Fossil finger bone yields genome of a previously unknown human relative (w/ Video)

Dec 22, 2010 By Tim Stephens
Fossil finger bone yields genome of a previously unknown human relative
This fossil bone (not the Denisova fossil) is being prepared for DNA extraction. Photo courtesy of Max Planck Institute.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A 30,000-year-old finger bone found in a cave in southern Siberia came from a young girl who was neither an early modern human nor a Neanderthal, but belonged to a previously unknown group of human relatives who may have lived throughout much of Asia during the late Pleistocene epoch. Although the fossil evidence consists of just a bone fragment and one tooth, DNA extracted from the bone has yielded a draft genome sequence, enabling scientists to reach some startling conclusions about this extinct branch of the human family tree, called "Denisovans" after the cave where the fossils were found.

The findings are reported in the December 23 issue of Nature by an international team of scientists, including many of the same researchers who earlier this year published the Neanderthal genome. Coauthor Richard Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, played a lead role in the analysis of the sequence data, for which a special portal was designed on the UCSC Genome Browser. The team was led by Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Comparison with Neanderthals

By comparing the Denisovan with the genomes of Neanderthals and modern humans, the researchers determined that the Denisovans were a sister group to the Neanderthals, descended from the same ancestral population that had separated earlier from the ancestors of present-day humans. The study also found surprising evidence of Denisovan gene sequences in modern-day Melanesians, suggesting that there was interbreeding between Denisovans and the ancestors of Melanesians, just as Neanderthals appear to have interbred with the ancestors of all modern-day non-Africans.

"The story now gets a bit more complicated," said Green, an assistant professor of biomolecular engineering in the Baskin School of Engineering at UC Santa Cruz. "Instead of the clean story we used to have of modern humans migrating out of Africa and replacing Neanderthals, we now see these very intertwined story lines with more players and more interactions than we knew of before."


In 2007 TIME magazine named Svante Pääbo one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. Here he discusses mapping the Neanderthal genome with the editors of Edge.

The Denisovans appear to have been quite different both genetically and morphologically from Neanderthals and modern humans. The tooth found in the same cave as the finger bone shows a morphology that is distinct from Neanderthals and modern humans and resembles much older human ancestors, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. DNA analysis showed that the tooth and the finger bone came from different individuals in the same population.

Found in a Siberian cave

The finger bone was found in 2008 by Russian scientists in Denisova Cave, an archaeological site in southern Siberia. Pääbo, who had worked with the Russian scientists before, obtained the bone for his research on ancient DNA. In Leipzig, researchers extracted DNA from the bone and sequenced the mitochondrial genome, a smaller DNA sequence separate from the chromosomal DNA and easier to obtain from ancient samples. The results, published earlier this year, showed a surprising divergence from the mitochondrial genomes of Neanderthals and modern humans, and the team quickly began working to sequence the nuclear genome.

"It was fortuitous that this discovery came quickly on the heels of the Neanderthal genome, because we already had the team assembled and ready to do another similar analysis," Green said. "This is an incredibly well-preserved sample, so it was a joy to work with data this nice. We don't know all the reasons why, but it is almost miraculous how well-preserved the DNA is."

Sequencing and analysis of genetic material extracted from Neanderthals recovered at Vindija Cave in Croatia showed that modern non-Africans--Han Chinese, French Europeans and Papua New Guineans--have inherited 1-4 percent of their genes from Neanderthals, probably due to interbreeding that occurred in the ancestral population of all non-Africans in the Levant or in north Africa. Now, scientists have also discovered that Denisovans contributed 4-6 percent of their genetic material to the genomes of present-day New Guineans, thus identifying a second gene flow event. Credit: David Reich, Harvard Medical School

The relationship between Denisovans and present-day Melanesians was a completely unexpected finding, he said. The comparative analysis, which included genome sequences of individuals from New Guinea and Bougainville Island, indicates that genetic material derived from Denisovans makes up about 4 to 6 percent of the genomes of at least some Melanesian populations. The fact that Denisovans were discovered in southern but contributed genetic material to modern human populations in Southeast Asia suggests that their population may have been widespread in Asia during the late Pleistocene, said David Reich of Harvard Medical School, who led the population genetic analysis.

It is not clear why had not already revealed the existence of this group of ancient human relatives. But Green noted that the finger bone was originally thought to be from an early modern human, and the tooth resembles those of other ancient human ancestors. "It could be that other samples are misclassified," he said. "But now, by analyzing DNA, we can say more definitively what they are. It's getting easier technically to do this, and it's a great new way to extract information from fossil remains."

Complex picture of evolution

In the light of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes, a new, more complex picture is emerging of the evolutionary history of modern humans and our extinct relatives. According to Green, there was probably an ancestral group that left Africa between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago and quickly diverged, with one branch becoming the Neanderthals who spread into Europe and the other branch moving east and becoming Denisovans. When left Africa about 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, they first encountered the , an interaction that left traces of Neanderthal DNA scattered through the genomes of all non-Africans. One group of humans later came in contact with Denisovans, leaving traces of Denisovan in the genomes of humans who settled in Melanesia.

This molar of a Denisova hominin differs significantly from that of a Neandertal or a modern human. Image: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

"This study fills in some of the details, but we would like to know much more about the Denisovans and their interactions with human populations," Green said. "And you have to wonder if there were other populations that remain to be discovered. Is there a fourth player in this story?"

Explore further: Study sheds new light on the diet of extinct animals

Related Stories

New ancestor? Scientists ponder DNA from Siberia

Mar 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig has sequenced ancient mitochondrial DNA from a finger bone found in southern Siberia. ...

Neanderthals may have interbred with humans twice

Apr 21, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extinct human species such as Neanderthals may still be with us, at least in our DNA, and this may help explain why they disappeared from the fossil record around 30,000 years ago.

Could Neanderthals live again?

Feb 11, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers are closer than ever to having a first draft of a complete sequence of the genome of a Neanderthal woman who lived some 30,000 years ago, and this means it may one day be possible ...

Recommended for you

Study sheds new light on the diet of extinct animals

4 hours ago

A study of tooth enamel in mammals living today in the equatorial forest of Gabon could ultimately shed light on the diet of long extinct animals, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Dec 20, 2014

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2010
If the first man and the first woman had maximum genetic diversity, it should be possible to have roughly 211 trillion unique chromosomal combinations in their decendants WITHOUT mutation.

When you really think about that for a moment, and then also consider mutation, it seems unlikely anyone has ever even remotely scratched the surface of the human fossil record...

If these humans share 6% of genes with Melanesians, then that's approximately 2.75 Chromosomes worth of DNA in common. Yeah, I realize this would be distributed across all chromosomes.

this could probably be explained by just a handful of marriages of Denosivans family into the family of the Melanesian's ancestors. Like maybe a boat full of people got lost at sea or something and shipwrecked on the islands with them...
StillWind
4.6 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2010
re QC:
There never was a "first" man and woman.
This is a myth that needs to be dispelled.
Two people could not create a sustainable population.
As long as we continue to think in this biblical mindset, we're going to be hampered in our understanding of our species and how we came to be who we are today.
On the other hand, I'd love to see an explanation of how Homo Sapiens evolved to have just 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all other anthropods have 24.
In fact, I've never seen a published report on just exactly where this event occured.
This singular event is more important in defining "us", than any other.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2010

Two people could not create a sustainable population.


That can be proven wrong mathematically, as I have done in the past.

I agree that if you just had one guy and his sister on an island, it wouldn't work, but that's not what we see in the Bible at creation nor after NOah.

If the man and woman had maximum genetic diversity possible whilst still being compatible, then they would have had 92 unique chromosomes between them.

This could give two completely unique versions of each pair of chromosomes, such that they are still compatible, but maximum chromosomal diversity possible.

They could be more different than a 20th generation european is from a 20th generation malaysian, but would still be compatible.

Then you figure many genes lost due to catastrophism and wars, and what we have today is what survived, plus a few almost insignificant mutations.
thales
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
Shootist
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2010
If the first man and the first woman had maximum genetic diversity,


You realize that there never was a "first man and (the) first woman"?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2010
You realize that there never was a "first man and (the) first woman"?


so are you saying you believe in spontaneous generation? You believe 50 men and 50 women just popped out of the ground together? Or maybe you beleive 50 men and 50 women just popped out from monkeys?

Even in the new testament times, the genealogis were taken to be literal. Both Jesus and his disciples, as well as the pharisees, sadducees, priests, and other sects believed Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to literally be their real blood ancestors, as passed down both by word of mouth and text. They even brought Joseph's bones out of egypt. To this day, both the Jews and a large portion of the arabs (various decendants of Esau and Ishamael's families,) are called "Shemitic" or "semetic", becaue they are taken to be directly decended from Noah through the line of Shem.

It's not so easily explained away or ignored by anyone.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2010
IN one of the debates with the unbelievers, Jesus said words to this effect, that, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," and this with regards to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who he affirmed to not only be "real" people, but that even though they had physically died, their spirits lived on.

So anyway, the context of these stories shows that they are not allegories, but were real people who actually lived in these respective time frames.
thales
5 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2010
Wait a minute.

You're saying the BIBLE says all this? What a relief! All this "science" was getting too hard to think about, amiright? Welp, I'm off to calculate genealogies and look for the high water marks left from the Flood! Smell ya later, Physorg!

/s
LuckyBrandon
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
QC I seriously hope you're joking
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
no, hes not. So QC... how about the continuous tree ring counts that extend beyond Noah? We have them you know. You can go compare the rings yourself.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
You know what, never mind QC. I am sure you have some logical explanation that makes sense from your point of view, and i dont even care to hear it.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
That sounded meaner then I meant. At the end of any argument, you can always default to "because god made it like that". Which is fine, really. It's what faith is all about. I don't want get all judgmental or riled up, its not the season for that.
I'm pretty sure god doesn't care if i go to judgement confused about creation. So in the mean time, I just want to learn about this wonderful world we live in. Which is why i come to this site, and probably the reason you do too.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
so are you saying you believe in spontaneous generation? You believe 50 men and 50 women just popped out of the ground together? Or maybe you beleive 50 men and 50 women just popped out from monkeys?


Spontaneous generation never enters the picture. You have a population of australopiths gradually evolving over time, producing more and more "modern" offspring. It's not something that's neatly defined within one lifetime; it's better thought of as the 'first generation', perhaps. Populations within a single group are in a slow but continual flux, and the designation of a new species is a somewhat arbitrary process.

It's not so easily explained away or ignored by anyone.


That's assuming word of mouth is reliable. Even in modern day, ~10% of fathers listed on birth certificates are wrong.

vidar_lund
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
re StillWind:

On the other hand, I'd love to see an explanation of how Homo Sapiens evolved to have just 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all other anthropods have 24.
In fact, I've never seen a published report on just exactly where this event occured.
This singular event is more important in defining "us", than any other.


Two chromosomes of our ancestors simply merged at the ends. The genetic information of the 'missing' chromosome is still contained in the new combined chromosome.

http://www.thetec...p?id=229
hylozoic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2010
Genetics is so nineteenth century.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Even in the new testament times, the genealogis were taken to be literal. Both Jesus and his disciples, as well as the pharisees, sadducees, priests, and other sects believed Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to literally be their real blood ancestors, as passed down both by word of mouth and text. They even brought Joseph's bones out of egypt. To this day, both the Jews and a large portion of the arabs (various decendants of Esau and Ishamael's families,) are called "Shemitic" or "semetic", becaue they are taken to be directly decended from Noah through the line of Shem.

It's not so easily explained away or ignored by anyone.

Yeah, actually it is. Setting aside the fallacy that simply because people in the past took them literally, we should as well, there is the question of accuracy. Matthew and Luke and don't agree on the genealogy of Jesus, and Matthew also strays from Old Testament genealogy. One or more of these genealogies is in error.
barakn
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
If the man and woman had maximum genetic diversity possible whilst still being compatible, then they would have had 92 unique chromosomes between them.

This could give two completely unique versions of each pair of chromosomes, such that they are still compatible, but maximum chromosomal diversity possible.

Each person could have 2 unique versions of each gene, for a total of 4 unique versions amongst the pair of people (not the two QC mentions), except on the sex chromosomes where there could be 3 unique versions of each X gene and only one version of each of the Y genes.

However, there exist certain genes for which hundreds of different versions (alleles) are known. For example, HLA-B (major histocompatibility complex, class I, B) has 626. QC would have us believe that somehow a founding population of 4 genes erupted into 626 in 6000 years, meaning roughly two new mutant variants appear every generation. -v
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
-> This is the opposite of QC's claim of gene loss and "a few almost insignificant mutations." The large number of alleles indicates there is an intense and varied evolutionary pressure on this gene. It in fact codes for a protein involved in alerting the body to the presence of infected cells, and the large number of alleles is undoubtedly related to the large number of different bacteria and viruses humans have encountered over the millennia.
Shootist
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2010
You realize that there never was a "first man and (the) first woman"?


so are you saying you believe in spontaneous generation?


No, and you know it.

To this day, both the Jews and a large portion of the arabs (various decendants of Esau and Ishamael's families,) are called "Shemitic" or "semetic",


In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם‎, translated as "name", Arabic: ساميّ‎) was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Akkadian, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Phoenician, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.

Jews are generally considered Ashkenazi (European) or Sephardic; as the two groups follow different rabbinical authorities.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
evolved to have just 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all other anthropods have 24.
Two chromosomes that the rest of the primates have are now linked together in one chromosme in humans. Don't remember which one but it has a THREE ends. One on each end as usual plus the remains of a pair of ends in the middle.

From
http://en.wikiped...n_genome
A major difference between the two genomes is human chromosome 2, which is equivalent to a fusion product of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13[34] (later renamed to chromosomes 2A and 2B, respectively).


Ethelred
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
It's beginning to be frustrating when people begin with "Jesus said..." or "In the bible....". Here is why it's annoying, are you ready? IN THIS ARGUMENT, YOU ARE TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOUR BOOK IS DIVINELY INSPIRED OR VALID IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY! It's like me saying "It's true because in the fellowship of the rings, Frodo states.....". Do you see how dumb that is? You don't think that the book is real,so NOTHING in it is convincing. You are begging the question. You have assumed a conclusion in your premise. You have assumed the Bible is true, when you really have to demonstrate that before you can use it as evidence.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
You have assumed a conclusion in your premise. You have assumed the Bible is true, when you really have to demonstrate that before you can use it as evidence.

Interestingly, you've done the same: you assumed that evolution is true just because certain others take it to be true. No one knows for absolutely certain where life came from since there was no person present to witness and document and verify that event. And because of that fact, human life [ and all other life for that matter] could have been put in place in more or less the forms we encounter today, and you wouldn't be able to tell the diffs.

The so-called evidence for evolution is simply people's interpretation in favour of what they want to believe in. It can also be shown to support creation as revealed in the bible.

The varying "forms" of human genetics can be easily explained by different groups that dispersed after the tower of babel. They were all still human. I wouldn't be surprised to find many more.

trekgeek1
5 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
@ Kev

No, my acceptance of evolution is based on evidence. Second, evolution doesn't concern itself with the formation of life, that's abiogenesis. And since you state that nobody was there to witness life form and that we cannot be absolutely sure of how it was done, are you then in agreement that it is POSSIBLE that Jesus, God, and the Bible are completely false? I've never heard you concede that point, please clearly state yes or no. And no, the evidence for evolution cannot be used to support creation as described by genesis. That's dumb to say. Precambrian rabbits? The evidence shows all animals created at once? Or at least within days of each other? It completely contradicts your genesis account. Yes, anything is possible, we could have been formed from unicorn farts yesterday but the unicorn tricked us into thinking evolution was true. Let's not venture down the "anything is possible path".
thales
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2010
"It's true because in the fellowship of the rings, Frodo states....."


Please continue. You've intrigued me
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
1/2
you assumed that evolution is true just because certain others take it to be true
There is evidence, a rational theory and that fits that evidence
No one knows for absolutely certain where life came
True. Yet YOU claim to know where came from anyway. You also know, because you have had it pointed out to you DOZENS of times, the theory of evolution is about what happens AFTER life starts. Constantly posting the same nonsense begins to look like intentional fabrication
human life [and all other life for that matter] could have been put in place in more or less the forms we encounter today
We have LOTS of fossils that show this is VERY false
The so-called evidence for evolution is simply people's interpretation in favour of what they want to believe
That has become a standard Creationist LIE. The evidence is megatons of fossils and a lot field, lab and computer studies. There is NO evidence that life was created a mere 6000 years ago exactly as it is today.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2010
2/2
. It can also be shown to support creation as revealed in the bible.
Tick Tock. I have been and asking for that evidence for years. AND asked YOU many times. You run instead of answering. Which makes it clear that you know you just told a big fat fairy story.

Put or shut up. Show evidence for YOUR position. Support you claims.
The varying "forms" of human genetics can be easily explained by different groups that dispersed after the tower of babel.
Bull. The Noah's Big Ass boat story has ONE father with his sons so that means exactly ONE Y chromosome and FOUR wives so only four sets of mitochondrial DNA. There is NO genetic to support that. There is no sign of the alleged flood. There is no way for the Astralian Aborigines to be the same now as they werre before the non-existent flood. Nor for the Asians or the African or Amerinds or any of the animals that were supposed to have on that too large to build yet too small boat.

Kevin will now run away as usual.

Ethelred
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
Yes, anything is possible, we could have been formed from unicorn farts yesterday but the unicorn tricked us into thinking evolution was true. Let's not venture down the "anything is possible path".


So, then you admit the inflationary period patch that has been added to the false big bang theory to make up for the fact that it simply cannot be true under the laws of physics is absurd?

If you laugh at the notion of a recent change in physical laws then you are a hypocrite, because the existing mainstream theory in cosmology proposes just that: fundamental change in the laws of physics, whereby everything was supposedly moving faster than the speed of light for an unknown period of time.

How can you prove the change didn't happen a few thousand years ago?

Guess what? You CAN'T.
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
So, then you admit the inflationary period patch that has been added to the false big bang theory to make up for the fact that it simply cannot be true under the laws of physics is absurd?


We've already determined that you don't understand Inflation, so you should stop interjecting this argument every opportunity you get.
_nigmatic10
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
And this is why religion should stay on their side of the reality fence.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2010
How can you prove the change didn't happen a few thousand years ago?

Guess what? You CAN'T.
Can't see any reason to assume it either. Can't even see why YOU assume it since it makes your god a liar. Either in a book or in the reality that doesn't match that book. Or in the history books either since your god is supposed to have flooded the entire world right about the time the Egyptians were building pyramids. Long after writing came about.

I note again that you have yet to deal with that little historical difficulty of the the Egyptians and the Sumerians not noticing being drowned. Heck you won't even give a WAG as to when you think this purely mythical event is supposed to have occurred. I will keep asking though.

Ethelred
Shootist
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
"It's true because in the fellowship of the rings, Frodo states....."


Please continue. You've intrigued me


No no no, It's true because, in "Fellowship of the Rings", Tom Bombadil says,

"Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside.."
—The Fellowship of the Ring

"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. None have ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master: His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster."
—The Fellowship of the Ring
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
I need evidence, not speculation or imaginitive fantasies. The religio-centric bible is the wrong source for any supporting data. Corroborative writings of Sumerian clay tablets do support the event of the flood, which, according to scientists, happened 13,950 years ago when a large slab of ice the size of a country snapped off the Antarctic ice shelf and caused the greatest tsunami in recorded history, crashing giant waves down on Baalbek, in the Lebanese mountains, scattering 1,600 ton stone slabs, expertly carved and placed into position to support a launching platform from which the "gods" ascended into heaven, leaving them strewn about the area to this day. The platform was reconstructed 12,500 years ago. The Romans built their temple to Jupiter on that same launching pad 2,000 years ago.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
The cranes required to raise one of those stone slabs in Baalbek are few in number today, and cost a great deal to transport and lease.

What I said in the first paragraph above should not be misconstrued, and that is the problem with biblical scholars today. What I am saying is that our DNA is the result of an exchange of genetic material with extraterrestrial visitors, or, as the bible says in the second paragraph of the story of the flood and the tower of Babel: "When the sons of gods had intercourse with the daughters of men, the Nephilim (or giants) were on the earth. Those were the heroes of old."

Until we accept that fact, we will always be searching for our roots where they don't exist.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
1/3
Corroborative writings of Sumerian clay tablets do support the event of the flood,
They have a flood story which is major but still local.
which, according to scientists, happened 13,950 years ago when a large slab of ice the size of a country snapped off the Antarctic ice shelf
You know, that's bullshit. On several levels. WHICH Scientists are that whacked out? I have never seen such a ridiculous claim from anyone before. How the hell can a splash at the Antarctic go all the way to Gibraltar, turn right and crash through the multiple baffles of the Mediterranean then smack into East end of the Sea and flood for many miles inland.

Go look up the Black Sea flood which occurred long after that bogus date of yours. THAT flood was caused by the rising waters of the Mediterranean as the glaciers of the last Ice Age melted.
greatest tsunami in recorded history
More bullshit. How could it be recorded 8,000 years before writing?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
2/3
scattering 1,600 ton stone slabs, expertly carved and placed into position to support a launching platform from which the "gods" ascended into heaven
NONSENSE.

Looking that up I find NO 1600 ton stones. ONE 1000 Ton stone that is still at the quarry. And it was all Roman work.
he platform was reconstructed 12,500 years ago.
And you know this how? Are you trying to satirize the Bible or are you serious about this silliness?
The cranes required to raise one of those stone slabs in Baalbek are few in number today, and cost a great deal to transport and lease.
And the Romans wouldn't have used cranes because they did not have to pick the things up in one go to move them.
What I said in the first paragraph above should not be misconstrued,
How could be construed as anything but the ravings of a Crank?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2010
3/3
. What I am saying is that our DNA is the result of an exchange of genetic material with extraterrestrial visitors
Why would you say something like with NO evidence at all? Have you been mainlining the Book of Urantia and washing it down with Dianetics? The Book of Mormon maybe?
"When the sons of gods had intercourse with the daughters of men, the Nephilim (or giants) were on the earth. Those were the heroes of old."
Only there is no genetic evidence for such a thing and even if you were to loose your mind and except that disproved book then all those people died in the Flood, leaving no genetic material behind.
Until we accept that fact, we will always be searching for our roots where they don't exist.
I am simply amazed that anyone could post such tripe and then think we MUST accept it without a speck of evidence. Heck you didn't even post a link to the source of this fantasy.

Did someone release some odd brain virus on Physorg over Christmas?

Ethelred
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2010
Ethelred: You do more ranting than reading. The information is all there, in books and online. Look them up yourself, or are you so indoctrinated with the fantasy of biblical hearsay (read "heresy") that pure science escapes you? For example, do a Google image search for Baalbek, and try reading some of the information contained in the site texts. Also, my information is gleaned from research, using interpretations of the Sumerian clay tablets' cuneiform script which actually corroborate biblical accounts of the flood. "Local"? are you kidding me? The Boxing Day tsunami originated in Indonesia and killed 250,000 people, including many in East Africa. That one would have been dwarfed by the one that caused the "biblical" flood. Furthermore, the information provided by the clay tablets, which are not religio-centric, but are a historical accounting, are the result of 60 years of studious interpretive analysis by the world's leading scholar on the subject. You, sir, are the tripe.
LuckyBrandon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2010
the last I heard, and the old shoreline exists underneath, is that the flood story of giglamesh (if memory serves) was due to a flood that came through the mountain range and made the dead lake into the dead sea (maybe it was the red sea, cant remember which)...
anyways, the old shoreline has been discovered and seen (there is even a discovery or science channel episode on this), which makes it the most likely candidate. it did correspond with the timeline of the collapse of the last ice age. this was most likely an earthquake/fault line opening up and letting the already swollen med. sea flood into the dead sea. this would be EPIC by any account, even today, and to those around it would appear the whole of earth was flooded...but it wasnt...
any tsunami great enough to have the impact you claim would have worldwide results, and worldwide geological proof, which simply is not there. it is well known that no global flood of any type occurred at one time based on geological evidence.
Skepticus
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2010
All of this arguments by posters on this topic just shows that modern humans are hopeless as truth keepers, recorders and maintainers. Almost all cultures that survived today don't really care about their legacies, too many had bent to destroy evidences contrary to their dogmas, and excised embarassing events from their writings, wilfully or by decree of the state. With this murky picture of the past, and the biases inherent of the present, arguments will continue until homo sapiens sapiens are extinct.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2011
Ethelred: You do more ranting than reading.
That would be a LOT of ranting. I would run out of breath.
Look them up yourself,
You posted the crap YOU support it. I looked up the Roman site. You had it all wrong.
antasy of biblical hearsay (read "heresy") that pure science escapes you?
Funny you should make that remark to me of all people. I am Agnostic and the Fundamentalists around here are even less happy with me than you are.
For example, do a Google image search for Baalbek,
Did it. See the second post.
Sumerian clay tablets' cuneiform script which actually corroborate biblical accounts of the flood. "Local"? are you kidding me?
No. The Gilgamesh Epic had a local flood. The whole bloody Tigrus-Euphrates but localized to there. And even that has no physical corroboration.

Did YOU check the Black Sea Flood? Can YOU explain how a wave did that right angle bit through the ENTIRE Mediteranean?

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2011
The Boxing Day tsunami originated in Indonesia and killed 250,000 people, including many in East Africa.
Which isn't even close to matching the one you claimed. I take you simply don't know that the Straits of Gibraltar are a bit narrow for your needs. Waves are temporary phenomena they don't flood many miles inland thousands of feet high for weeks.

That one would have been dwarfed by the one that caused the "biblical" flood.
For which there is no evidence. None on that Roman site either. Just evidence of what we already knew. The Romans were good engineers.

Furthermore, the information provided by the clay tablets, which are not religio-centric, but are a historical accounting
They are a story. And not written when you claim.

You, sir, are the tripe.
I have evidence in my tripe. You have silliness.

Post a link if you want to be taken at all seriously. I am not going to search through hundreds of web pages to GUESS at which supports your ideas.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2011
maybe it was the red sea, cant remember which)
The Black Sea.
it did correspond with the timeline of the collapse of the last ice age
7000 years BC is the figure I have seen from Bob Ballard's expeditions.

http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Which has a date of 5600 B.C.
this was most likely an earthquake/fault line opening
More likely due to rising seas.
any tsunami great enough to have the impact you claim would have worldwide results, and worldwide geological proof, which simply is not there
That is my point. On top which there is a LOT of Mediteranean between the Straits of Gibralter and the Eastern end of the Mediteranean. Where is the evidence that Italy was hit even harder as would be the case?
it is well known that no global flood of any type occurred at one time based on geological evidence
Obvious except to Fundamentalists that can't seem to grasp the concept of the consequences of claims. Nor does Baudrunner.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.