There were no genetic tests 400,000 years ago, so our ancient relatives didn't know as much about themselves as we know about them now.

Scientists have reconstructed a nearly complete mitochondrial genome of an ancient human relative, whose remains were found in Sima de los Huesos ("pit of bones") in northern Spain. It is the oldest DNA to be recovered from an early humanlike species, authors of a study wrote in the journal Nature.

The ancient species that has revealed some of its genetic secrets, via bone fragments from a femur, is probably not directly linked to your family tree though.

"It's quite clear that this is not a direct ancestor of people today," said Svante Paabo, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and senior author of the study.

Instead, he said, this representative of an early humanlike species, called Homo heidelbergensis, could be an ancestor of both Neanderthals and another group called the De nisovans.

The genetic relationship to Denisovans, discovered through this DNA research, is surprising because the Homo heidelbergensis remains found in the cave have many Neanderthal-like features. The only remnants of Denisovans come from Siberia -- a long way from Spain.

"It's sort of an open question really what this means, and I think further research into the nuclear genome of these hominins will address that," Paabo said.

Paabo and colleagues used a new method for sequencing ancient, degraded genetic material to put together the 400,000-year-old specimen's mitochondrial genome. It is the oldest DNA ever found outside permafrost conditions -- in other words, it was not permanently frozen.
Follow CNN Science News.

Mitochondria are structures in cells that convert food energy into usable forms. DNA stored in the mitochondria is passed to children through the maternal line only (i.e., only moms can pass it on), so it's only a small snapshot of inherited genes.

Genetic material in the cell's nucleus comes from both parents and gives a fuller picture of genetic heritage.

To study genetics of our ancient predecessors, researchers have an easier time studying mitochondrial DNA because there are hundreds of times more copies of it in each cell.

"It's a much bigger chance to find some fragments of this preserved," Paabo said.

The method that researchers used involves separating the two strands of the DNA double helix. They then make a "library" from each of the two strands. If part of one strand is damaged, its analogue on the other strand -- which is made of complementary genetic partners -- may be intact.

"That is sort of the big trick involved," Paabo said.

After sequencing the mitochondrial DNA, researchers then compared the result with genetic information about Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Since nuclear DNA encompasses more information about a person's inheritance, a nuclear genome sequence from Homo heidelbergensis may reveal even more clearly how it is connected to other ancient humanlike species, he said.

But retrieving the nuclear DNA sequence will be challenging, study authors wrote. Just to get the mitochondrial DNA sequence, it took about two grams of bone -- less than 0.1 ounce -- even though hundreds of copies of this DNA are in every cell.

Still, Paabo said, the sequencing technique his group used "opens a possibility to now do this at many other sites, and really begin to understand earlier human evolution."

Researchers thought initially the mitochondrial DNA of the Homo heidelbergensis specimen would share a common ancestor with Neanderthals. Neanderthals lived in Europe beginning as much as 300,000 years ago, Paabo said. (Homo sapiens, our species, first appeared in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.)

Instead, researchers discovered through the DNA that this specimen is closer to the Denisovans, a group related to the Neanderthals.

A likely explanation is that in Eastern Eurasia this species gave rise to Denisovans, and in Western Eurasia they were the ancestors of Neanderthals, Paabo said. But more research needs to be done to verify that theory.

Little is known about the Denisovans. Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is only found today on islands in the Pacific.

Paabo was also the senior author on a 2012 study in the journal Science analyzing the Denisovan genome. That research suggested that human ancestors and the Denisovans' ancestors must have branched off from one another as much as 700,000 years ago -- although that number is vague. Still, it seems that the Denisovans must have mated with indigenous people in Papua New Guinea and Australia, Paabo said.

About 3% to 5% of the DNA of people from Melanesia (islands in the southwest Pacific Ocean), Australia and New Guinea as well as aboriginal people from the Philippines comes from the Denisovans.

On the other hand, everyone who lives outside Africa today probably has some Neanderthal DNA in them, Paabo said in 2012.

The bottom line, Paabo said, is that the relationships between these early human relatives -- Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals and Denisovans -- are not clear-cut.

"It's going to be a more complex history that one will eventually clarify with the help of DNA," he said


Oldest human DNA found in Spain - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/health/oldest-human-dna/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

So much for the Earth and the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old


I don't think any credible science sources has been proposing that the Earth or Universe were that young in the last hundred years.

On September 22, 1994 the very first episode of Friends aired. In that episode Monica was skinny, but in later episodes we learned that Monica used to be obese. How is it possible Monica used to be obese if it occurred years before the show even started? Answer, because the shows creator wanted it to appear that way by creating a back story so that we could put current events in context. Otherwise, Monica walking out of the bathroom after being dumped by Chandler with a half gallon of ice cream in her hands wouldn't have any meaning to the viewer.

I don't think any credible science sources has been proposing that the Earth or Universe were that young in the last hundred years.

Credible being the key word. I had a roommate a few years ago who was firmly entrenched in the biblical timeline of only being 6,000 years old. I just had to shake my head.

I own 2 primitive culture hand tool stones from Barkley West, South Africa that date to the second gravel layer of the Vaal River - 500,000 years old.

The posted article was in the Sunday Oklahoman yesterday.

Im sure our resident science expert will chime in that this doesnt matter but its crazy to me, how some can still not believe in at least the most conservative form of evolution when we have fossils of many types of near humans. When we find hunched over, large headed and nosed skeletons, that are definitely set apart from us, what is the explanation of that? Just another animal god created but let die off?

Im sure our resident science expert will chime in that this doesnt matter but its crazy to me, how some can still not believe in at least the most conservative form of evolution when we have fossils of many types of near humans. When we find hunched over, large headed and nosed skeletons, that are definitely set apart from us, what is the explanation of that? Just another animal god created but let die off?

Really ugly people. ;)

http://i.imgur.com/tJoRHmE.png

Not at all arguing anybody's point here, but that tree is "Old Tjikko" and is on a mountain...

Not at all arguing anybody's point here, but that tree is "Old Tjikko" and is on a mountain...

and is on a mountain... What? Don't leave me hangin' like that, man!

:wink:

I know plenty of Christians and none of them think the earth is only "thousands of years old", I'm sure there are some more on the Westboro fringe who believe that but none that I personally know nor do I know of churches who preach that (granted, I haven't been to all of them). Really the only ones that I ever see or hear talking about something like that are those who desire to demean Christians in general.

Why do people still believe the earth is only upwards of 10,000 years old? lol

I know plenty of Christians and none of them think the earth is only "thousands of years old", I'm sure there are some more on the Westboro fringe who believe that but none that I personally know nor do I know of churches who preach that (granted, I haven't been to all of them). Really the only ones that I ever see or hear talking about something like that are those who desire to demean Christians in general.
This if definitely not limited to fringe denominations. Many Christians from conventional denominations believe this.

If the earth was billions of years old wouldn't Niagara Falls be much bigger than it is? They say it erodes at the rate of one foot per year.

If the earth was billions of years old wouldn't Niagara Falls be much bigger than it is? They say it erodes at the rate of one foot per year.

Because the earth popped into its present state 4 billion years ago? MAKES SENSE TO ME

If the earth was billions of years old wouldn't Niagara Falls be much bigger than it is? They say it erodes at the rate of one foot per year.

I think you mean ground down to no longer existing as a 'fall'. Anyway, the great lakes were a fairly late edition to our contenent, a remenant of glacial period that ended ironically for this topic about 10,000 years ago

So how old is Niagara Falls then?

So how old is Niagara Falls then?

Pretty much the same as the lakes, the glaciers that created both started receding around 25,000 to 21,000 years ago, by around 10,000 years the glacier covering the lakes were fully melted

So how old is Niagara Falls then?

Why do we have to provide proof for you?

Try this (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+old+is+Niagara+Falls%3F)

Why do we have to provide proof for you?

Try this (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+old+is+Niagara+Falls%3F)

That's awesome!

... an artistic rendering...
Posters created by Hippies aren't a reliable source. I know because I
was a Hippie.

So there was no water before the ice age? Only after please explain.

Do your own homework. This is 4th grade stuff.

So there was no water before the ice age? Only after please explain.
Did someone really say this? Who?

So there was no water before the ice age? Only after please explain.

Glaciers radically changed the surface in the area, thus how and where water flowed. It first scraped the soft earth as they grew from north to south, only the hard rock substrate was left in the great lakes region. As massive amounts of ice melted it cut rivers that last to this day.

I am being sincere where there no rivers prior to the glaciers?

I am being sincere where there no rivers prior to the glaciers?

Of course there were, but not necessarily in the same places.

I am being sincere where there no rivers prior to the glaciers?

Did you read my last post? Any existing rivers before that ice age were literally scraped off the face of the earth as the ice displaced any soft soils in it's path

... an artistic rendering...Posters created by Hippies aren't a reliable source. I know because I
was a Hippie.

How did you manage to quote me saying something I never said? Freeeeaky!

Did you read my last post? Any existing rivers before that ice age were literally scraped off the face of the earth as the ice displaced any soft soils in it's path

So The falls did exist millions of years ago or it didn't?

So The falls did exist millions of years ago or it didn't?

It would have been a cliff millions of years ago, probably shorter, since the height difference is from unequal weathering of the rocks on the two sides

Niagara is only 167' tall. So if it erodes at the rate of a foot a year it shouldn't exist anymore

Niagara is only 167' tall. So if it erodes at the rate of a foot a year it shouldn't exist anymore

You're making the assumption that a geographic feature starts as x and linearly progresses to y. There are islands that formed literally overnight in the pacific, and had they continued at their instantaneous rate, they'd probably be some of the tallest mountains on earth.

Niagara is only 167' tall. So if it erodes at the rate of a foot a year it shouldn't exist anymore

Also, niagra erodes vertically and horizontally.

I think you are confusing the direction they said it is eroding, it is moving the fall backward each year
http://www.4hours1000places.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/erosion_of_niagara_falls.jpg

If it's been around for let's just say 20000 years then it would exist

If it's been around for let's just say 20000 years then it would exist

Easily since the last ice age then.

Well at least it is easy to spot who failed science class in grade school. Here I thought the whole ice age with glaciers making the Great Lakes was pretty common knowledge. Good thing this isn't...

http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/nascar-driver-go-to-are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-11730_1.jpg

I just feel trolled.

It sort of ranks up there with Megyn "Jesus was a white guy" Kelly.

It sort of ranks up there with Megyn "Jesus was a white guy" Kelly.

She should just shut up and be hot.

Niagara should have eroded more than 8-10 miles in the last twenty thousand years though so none of this is making sense IMO. Claims have been made that prior to 100 years ago it was eroding as much as 3 feet per year but it has slowed down today to only a foot per year.

Niagara should have eroded more than 8-10 miles in the last twenty thousand years though so none of this is making sense IMO. Claims have been made that prior to 100 years ago it was eroding as much as 3 feet per year but it has slowed down today to only a foot per year.

That's assuming that all factors have remained relatively constant the past 20,000 years. Things change in that amount of time, often significantly.

So an all-powerful God (believed by many to have created everything in the universe) would have been incapable of building a waterfall on day 3?

"What Lyell wrote in Principles of Geology about what he saw on his trip to Niagara Falls was sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of most readers. But what he omitted would have undermined his age estimate to any alert reader. The old adage of ‘never let the facts spoil a good theory’ seems to apply here.

Lyell ignored the reports from Mr Blackwell that residents had observed the Falls recede by more than one metre (three feet) a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old, which was in the ballpark of the biblical chronology, given the uncertainties in the estimates. That was not old enough for Lyell, who was looking to promote his slow-and-gradual geological theories. So he chose to disregard the data and conducted his own investigation of the residents.

A panoramic 1872 woodcut of Niagara Gorge
A panoramic 1872 woodcut of Niagara Gorge looking south from Lake Ontario to the Falls and Lake Erie in the distance.
Lyell does not explain how he did it, but strangely, he arrived at a reduced rate of 0.3 metres (one foot) a year. This ‘conjecture’, as he called it, much better suited his purpose. Since the gorge was 35,000 feet long, he concluded that it must be 35,000 years old!2 This estimate further undermined people’s confidence in the biblical chronology. And Lyell saw the Bible as the major obstacle to the general acceptance of his geological theories.

Lyell’s conclusion was wrong. Later analysis of eyewitness reports from 1842 to 1927 confirmed the high rate of erosion — 1.2 to 1.5 metres (four to five feet) a year.6 The residents of Lyell’s day had been conservative! This rate places an upper limit of 7,000 to 9,000 years for the gorge."

So you're suggesting that if we find something that is as old as the Bible says the earth is, then it is evidence for what? A god?



Let's say the falls are 8k years old (splitting the difference). How about everything else on the earth that is millions of years old? Are we allowed to look at that? Or do we just seek anecdotal stories and evidence that strictly make us feel better about our faith in an invisible man in the clouds?

Makes the case a little more believable for some. I already think that so its not for my benefit.

If they are wrong about the falls what makes you so confident they're not wrong about everything else? We're all born as children with faith so it is a natural aspect of life as you get older some choose to reject and some choose to embrace. This world and everything on it including humans is proof enough to me that it was created and didn't just happen by chance.

Assumptions in dating method

"Unlike historical dating, which depends on direct observation, all ‘scientific’ dating methods rely on assumptions about what happened in the past. Without such assumptions, no age can be calculated. No matter how reasonable these assumptions may seem, we can never be certain they are true unless we have eyewitnesses for the entire time period in question.

We know that the assumptions Lyell made were wrong, because he ended up with a greatly inflated age that did not agree with the Bible. Indeed, his exaggerated 35,000-year age has long been abandoned, even in the geological literature, which now quotes 12,000 years for the age of the gorge — still much older than the Bible allows. But even this age is not based on the best estimates for the erosion rate of the Niagara River. These would still give an age that was ‘too young’. Rather, the 12,000 years is based on radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood from St David’s Gorge. Readers of Creation will already know how inaccurate radiometric dating is!7 Radiocarbon dates are too old because the past effects of Noah’s Flood on the earth’s carbon balance are ignored.8 When these effects are properly included, the radiocarbon age agrees with the Bible.

Interestingly, rather than supporting Lyell’s concept of an old earth, Niagara Gorge provides wonderful consistency with the biblical time-scale. When all the factors that affect erosion are considered, the calculated age agrees quite nicely with the gorge forming since the ice cover retreated about 3,800 years ago, after the post-Flood Ice Age"

Assumptions in dating method

"Unlike historical dating, which depends on direct observation, all ‘scientific’ dating methods rely on assumptions about what happened in the past. Without such assumptions, no age can be calculated. No matter how reasonable these assumptions may seem, we can never be certain they are true unless we have eyewitnesses for the entire time period in question.

We know that the assumptions Lyell made were wrong, because he ended up with a greatly inflated age that did not agree with the Bible. Indeed, his exaggerated 35,000-year age has long been abandoned, even in the geological literature, which now quotes 12,000 years for the age of the gorge — still much older than the Bible allows. But even this age is not based on the best estimates for the erosion rate of the Niagara River. These would still give an age that was ‘too young’. Rather, the 12,000 years is based on radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood from St David’s Gorge. Readers of Creation will already know how inaccurate radiometric dating is!7 Radiocarbon dates are too old because the past effects of Noah’s Flood on the earth’s carbon balance are ignored.8 When these effects are properly included, the radiocarbon age agrees with the Bible.

Interestingly, rather than supporting Lyell’s concept of an old earth, Niagara Gorge provides wonderful consistency with the biblical time-scale. When all the factors that affect erosion are considered, the calculated age agrees quite nicely with the gorge forming since the ice cover retreated about 3,800 years ago, after the post-Flood Ice Age"

Aye yai yai...

And you wont believe accepted scientific methods but you take as fact that the earth was once completely flooded because an old book says so...? Do you not see a problem with how you come about these decisions?

I can believe that the Earth was created by an all-powerful being. I can also believe that it was done so in a rational manner. Finally I can believe that the Biblical account of how the Earth was created was written allegorically, rather than scientifically.

And I can believe unicorn farts are what have kept the falls from eroding more than they have...And I can point to the abundance of horses in Montana to prove it.

Makes just as much sense.

Pretty sure the bible is full of eye witness accounts of what was taking place at the time. Versus the assuming that the scientific community does.

Eye witness accounts have sent many an innocent person to prison wrongly. Eye witness testimony is frequently some of the shakiest of evidence.

Pretty sure the bible is full of eye witness accounts of what was taking place at the time. Versus the assuming that the scientific community does.

You need something other than "it's written in the Bible" to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to begin with. I can write a fake history book and make up fake names of people who say that they saw the fake events in my book. You need proof that is external to the material you are trying to prove true.

God obfuscated the physical characteristics of the earth's geology in order to trip up the non-believes. It's like a prostitution sting and observable provable science is the under cover harlot asking the johns of reason if they need a date. You indisputable fact huggers can go straight to hell or believe in the unbelievable. It's your choice.

This is why most scientists don't bother debating creationists. If you don't believe in science, with all those tests, observations and facts, them there's nothing to discuss. Don't understand radiocarbon dating? Dismiss it. Don't understand plate tectonics? Dismiss it. Don't understand natural selection? Dismiss it. It's easy to simply dismiss what you don't understand in favor of a book written over a couple thousand years filled with inaccuracies and fairy tales.

You need something other than "it's written in the Bible" to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to begin with. I can write a fake history book and make up fake names of people who say that they saw the fake events in my book. You need proof that is external to the material you are trying to prove true.

I'm fairly sure that the above statement is one of the few examples I've ever read that correctly demonstrates what the phrase "begs the question" originally meant (and encourages people not to do so when attempting to construct a logical argument). Thanks for that.

So . . . If it wasn't for God, how would we know God exists?
As some fairly wise writer--I think "they" even made him a "saint"--once said:
"If I'm wrong about the existence of God, I lose nothing.
"If I'm right about it, I gain everything." (paraphrased)

Having said that, anyone who actually believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old must be defining "years" differently than do I.
Maybe "they" mean God Years?

I wonder if Moses, or whoever wrote the 1st chapter of the Bible, was an early version of L Ron Hubbard and started some kooky religious movement.

I wonder if Moses, or whoever wrote the 1st chapter of the Bible, was an early version of L Ron Hubbard and started some kooky religious movement.

Empirical evidence says yes.

I have to admit that, "first there was a big bang from which eventually emerged cosmic strings" is a lot more sophisticated.
And with quantum theory, the number of "commandments" is constantly changing. You can never be sure from one moment to the next how many there are, if any at all.

I have to admit that, "first there was a big bang from which eventually emerged cosmic strings" is a lot more sophisticated.
And with quantum theory, the number of "commandments" is constantly changing. You can never be sure from one moment to the next how many there are, if any at all.

Not to mention the books that are in the Bible were hand picked by some King several hundred years ago and tossed out the ones he didn't like.