Entire genome of extinct human decoded from fossil

Feb 07, 2012
Researchers have now been able to sequence the entire Denisova genome using 10 milligram of a finger bone fragment that was found in the Denisova-Cave in Southern Sibiria. © MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 2010, Svante Pääbo and his colleagues presented a draft version of the genome from a small fragment of a human finger bone discovered in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. The DNA sequences showed that this individual came from a previously unknown group of extinct humans that have become known as Denisovans. Together with their sister group the Neandertals, Denisovans are the closest extinct relatives of currently living humans.

The Leipzig team has now developed sensitive novel techniques which have allowed them to sequence every position in the Denisovan about 30 times over, using DNA extracted from less than 10 milligrams of the finger bone. In the previous draft version published in 2010, each position in the genome was determined, on average, only twice. This level of resolution was sufficient to establish the relationship of Denisovans to Neandertals and present-day humans, but often made it impossible for researchers to study the evolution of specific parts of the genome. The now-completed version of the genome allows even the small differences between the copies of genes that this individual inherited from its mother and father to be distinguished. This Wednesday the Leipzig group makes the entire Denisovan genome sequence available for the scientific community over the internet.

“The genome is of very high quality”, says Matthias Meyer, who developed the techniques that made this technical feat possible. “We cover all non-repetitive DNA sequences in the Denisovan genome so many times that it has fewer errors than most genomes from present-day humans that have been determined to date”.

The genome represents the first high-coverage, complete genome sequence of an archaic human group - a leap in the study of extinct forms of humans. “We hope that biologists will be able to use this genome to discover genetic changes that were important for the development of modern human culture and technology, and enabled modern humans to leave Africa and rapidly spread around the world, starting around 100,000 years ago” says Pääbo. The genome is also expected to reveal new aspects of the history of Denisovans and Neandertals.

The group plans to present a paper describing the genome later this year. “But we want to make it freely available to everybody already now” says Pääbo. “We believe that many scientists will find it useful in their research”.

The project is made possible by financing from the Max Planck Society and is part of efforts since almost 30 years by Dr. Pääbo’s group to study ancient DNA. The finger bone was discovered by Professor Anatoly Derevianko and Professor Michail Shunkov from the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008 during their excavations at Denisova Cave, a unique archaeological site which contains cultural layers indicating that occupation at the site started up to 280,000 years ago. The finger bone was found in a layer which has been dated to between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago.

The genome is available at www.eva.mpg.de/denisova and as a Public Data Set via Amazon Web Services (AWS): aws.amazon.com/datasets/2357 .

Explore further: Tricking plants to see the light may control the most important twitch on Earth

Related Stories

Draft version of the Neanderthal genome completed

Feb 12, 2009

In a development which could reveal the links between modern humans and their prehistoric cousins, scientists said Thursday they have mapped a first draft of the Neanderthal genome. Researchers used DNA fragments ...

Shared genes with Neanderthal relatives not unusual

Oct 31, 2011

During human evolution our ancestors mated with Neanderthals, but also with other related hominids. In this week's online edition of PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), researchers from Uppsala Univer ...

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. ...

Recommended for you

Getting a jump on plant-fungal interactions

Jul 29, 2014

Fungal plant pathogens may need more flexible genomes in order to fully benefit from associating with their hosts. Transposable elements are commonly found with genes involved in symbioses.

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
Entire genome of extinct human decoded from fossil


I suppose it would be unethical to grow one, eh?
Skultch
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
Entire genome of extinct human decoded from fossil


I suppose it would be unethical to grow one, eh?


Initially, I'm of the opinion that life is better than not life to this hypothetical individual....
sethxdeath
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
Very excited to hear the creationists chime in on this. Let me guess, these Denisovans were the offspring of angels and men?
Xbw
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
I don't see any creationism in their comments. I say we grow one and send it to school. Can someone say ENCINO MAN!?

If you aren't old enough to remember this reference, you are too young to use this board.
Lino235
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2012
shootist:

How would you grow one?
PosterusNeticus
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
If you aren't old enough to remember this reference, you are too young to use this board.


I counter this by saying that if your personal timescale is short enough to make you think Encino Man is an "old" movie, then you are too young to use this board :)

That aside, this is fantastic work.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
"... these Denisovans were the offspring of angels and men?" - Seth

Impossible, as God created the universe 6,000 years ago.

Clearly this finger was planted there by Lucifer, the king of deceivers.

mthorn10
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
Very excited to hear the creationists chime in on this. Let me guess, these Denisovans were the offspring of angels and men?


I'm glad you want to hear from creationists on this. Frankly, the more diverse viewpoints presented in the discussion on this topic, the better.

I'll ignore your condescension in the hopes of having true dialogue. I'm not interested in shouting matches.

Contrary to what some people believe, a true creationist welcomes scientific inquiry. When something can be empirically demonstrated using the scientific method, you'll hear no protestations from me. Where it gets "fuzzier" is when empirical evidence is used to bolster claims that are scientifically unprovable.

In the story above, I acknowledge the scientific fact that a genome can be mapped. Where I assume I would differ from you is in the interpretation of that scientific fact. You believe the mapping of the Denisovan genome supports the other conclusions made in the story, and I don't. (cont'd)
mthorn10
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
The article says, "...enabled modern humans to leave Africa and rapidly spread around the world, starting around 100,000 years ago." This statement sounds so scientific, it must be true. But it's not really. There is no way it can be proven using the scientific method. For one, it's not repeatable. No historic event is.

So I would hope you would acknowledge that the statement contains some degree of conjecture. How do they know it was 100,000 years ago? They used a formula calculated by examining the rate of mutations in DNA over a known period of time and then extrapolated back. Sounds reasonable, right?

And you may be right. Maybe it was 100,000 years ago. But you can't prove that scientifically so you have to be content to call it an educated guess. And like any other guess, it could be wrong.

Suppose that the mutation rate is actually greater than what is assumed in the formula used above. Then the time frames get shorter, don't they? Just sayin...
Xbw
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
If you aren't old enough to remember this reference, you are too young to use this board.


I counter this by saying that if your personal timescale is short enough to make you think Encino Man is an "old" movie, then you are too young to use this board :)

That aside, this is fantastic work.


I was referring to those who were adults when this movie came out :)
mthorn10
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
And DNA, man that's amazing stuff. There are DNA strands that contain as much information as an entire set of Encylopedia Britannica (sp?). DNA contains the instructions (read: code or language) for all of life. Some people tout the genetic diversity of Galapagos finches as proof of natural evolution (ie, no Creator) without recognizing the entire mechanism of genetic change is based on the fact that the genetic information was already present in the cell. How'd it get there? A code implies a code writer. A language implies intelligence. But let's ignore the implications because that would "allow a Divine foot in the door."~Richard Lewontin

magicgreenbeans
3.6 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2012
The article says, "...enabled modern humans to leave Africa and rapidly spread around the world, starting around 100,000 years ago." This statement sounds so scientific, it must be true. But it's not really. There is no way it can be proven using the scientific method. For one, it's not repeatable. No historic event is.

So I would hope you would acknowledge that the statement contains some degree of conjecture. How do they know it was 100,000 years ago? They used a formula calculated by examining the rate of mutations in DNA over a known period of time and then extrapolated back.


im assuming your limited scoope is due to your limited understanding of the world at large. the article says it was from a fossil dating about 30,000 yrs. ago. this is proven, not from mutatiins in dna, there are none to compare it to so no mutation record exists, it is from dating the strata of sediments that they can determine the general age of a fossil. if you bothered to read something other
magicgreenbeans
3.2 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2012
than scriptures you would pick up on that and several other useful scientific facts that are relevant to normal everyday life. like the fusion of hydrogen in the sun to make light and heat, not gods command of let there be light. but that is another battle.
mthorn10
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 07, 2012
To listen to some modern scientists, you would think mankind has used the scientific method to be able to recreate DNA in a lab and to create life in a test tube.

But that is far from the truth. We're not even close to understanding the origins of this marvelous technology. But some people are so sure that DNA evolved that they will believe this without any scientific proof. In sum, they believe it because they want to believe it.

So maybe the creationists aren't the only ones who are exercising their faith.
Chilly_snowman
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
mthorn10 I really don't want to troll you, but the definition for life is anything that contains carbon. We can easily create in a sealed globe organic material that contains carbon. In fact the experiment was done near Darwin's time. And DNA can be made whether or not it will function is another thing, but putting all the materials together is easily possible. Again I am sorry for my horrible grammar and my troll-like comment, but I thought some decent background information of other experiments might change your opinion or at least make you sound more rounded off if you ever debate this.
truth4life
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
Very excited to hear the creationists chime in on this. Let me guess, these Denisovans were the offspring of angels and men?

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Given the fact the origins of man can effectively go back several 10s of thousands of years does not in anyway deny a creator who is responsible for ALL things. That is part of being human I suppose, being ignorant of things greater than self.
mthorn10
3.1 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
Chilly,

Thx 4 the response. I'm certainly not trying to come off snarky.

I wasn't familiar with the carbon = life viewpoint. I'll research that for future reference. Certainly not trying to cloud the issue.

In my simple way, I was referring to life as that almost undefinable quality that is absent when a living thing (animal, plant) dies. I understand resuscitation, but I'm talking about dead beyond coming back.

Some people get tired of those "anti-science creationists" (redundancy to them?) always wanting to throw God into the mix. For me, I'm just trying to point out the distinction between scientific fact and (what is often) philosophic speculation. It is my express goal to rationally articulate an alternative interpretation that critiques the speculation but does no harm to the science. Of course, I acknowledge that my worldview and belief in God shape my interpretation of the facts. What some fail to realize is that their worldview similarly shapes their interpretation.
jsn3604
2 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2012
After reading all these creation/evolution comments, a random joke just happened to pop into my mind. Did Christopher Hitchens have a deathbed conversion? Answer: God only knows...
Skultch
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2012
mthorn10,

Welcome. If these posts are a good representative example of your attitudes, then your opinions are VERY valuable to this site. You might have no idea how valuable. Almost every creationist on this site is either a troll or has very limited reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. This makes for fruitless debate. I sincerely hope that you are the exception to the apparent rule and that you become a prolific commenter here, for the betterment of us all.
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2012
@chilly - no, 'containing carbon' is not a standard definition of life.

I'm guessing that what you are thinking of is 'organic'. 'Organic' in chemistry means 'containing carbon'.

@mthorn10 - thank you for being polite rather than aggressively dogmatic.
But there's really is no such thing as scientific 'proof', so don't hold your breath waiting for it. What science tries to do is find simple theories that find the data, and, when more than one is found, to find new data that will invalidate at least one of the theories. A 4,500,000,000 year old earth matches the evidence (data) that we find.

Second, a 'code' does not imply a code writer in the 'intelligent persona' sense. The data supports the DNA/RNA 'code' being a product of evolution through natural selection. We see this in action in bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance, for example, and see it preserved in fossil records. Evolution matches the data that we find.
mthorn10
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2012
Wow Skultch-That blows me away. Thx for the welcoming comment. I'm not a troll and certainly try my best to be gracious in all my comments.

I got here today through Instapundit (which I read multiple times a day). When I went to register so I could comment, it said I had been here before. But I don't remember when (yes, I know, I'm getting too old).

As far as commenting here, I definitely enjoy a passionate give and take. It seems some of the others here do too. I feel things deeply, but I am not threatened by evidence that appears to undermine something I believe. That said, I acknowledge that I am hardheaded in letting go of my beliefs. Some may call that being anti-science. As I explained above, it's not the science I have a problem with, it's the use of science as a disguise for philosophy that I seek to counteract.

Thx again for the kind words. I'll try to drop by more often to learn & maybe I can share a few thoughts of my own while I'm here. Yours in the search for truth
RealScience
3.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
-continued-
Science cannot prove that god does not exist. What science does is to show the simplest explanation for what we see is that that RNA/DNA has been shaped by billions of years of evolution, so if god exists then the simplest explanation is that god uses evolution, and if god doesn't exist then evolution happens on its own.

Evolution is a much more elegant way of creating diversity than having to hand-sculpt every detail of every creature, and quite frankly I find it hard to believe that if god exists God would not be elegant, and I find that people who insist that god NOT use evolution should stop telling their God what to do.

If god exists, then science is the study of how God works (which religious people should support). And if god does not exist, then science is a study of how nature works.

So let's find common ground (studying the universe) rather than beating our chests with anti-science / anti-religious rhetoric.
mthorn10
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
I hate the 1hr wait

RealScience, Thanks for the comment. You said, there is "no such thing as scientific 'proof'" Maybe I'm using an improper term. What i mean by that term is objective, empirical evidence. For example, when baking soda is mixed with vinegar (remember how cool that was the first time you saw that in like 2nd grade?), it produces a measurable quantity of CO2. That experiment can be repeated ad infinitum and you will always have the same results. It is observable, repeatable, testable, and falsifiable. That is what I am calling scientific proof.

Data are neutral. They have no meaning apart from a larger context. Theories are how one ascribes meaning to data. So a fossil tooth is flat on top. What does it mean? Can you tell what the animal ate? There are many theories that can fit this datum. So a good scientist tests the theory with all the data s/he can acquire. The more data-the better. But for a historic event, data can only take you so far. The rest is guesswork.
bewertow
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2012
Why does every topic related to evolution have to turn into a debate about creationism vs. reason? Disgusting...
mthorn10
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2012
RealScience, you cited "bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance" But that is an example of a shifting or deletion of genetic coding information which was already present in the bacteria. It does not answer the question of where the coding information came from in the first place. I'm skeptical of the modern assumption (for that is all it is) that small changes in genetic information (which has been observed to occur) is proof of larger changes over time (which has not been observed to occur and which is not observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable). As an example, we have been experimenting on fruit flies for many years. We have achieved remarkable genetic diversity, but the end products remained fruit flies. Your assumption is that given enough time, these same genetic mutations can change a fruit fly into something else. I only ask that before you tell me your assumption is "proven", you have the ability to demonstrate each step scientifically. Yours in the search for truth,
DontBeBlind
1.8 / 5 (13) Feb 08, 2012
I thought you guys were all the type to research information before you start sounding off! Looks like i was wrong. You all keep making the same stupid comment that we "creationists" think the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Like i have said in several other posts before the earth is much older. And the bible teaches that it is much older. All you have to do is read the first page of the bible. Then while your trying to bash "creationists" you can also hit them with the fact that they do not know their own book.
So lets recap. The earth is older than 6k years old. And evolution is still just an unproven theory. :) Good day!
Broseph
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2012
mthorn10, you are quite correct, some science which involves physical evidence relies heavily on guesswork. As you said, a flat tooth... what is that for? We have to guess. Scientists make educated guesses we then test these guesses as best we can. Alot of these guesses get thrown out if they appear to become unlikely in the light of new evidence. DNA dating is more like your example of baking soda and vinegar.
Jayded
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2012
@thorn10 - hahahaha why dont you try and apply the same strict criteria to creationism. i.e. why is it easier to believe a creationist no provable concept then a tangible genome?
roboferret
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2012
I thought you guys were all the type to research information before you start sounding off! Looks like i was wrong. You all keep making the same stupid comment that we "creationists" think the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Like i have said in several other posts before the earth is much older. And the bible teaches that it is much older. All you have to do is read the first page of the bible. Then while your trying to bash "creationists" you can also hit them with the fact that they do not know their own book.
So lets recap. The earth is older than 6k years old. And evolution is still just an unproven theory. :) Good day!


This is the "No true scotsman" fallacy. Most creationists DO believe the world is <10ky old. And evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. Both are technically theories (in the scientific sense of the word) and have been demonstrated to be true beyond all reasonable doubt.
DontBeBlind
1.3 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2012


This is the "No true scotsman" fallacy. Most creationists DO believe the world is <10ky old. And evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. Both are technically theories (in the scientific sense of the word) and have been demonstrated to be true beyond all reasonable doubt.

The only thing that can be proven in a lab is adaptation.
So according to your logic. We do not understand gravity at all. And have only made a few wild shots in the dark as to how it works.
mthorn10
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2012
Broseph, I can't agree with your statement "DNA dating is more like your example of baking soda and vinegar." DNA dating relies upon extrapolation from known facts to make assumptions about the past, it is not the same thing as the baking soda/vinegar experiment (which does not require assumptions).
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2012
Doesn't geologic layering provide enough confidence that Earth is over 10k yo? There are no observations that can explain a fast enough process to make it 6-10k yo (12-18 inches per year of accumulation or tectonic rise). We have multiple sources of direct evidence that creationism cannot be true (GPS measurements, archaeology, radioactive dating methods, etc).

See, it's the corroboration of multiple scientific disciplines that gives me more confidence than a few ancient texts derived from oral tradition could ever successfully refute.

I word that last sentence very carefully. I BEGIN with science, and use that to assess the validity of religious "evidence." Not the other way around.
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2012
mthorn10 I really don't want to troll you, but the definition for life is anything that contains carbon.


Absolutely not.
aroc91
4.9 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2012
RealScience, you cited "bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance" But that is an example of a shifting or deletion of genetic coding information which was already present in the bacteria.


No. Genes granting resistance can be novel mutations, not necessarily just dormant genes. Polyploidy, copy paste transposons, and viral infection are all ways of adding new information to the genome. Subsequent mutation of the added DNA can lead to extra information.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2012
@mthorn10 - I am certainly not going to tell you that evolution is 'proven', since science doesn't prove things.
But micro-evolution can be repeatedly demonstrated, and, as aroc91 points out, many of the changes are novel.

The rates of change can be calculated, and the influence of stress (radiation, chemicals, starvation) on the rates of change can be measured, and these are repeatable. Rates of DNA exchange (sex between multicellular creatures plus virus DNA capture) can also be measured.

Combining these into expected long-term rates of change allows cross-checking change rates inferred from the fossil record are reasonable. And sure enough, it all matches up well enough to provide solid evidence that the basic picture of evolution works.
500K generations in a species with a 100K individuals and five novel changes per individual is ~250,000,000,000 opportunities for changes since humans and chimps diverged, and natural selection kept only ~4M changes or one change in ~60,000.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2012
-continued-
It seems very reasonable to me that something on the order of one change in 60,000 is kept over the course of a few million years.
Although this does not 'prove' macro evolution, the general agreement of DNA change rates, continental drift records, and numerous sorts of isotope ratio dating with the fossil record is sufficient evidence is strong evidence that evolution explains the diversity of life that we see today.

Even stronger evidence comes from analyzing genes that have been selected for, such as the five different anti-malarial genes that have evolved in malaria-prone regions.

You seem genuinely interested, so open your eyes, read widely, and try the math to see whether the mainstream ideas make sense or not.

If you do this with a truly open mind, you will find that there is much truth in the saying that nothing in biology makes any sense EXCEPT in light of evolution.
MarkyMark
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2012
Wow!!! Creationists that are willing to try and debate. Makes a nice change ( thank God! ).
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2012
So a fossil tooth is flat on top. What does it mean? Can you tell what the animal ate?


Yes, one often can. Different carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, strontium etc. isotope ratios can determine how much seafood versus animal meat versus land plants a creature ate, and even distinguish between C3 and C4 plants.
Studying scratches in tooth enamel from phytoliths also allows diet to be determined. And that's in addition to studying what modern creatures with similar tooth shapes living in similar ecosystems eat.

Read up on it - it is a fascinating subject (as almost any corner of science is when you dig in and study it).

There are many theories that can fit this datum. So a good scientist tests the theory with all the data s/he can acquire.


Exactly. While without a time machine one can't PROVE what an animal ate, one can find multiple lines of evidence and see where they lead. If they all support the same interpretation of the data, it becomes more than just a 'guess'.
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2012
Rates of DNA exchange (sex between multicellular creatures plus virus DNA capture) can also be measured.


DNA exchange also happens in single-celled organisms (conjugation and transconjugation).
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2012
@Aroc91 - absolutely - closely related bacteria exchange genes quite often, and even remotely-related bacteria occasionally exchange genes. And there are weird cases, such as a lichen that has incorporated the Taxol gene from the pacific yew, and an insect that has incorporated the entire genome of a Wolbachia parasite.
The more we learn the more we find that the pure intergenerational gene transfer is FAR from the only significant kind.
Abaddon
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2012
"... these Denisovans were the offspring of angels and men?" - Seth

Impossible, as God created the universe 6,000 years ago.

Clearly this finger was planted there by Lucifer, the king of deceivers.



ROFL
Osiris1
1 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2012
Looks like any discussion of origins where humans are involved quickly gets hijacked by religionists. However the article DID say that cave showed evidence of human 'cultural' habitation for around 280 thousand years. In that time humans did nothing, nada, zip...but eat, hunt, sleep, and procreate. The tools were slightly above what a chimp might make and showed no progress. In fact, man did not show much progress until some magical time about 10,500 B.C. to a bit older when all of a sudden they have cities laid out in square blocks, plumbing, sewers, agriculture, etc....and writing systems many of which we cannot translate...== WE got engineered! Who cares if some rogue exobiologists did artificial insemination of our ancestors and with their genes..and we WIlL find them. God created them too, or whoever in turn created others in turn to the dawn of time. It is only up to us to find the neighbors. For that we need space travel.
animah
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2012
Hi mthorn10:

> Your assumption is that given enough time, these same genetic mutations can change a fruit fly into something else. I only ask that before you tell me your assumption is "proven" (..)

Given enough time, wolves turned into poodles. Also, almost all the modern husbanded animals and vegetals we eat are unrecognizable from their pre-agricultural ancestors. Whether we or nature shape their environmental constraints makes no difference to the process itself.

And then there is our evolution: homo habilis is a hominid but definitely not a human.

Doesn't all that count as abundant proof?
Egleton
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2012
Is there a quantum of time? If so then God can dance the Fandango in the infinity between them. All good science is done on the edge of the Yawning Chasms of The Unknown. It is a flirtation with insanity masquerading as an anal retentive.
Objectivist
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2012
I'm skeptical of the modern assumption (for that is all it is) that small changes in genetic information (which has been observed to occur) is proof of larger changes over time (which has not been observed to occur and which is not observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable).
You're making things up.

http://news.bbc.c...0531.stm

Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.

Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely separate species.
Meyer
1.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2012
This is the "No true scotsman" fallacy. Most creationists DO believe the world is <10ky old.

I will follow up with an anecdotal fallacy. I know hundreds of creationists, and to my knowledge, none believe the young Earth stuff or deny the evidence for evolution. I only see this debate on the Internet. It makes me wonder if it's all an elaborate hoax.
ChrisV
2 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2012
This is my first time commenting in any thread. I am always reading comments by other people and quite frankly, I would like for debates in >OPINION< to stay outside of these boards. When you can repeatedly prove something with the scientific method, there are boards outside of this one where you can state your belief, but, be mature about it. If you still can't prove it, then do us all a favor before starting a flamewall, just keep it to your self.

My apologies if I interpreted any comments wrongfully.
animah
not rated yet Feb 12, 2012
> Is there a quantum of time?

Yes, Planck time. See also Planck length.

> If so then God can dance the Fandango in the infinity between them.

And God mustereth one unit of Planck energy to fit in the interstices between length and time. And so God liveth in tiny black holes.

Just kidding. Your assertion is kind of weak on evidence though.

> All good science is done on the edge of the Yawning Chasms of The Unknown. It is a flirtation with insanity masquerading as an anal retentive.

If your god is a poet then I have no beef with you. I for one find your statement profoundly true - a reminder to us all (you included btw!) of the thin line between insight and hubris. So this atheist makes no excuses rating your post a 5.

As for science though, you do realise there will come a day when we actually get to probing Planck-scale phenomena (e.g. see quantum gravity)?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
My apologies if I interpreted any comments wrongfully.


Now, if only you had kept your opinion to yourself.

Look, if you don't like opinions what they hell are you reading comments for? They are ALL opinions.

Even my own magnificent, perfect, well supported posts, are still opinions.

OK some of YYZ's have actual facts but if you only want facts that means you should avoid most of the articles as well. Some of them are truly astounding crap.

YOU could actually post FACTS. Instead of whines.

Oooh, here is an example of what you could do to increase the fact to opinion ratio.

The United States Of America has 50 states.
Water is wet. When it isn't frozen or a gas.
Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon though it may have other ingredients as well.
While 'pedantry' and 'pederasty' sound very similar they are in fact VERY different.
Bears do shit in the woods.
Kanii does not actually have an aunt. He is talking about his father's mistress.
Brevity is NOT the soul of wit.

Ethelred