain's Sima de los Huesos cave.

"The fact that they show a mitochondrial genome sequence similar to that of Denisovans is irritating," says Matthias Meyer of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, lead author of the study, published Wednesday in Nature.

"Our results suggest that the evolutionary history of Neanderthals and Denisovans may be very complicated and possibly involved mixing between different archaic human groups," he said.


Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups.

BEFORE modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60Kyrs ago.. Born from the Ice Ages --- not the plains of Africa..

 

[Politico]

But that is what the article says...It throws Evolution in doubt.

You're a purple Giraffe.

Does that make it true?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's the prob Steve.. As hominid discovery dates get pushed back by 100s of millenia on these "iterations" --- it gets to be more difficult to chart ancestral linkages to primate species as these hominid discoveries begin to PRE-DATE most all of our "monkey" ancestors. You DO REALIZE that this puts hominids into time epochs PREDATING MOST OF THE ICE AGES? Don'tcha?

IF --- big IF ---- this is all correct and it actually IS a hominid leg bone.. The Dennisovans (the name for this species) dont even have a complete fossil record..

The ice ages started about 2.6 million years ago, so this does not pre-date most of the ice ages. And this does not pre-date our 'monkey' ancestors. It does not even predate Homo Erectus. And our 'monkey' ancestors never existed. We are related to the great apes, not monkeys. And diverged from them millions of years ago.

I suggest you do a bit of research before displaying such massive ignorance concerning the human line of evolution.

Hey --------

Did I say or CARE when the Ice Ages STARTED?? No I didn't.. I put 400,000 BCE into perspective. The LAST couple of the glacial periods being much milder than the previous ones..

That 200,000 yr difference is SIGNIFICANT. Because previous knowledge was based on Homo Erectus being the first early hominids to migrate from Africa to Northern Europe and Asia about 60Kyrs ago.. But BEFORE THAT happens -- about 200,000 BCE the first DISTINCT human species emerged from these indigenous species of the icy North..

Lemme clue into what the OP is about..

Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture

New tests on human bones hidden in a Spanish cave for some 400,000 years set a new record for the oldest human DNA sequence ever decoded—and may scramble the scientific picture of our early relatives.

Analysis of the bones challenges conventional thinking about the geographical spread of our ancient cousins, the early human species called Neanderthals and Denisovans. Until now, these sister families of early humans were thought to have resided in prehistoric Europe and Siberia, respectively. (See also: "The New Age of Exploration.")

But paleontologists write in a new study that the bones of what they thought were European Neanderthals appear genetically closer to the Siberian Denisovans, as shown by maternally inherited "mitochondrial" DNA found in a fossil thighbone uncovered at Spain's Sima de los Huesos cave.

"The fact that they show a mitochondrial genome sequence similar to that of Denisovans is irritating," says Matthias Meyer of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, lead author of the study, published Wednesday in Nature.

"Our results suggest that the evolutionary history of Neanderthals and Denisovans may be very complicated and possibly involved mixing between different archaic human groups," he said.


Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups.

BEFORE modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60Kyrs ago.. Born from the Ice Ages --- not the plains of Africa..

Don't know what you are trying to prove here, other than your profound ignorance concerning the evolution of humans.

Homo Erectus Colonization in Europe - Pakefield Homo erectus in England

The Oldest Homo Erectus

The oldest known Homo erectus site outside of Africa is Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, dated to approximately 1.6 million years ago. Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca valley of Spain includes evidence of Homo erectus at 780,000 years ago. But the earliest known Homo erectus site in England prior to the discoveries at Pakefield is Boxgrove, only 500,000 years old.

Homo sap came out of Africa, the Dennisovians and Neanderthals, apparently, from Europe. And none of these groups evolved far enough apart that they could not intermix. That evidence is in the genes of modern man. All that the DNA from those bones established is that the history of our present species is a bit more complex than we previously believed. Overturned nothing, but added very interesting details.