Humans, Neanderthals related to yet another group
A finger bone let researchers sequence the genome of an extinct human relative. A Denisovan bone replica appears on a hand.
August 30th, 2012
02:35 PM ET

Humans, Neanderthals related to yet another group

From a finger bone, scientists have reconstructed the genetic world of an entire population of extinct human relatives called Denisovans. But questions still abound about who exactly they were.

They weren’t quite like modern humans or Neanderthals, but some other group entirely. Everything we know about the Denisovans is based on a finger bone and two teeth.

Those small remnants, found in a cave in southern Siberia, are enough to figure out a few important things about these ancient people - including that some people today share genes with them.

For the first time, scientists have sequenced the Denisovan genome, with a quality that is about as high as the genome of a person alive today. That means scientists can learn about as much genetically about a person who lived tens of thousands of years ago as they could about a living person. The findings, published this week in the journal Science, deliver a wealth of insight about ancient people who roamed the Earth tens of thousands of years ago.

By comparing the genetics of modern humans with relatives in the evolutionary tree, it appears there are more than 100,000 genetic mutations that most people alive today share, but which our closest relatives in the evolutionary line did not have, said Svante Paabo, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology who led the research team.

Some of these genetic changes that are unique to humans have to do with brain function and brain development, Paabo noted.

“This is essentially a ‘genetic recipe’ ” for being a modern human, Paabo said in an e-mail. “Scientists can now start working on understanding how we differed from Denisovans and Neanderthals.”

Little is known about the Denisovans. Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is not present today anywhere apart from islands in the Pacific. 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 is from the Denisovans.

It’s only people in those places who have Denisovan DNA, Paabo said, which means the Denisovans must have been in Southeast Asia at one time.

By contrast, everyone who lives outside Africa today probably has some Neanderthal DNA in them, Paabo said in a news briefing Wednesday.

Paabo was reluctant to say Denisovans and Neanderthals were separate “species” but rather called them extinct “groups.”

More from Light Years: Fossils complicate human ancestor search

Scientists aren’t sure how old the finger bone used for the DNA sequence really is. Archaeologists date it to 30,000 to 50,000 years old, but based on genetics alone, the biologists who conducted this study believe it could be 80,000 years old. It appears to have belonged to a juvenile female. She may have had dark skin, brown hair and brown eyes, based on genetic associations.

The genome analysis suggests that our ancestors and the Denisovans’ ancestors must have split from each other as far back as 700,000 years ago, although there’s uncertainty around that number. But it appears the Denisovans mixed with (and mated with) indigenous people in Papua New Guinea and Australia, Paabo said.

“They probably became extinct about the same time as Neandertals when modern humans spread around the world,” Paabo said.

By sequencing single strands of ancient DNA, the researchers confirmed that interbreeding with humans must have occurred, and that Denisovans are related to Neanderthals, said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum London, who was not involved in the study.

The study also suggests that, on the whole, Europeans have less Neanderthal DNA than eastern populations. Even though Neanderthals mostly lived in Europe, people in eastern parts of Eurasia and Native Americans have more Neanderthal material than modern-day Europeans, said study co-author David Reich of Harvard University.

It could be that there were two separate gene flows into modern humans, or that there was a separate group of people who came from Africa into Europe but not Asia, said John Stewart of Bournemouth University, who was not involved in the study.

It appears the Denisovans had a low level of genetic diversity, which is consistent with Stewart and Stringer’s previous findings. Although scientists had only one finger bone to work with, a single person’s DNA contains signatures of a multitude of generations of ancestors.

This lack of diversity may also mean that Siberia wasn’t a core habitat for the Denisovans; perhaps they only went there during warm periods in small numbers but usually lived farther south.

Paabo’s study suggests the population may have begun small but quickly burgeoned, so genetic diversity didn’t have much time to increase. More research is needed to see if the Neanderthal population had a similar trajectory, the study found; if so, one single group of ancient creatures leaving Africa could have evolved into both Denisovans and Neanderthals.

Many questions remain unanswered, Stringer noted: What did Denisovans look like? Does the Denisovan DNA present in some humans today serve any function - and what about genetics from Neanderthals? Did Neanderthals and Denisovans mate with each other, too?

It’s likely that Denisovans and Neanderthals did interbreed, Stringer said, since they both lived in Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years, and there’s Neanderthal DNA in a fossil foot bone discovered in the same Denisovan cave.

“Recognition of such interbreeding will inevitably complicate the untangling of the relationships between these ancient groups of humans, and their contributions to people today,” Stringer said.

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • News • On Earth
soundoff (506 Responses)

    I will say incredible... also depends on how human nature react to this.. really different..

    November 15, 2012 at 7:29 am |
  2. John P. Tarver

    Science killed Evolution as a means to species and that religion needed to die.

    September 29, 2012 at 10:42 am |
  3. Scott

    Humans didn't come from dogs we just share a common ancestor is what the HGP said.

    September 28, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      HGP proves dog is man's closest genome relative and oxymoron evolution points to dog as man's ancestor. The main point being that medical experiments on apes for human application is just evil.

      September 29, 2012 at 10:41 am |
  4. Don't be fooled

    There is no such thing as DNA, God made us 5,000 years ago, and that is that. End of story.

    September 19, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • Patti

      Thank you for these comments – they made me laugh so much particularly John P Tarver's. Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC was the date Archbishop Ussher calculated (using ages given in the Bible) as the date of creation but others in 17th century came up with roughly the same dates. Please John P Tarver keeps the comments flowing as they are so funny.

      September 20, 2012 at 4:07 am |
    • afdsfff

      lulz that's a good one

      September 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Relativity demonstrates that the number of times around the sun has little to do with how much Time has passed.

        September 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • MDAT

      Saying the world is 600 years old is wrong in every scientists eyes.

      September 20, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • andrew

      not true

      September 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
  5. sumday

    Can anyone tell me how long DNA lasts before it decomposes? I’m sure freezing it could prolong it’s “life span” but even frozen I would imagine it would still break down over time. I’m just kinda amazed that this DNA was able to last 40-80Kyrs without breaking down.

    September 12, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      DNA is broken down by alcohol, but otherwise it can last the 16,000 yearsa carbon dating is good for. As to 40,000, or millions of years, that is only speculation.

      September 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      For the sake of honest information (rather than the misinformation presented above), it is estimated that under ideal conditions human DNA might be recovered from samples more than 100,000 years old. The Neanderthal genome has largely been sequenced from samples greater than 30,000 years old. Bacterial DNA several hundred million years old has been recovered from salt deposits.

      Just for the record, radiocarbon dating is effective to around 50,000 years, not 16,000.

      September 16, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The important thing about DNA in this instance is that DNA has already proven to a mathematical certainty that Man and Ape do not share a common ancestor.

        September 17, 2012 at 10:05 am |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        I'll just repeat my earlier comment: These are simply bald-faced lies. Why do some Christians seem to think that it's okay to be blatantly dishonest?

        Do you just assume that no one is sophisticated enough to know better? Do you not care if anyone knows better as long as you mislead a few people? Or have you been so thoroughly misled that you think what you're writing is actually true? I truly don't get it.

        September 17, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • CA Liberal

        Thank you for setting the record straight.
        And to Mr. Tarver, man is an ape. A special ape called a hominid, due to our penchant to stand up straight. But certainly not a dog or a cow or a horse or a bird or a plant....etc.

        September 19, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Man has existed since the last mass extinction and is classified as an ape due to Darwin's racism. The ant study is false and no amount of religious need for it to be true can change that. The Human Genome project is complete and today we know that Dog is Man's closest Genome Relative. To do medical experiments upon Apes for Human medical research is just plain evil, in light of modern scientific knowledge.

        Thirty five percent of self proclaimed Christians believe in Evolution as a means to species, proving they are fools when it comes to science.

        September 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • sharoom

        John P. Tarver said, "The Human Genome project is complete and today we know that Dog is Man's closest Genome Relative."

        Huh? I'm pretty sure that's not what the HGP found. If that were true, it would have made a humongous impact on all the major science publications.

        September 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
      • sharoom

        OK wow you are trolling this ENTIRE comments board. Not going to bother further.

        September 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • chris

      if i understand correctly the half-life of dna even at ideal freezing/preservation conditions is at most around 1.5 mil yrs

      October 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  6. Hoooman

    I always knew my family was related Neanderthal, too many men with those brow ridges!! LOL!!

    September 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
  7. Just sayin'

    This is my first time visiting, and I must say I've been entertained and intrigued by all the intellectual bantering. I'm obvously not as highly educated as the rest of you, and I'm truly enjoying the sharing of ideologies. I must say, however, that I'm surprised at the level of intolerance displayed by some of you. After all, isn't that the joy of sites like this... to be able to actively debate and freely exchange ideas? I've witnessed first-hand that having a great mind doesn't bear on one having a great heart for your fellow countryman. Thank goodness we live in a democracy where we all get to have a voice, otherwise we would truly exist in chaos amoung the high minded. ....just sayin' <3

    September 5, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • Joe

      Wow, welcome to the internet. Where have you been sequestered?

      September 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
  8. Uniquitous

    Hah! everytime I read about another one of these discoveries that they have made and can somehow determine all these things from thousands of years ago from a tooth or toe, I just keep thinking, "and people have a hard time believing in a Creator?, really?" Congrats on our discovery. and a future congrats to the scientist that will destroy your work months or years from now when he discovers something new about the genetic makeup. Keep chasing your tails folks, but please do it with your own money. I am tired of supporting this kind of science.

    September 4, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      And we are tired of your church not paying it's share of taxes. Now be gone.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:28 am |
      • Scott

        LOL OMG SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        September 28, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Quakers are the wealthiest people in America, thanks to no taxes and Richard Nixon.

        September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • mandarax

      Ubiquitous, "this kind of science" is the same science that forms the basis for your medical care. It amazes me to hear people who are fully immersed in the benefits of science criticize it with that all-too-common combination of smugness and ignorance.

      September 5, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Joe

      Even if your creator myth were true, your creator would've committed suicide before listening to your drivel.

      September 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • SomeoneBlue

      This is so freakin' hilarious :D You have no idea how funny it is as a non American who hasnt been beaten with a bible as a child until he know every line by heart to see that you really believe that Adam and Eve story! So please explain: After God had formed them out of mud (teeth out of mud, hair out of mud, appendix out of mud...), what happened then? They got two sons right? and then? did the sons impregnate her mother? so are we all just a result of thousands of years of incest? and when noah and his wife were the only two humans that survived the flood, did the same happen again? actually it would make sense, because to believe all this, your brain must have some kind of damage. but hey, how come we "know" the creation story? did god tell it to anyone? did adam and eve explain it to their incest kids and they to theirs and so on? I dont even know how my grand grand grandpa was made, so I cant really imagine...

      September 10, 2012 at 9:35 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Abram and Sara are an example of more incest, as she was his sister. God told Abram to leave and bring nothing from his Father's house and manynbelieve that is why he had to wait so late in life for the promised one.

        September 10, 2012 at 10:38 am |
      • Grinwhicket

        Thank you. There is nothing more welcome than common sense. Have you noticed that some of these remarks lead to a statement about a Creator...Believers seek out places like this to set the rest of the world straight (no pun intended.)

        September 12, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Europe and Asia murdered 100,000,000 at Darwin's altar in the 20th century and it would be delusional for Christians to expect the issues of removing another's humanity to be rationalized witinn the current mellinium.

        September 12, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • SomeoneBlue

      ...and what you're saying about the scientist that will destroy another ones work, how was it again with the shape of the earth a few hundred years ago? what did the church dictate and what did they do to anyone who disagreed? it was science that has told us the truth while the church did what they could to stick with some 2000 year old stories of which most can already be disproven. for the rest its just a matter of time, but yeah... it will take some trial and error to find out, but at least we wont be in the same position in 2000 years that we have been 2000 years ago!

      September 10, 2012 at 10:08 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Come on now blue, Einstein killed the big bang a century ago, just as Geology killed Evolution as a means to species 40 yrears ago. When you post up on these boards supporting science that is outdated and false, you are the example of a flat Earther.

        September 10, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • SomeoneBlue

        point was rather that science could prove religion wrong based on facts and research instead of someone demanding the first explanation that comes to his mind to be chruch-law, but I can see where you´re comming from, just like I said, its a matter of trial and error, but at least we try to progress instead of relying on a 2000 year old book! Im just so not used to people fighting like that over how earth was made, and religious people truly believing that it happened in one week! There's lots of religious people here in Europe too, but most of them would never dare to fight with a scientist over this topic because its obvious who is going to lose. ..but I like this site. its a great mix of smart people and people who truly entertain me :)

        September 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The whole point is that Science has proven Darwin and the big bang false, while other Religions go unaffected. The whole problem is that 100 years ago the big bang was falsed by Relativity and 40 years ago Evolution as a means to species was proven false by Geology. Inside the soft sciences is a religion based in outdated science/racism and it is having a difficult time dieing. Christianity is however alive and well. As a tool to oppose Christianity Evolution may still serve a puropse, while the Chinese outpace the US in technology; as the Chinese do not have a God to oppose and can therefore use up to date Science.

        September 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        "Science has proven Darwin and the big bang false"

        These are simply bald-faced lies. Why do some Christians seem to think that it's okay to be blatantly dishonest? I just can't imagine...

        September 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Grinwhicket

      Well, you can rest your self-righteous head in peace, dearie: YOUR money ain't GOIN' to any of this particular research. Obviously, you did NOT actually READ this article.

      September 12, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
  9. Martin

    Silly scientists, everyone knows we came from Adam and Eve and after massive inbreeding for a few thousand years everyone but Noah and his family died in the great flood and they had to repeat the massive inbreeding again and now we are here, and how humans ended up in all continents you ask? That’s easy to explain too, angels carried people all over the world but sometimes they flew to close to the sun and that's how we have some dark skin people in some places. What about other religions' different stories then? They are all non-sense of course.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  10. Rufus T. Firefly

    Creationists trying to disprove evolution are as children throwing rocks at a jet passing overhead. Though you may throw with all your might, the only threat you present is to those around you who are in danger from poorly-thrown rocks.

    September 3, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • sumday

      I do not try and disprove evolution only that it occurred randomly and naturally without any input from a higher intelligence. Mainstream evolution would have us believe that life in all it's forms came from a single cell organism with no intelligence yet changed all by it's self into 1,000's of complicated and complex life forms. yet science can offer no explanation as to WHY or HOW this happened. I don't disagree with natural selection either- but that only reduces it never increases or gives a reason why there was more than 1 thing to select from. Looking at "evolution" fossils it is very clear that improvements were made to existing creatures IN BALANCE of a complex ecosystem(predator didn't out evolve prey) – if evolution was random and had no intelligence this should not be the case. It's like looking at the very first computer and a computer today and saying today's computers just programed themselves from the first computer all by it's self. Evolution sure mirrors the path of humans intelligent were we create something and then continue improving on it (like cars and computers). I'll state again science doesn't even have a theory on why and how life changes from simple to complex. For that to happen genes MUST be added (and in the correct way) but there is not 1 explanation as to what added these new genes to a species or why these newly added (and complex) genes worked so well for that species instead of destroying the species. Today with all our knowledge and technology we could not add genes to a species and create a new species yet I'm suppose to believe that this occurred for billions of years without any outside intelligent input? If with our level of knowledge we could not reproduce life how can you expect me to believe that inorganic matter with no knowledge/design/intelligence managed to bring forth life and intelligent beings randomly all by it’s self for billions of yrs?

      September 12, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Keep chucking those rocks. Why do people assume it is simple? Why do people assume that they understand it all better than the sum total of all the generations of PhD professionals in every branch of the life and earth sciences? You might consider – just for a moment – that you don't entirely understand and then try to learn.

        I don't imagine that I understand atomic energy better than nuclear physicists, so why does every average Joe (or Joanne) seen to imagine that they are unsurpassed experts on biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, etc.? The arrogance is mind-boggling.

        September 16, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        With the hard science of Geology having disproved evolution as a means to species 40 years ago, it is mind boggling that the soft sciences still peddle their religion of lies. I can understand how Physics is beyond the ability of most in America to understand, but much of that is a direct result of America teaching nonsense as science in public schools.

        September 17, 2012 at 9:59 am |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Please enlighten me (a Quaternary geologist) as to how geology has disproved evolution in the last 40 years. I seem to have missed that in the journals.

        September 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        During the 1970s Geology in the private sector (ie real Geology) discovered that there is an iridium 24 layer between geological eras, with new species on one side of the layer and old species on the other; while looking for oil. Due to this Global fact of Geology, we know today inside science that species occur rapidly folowing a mass extinction; the opposite of evolution.
        As an alternative to Evolution, Dr. Gould expanded on the notion of random mutations as a means to species resulting in a 1400 page band aid; Origin of species having been proven false. This notion did well until the human genome project was completed and science knew that Dog is Man's closest genome relative.

        September 17, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Wow, that's a foul soup of misunderstanding, half-truths, and outright lies. I assume the iridium you refer to is at the K/T boundary, which is actually a textbook case of niche reorganization after major extinction; Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is a clarification of evolution, not a refutation of it; and that other part appears to simply be made up.

        September 17, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Yes, a classic mass extinction; th opposite of Evolution as a means to species. Then you agree in fact that Evolution as a means to species is false under Darwin's own made up "scientific method". Gould's work is an oxymoron of evolution and I agree again that the band aid can be called a recalibration.

        September 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Just for the record, here is what Dr. Gould himself had to say about how you are misrepresenting his work:

        "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know..."
        –Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

        September 17, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Gould was angry for a reason when his Oxymoronic application of evolutionary theory proved Darwin false and I was even more pleased when the Human Genome Project proved that Gould was predicting Dog as Man's Oxymoronic evolutionary theory ancestor. Gould was then dead at 62 and met Jesus.

        September 17, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Okay, then. You are either a troll or a little unstable – either way, good luck to you.

        September 17, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        What is unstable about using science to disprovee Evolution as a means to species and the big bang? Pointing out a pardox in a notional hypothesis is called science.

        September 18, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
  11. nooooop

    Late breaking news, science proves racism.

    September 3, 2012 at 1:00 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      Darwin's 1853 attempt to publish "Origin of Species", sans ant study , is a pretty good indication that it was always about racism.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:46 am |
      • Atheus

        Tarver, you're still on here spouting crap? It's been 4 days. Go back to school, dude. Get some real knowledge and then you won't have to make stuff up.

        September 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        It was not until 1859 that the "ant study" would be published; with racist notional hypothesis of 1853 attached.

        September 3, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
  12. Andreas

    When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." – Genesis 6:1-7 (NIV)

    September 2, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      Why do you use Ba'al's Evolutionist bible to oppose Evolution? You are one confused blind lamb.

      September 2, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  13. T-Roy

    The greatest thing about Science is that it exists whether you believe it or not. It does not require faith to be true. It all humans were wiped off the planet tomorrow, Evolution would still exist, however religion would disappear...

    September 2, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Sn0wB0arder

      if it were not for the dogmatic nature of religion there would be almost no opposition to the theory of evolution at all.

      it is not that people have a "belief" in evolution, but that it is currently the best theory based on the evidence.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:03 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        The problem with Darwin's notional hypothesis of Evolution as a means to species is that it is no longer true under science. To blame creationists for the failure of your own religion is childish.

        September 2, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Andy

        And it stands up well against the biblical alternative of "Fairies did it!".

        September 2, 2012 at 11:41 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as theorys stand up very well against Darwin's Notional Hpothesis. Relativity and QM prove a sentient being outside the universeis required to make the universe real. Einstein's alternative Notional Hypothesis is still true, while Geology has eliminated a slow change over time as a means to species.

        September 2, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Uniquitous

      hey, remember that time when scientists thought the earth was flat?
      Remember that time that science said margarine was better for you than butter?
      Remember that time when science said thalidamide was perfectly safe?
      Remember that time when doctors though they could heal by leeching?
      Yeah, their track record kind of stinks and is always changing to suit their needs. maybe thats the real reason they call it evolution. My version of the Bible has been pretty accurate for the last couple thousand years without changing. I am gonna stick with that one. At lease until after Armegeddon. if I am wrong, i will gladly concede the argument to you. But, if I am right, well lets just say life is gonna suck for guys like you. Just sayin.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:06 am |
      • Hoooman

        Come on, not even the most ridgid Christian believes everything in the Bible, if they did they would still sell their daughters and own slaves and since that ain't happening your post is specious.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • Lisa

        Hey, remember when you could have a wife and a concubine?
        Hey, remember when you couldn't wear mixed fabrics?
        Hey, remember when you couldn't get tattoos?
        Hey, remember when medicine was considered heresy?
        Hey, remember when you could own slaves?

        Doesn't seem like the Bible's doing that hot of a job, either.

        September 10, 2012 at 8:51 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Perpetual slavery is a Dutch invention that is not part of the Bible. Slavery was legal in New Amsterdam while illegal in the South.

        September 10, 2012 at 10:35 am |
      • Scott

        Why are you even reading this article then? Don't you have some other religions to go kill in the name of your god?

        September 28, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
  14. Sn0wB0arder

    interesting. when we fully understand DNA it will be fascinating what it will tell us about our lineage.

    September 2, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  15. Jeff

    IF modern humans mating with Neanderthals and/or Denisovans produced viable offspring I t would mean they are technically the same species as we are. If we were all different species but mated anyway and somehow managed to reproduce. That organism would not be able to reproduce and therefore their DNA would not be passed to future generations. An example of that in the animal kingdom would be a liger.

    September 1, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • fimeilleur

      You're close but not really. A liger is an example of cross breeding where the offspring is viable, only thought to be sterile (I was able to find one reference of a liger being mated with a lion and the cub was raised to adulthood). A better example is a mule, a cross with a female horse, and a male donkey where more examples of firtility in the offspring exist.

      Now with this in mind, if the Denisovan's and our ancestors were closer related to each other than a donkey and a horse, then we can safely deduce that the viability of the offspring being firtile is greatly increased.

      And as a added treat, I'll just remind you that we ARE part of the animal kingdom.

      September 1, 2012 at 1:35 am |
      • peridot2

        Ligers and Tigons are not sterile. They can breed and they do breed if they're given the chance. What this tells us is that lions and tigers branched off recently from a common ancestor, so recently they're still fertile.

        September 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Please provide your source of evidence. As I stated, I only found one Liger that was successfully bred with a lion. Can you point me to other examples?

        September 3, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • John P. Tarver

      Neandrthal is DNA eliminated as an ancestor of Man or a possible breeding partner.

      September 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
  16. mandarax

    This stuff is so cool, why do religious zealots insist on trading in this level of wonder for a cartoonish understanding of the world?

    August 31, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
  17. JoeC

    I think I see a flaw in home schooling.

    August 31, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Bill Nye is now claiming the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radioactive dating, but as any engineer know carbon dating is only accurate to 16,000 years. What passes for science in media is a real joke.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Radiocarbon and radiometric dating are not synonymous. Radiometric dating is any dating that is based on measuring the decay rate of radioactive isotopes, and includes Ar-Ar, U-Th, K-Ar, 14C, and other methods. Radiocarbon dating is one form of radiometric dating based on the half-life of 14C (5,730 yrs), and is good to about 45,000 yrs ago (up to 60,000 years using accelerated mass spectrometers) for organic matter only – not rocks.

        What passes for smug condescension from people who actually don't have a clue is a real joke.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Rufus- I am an EE like the ones bill nye refers to in his rant against creationism, but I do respect the way you put out there that you have no clue what you are writing about.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Okay, Mr. Tarver. But they do write about this stuff in books, in case you're interested.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
      • mandarax

        John P. Tarver, I think that's what the gamers call getting PWNED!

        August 31, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        mandrax- It is what we scientists call being harrassed by the religious.

        September 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I call BS. There is no way you are accredited with the National Academy for Sciences or work at any reputable University.

        September 2, 2012 at 3:47 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        I am an EE, like Nye refered you to for an understanding of Time. The problem with evolution is that Darwin was completely wrong and the problem with the Universities is the same one the Nobel committee had when Einstein proposed Relativity. Evolution and the Big Bang have become a religion and even though science has moved on the politics can not.

        September 2, 2012 at 8:27 am |
      • Omar Little

        Game, set, match – Firefly.

        September 2, 2012 at 8:41 am |
      • peridot2

        Mr Tarver, is your faith in God so weak that it can't stand against the challenges of science? The problem is perhaps with you.

        Your scientific education is deficient, that much is obvious. Carbon dating is accurate to 50K years. Radiometric dating picks up after that and it doesn't use carbon 14 but radioactive gases. It is a valid dating method. It makes no difference whether you comprehend the dating system or not, closing your eyes to a scientific fact does not make it disappear.

        September 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        It is my faith in relativity that cuases me to oppose Mr. Nye's irrational rant. My faith in God fully allows the use of Evolution as a means to species, but my faith in real physical evidence from Geology that species occur rapidly following a mass exctinction is much greater

        September 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        So, as an electrical engineer, you have no formal education in biology, micro-biology, palaeontology, geology, or ANY of the life sciences. Come on, be a sport, tell us what university has the pleasure (shame) of calling you a member of their faculty.

        September 3, 2012 at 2:53 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Carbon dating has nothing to do with any of the sciences you mentioned, except that they appy the tools engineers provide them. The problem with Evolution is the global geological record.

        September 3, 2012 at 10:52 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Einstein never recieved his Nobel for Ralativity, as the cancellation of the big bang was more than the Swedes could get their minds around, so he icreated the mathematical contrivance of a photon to pay off his ex-wife in their divorce. Thanks for demonstrating that fools are still in control of politics.

        September 3, 2012 at 10:49 am |
      • a Martin

        @John P. Tarver
        Are you implying that because people live in a special geographic location on earth they have a lesser understanding of Einstein's work? Or is it something about the culture of these people? Maybe you meant so say ”the Nobel prize comity” and not putting an entire nation in the mix.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I believe Einstein's Copenhagen Observations in 1927 led directly to the National Socialist Democrat Party losing the Reich Stalag in the 1932 election, so yes. We need look no further than Darwin's 1853 attempt to publish Origin of Species, sans ant study, to see racism in science

        September 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • a Martin

        If that's true it's really sad. :(

        September 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        It gets a lot sadder if we include the US Civil War in Darwin's credits. It is not so many as the 100,000,000 that died during the 20th century at Darwin's altar, but it was a warning of the price of taking someone's humanity.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        You're still full of sh!t and your refusal to cite evidence in proof thereof. You know nothing outside of your supposed field of expertise and it's been pointed out by everyone on this thread. I'm done with you.

        September 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Carbon dating has nothing to do with geology or paleontology? John P. Tarver is clearly every bit as ignorant as he is self-assured.

        September 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
  18. Atheus

    It almost seems to me that some Christians don't believe in evolution... But that would just be silly considering the overwhelming amounts of evidence supporting evolution, compared to, say, the complete lack of anything resembling evidence supporting the existence of their so-called "God". Oh, except for a 2,000 year old book of fairy tales. Almost forgot about that.

    August 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      As science evolution as a means to species is nonsense. Geology has proven from the global fosil record that species occur rapidly following a mass extinction The evidence of Darwin's racist notions unravels with each new DNA finding. Therefore we know from science today that Man has existed as a parallel speciews to Ape since that last mass extinction barrier; just as Neanderthal is a parallel species The slow change over time of living things was well known before Darwin published his ant study

      August 31, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
      • Atheus

        "As science evolution as a means to species is nonsense." Sir, your reply is nonsense.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        I would extend that to utter nonsense for nearly every sentence in the comment....

        August 31, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  19. AJ rowe

    While I find it odd, hilarious and somewhat ironic that the God debate inevitably materializes out of basically any science discovery article, the status quo on these forums remains dismal particularly when this debate pops up in terms of quality arguments and basic understanding of what aspects of the debate are currently in play.
    I find it amusing that theists and atheists both think they have some kind of intellectual monopoly over the God debate.

    August 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • AJ rowe

      Most atheistic forum-philosophers will undoubtedly attack the strawman argument that the world is 6000 years old. Most theistic forum-philosophers will use the bible to justify the bible... read some more advanced literature on the subject before immortalizing your profound insights on the slab that is the cnn comment section.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
      • donna

        Straw man? Care to take a look at the latest poll about how many Americans believe in Creationism and a 6000 year old Earth? Not a straw man argument, sure wish it were...

        August 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Einstein's Copenhagen observations are still part of science and therefore the "sentient being outside the universe that makes the universe real" advances with every advance in Quantum Mechanics science. (ie DNA) Evolutionisst have become the modern equivalent of flat earthers.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Provide the source of your quote. Einstein never said such words or it would be the first link that google pops up. You are quote mining at best, and are a liar at worst.

        September 3, 2012 at 2:57 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        The book "In Search od Schrodingr's Kittens" contains the quote of Einstein. The Copenhagen Observations stopped being taught in Universities after the MU alternative to Einstein's notional hypothesis was proved false by John Bell

        September 3, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So John Gribbin interprets Einstein to mean "sentient being outside the universe"... funny how Einstein never used these words, else Gribbin is to only person to quote him that way... very odd...

        Gribbin does have the credentials to talk about this subject, but you certainly don't.

        September 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I give you a reference and you still play the fool. John Gibbon is an interesting writer and could possibly present hard science in a form even you can undestand. The quote of Einstein is availiable elsewhere and you can get your undergraduate self to finding it.

        September 3, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        No, you gave me a reference to someone's interpretation of what Einstein said. I want the quote from Einstein himself. I already told you I can't find it... you say you can...

        I already gave credit to Grbbin for his credentials and that he MAY have something of merit to say with regards to his chosen field of study... You, however, do not have the credentials to be taken seriously. BUH-BYE!

        September 5, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • AJ rowe

      One of the worst mistakes some atheists make is to view creationism as a definitive stance that all Christian theists assert in relation to the origins of the universe. One of the worst mistakes some theists make is to acknowledge those arguments as legitimate threats to theism, unless their theism is based concretely on the notion of strict creationism. Also, This is why some think that by debunking the narrow sighted and entirely unimaginative account that has been 'interpreted' as the biblical world view, they believe somehow that they have successfully argued against the existence of God. If you want to continue to believe this, by all means remain on the cnn forums and feel superior to others by refuting claims that have no actual presence in the debate whatsoever. Forum-Theists will continue to use the bible to attempt a refutation while all agreeing parties cheer on, which will of course make you feel superior to their underdeveloped intellects…and on and on…while the real debate continues in a robust and respectful way. Respectful in the sense that there is no childish animosity towards others you disagree with. Instead there are carefully thought out counterpoints to explain why they disagree.
      Or you can read up on it and maybe form an actual well thought out opinion and one day even an argument to contribute.

      P.S. this is not a comment directed against Mikes'; rather I would expect that it is complimentary. Scientism, as well as dogmatic religiosity, has no place in an imaginative, intellectual and productive debate about the existence of God.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
      • AJ rowe

        okay so they censored what I wanted to say about interpretations of Genesis and also a list of decent arguements from both theists and atheists...I wonder why.. very strange.., but any way. Think, read then talk (aimed at no one in particular)

        John P. Funnily enough, one of the items on that list was a description of arguments in relation to causality and spatial-temporal relativity.. I think, but am not entirely sure that that would relate to your comment..

        August 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Relativity and Quantum Mechanics prove that a "sentient being outide the universe is required to make the universe real", or that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. John Bell proved that Probabilities are not deterministic and thereby eliminated the scientific basis for an infinite number of parallel universes. Therefore a creationist Genisis is indicated by Science, although there is no scientific evidence that any theist knows this God.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
      • Mike

        Yes you hit the nail on the head. It comes down to having some respect for what you don't know. I don't even call myself an atheist because to assert even that with certainty requires knowledge I don't have. But I am not sure I am in line with you on the equivalence of the faults of the comments and the positions taken. By nature the scientist view seems to be one of altering one's ideas or models if data on the contrary presents itself. But any faith notion that isn't based on data must somehow do the irrational and ignore data or come up with irrational models to fit the data into their worldview. I think that this is irrational and I think the infusion of so much of this irrational thinking in our politics and policy is actually not a good thing. I don't know. It seems that your nice cultural relativity ignores this dilemma.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
      • AJ rowe

        I would be interested to see how those theories prove the necessity of a "sentient" being. I am not entirely optimistic that this is the case, much of what we think a theory proves is actually an implied probability. Also, we have a tendancy to stretch our conclusions beyond their means. However, I am not in dissagreement with you. Like I said, I would like to look at the theory, and see how much support it continues to have behind it. (if i would be able to understand it, is another question)
        I also don't know if you would want to say that creationism is posited on this basis, maybe some kind of intellegent design. Creationism as a term carries too much baggage and many people fly off the handles as soon as they see the word. Its the proverbial N-Word in this debate. But yes, see, this is what I actually think before posting and maybe have a solid if someonoe disagrees, maybe they will intelligently explain why....then again....Im sure I'm asking too much.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
      • AJ rowe

        Mike, I entirely agree. Legislation based on religious assertations have no place in the political realm. Freely express and practice your religion, but don't use it as a power play in order to push forth an agenda. Much Tarnishing of all faiths has occured because of this. However, I would take issue with your 'faith' in the scientific method. This method is not perfect by anymeans, the context of discovery constantly blleds ofver into the context of justification. We once thought that if Theory (T), then Hypothesis (H), if not H, then not T. this is not what occurs, It is more like if T then H+Auxillary Hypothesis 1 – n. So not H 1 – n, then T can still survive by changing one of the auxillary hypothesis. This is the underdetermination Thesis, Helen Longino and Phillip Kitcher talk extensively aboput this andf it is worth looking into. Although it has its flaws, it points to the implicit subjectivity of all scientific exploration. But yes, blind faith seems silly.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Einstein's claim that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics prove a sentient being outide the universe are science and not a notional hypotheis of mine. Schrodinger's Cat is an outcome of Einstein's claim, as a counter to the MU bnotional alternative. If you wish to understand Realtivity I recomend a BSEE or post graduate degree; as Relativity is Maxwell's Equations with Time independant of space; thereby disproving the scientific basis of the Big Bang. Understanding QM is perhaps possible through a modern biology university applying DNA facts over ant study wild conclusions.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
      • Atheus

        I'm pretty sure Tarver is just copy and pasting science terms now...

        August 31, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        I agree atheus, I'm not sure john knows what hes talking about. I am very familiar with general relativity and more familiar than most about quantum mechanics. Both relativity and QM point towards an expanding universe from a single point, ie big bang. Plus, maxwell worked on equations dealing with electrodynamics, not so much relativity.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        best- Relativity proves that Time is independant of Space, therby eliminating the scientific basis of the Big Bang. QM indicates that Genesis is the product of a vacuume fluctuation; divergent from the big band notional hypothesis. I don't know if you paid any money for your understanding of science, but if you did an academic lawsuit is indicated

        August 31, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        No... Relativity proves time and space are dependant on one another. This can be shown with time dilation and length contraction. Time and very much related. I think you may need to go back to school if you're getting such a basic idea about relativity wrong.

        August 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Best- Relativity is Maxwell's Equations with Time decoupled from Space into a 4th Dimension.

        August 31, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  20. Aaron

    What does Kirk Cameron have to say about all this?!

    August 31, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  21. jamie rowe

    Guess I'll just try back a bit later when the admin isn't super me why I am getting censored plz, I'll modify accordingly, just i don't know where I have breached any terms with my comment...

    August 31, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • donna

      I have had similar problems on other pages like this, where I can post new posts, but not one that has already been stalled- even if I change it around. It's frustrating, and I can't tell how they control that on these non-disqus boards on CNN.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Sophia Dengo

      Hi Jamie,

      Thanks for your comment. I'm following up with you in an e-mail.

      Sophia Dengo,

      August 31, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
      • Atheus

        Same here.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      Keywords, my friend, keywords. Google the phrase CLBUTTIC and you will get a lot on the subject. You used a word the robot censors don't allow., possibly one embedded in another word. Nobody is actively deleting your posts, they are being stopped.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
  22. Tom

    God hates facts

    August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Mike

      It's more like god ignores facts in favor of what he told people to believe. This faith is sort of an enemy of truth, and perhaps even an enemy of progress and an enemy of education inasmuch as these things infuse themselves into our politics and policy. In that sense, I think these beliefs are not so benign.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
      • Aaron

        God doesn't hate facts. People, using their respresentation of our creator as and excuse to ignore the truth hate facts. What is wrong with the marriage of both ideas, leaving religion out of it? How about the idea that a higher power created all and then evolution took hold.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • Gods_in_the_math

        God created man in his own image – Man evolved from Ape – Thus: God is a Monkey.

        September 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Evolution as a slow means to species is false, but random mutation evolution is still a possible means to species; except that from the Human Genome Project we know Dog is Man's closest Genome Relative. If God is a Dog then his sense of humor is wondrful.

        September 4, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Another excuse to tortue Apes, even though there is no effacty to it.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
      • Mike

        Are you saying that because I do not believe in god that there is nothing therefore preventing me from torturing apes? That the first thought that came to me, after I rejected the notion that there is likely a god, was to run to the zoo and torture apes? And your belief in god- is that what prevents you from torturing apes? Well, given this argument, I am now glad there are so many religious folks out there, because I sure do like apes and don't want to see them tortured.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Mike- I am claiming that the torture of Apes is a direct result of humans believing in outdated science. (ie big bang and Species as a product of Evolution) A good thing can come of DNA science (QM) if only Humans agree to stop torturing Apes, as it is unscientific. (medical experiments)

        August 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  23. jamie rowe

    i love how im getting censored by the admin here... really? reasonable comments not allowed?

    August 31, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Mike

      Why, what points were you trying to make that deserved censorship?

      August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
      • jamie rowe

        Maybe I will try n post in 3 sections

        August 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
      • jamie rowe

        Ugggg. Guess not...plea for reasonable treatment of the subject matter not allowed here...but "god hates facts" gets by Np

        August 31, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Tyrone

      no bitches aloud, sorry

      August 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Tyrone

      bitching, sorry i meant bitching

      August 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Atheus

      False. God doesn't hate facts because "God" doesn't exist.
      Fact: Christians and Tea-Baggers hate facts.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  24. John P. Tarver

    Neanderthal is DNA removed as an ancestor of man, or a possible breeding partner. Why does CNN continue to propigate Darwin's racist notions? Man and Ape do not share a common ancestor either. (QM again) Today we know human intellegence is a product of endorphin production and not brain size. Apes and Nenderthal both have larger brains than humans, but humans are more able to kill the pain of thinking.

    August 31, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • ShannonInCT

      Man is one of the species of apes...

      August 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Man began as a Man following the last mass extinction, as a mass extinction is the physical mechanism that produces Species. Man as a parallel species of Ape is science, but a common ancestor is a product of racist notional hypothesis. (ie Origin of Species)

        August 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Tom

      Do I pity or envy you? I can't decide. Would I rather be dumb and happy or unafraid of reality?

      August 31, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Pain The Thinker

      I think (painfully, of course) that your endorphin levels are dangerously high...

      August 31, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        I was a California gifted child, but now I am only a regular genius. Many in America have however damaged their ability to produce endorphins for their intended purpose and are without thought.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • bjl

      Humans and chimpanzees share 98.4% of the same DNA. Please explain how we are not related?

      August 31, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        The human genome project is complete and today we know Man's closest genome relative is Dog. DNA has mathematically removed Ape as an anceasor of Man and mathematically proven that Ape and Man do not share a common ancestor. (ie QM) Geology has additionally proven that Species occur Rapidly following a Mass Extinction, the opposite of Evolution.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
      • Jesus Christ your Saviour

        This God, shut up or I will turn Everyone into a burning bush....You are clueless and make a mockery of me, by not knowing Genetics. Go to the light – I am hoping you are on a train track...Please Learn the difference between Evolution, DNA/Genome, and anything else that most have poorly constructed in their feeble minds....remember – as Paul said to the Corinthians...:what you talkin bout Willis?" .. Now say 10 Our Fathers and all is right in the world again. Amen

        August 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • bjl

      That's simply not true, John. The evidence is readily available, why do you refuse to acknowledge it?

      August 31, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        For me it is a matter of mathematical fact and no number of "ant studies" can change the numbers.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "we know human intellegence is a product of endorphin production and not brain size." Tarver, why can't you get this stuff right? It's painful. Who is telling you this stuff? Endorphins have nothing to do with thought. It's like you are in a discussion of air conditioners and you keep saying "After all, nothing can actually make air colder anyway" to people who repair them for a living. Science is real, and physical anthropology is a real kind of science. It's as real as air conditioning. Stop trying to say stuff like digging up old bones is monkey torture, or as you say "tortue."

      August 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Endorphins are you body's way of dealing with the pain of thinking. This is the reason under modern biology that humans are smarter than Apes, who have much larger brains. Neanderthal in fact had a brain 40% larger than Man. Your use of Endorphins for recreational purposes has evidently rendered you incapable of thought.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Matt

      Every word of every post you've put on this article is utter tripe. You said that dogs are humans closted genetic relatives? That endorphins allow us to deal with the "pain of thinking"? You're just making stuff up. And not even remotely believable stuff. And you also used the word "effacty" in one post, whatever that means.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  25. Allen

    I always enjoy watching the creationist comments come out in stories like these. It's kind of fascinating to see how much evidence people are willing to overlook when it doesn't suit their religious worldview. I'm actually now pretty sure most of these folks would deny the Earth was round if somebody hadn't gone into space and took a picture.

    August 31, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • bjl

      Sadly, they deny that as well. They believe we never went to the moon; that it was staged by the gov't. Unfortunately, there are no words that will move such people.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Realativity deniers like yourself are the new flat earthers. All the Galapogos "evidence" is false under DNA science.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
      • Matt

        That's pretty much the opposite of the truth, assuming you're talking about Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Islands. (Although, frankly, it's hard to tell). Darwin's finches, the most famous of his observations, have been shown by DNA comparisons to all have a single common ancestor.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Matt- Where is the new spacies?

        August 31, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Maybe you should be asking the more relevant question: what was the OLD species that this derived from? Your question is like asking a an eight year old what his / her child will look like. We CANNOT know that answer until he / she has matured and found a partner. But if you take that same child in a room full of adults, the probability that one of the adults (male or female) resembles that child enough that you could bet he or she is a parent of that child. (supposing that the parent is in fact in that room). hope this helps... reading your other posts, I don't think it will.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
      • Dani Fredo

        John, After reading your participation in this year old thread, I can reasonably assert that you are a nut case in every sense of the term. The best thing you could do at this point would be to resist the urge to correct others. You are not thinking clearly and at times you are completely incoherent. I would suggest you get help but it is pretty obvious that you would not be able to face your delusions in a clinical setting.

        I will urge you to reel in your vulgarities as well as your unfortunate obsession with your past studies at Fresno. You missed your opportunity to be rational, but you continue to have an opportunity to be civil. Be humble before God and recognize that lots of good people have a better grasp of the facts than you have.

        August 15, 2013 at 11:23 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      Here's poor Tarver, who must be as old Clint Eastwood, to prove your point: "Realativity deniers like yourself are the new flat earthers. All the Galapogos "evidence" is false under DNA science." Where do you start? "Realativity deniers"" are they people who say, like me, that there's no such frickin thing as "Realativity?" Is he trying to say 'relativity,' and does he imagine fossils traveling at the speed of light? What's a Galapogos? Does he mean Galapagos? Why would DNA invalidate the observations and gathered specimens? Is he screaming at an empty chair as he types?

      August 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Thae ant study no longer holds water and should not be taught as science in American schools.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        "Thae ant study no longer holds water " Stop with the senile stuff, Gramps. Nobody's talking about ants today. Whoever heard of "thae ants?" There's no such thing as a thae ant.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
  26. Rick

    Mystical enthusiasm pops up in surprising places. Bizarre racial theories became popular in Germany. They weren't supported by much evidence but they were very popular. And recall Germany's rejection of Einstein. Relativity was regarded as "decadent". Science is sort of a great leveler, in that it just eventually guietly reveals what happens to be the case, but nature is an even better leveler. No matter how much you insist that something or other must be, the universe just keeps being what it is. Nature is no respecter of human egos, or human feelings, or human aspirations. It would be a good idea for people to be more modest, and humbly ask questions of nature, and leave it at that.

    August 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Mike

      Right. This gets right to the heart of why these forms of thinking develop in the first place. People are NOT OK with being a part of nature. It leaves them with such a empty feeling they have to make up stories and insist that they are above nature and above the things they do not understand. It fills a hole in the psyche but at the expense of the truth. And for most people, truth is dispensable in favor of a peace of mind, the need to feel right, the need to not fear death, etc.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  27. Elvis A

    And Curiosity just transmitted photos of my greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Grandmother from Mars........what load of crap,

    August 31, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • A Building

      leave me...

      August 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  28. rubes

    That's a nice hand the model has there. Costanza, is that you?

    August 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • flair4life

      lol, "Delicate, yet masculine"

      August 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  29. more2bits

    Too bad they can't find the bones for Christ they could 'resurrect' him again.......kidding since mythology has no genes!

    August 31, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Hot Carl

      But YOU have an extra set of chromosomes!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
      • Tyrone

        in laymen's terms, more2bit, he means you are retarded.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
      • Atheus

        You say retarded, I say a mutant with possible superpowers...

        August 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  30. Binghi

    Perhaps there is a common ground between science and "religion". I find a little of that in some of the ancient works of the east, like the Vedas of India. But not much in the "western" religions like Christianity and Islam and Judaism. However, if one uses some insight, one can see parallels. For instance, even the bible account of creation basically describes a scenario of the universe coming into being with light out of a "void". Sounds similar to modern ideas of the BIg Bang and other Quantum physics concepts. Just a lot more simplistic or even poetic way of saying that. Also the bible version describes evolution-like process of 1st land and water, then life in the seas, then increasingly more complex life forms, up to "man", all in distinct phases or ages (described as "days"). So if you are not a strict "literalist", the parallels are there (to me at least). The problem is people trying to take everything literally instead of using their "god given" intelligence to find the proper interpretation and not to make any of these scriptures the end all be all. I mean, most of the things in the bible seem to be very allegorical and metaphorical.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Mike

      But the problem Binghi is that so many people don't read it that way, and they don't believe it that way. Most folks are more or less literalists. And they want to impose this interpretation on others.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • rjp34652

      ok, so at what point did some modern humans digress from their watery roots. According to some scientists, the modern human has more in common with the Dolphin than the ape. Fatty tissue connected to skin like whales and porpoises, unlike any land animal including apes. Webbed fingers. Legs and hips built like amphibans rather than land apes. Babies born with instinctive ability to hold their breath under water. Intelligence indicative of sea creatures rather than land animals. A nose built for swimming. Most of the world's population prefers to live near water. The parallels go on and on.

      THE GREAT QUESTION IS where are the mermaids? hubba hubba

      August 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
      • ancestors of dophins

        Some argue that dophins are actually descendants of humans. The argument goes as the forests receded some human ancestors clung to living by the water where more food was more readily available. As waters rose the slowly adapted to the sea and over eons gave rise to some sea creatures. (I do not really agree with this theory) but it is compelling premise. And what is the oldest fossils of dolphins we have? How are they divergent or similar from humans of that time period.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
      • donna

        Which scientists are those? The Aquatic Ape hypothesis isn't viewed as a viable theory by scientists and there isn't any real evidence to support it, and nothing from peer reviewed journals.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        It's likely that a small group of our ancestors lived a riparian life that had them swimming a lot to escape enemies or catch food, then interbred back into the main group. We are nothing like dolphins DNA-wise.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
      • donna

        Bible Clown, what evidence are you basing that on?

        August 31, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • ShannonInCT

      If Genesis was inspired by God, it shouldn't have screwed up so many details:
      Earth didn't begin completely covered by oceans.
      The earth and its oceans are not older than all of the stars in the sky, nor older than the sun.
      Seed-bearing plants are not older than the sun or moon or life in the seas.

      Any creation story made up by people 2500 years ago is bound to partially match our present understanding.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Ienne

      I agree with your post. I believe in the Bible but I don't expect it to explain thing scientifically. For example, Genesis was written by Moses and even if the story was given by God, how would he explain to Moses about DNA, the Big Bang and etc? I just hope that people get that not all Christians are against Science.
      As my mother-in-law says, " There is no excuse in being rude. " This goes to both Republicans and Democrats.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Perhaps there is a common ground between science and "religion"." Of course there is! We are finding out real things about the actual world; why do the religious stop up their ears, cover their eyes, and pretend it's not real? They even claim their deity made it all, but they don't want to know what's in it?

      August 31, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  31. Jason

    Now we have a chance to study their proteins. Huzzah!

    August 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Korowai from New Guinea

      I wonder if they are tasty!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
  32. Mike

    If anyone is curious about how complicated the reality is and the difficult analysis that people train and toil to understand in a rigorous way is, see this link:
    We scientists bust our asses to understand stuff, and we make hypotheses and test them and usually those hypotheses are wrong. Cause we look at the data and it slaps us in the face. It says... "This is NOT consistent with your idea". So we revise and toil some more. This is a lot more noble than these religious folks who just nod yes to what stories they were told, think they have a good foundation of knowledge and truth, and furthermore push to try and force everyone to believe what they believe, even though it has no basis in reality. In that they ignore data to the contrary. Why would people do that???? If there were a god out there would he want his creation to not use the brain he gave us?

    August 31, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • donna

      Interesting paper, thanks. I find it really frustrating when people demand to know the details of such things from posters on the internet. People spend years studying these subjects- decades even. But so many people want instant gratification and instant proof. If it takes more than a few minutest to read or if there is any complex science involved, they just dismiss it as false because they can't understand it.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  33. Mark

    That's seriously some incredible stuff. Wow!

    tight line

    August 31, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
  34. caesarbc

    Getting extinct human DNA is like seaking marraige counceling from a devorcee.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Atheus

      Seems that someone is bitter... Your comment makes no sense, sir.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • chris

      The whole point of the story is that the DNA is NOT human. You're going to have to clarify what exactly you're criticizing.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • Dave

      caesarbc, that's a total non sequitur (look it up).

      August 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
  35. Atheus

    Here is a much more well-written article on the subject:

    August 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • donna

      That was much better, thanks.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • MomOf3

      Thanks! That was a much better article!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • MomOf3

      ...and the comment board was more lucid! :)

      August 31, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  36. Jack 3

    it's easy to fugure out. republicans were made by god and the domcrats evolved from monkeys.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      I'm glad to have spent millions of years evolving instead of having been created in one lousy day from a lump of mud.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
      • Atheus

        Hear! Hear!

        August 31, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
      • Punkmonk

        Lovey! right-on!

        August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
      • KMDAB

        that was pretty funny.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
      • God

        Apologies; it was a rush job because of management mandates.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Ruthie

      Domcrats? Really?

      August 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Nicole Chardenet

      So you're saying that Republicans were the beta version and Democrats were the final release.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • ajaja


        September 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Tewks44

      what about the republicans that aren't judeo-christain? Oh yeah, you don't allow "those people" into your little club

      August 31, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Fugured" that right out, did you? You simply MUST publish your findings in a scientific journal.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • CA Liberal

      If i were God I think I'd be embarrassed about that.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • The Real Tome Paine

      Well, we can see that God has a sense of humor, since the GOP is clearly less suited to grow, adapt and change. Planned obsolesence, from an immortal being no less: gotta love it!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
  37. WM

    There is a statue that once came into being all by itself. Before it there was a just a slab of marble. Then the weather pound away at it. The weather shaped it and molded it until a statue was formed. The statue was called David. Some people believe that it was created. However, I believe this is ridiculous it was just the weather randomly reforming the slab of marble until a statue was formed. I have never meet this so called creator, he has never knocked on my door proclaiming he is the creator. Where is the proof of this claim. The only thing I have is some old crusty history books and hearsay. I saw weather formed the statue. Now on to the Mona Lisa...

    August 31, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Atheus

      Hey! This is a nice fantasy...just like Christianity...

      August 31, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Tewks44

      statues don't reproduce, aren't biological and are clearly works of art. The fact creationists have to resort to such ridiculous arguments is proof of how silly their claim really is.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        its all they know, you have to pity them at times.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Fish Jones

      I always hear the same arguement when it comes to evolution/creation/god. "Where did we come from?", "Where did the universe come from?" etc. It must be god right?

      First, I want to say that the concept of "time" is just that. A concept. Time is based on perception, and perception is subjective. Time doesn't actually exist. Time is a variable man created as a way to measure how long an object takes to get from point a to point b. So with that in mind, why do we insist that there was a beginning and will be an end to the universe? In my opinion, the universe has always been here and will always be. There is no beginning or end, as the universe "recycles" energy (which cannot be created nor destroyed). Time does not exist in space, as it is subjective and something man has created. Sure, planets and other "artifacts" will be created and be destroyed at one point or another, but the pure energy in the universe was never created or destroyed and can never be. It just "is" and always will be.

      It is very hard to conceptualize how the universe came to be. We are in the Earth "bubble" where it is impossible for us to see the big picture.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Farscape

      @ WM
      Your little story contradicts itself. First you say a statue came into being all by itself. Then you change this by saying it was once a slab of marble and weather had an effect on that marble …creating said statue. In short you’re an idiot.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
      • WM

        Hello Farscape,

        Thank you for your grand intellect in pointing out the contradiction. As you point out my story is just a story. Remember the words from Thumper, "if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

        August 31, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        Fars, I think he wasn't 100% serious there.

        August 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Paul

      Entirely possible if you had millions of statues over millions of years. However said slabs would not interact with their environment to optimize their chances of survival like animals would. They would not adopt behaviors, or adapt using physical characteristics to last longer or ensure their reproduction. That is what living organisms do.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • MomOf3

      Wow!'s amazing how it's so unrecognized on these posts!

      August 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • JohnC

      The big problem with that argument is that your scenario involves randomly creating something very specific. What if instead the weather shaped the marble into something merely "interesting". Evolution could have (and has) created all sorts of strange forms. The human form is just one of many complete with flaws and such. Once randomness happens upon simple organics and DNA things accelerate only those that randomly just happen to survive and reproduce contribute to later, often more advanced forms. Also very simple organic forms (not even cells in some cases) that happen to be in the same area may have a symbiotic relationship and eventually combine - this is what very likely led to the components that make up modern single cells. Once you wrap your head around it it's not to hard to understand and really quite amazing.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • SPC

      Religious people are a danger to the survival of the human race and even to the survival of life on this planet.

      September 22, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Evolutionists murdered nearly 100 million humans during the 20th century and it is that false science that is a threat to the human race.

        September 23, 2012 at 5:58 am |
  38. Greenspam

    On related news, scientists found a100% match between DNA of Neanderthals and DNA of tea party members.

    August 31, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Mike

      Nice! And they remain an evolutionary dead end.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • John

      And the hate speech and name calling from the left continues. This is my problem with liberals and even thinking of voting for them. They are so full of hate and can't avoid insulting other people regardless of the topic of an article. If this is what you have to offer, I say "NO THANKS" to it. Hating other people will not solve America's problems.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Atheus

        Obviously you haven't been paying much attention to the garbage coming from the right wing nutjobs lately. Tune back into Fox News and get caught up!

        August 31, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • gregg

        DO YOU HATE…
        black folk?
        brown folk?
        yellow folk?
        red folk?
        the environment?
        global warming scientists?
        the poor, the hungry, the meek, the peacemakers?
        solar energy?
        wind energy?
        hybrid cars?
        electric cars?
        polar bears?
        the rain forest?
        the Arctic?
        smart people?
        rape victims?
        disabled people?
        sick people?
        Wall Street accountability?
        respect for our president?
        VOTE GOP!!!

        August 31, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
      • Mike

        You are correct that low blow posts and making fun (like my previous post did) doesn't really help solve anything. But my frustration and my original posts point to the fact that nothing is solvable when people just hunker down in belief systems without any foundation or rigor.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        " They are so full of hate " But YOU are the one doing the name-calling. It's different when it's you because . . .er . . . ah . . . you do it with the love of Jesus in your heart? Are you the same "John" who said yesterday that "libtards" should all be put in concentration camps? I'm a moderate anyway so I don't give a grunt.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
      • The Real Tom Paine

        What hate speech? Tell that to the CNN employee who was with peanuts at the GOP convention, and was informed" This is how we feed animals". I've heard nothing but hateful speech from the Right throughout my life.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
      • Cuervo Jones

        i'm only surprised we haven't heard from some other group what rotten creatures they were, tried to enslave the world etc. Welcome Denisovans.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
      • Going In Circles

        Hey John,
        You get what you give.
        I gave up a long time ago, of trying to have an
        intelligent conversation with a Republican.

        They are like drive by shootings.
        Obummy sucks, your a libtard.
        They demand facts, and when you give them facts, they do one of two things.
        Declare them lies, or ignore them and find something else to gripe about.

        Waste of time.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Paul

      You give the teabaggers too much credit...

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Apolitical

        Another very very sick left wing lemming.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Apolitical

      You are a pretty sick person. There is no need to bring politics into a science article. And worse, you are clearly on the wrong side.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • CA Liberal

      Must be DE-evoloution, I think the Neanderthals were smarter than that.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Joepub

      And in still other news, Grenspam's dild0 fell into the couch cushion again.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • SPC

      Not right...why are you insulting the Neanderthals that way....not cool, not cool at all.

      September 22, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
  39. oren


    August 31, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • refugeek

      ... were black.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
      • Punkmonk

        You're awesome! quick on the uptake. That made me laugh out loud! Now, where was it again that they think the garden of eden was located? ;)

        August 31, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        There is an unfounded rumor that Bush thinks Eden was in Iraq, and that is why we are trying to own it. See, if you controlled Eden you could live forever and make God do backflips. Personally I don't think Cheney would have let Bush make any decisions about policy like that, so it's probably false.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  40. The Jackdaw

    That is very true. It just annoys me that the greatest country on Earth is rapidly becoming a community swimming pool filled with urine, fat kids and soggy potato chips.

    August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am |
  41. specifics

    I am curious to know which part of the DNA this study looked at to make the similarities. Excuse my confusion, but did they look at the basic DNA Replication genes and proteins shared with the Southern Pacific peoples, the specific base pairs, or the uncoded regions of DNA? I just want to know what pool of data, from the genome, the 3-5% commonality comes from?
    Thank you

    August 31, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • Atheus

      My guess would be that they're using the data pool from the Human Genome Project, or something closely related to that.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      Finally! A SMART question! Something other than: "What a waste of money, BURP. We could have spent that money on blowing people up that look different than us! BURP!"

      August 31, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • JPX

        I agree. I keep waiting for the religious nuts and republicans to come in and say it's all fake.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Mike

      I haven't read this paper yet, but they probably did some sort of SNP analysis or haplotype analysis. Big words but easy concept. They are just places in the genome (in our DNA) where there are common differences as you look from person to person and population to population. So if you and I share lots and lots of SNPs it is likely we come from a common population or group of individuals.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Dan, TX

      Go here to read some of the work on the Denisovans

      August 31, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Mike

      And to answer your question further, these SNPs are distributed all over the genome. They can be on any chromosome and aren't even restricted to those parts of the genome that code for proteins.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Mike

      Read the study!

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  42. Mike

    It's a bad chicken and egg issue here. Bad education leads to an undervaluing in education which leads to more bad education...

    August 31, 2012 at 11:22 am |
  43. lunchbreaker

    Section 8 of the Consti tution states
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
    Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
    Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
    uniform throughout the United States;

    TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE and useful Arts, by securing for limited
    Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
    and Discoveries;

    August 31, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Going In Circles

      Defence and general
      Welfare of the United States;

      Careful there Republicans will scream socialism.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  44. JMorcan

    They're not extinct. They're monkeys.

    August 31, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  45. jeff

    Why is it that these bones are so rarely found, given that early man was around only a few hundred thousand years ago? Is it because of population density? We find other animal fossils so much more frequently that are hundred of millions years old. I'm sure within a few decades the evolutionary pieces of man's evolution will fall into place, but I don't want to wait that long to prove to anti-Darwinians wrong.

    August 31, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Mike

      Don't worry. You will never "prove" to the anti Darwinians that their ideas are false. It is not a function of any amount of data.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:09 am |
      • Scott

        No one calls themselves "Darwinian." If they do, then they're just trolling.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Atheus

      I think that it is because throughout human history most groups have burned their dead. Burial is a relatively new tradition and very rare among prehistoric groups.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:14 am |
      • Arthur Dent

        You're exactly right.....almost every early civilization of man I have read about, would burn their dead for a number of reasons.......the term "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust" derives from this practice, though it being ironically a Christian passage, those who were the largest push for burial as opposed to creamation. (It wouldn't suprise me to find out the Egyptians influenced this though, as that had influenced a great deal of the Christian lore).

        August 31, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • John

        In 1841 in Bradford County Pennsylvania, while digging a cellar, two men came across a tomb 9 feet underground made of rock. Inside were a couple skeletons. The one they measured was 8'2" tall. Be interesting to do a dna study of them.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
      • SWH

        @John, those bones vanished a long time ago..

        August 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Seyedibar

      Early man may have also eaten his dead, rather than bury them. Only this past decade have we found the insistent proof that shows us neanderthals were eating their own species.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • pattic

      A couple of reasons ancient human bones are rare. One is that the population densities were indeed very small. Another is conditions of preservation are often not the best. And you have to take into account what happens to the bones after death. If they are not buried, animals may drag them around or, buried or not, they may erode out in bits and be carried away over periods of time. Or it can be any combination of these, or any number of other occurrences that can occur over many thousands of years.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Hiram

      Actually, jeff, you used the answer in your question: FOSSILS. Humans haven't been around long enough to truly fossilize (which takes replacing the bones and body areas with stone). Also, humans have never lived in areas (such as shallow oceans) where fossilization would ever occur.

      In some ways, this is a good thing, because you can't extract DNA from fossils– there isn't any there! Even well-preserved human bone (protected, for example, in a cave, or frozen for millenia) is an incredibly rare find. Humans in the early days were pretty scarce critters.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
      • Gods_in_the_math

        Hiram, very true on almost all premises, minus one. Fossilzed bone can still carry DNA evidence. Researchers have recently been able to extract red blood cells from Dinosaurs by eating away at the fossilized stone to reveal soft tissue stored inside. Read an article about here on while trolling for Christian v. Evolutionist debates.

        September 4, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
  46. AmRight

    This is DUMB... The bible tells us that the world is about 5,000 years old. So this just shows what a true waste of money the gov is putting into universities. Why is the federal gov or anybody else for that matter wasting one dollar on such silly stuff that is wrong before it is printed. Time for the tea party to rise up and cut this wasteful spending of money on this type of research... God told us how old earth is and where people come from that is the best professor ever. Stupid demorats wasting money on this stuff..

    August 31, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • DB

      The above comment is a prime example of how well the governments "no child left behind" program has worked.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:03 am |
      • Mike

        Oh no! I am actually not sure if AmRight is being sarcastic or not!! I think (hope) AmRight is joking...

        August 31, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • chemmajor

        "Every Child Left Behind" more accurately describes that GWB program.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • tomnikoly

      I hope you are being sarcastic.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • HenryMiller

      I can't tell if this is sarcasm or idiocy...

      August 31, 2012 at 11:06 am |
      • Zanadoo

        Neither. Troll trying to get your goat!

        August 31, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Thisissarcasmright

      This is sarcasm, right?........

      August 31, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • VD

      All those commenting on Religion here are Neanderthals and Denisovans of today. As if any one of them has seen God and in spite of that they would like to believe in books that probably got written for story telling or entertainment

      August 31, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • really

      There is no way this guy is serious.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Troll_hunter

      I'm going to have call this one out under Poe's law.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Hez316

      An atheist in altered clothing?

      August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • dATRUTH

      Your ignorance is inexplicable. Im a shocked. So by your time frame, the dinosaurs roamed with the greeks and native americans? I bet you are a republican. People like you are holding humanity back as a whole. You should be put down

      August 31, 2012 at 11:59 am |
      • Arthur Dent

        You obviously lack reading comprehension as much as you claim he lacks knowledge....this comment was in fact, sarcastic and satirical....

        August 31, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • chk this

      To AmRight:
      I can't believe that no one got your sarcasm, and they are calling you an idiot

      August 31, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      Sorry, too well-written and logical. You are just pretending to be a Christian. Shame on you.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • OMG NO

      Nice comment………….this is why the Republican Party (Tea Party) is losing ground and elections. Get out of peoples bodies and keep your religious beliefs at home and out of others’ lives and science. To say that the Earth and Universe for that matter was created only 5000 years ago because it is said so in a book written by a man…………..inspired by God………….is just plain silly. Kind of like saying if you die a martyr you get to go to heaven and get 40 Virgins…………do the gals get Virgins too, or is that only a guy thing. I know, they are pig bones………….at least that is what a very religious friend told me before, that this is a giant conspiracy by the scientist and that all the fossils that have been found are actually Pig bones…………..there…………….mystery solved.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        I had a Christian once tell me that dinosaur bones were just old automobile parts. He also said he only needed one book, and he didn't need to read it because he 'knew' what it said. They used to rejoice at new insight into God's plan when something new was discovered, but no they just reject it.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  47. Linda Luttrell

    New "missing link"?

    August 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • John

      my thoughts as well "Well, it looks like we finally found the missing link"

      August 31, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      I haven't looked very far into this, but it seems like the Denisov fossils are too new to be "the" missing link. A missing link, but not a big one. The big question is could they have interbred with our ancestors, or were they as different from us as horses and ponies? Another small and isolated population diverging into a new sub-species?

      August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
  48. Mike

    These posts are always sooo hard to read through, but I sometimes end up doing so like I sometimes look at the car accident...something like a morbid sense of curiosity. People are so weird, because they believe things, and believe things deeply such that they will not entertain any opposing views. They just.....know they are right. And this knowledge is based on complete nothingness. A book. A bible. What they were told. What their community believes. Everything except any real critical thought and study. Yet these religious people will come and comment on this science article. As if anything they have to say has any meaning at all whatsoever. At the very least have some respect for what you do not understand. Why do these people feel compelled to post on this board as if they have anything to offer?? I am a PhD level neurobiologist and even I have to work really hard to understand the nuances of gene flow, genetic drift and population genetics, the statistics of mutational analysis, etc. I don't even feel comfortable posting on these topics like I am some sort of expert, and yet there are dozens of people who think that they know something worth posting to "refute" the science. It's just laughable and sort of sad at the same time. I wish they would just stop.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • jeff

      Well said, sir.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • really

      The scariest part is that these people vote.

      Remember, Sarah Palin almost became the US VP, based nearly entirely on a platform of proud ignorance of the sciences.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Mike

        I know, it actually is a bit scary. Because the whole argument I was making about having firm beliefs based on nothing, on zero foundation and rigor, is also true for all beliefs, not just science. So people are all experts on finance, politics, economics...all this stuff that people think they know something about. It's terrible.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:17 am |
      • zufree2b

        Sarah Palin! Have u seen the current bunch!!!! Scary.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Gelin

      Same thing here. I'm a PhD candidate in analytical chemistry and I have been working on this theory I have about my cyclic voltammogram data for the past 2 weeks. Now I have to throw half of the ideas out because I could not make it fit to the data and literature, though my adviser did point me to another possibly fruitful direction. So yea, even though I work on it and like my theory, I cannot abide by it if it is wrong. I admit I can be wrong, that I do not know everything or pretend to do so. I will not lie about my theory because I feel my comfortable with it. I can make educated speculation but I will not say it's true. Nature is going to present herself the way she is and no amount of hope, wish, anger and denial is going to change that.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
      • Mike

        And that is the beauty and boldness of science. It takes guts to put your ideas out there and risk the real possibility that it will not turn out. As it more often happens. Just remember that every failure is an open door for you to revamp and revise which is exciting. The only bad part is the pressure to get those positive results, etc, publish and graduate. Best of luck!!

        August 31, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        G, negative data is still data. If your approach is wrong, prove that and it will save time for the next guy. You may have to go through many approaches to get your facts, and in the end it might come down to a flash like whats-his-name seeing the benzene ring as a snake biting its tail as he gazed into the fireplace. But your point is well-made; the universe is as it is, not as we wish, and it seems that basic respect for your creator would include not denying the facts of the world you inhabit.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Adam L

      Man, that almosts offends me. I mean, You could have memorized All science topics from the beginning of your life to the end. But what worth will it do for you when your dead? I'm a christian, and I heavily believe in science. It's man's mistake thinking just because they figure something out, that it's theirs to claim. We don't control Science OR the Truth, we're just along for the ride.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Mike

        It's not the memorizing the science topics that is the goal! It is the process of figuring out how things work, because when we do that we can put it to good use. Like cure things.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • Adam L

        That's great if people were completely selfless (especially harder to be just before death), But I wasn't talking about science for the benefit of human kind, but for the individual. what questions does that answer for the person themselves? do their even care to ask the question? or does the truth of existence simply end for them at their understanding of science?

        August 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Mike

        I feel like I have a sense of purpose and that one can have a sense of purpose without interposing a god.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
      • Bible Clown©

        Mike's right; it's what we can do with the knowledge.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
      • Adam L

        aaahhh, so in otherwords, as long as you have a sense of purpose, than ignoring the greatest science question of all time is fine! Well then, I feel I have a purpose as well through Christ, So I guess that justifies ignoring science?

        August 31, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
      • Mike

        What are you talking about? I am not in favor of ignoring anything. I think those big questions should be thought about and studied! I never said otherwise so don't put those words in my mouth, and then "refute" something I did not say nor imply. You just have to be smart and sensible when you debate people. The big questions you talk about are the big questions. I agree with you there. This article has nothing to do with that. Evolution has nothing to do with those questions either. Evolution does not provide answers to those questions.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
      • Adam L

        like it or not, it not about justifying who's right or wrong, it's about control of the world. I hear some pretty bad things coming from "realists" or even scientists about believers of faith. that it's bad for mankind, or not in line with the views of a scientific truth. stuff that is as equally oppressive as these "wars caused by religion" and preaching of "false truths" thus creating a mire of hypocrisy. A realist trying to degrade and justify to a christian is the same as a Christian trying to justify to a mormom, muslim, or athiest. and all may end in war. So what is there to argue? what are you realists going to do with all of us "religious nuts" ? if we are so destroying civilization. Just remember, science built the bomb, not faith.
        We are one in the same.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
      • Mike

        We are not one and the same. I believe that truth matters. You are right- the truth can be used to do bad or good things. Do we build a bomb or do we create energy for people? Science is just there to enlighten. To find the truths about who we are, how we came to be, what our universe looks like. To me, nothing can be cooler than that. We are trying to figure out a story- the real story- of everything. Not trying to fit everything into some ridiculous preconceived notion that seems to contradict what we now measure, look at and understand. That's it. Morality isn't a part of it. But that doesn't make science evil. It's just how we find out about the world. It's a really noble endeavor. And yes, moral decisions need to be made, as always, with what science gives to us as tools.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
      • Adam L

        And if the article had nothing to do with the Big question, and it had only to do with the study of evolution, then how dare you bring faith into it, if the article had nothing to do with it. There's only one reason you did, and that's utter bigotry and hate.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
      • Mike

        That is not true. I didn't begin the faith discussion. It doesn't even belong in the discussion of this article. Faith has nothing to say about science because faith means, by definition, to believe even contrary to evidence. And all science can do is try to come up with models based on the evidence. So science has nothing to say about faith. As a scientist, it makes no sense for me to say there is no god. And I don't say that. I am agnostic, simply because there can be no proof one way or the other. But I can say that god is not necessary for people to be moral, because there are many moral people who do not believe in god.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
      • Adam L

        a Scientist? what are you a Political Scientist? because that last post just fully contradicted your first post. And perhaps by your definition that's what faith is. but not mine. you're statements at the start, unlike mine, created tension and wreaked of ignorance. Remember, when starting a debate you must be sensible and smart, as to not look like a hypocrite.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  49. ry

    I have to say, I am frustrated at the people dismissing a rigorous peer-reviewed study because they don't understand it. If you dont understand it, just ask a scientist or someone familiar with the topic to explain. Some of the reactions on here are as silly as me saying I don't understand how the combustible engine works, therefore cars must run on rainbows and sunshine.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Mike

      I just posted above you but you said much more succinctly what I was trying to say in my long rant!

      August 31, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Arthur Dent

      You sir receive the #winning award for the day. Thank you for saying everything so directly and simply. :)

      August 31, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Gelin

      I abhorred that! Rainbows and sunshine ran my car!

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Adam L

      some cars run on sunshine...

      August 31, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Kenny of Salt

      A car that runs on rainbows and sunshine! I want one!

      August 31, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • General Unicorn Motors, Ltd.

      At General Unicorn, we provide clean Unicorn powered carriages to carry you on your important business trips.
      We are aware of the large market of sunshine and rainbow powered vehicles. But did you know that those vehicles reduce irreplaceable sunlight and take much needed rainfall away?

      General Unicorn. Hoofing it for a better tomorrow.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  50. w l jones

    The same human here on Earth is in large number through the universe.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  51. dowhatsright

    amazing how cruel most of you can be....okay we get it no try being civil.....geez....if your so right about there not being a God then why do you get so upset when people think there is a God...cuz deep down...your not think you are and science tells you, you are but deep inside your not sure....hmmm interesting...okay now go back to attacking people for saying there is a God.....

    August 31, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Patriarchae

      Uh, nope, I'm pretty sure. What it sounds like though, is that you are projecting YOUR insecurities onto everyone else.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:39 am |
      • Tim

        How does it sound like he's projecting his own insecurities? His comment makes perfect sense. Why go out of your way to call out people who belief in something? Even if that thing they believe you think is false. Doesn't make much sense unless you have insecurity, not sure about your own position.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • DB

      Maybe God planned for man to progress along the path that has happend, who knows for sure. God is a concept that we do not understand just as there are many other things that we do not understand in our limited existance and comprehension.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:46 am |
      • Timmy

        Before you can make any claims as to what god could or could not do, you have to prove there is a god. Until then you are just wasting your time.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
      • Adam L

        Good comment. at the earliest point of Human evolution, lets say the 13th century, human comprehension was not like it was today. Had you have told them there was a field or ring of Radiation around our globe that could alter cells, and damage elements, some idiot would have said prove it, otherwise it's not true. well they couldn't prove it at such a premature point of existance. though it's the truth.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Seyedibar

      because its harmul to social advancement, and belief in god is responsible for most of the world's conflict.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • Adam L

        if there's no God, and silly fantasies have no power... than isn't war Man's fault?

        August 31, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
      • Timmy

        Yeah it is mans fault for beliveing in a god that doesn't exist and then killing someone else for believing in a different god that also doesn't exists.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • really

      Because if we simply said 'I don't understand, therefore god x did it', we would learn absolutely nothing. That is not a method for learning – it's laziness.

      Are you OK with not knowing anything other than what some ancient man-made book tells you?

      August 31, 2012 at 11:19 am |
  52. Mike H.

    Where does the Ancient Astronaut theory stand in all of this?

    August 31, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • bczu

      I guess you could say the Aliens chose what group to help.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  53. Seyedibar

    This isn't that bizarre Modern theories hold that all the sapien offshoots interbred for around 50,000 years as they met one another travelling in southern Europe and eastern Asia.

    August 31, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • DB

      Must have been one heck of a party!

      August 31, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  54. sybaris

    The posts here from the faithful illustrate an apalling lack of knowledge about the sciences. With +75% of the country claiming to be christian it is no wonder the U.S. doesn't even rank in the top 10 globally for academic performance.

    August 31, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • Bobpitt

      It’s hard to believe they found an unknown type of cave man, Scientist should be more aware that such specimens still live to day.. Just come to Pittsburgh and test Steelers Quarter back Ben Roethlisberger I am sure he is on a class of his own when it comes to a cave man..

      August 31, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Seyedibar

      This is because religion taught to a child stunts their capacity for using logic and thinking rationally. It isn't healthy for children to believe in fantasies so strongly.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Bobpitt

      When it comes to Math and Science the US ranks 26th on the world

      August 31, 2012 at 10:38 am |
      • bubba's cousin

        According to my calculations they are ranked higher than that

        August 31, 2012 at 10:48 am |
      • DB

        Remember that our government stepped in and made "no child left behind" so we dumbed down our academics to the lowest denominator. We all know when we went to school there were one or mone that just never got it but today we wait until they do get it before we progress, therefore any outstanding students do get left behind by the world and we end up in the 26th place of brightest nations in many areas. We are getting our butts kicked while we allow being dumb to rule. Seems the political leaders want to create more like themselves.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:56 am |
      • really

        Keep in mind that in countries like India you need to be truly gifted to even be considered for college. That skews numbers heavily in their favor.

        We may not have the best students, but we have the best availability for education here. Nearly everyone gets a shot.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Jimmy

      Believe it or not, many Christians believe in God and accept scientific theories. Ridiculing generalizations about any group of people contributes nothing to the discussion.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Adam L

        great comment

        August 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  55. Mimi

    waw, evolution is hard to believe... Creation is much simpler !!! and is not taxing on Government funding for extra scientific discoveries that evenyually will be proven wrong and replaced by other discoveries, .....Well .....
    Have a great weekend !!! :-)

    August 31, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • Bubba

      Yes, let's believe what's simple. Who needs evidence?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:18 am |
      • bubba's cousin

        Simple but true

        August 31, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • ry

      Man, it's easier to believe that planes fly by magic and there's a house elf in the dishwasher.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:07 am |
      • Alan

        Are you trying to say there is not an elf in the dishwasher?

        August 31, 2012 at 11:27 am |
      • Atheus

        New Earth fundies would have us believe that it's actually some kind of pig-dinosaur ala The Flintstones.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • Going In Circles

        I have a troll for a garbage disposal.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Matt

      Creation is only much simpler if you refuse to ask where the creator came from. The reality is that it is much harder to explain the existence of an omnipotent creator that can make things pop into existence merely by willing it than it is to explain evolution.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:18 am |
      • defenseanddeliverance

        How so? You see, many of the scientific only (as many can be of the scientific/theistic mindset) believe that there was some thing that has always existed as well. Some thing without a beginning. Some of these scientific types think that the Universe is that always existent thing (of course recent findings are showing that to most likely not be the case). So we are at an impasse. One group states that there is an intelligent being that has always existed that brought these laws and functions into existence, the other group thinks that the Universe (or multi-verse) has always existed and bought these things into existence, or everything popped into existence from absolute non-being.

        Of course, there is a question of what makes more sense. Unfortunately it is not the case that the science only proponents theory is simpler.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:06 am |
      • Matt

        You under stand that you're just making a straw man? There "steady-state" theory of the universe was discarded a while ago.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • griz5106

      If you do not believe Mimi, you can just ask the talking snake.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
  56. Denise

    PLEASE READ THIS AND THINK HARD::Evolutionism has always been about missing-links.The article adds another twist to it:Denisovans not having genetic traits common in all humans.Basic Instructions Before Living Earth(BIBLE),evolutionism is hidden between verses one and two of Genesis chapter one where from a perfect world darkness and void which are fruits of imperfection covered the worlds.Imperfection came with the fall of lucifer.Evolution is evidence of pre-adamite world.Order is restored in subsequent verses.Basic human intelligence calls for the realization that order doesn't emerge from chaos but chaos from can pre-exist order. A fool has to convince himself there is no God,That Is what most scientists painstakingly do most of there lifetime,escaping in the fog when problems facing human multiplies.Most men believe on existence of gravity,wind,flow of electricity,magnetism and a soul which all are invisible to the naked eye yet still crucial for life.It is foolish to believe in all these things and not in an invisible God! We are subject to the A B C Ds of life before we are aware of them in life.In the same manner man was created by God and not understanding His Creation never means Creationism is false.Bottom line is that,evolutionism may be a supplement to the Bible,using it to abase the Bible is outright foolishness the risk of which is Eternal Damnation.

    August 31, 2012 at 7:52 am |
    • Primewonk

      This is a SCIENCE thread, attached to a SCIENCE story, on a SCIENCE forum.

      I fail to see the point of posting religious bullshit on here. Do you go onto message board discussing the Red Sox/Yankee's rivalry and post this same inane crap? If not, why not? It would just as relevant there as it is here.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:08 am |
      • dave

        Thank you!!!!!!!! I could not have said it BETTER.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:52 am |
      • J.C.

        Bravo! Take your theological hogwash elsewhere, kind sir. Your ignorance is not welcome here.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:08 am |
      • bubba's cousin

        Ignoring the obvious is a sure sign you are on the right road ...

        August 31, 2012 at 11:02 am |
      • Atheus

        To be fair, I go on the Belief Blog and post science stuff...

        August 31, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • xirume

      What a convoluted argument to support en empty belief. It would've been easier for you to read a paper or two about evolution..

      August 31, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Akira

      There is no such word as "evolutionism".

      August 31, 2012 at 10:10 am |
      • bubba's cousin

        Yes Akira, evolutionism is a word. Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution, specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to increase in complexity.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:15 am |
      • Akira

        No, "evolutionism" is a snarl word concocted by creationists, who, in what seems to be an act of psychological projection, see evolution as a type of ideology, as opposed to a scientific theory.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • pat

      Adam and eve's descendants were "mixing" with the other human species at the time.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Bobpitt

      Talking about Cave man..!!. Cave man did not understand lighting so to him it was a god, same as the Volcano, and thunder, once man had an understanding about that phenomena they cease being gods.. If you don't understand something is the prerogative of science to explain it, by no means is a god... Seems that God = I don't know why..!!
      Due to people like this we are behind 400 years due to dudes like this burning scientist..

      August 31, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • kkay1123

      I think as a whole, science is revealing God's work and God's work is revealed in science. SO.. guys, for many people it IS relevant and connected. You don't need to hate on that. I completely don't think science disproves God at ALL; it actually is the opposite! To me, God created people with the passion for studying science, DNA, etc.. to reveal the nitty gritty details that make up the history of the world. That was deliberate. This believer enjoys reading science articles and I've always been fascinated by anthropology. I studied it in college. So, why all the argumentativeness? Why can't someone see science and see God in it at the same time? Peace :)

      August 31, 2012 at 10:24 am |
      • Seyedibar

        science and gods are incompatible. Science is a process that explains how things naturally function. Gods are imagined concepts that prevent people from working out natural laws and functions, by masquerading as the answer.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:59 am |
      • Joepub

        Science and gods are incompatible? How is that so? Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and it is determined that God does exist. Scientifically; wouldn't you use science to understand God?

        August 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • mk

      "A fool has to convince himself there is no God"

      Why would someone have to prove that something doesn't exist? The onus is on you to prove that it does. And you haven't.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Jesse from KC

      There's so much wrong with what you're posting, but I'm only going to pick the two most GLARING, obvious failures in your intelligence.

      First: "A fool has to convince himself there is no God."

      Really? So you believe that man is born with a built-in knowledge of a higher power? Really? How do you then explain the societies (there aren't many left, but few) that exist in distant parts of Africa that have no religious or spiritual doctrine? How do you explain my son, who is now 6, who knows nothing of God because we don't talk about it. He came home from school the other day asking what God was. There was no intuitive, built-in knowledge, we just didn't teach him because we don't believe in it. To say that we have to convince ourselves there is no God is to speak of something which you clearly don't understand about how the human brain works.

      Secondly: "Most men believe on existence of gravity,wind,flow of electricity,magnetism and a soul which all are invisible to the naked eye yet still crucial for life."

      You're right, and most men believe in God as well. But let's seperate God and the soul from everything else you just listed. Gravity, wind, flow of electricity, magnetism.

      If I drop an object, it falls. If I hoist a kite into the air on a windy day, it flies (if you do it right). If I rub my feet on a carpet then touch something that is grounded, I can see an electrical spark flow between myself and the grounded object. If I hold a magnet close to a paperclip, the paperclip will be pulled towards it.

      If I kill a person, or watch a person die, I don't observe a soul leaving the body. If I talk to God, he doesn't appear before me and talk back.

      You listed invisible forces that are scientifically proven. There is no debate about those. They are not only proven, but they can be measured. Every piece of matter has a specific gravitational pull that can be measured. An electrical current has amplitude and voltage, etc. There is no measure of the soul or God other than what you can point to in a book that is really a compilation of books that are 1500-4000 years old. I'm sorry, but the entire basis of your argument is rooted in ignorance of the scientific method, and of how the brain processes information when forming beliefs.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:04 am |
      • defenseanddeliverance

        Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

        A properly basic belief?

        August 31, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Binghi

        I'm loving the discussion/debate, even the wacky ones! But I just wanted to chime in here on one thing. Anyone ever hear of the idea that yoga (not only the physical,"hatha" yoga, but all the meditative disciplines,etc.) is a science? Some would call it a "science of religion" or a "metaphysical science". In fact, many of the theories recently advanced by quantum physics (string theory, etc.) are sounding similar to thousands of years old vedic desriptions of the fabric of the universe / creation. Could it be that there is a common ground between science and this type of "religious" approach? A lot of very gifted scientists and thinkers have postulated that it is an illusion to think that what we observe and our own perception are not dependent upon each other. In other words, our "objective" observations are inextricably linked to our own subjectivity. In any experiment, we don't recognize that our own selves are one of the factors of the observation. I'm probably not explaining it correctly, but maybe one of you real scientific "brainiacs" can elaborate on my half-ass explanation. Anyway, just throwin that out there.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • TK

      Let me ask you a simple question. You can refer to the Bible if needed. Where was God at the height of Civilization during the Ancient Greece era? Heck, where was God when Alexander the Great conquer most of the known world? Or even when the Ancient Egyptian rule Africa with an iron fist?

      August 31, 2012 at 11:17 am |
      • defenseanddeliverance

        All you have managed to say is that in the short term, you would have handled things differently. This is called a Red Herring.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • bubba's cousin

      Have you ever read Asimov's Guide to the Bible? For a self-proclaimed atheist, he's made with this book, great inroads into research that is otherwise difficult for the typical christian layman to obtain. Gives a broader understanding of God, Christianity and the Bible itself.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Andrew

      If you are so adept at preaching the bible and professing the word of god, I'm wondering why you cannot do so without proper grammar? Is this to prove also that your ignorance is beyond just science, but also in rhetoric and grammar? I would just suggest that even though you spend most of your time nose deep in a bible, why not try something more informational like "Grammar for dummies".

      August 31, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Rigel2004

      Denise: Evolutionism is just a mental creation of religious, creationists people, which try to demonize the evolution idea assigning to the word evolutionism a false paradigm state, as a defence reaction to the erosive effect of science in religious beliefs and dogma. Be clear, the article is talking about biological (human) evolution, which is a fact, a process detectable by anyone with the appropriate scientific tools, which is working out right now, either in a bacterial population in a petri dish or, in a larger scale, in every ecosystem’s biological component, humans included. Scientists are free to believe or not in God, but, as deeper any scientist is digging up in the mechanical truth of the universe, more convinced should be that there is a supreme inteligence behind the universe design and order, but as a scientist, hi/she has no tools, nor is the job, to support or reject that idea. The article is not possing any new idea about human origin, just adding some extra mechanical complexity about human evolution, based in genetic facts. Science is not addressing human creation, as it has no tools to search such thing. Philosophers may try to explain it by free thougths, as religious people also do clinging to some ancient books, but neither of them are talking about proven facts. By other hand, gravity, wind, flow of electricity, magnetism, even though they are not visible to naked eye, they don’t induce to have faith in God’s existance, as they are proven facts, with plenty of visibility under technological sensors.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • The Real Tom Paine

      You don't get out much, do you?

      August 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  57. cjonline

    Welcome to CNN, your most trusted source for unproven, pseudoscience!

    August 31, 2012 at 7:15 am |
    • Primewonk

      cj – I couldn't help but notice that you didn't bother to post any citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that refutes this article. Why?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Avatar

      I know that ignorance abounds and understand that. What I don't understand is why so many people are so proud to be ignorant.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:39 am |
      • advocatusdiaboli

        HIgher than normal ratios of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes maybe?

        August 31, 2012 at 10:30 am |
      • bubba's cousin

        We takes whut we gott and makes the best we kin do.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • ry

      You understand that they're reporting on a study that made the journal Science? The three most rigorous journals that scientists would kill to have a paper in are Science, Nature and Cell. If it made it there past their peer review, it's actually the total opposite of pseudoscience.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • MonarchzMan

      cj, please provide your scientific background to call this a pseudoscience. If you don't have a PhD in a biological science, I don't think you really have any say in the matter.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • MikeyD74

      What the hell does being conservative have to do with it? Im a conservative... and im an atheist. I dont believe in the big magic man in the sky or zombie jesus, i believe in science.

      So please think before you group all conservatives together? there are many more conservs that are like me.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Nick

      The same gene sequencing technology that helps convict rapists and murders... or free the innocent from jail is just sooooo fake.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • really

      You don't get to refute peer-reviewed scientific articles by simply saying "Nuh-uh!"

      August 31, 2012 at 11:52 am |
  58. Vladimir

    "They, Denisovans and Neanderthals, are older versions of humans, not some animals. We now that because the evidence of some of their DNA in modern humans tells us that they were enough like modern humans to interbreed with them."

    HUH? No, if what you are saying is true, EVERY HUMAN would have the DNA of Denisovans. The mere fact that all humans don't have the Denisovan DNA, already proves humans didn't descend from Denisovans. It's basic logic. The article clearly says SOME humans have it, others dont. Why? Logical explanation?

    Again, you too are now making a huge leap of logic just as the article WE are reading. How could we humans have evolved from Denisovans (you are saying we all evolved from them), if only SOME humans have the gene, and some don't!? (the article clearly states SOME humans have it)

    Again, why did some humans mate with the people all humans evolved from?

    And yet again, so if only SOME humans have it, did the rest evolve from them or not, or only some evolved, but some didn’t?

    And finally AGAIN lol, those who didn’t evolve from Denisovan, bred with humans who do/don’t have Denisovan DNA?? OOOOOOOOO____OOOOOOOOO

    "We have enough Neanderthal fossils to give us an idea of how much different they looked compared to us. Looking at Neanderthal artifacts give us some ideas about how their behaviour may have differed from ours. While we don't have the Denisovan bones or artifacts that can tell us much about how they looked or behaved, their DNA can tell us that they are at least or more different form us as the Neanderthals."

    What has this got to do with Neanderthals? Are WE reading the same article?

    August 31, 2012 at 5:33 am |
    • JoeC

      "HUH? No, if what you are saying is true, EVERY HUMAN would have the DNA of Denisovans. The mere fact that all humans don't have the Denisovan DNA, already proves humans didn't descend from Denisovans. It's basic logic."

      No. That's not what the article is saying. Denisovans and modern humans shared an ancestor 700,000 years ago. At that time they had the same DNA. At about that time they split up. The group that became Denisovans likely decided to migrate into Asia while the group that became modern humans stayed in Africa. They were isolated from each other and their DNA developed different sets of mutations over hundreds of thousands of years.

      When they met again as modern humans migrated out of Africa and into Asia, hundreds of thousands of years later, these people were genetically different but not different enough that they couldn't mate. The migrating tribes of modern humans that did mate with the Denisovans produced children with some new and distinct DNA. That is what they are finding in those Southeast Asian populations.

      The same thing happened with modern humans and Neanderthals.

      August 31, 2012 at 6:16 am |
    • StayzKrunchyInMilk

      you can compare this to race differences today. I have no idea what your genetics are, but lets say you are white, and that your whole family has been white as far back as anyone can remember. Now lets take a hypothetical person from a predominantly black/asian/hispanic area with everyone in their family being the same. You and this person likely differ greatly in skin/hair/eye colors as well as facial structure and build. Neither of you likely have a common ancestor for thousands of generations in order to produce the distinct differences.

      This is the difference and similiarity between Neanderthals and Denisovans (and again with Modern Humans). They are saying that at some point some modern humans came into contact with the Denisovans and interbreeding occured in this small section of the total population. explained below:

      So say now that you moved to the second persons country and had a child with them. you would then introduce a new bloodline into the population, but (even with ones best efforts to spread there genetics around) that addition to the area's genetic mix would be a small percentage of the total population. In time it would spread wider, but only along that bloodline. There would descendants of other people from the second persons race that would never meet your own descendants. Your kids and their kids would share some parts of their genetic heritage, but differ by what you added.

      This is what the article is saying happened in New Guinea and nearby areas. that parts of that specific population inter-bred and added that bloodline to a small percentage of the population. And now present day people still posess some of that DNA.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:41 am |
    • ry

      I think you misunderstand the article. We didn't evolve from either Denisovans or Neandethals. It is just increasingly clear thanks to the recent ability to sequence genomes that there was past interbreeding with these groups and the ancestors of modern H sapiens. Only the ancestors that lived in SE Asia interbred with the Denisovans, which is why present day Europeans and Africans have little trace of Denisovan genes. Check out gene flow and migration.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:17 am |
  59. mary

    I wonder if what they are finding are groups of people who lived in small villages that inner bred some kind of genetic defect into their off spring..
    Like dwarfism.
    Not sure finding "proof" of some odd group of people really tells us we found some sort of missing link..
    Trying to patch us all together is a little like patching the prehistoric animals together.. Now we find what we thought were different species.. Turns out to be the same animal at different stages in its life..
    Very hard to link us all together.. Shared DNA doesn't mean much..
    When we have primates right now.. Living at the same time..
    Shoot forwards a few thousand years and we just might have people thinking we bred with them too~!!

    August 31, 2012 at 4:54 am |
    • fimeilleur

      care to cite examples of these prehistoric animals we thought were different, but now know were just different stages of life?

      The part about shooting forwards... except for the fact that our recorded history would provide much better information than what the prehistoric world left for us...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:10 am |
      • SWH

        It made national news 2 years ago. Maybe you should pay attention to current events. Might learn something.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:12 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Or better yet, in stead of getting my science information from CBC news, I'll go straight to a reputable source like the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology. Have you checked if the journal has been peer reviewed by other paleontologists? This is the strength of science. Beware of "news" about science... look at the debacle cause by Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccines. Peer review showed his study to be false, biased and utterly fraudulant.

        Now I hope you learned something about the scientific methode.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • JoeC

      "By comparing the genetics of modern humans with relatives in the evolutionary tree, it appears there are more than 100,000 genetic mutations that most people alive today share, but which our closest relatives in the evolutionary line did not have"

      The number of genetic mutations shared is a reliable means of determining how closely related we are. That's how a paternity test works. The number of mutation differences between two groups can give an estimate of how many generations you have to go back until they had a common ancestor. That 100,000 unshared mutations means we were last related thousands(?) of generations ago. The estimate they gave here was 700,000 years. That's where the family tree split.

      That number of variations would be expected to code for many subtle but fixed differences in features and development from one group to the other. Not as limited and spontaneous as the commonly recurring mutations like dwarfism.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:48 am |
    • ry

      DNA is absolutely conclusive proof where fossil data is not. More rigorous work is getting done now that we can sequence genomes. I agree that fossil data can be sketchy, but DNA does not lie. Think you misunderstand the article. Neither Neanderthals nor Denisovans are "missing links". There were multiple groups of hominids living and interbreeding at the same time. For some reason, H sapiens won out and everyone else died off. There is some evidence that H sapiens actively killed off the others.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  60. John Vance

    To all of you other diurnal omnivorous bipedal primates out there. What the heck are we doing posting at 0-dark-30 when we should be hiding from crepuscular feline apex predators?

    August 31, 2012 at 4:52 am |
  61. waso

    I guess that's where the relatively rare 'O' blood group originated from: DenisOvans

    August 31, 2012 at 3:03 am |
    • DebAH

      O+ is not rare. O- is ;)

      August 31, 2012 at 5:41 am |
      • waso


        August 31, 2012 at 7:37 am |
  62. mozac

    If evolutionists were talking about anything else besides human evolution, they would be laughed out the room. Its the religious debate that this theory sparks that has so many people talking about it.

    August 31, 2012 at 2:35 am |
    • DebAH

      I suspect you are referring to Christianity when you say religion, no?

      If so, people need to realize that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:44 am |
      • AlyssaJ

        Except for one being real and the other not being real, respectively.

        August 31, 2012 at 7:12 am |
  63. Vladimir

    I don’t get the contradictions. The article starts by saying “scientists have reconstructed the genetic world of an entire population of extinct human relatives called Denisovans” but then contradicts itself by saying “Paabo said in an e-mail. ‘Scientists can now start working on understanding how WE DIFFERED from Denisovans and Neandertals.’”

    Then, the article starts saying “It’s only people in those places who have Denisovan DNA, Paabo said”. So why do all humans not have the Denisovan DNA again?

    Also, “it appears the Denisovans mixed with (and mated with) indigenous people in Papua New Guinea and Australia, Paabo said.” So why did some humans mate with the people all humans evolved from lol?

    And this “Does the Denisovan DNA present IN SOME HUMANS TODAY serve any function” So if only some humans have it, did the rest evolve from them or not, or only some evolved, but some didn’t. Then, those who didn’t evolve from Denisovan, bred with humans who don’t have Denisovan DNA? HUH?????? I don’t get it

    August 31, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • sharoom

      I don't get why you're so confused.

      1. We figured out the Denisovan genome. Now we can compare it to our genome and find out what's similar and different.

      2. "Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is not present today anywhere apart from islands in the Pacific. 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 is from the Denisovans." Only these ethnic groups have traces of Denisovan DNA within them. This means they descended (at least partly) from the Denisovans or, more likely, they shared a very close ancestor with the Denisovans.

      3. I don't even understand what you're trying to ask here, but what you quoted was basically the answer to your question 2.

      4. Yes ONLY SOME HUMANS have the reported Denisovan genes, namely those listed above.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:54 am |
      • Vladimir

        "1. We figured out the Denisovan genome. Now we can compare it to our genome and find out what's similar and different."
        Who is "we" lol how do we not know it is not an animal.
        We already know we are different, don't we?

        "2. "Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is not present today anywhere apart from islands in the Pacific. 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 is from the Denisovans." Only these ethnic groups have traces of Denisovan DNA within them. This means they descended (at least partly) from the Denisovans or, more likely, they shared a very close ancestor with the Denisovans."

        So why do all humans not have the Denisovan DNA again?

        "4. Yes ONLY SOME HUMANS have the reported Denisovan genes, namely those listed above."

        LOL well then how could we humans have evolved from Denisovans, if only some people have the gene, and some don't!? LOL!

        And why did some humans mate with the people all humans evolved from again lol?

        Again, so if only SOME humans have it, did the rest evolve from them or not, or only some evolved, but some didn’t?

        Finally, those who didn’t evolve from Denisovan, bred with humans who do/don’t have Denisovan DNA?? O_o

        Who wrote this stuff agian? Reporters need to make sense when they cite scientists.

        August 31, 2012 at 4:21 am |
      • JoeC


        They, Denisovans and Neanderthals, are older versions of humans, not some animals. We now that because the evidence of some of their DNA in modern humans tells us that they were enough like modern humans to interbreed with them.

        We have enough Neanderthal fossils to give us an idea of how much different they looked compared to us. Looking at Neanderthal artifacts give us some ideas about how their behaviour may have differed from ours. While we don't have the Denisovan bones or artifacts that can tell us much about how they looked or behaved, their DNA can tell us that they are at least or more different form us as the Neanderthals.

        August 31, 2012 at 5:09 am |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Vladmir, one thing I think you may be struggling with is a linear view of evolution (e.g., erectus evolves into neanderthal evolves into denisovan evolves into modern humans...). That is incorrect. Evolution happens among populations and any one individual or group of individuals may or not contribute genes to future generations, or they may contribute genes to only a few lineages of future generations.

        The reason that Denisovans might pass along their DNA to some modern populations and not others is the same reason that your Great Grandmother might pass along her DNA to some modern individuals and not others. She passed them on to you, but probably not to me. We're still all human but my lineage is not traced back to her, thus your and my DNA is very slightly different. This is how genetic transmission works. Now, if someone sequenced your great grandmother and compared her to a distribution of modern humans, they would find that she contributed to some modern humans and not to others. Does that make sense?

        Now expand that concept to millions of generations rather than just four generations, and consider changes over time in how isolated or integrated members of these generations might be to one another, and it becomes clear how complex evolution can be. No one said it was simple, but I think critics get frustrated when it isn't.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Bubba

      Vladimir, modern humans didn't evolve from Denisovans. Doesn't say anywhere that they did. That seems to be the source of your confusion. Presumably, we both evolved from a common ancestor much farther back, then a subset of moderns interbred with Denisovans before becoming the ancestor of those Pacific groups that have Denisovan DNA today.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:10 am |
      • kat

        Bubba: You have exactly pinpointed where Vladmir is going wrong and I hope he understands what you are saying.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • ry

      Your confusion is because you appear to be unaware that multiple groups of hominids existed with the ancestors of modern H sapiens, including Denisovans and Neanderthals. Genetic evidence is showing that these populations interbred in some areas, like SE Asia, but not others, like Europe.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:28 am |
  64. Comestible

    I am a school teacher and have been asked how this is possible when the Bible tells us a different story. I tell them that God has planted these things here to test our faith. However, I can see a conflict here between science and religion. They can't both be right.

    August 31, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Just for the record, if my son's school teacher was telling him that there would be a formal complaint to the school board. Unless you teach in a private school, that's not only poor teaching, that's unconstitutional. I hope you're kidding.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:12 am |
      • ElmerGantry

        Agree 100%?

        August 31, 2012 at 2:16 am |
    • fimeilleur

      You are a TERRIBLE teacher. here's why I say this: Either a) you're right b) you're lying to the children. If a) is correct, then your god is cruel because he condemns all who are fooled by his little game to an eternity of hell fire and torture. So are you lying or is your version of god cruel?

      Why would your version of god put all this evidence for us to discover, yet provide none for his existence?

      August 31, 2012 at 2:17 am |
      • Vladimir

        Some evidence lol. Science is not against religion. Science is impartial. Interpretation of humans OF science is what being talked about here. Although, like I said, I don't understand the contradictions (nothing to do with me being for or against evolution)

        August 31, 2012 at 2:30 am |
      • Comestible

        I am a very good teacher but science was not encouraged when I was at school. I went to a very strict religious school and I still have those beliefs. However, I am reading more widely now and am interested in science but it does shake my belief in what I was taught. Can you understand? There are many in my position.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:33 am |
      • Rufus T. Firefly

        Comestible, you are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not allowed to teach your religious beliefs in the classroom. Surely you know this. Either you're pulling our leg, or you teach in an extremely conservative school district where people look the other way with regard to 1st Amendment is violations. If you are truly in need of factual information on human evolution, I recommend the talkorigins website.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:44 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So why not tell the child "I don't know". Is that not more honest? Or research other creation myths and ask yourself, what makes the book of Genesis more beLIEvable than these (a talking snake... really?) When you understand why you don't beLIEve in the other creation stories, you'll be more prepared to understand why I don't beLIEve the Genesis account. Next, get your science facts from scientists... you want to shake your foundations? Read the history of science, maybe then you'll understand why science wasn't encouraged in your religious school. Everytime the Pope in Rome said something, some scientist had to tell him how wrong he was. I'm more than happy to direct you to the National Center for Science Education www(dot)ncse(dot)com for more information. Dr Scott is a wonderful lady that even stays politically correct in stating that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive (I happen to disagree) but sisnce god won't be put in a test tube, all scientific experiments have to be conducted as if he wasn't there. I appologize if my earlier comments were offensive to you... I don't know you, and I shouldn't have been quick to be hard on you. You are probably a really nice person, so please remember: it is far better to have accurate information, than bad information that makes you feel good.

        August 31, 2012 at 2:58 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      When the republicans complain about teachers I betcha your are the kind of teacher they have in mind.

      /sarcasm off/

      August 31, 2012 at 2:20 am |
    • sean

      The bible obviously is a made up story with only little truth in it.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:33 am |
    • Jim

      Comestible, so you teach mythology and folklore?

      August 31, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • Pat

      How can they let people that believe in a literal understanding of some ancient book become teachers in the states? If ones beliefs cannot be properly proven/disproven then maybe you should think twice before teaching them to some poor children.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:48 am |
    • George

      realy.. you realy belive in good.. i belive that if a good exists he is an Hypocrite.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:16 am |
    • William

      These guys are rude. I think it is good that your are willing to expand your mind. Just remember that our only way to knowledge is thru reason, and not our emotions. Sounds like you are searching for something. I hope you find what you are llooking for. email to discuss

      August 31, 2012 at 3:35 am |
    • William

      Keep on searching with your mind! Give her a break people....

      August 31, 2012 at 3:38 am |
    • JPopNC

      @Comestible: You're right, they both can't be right and it's quite obvious there's no way in the world anyone can construct an entire civilization based on a finger joint and two teeth. The only question to ask is "were you there to witness all this?". No, they weren't, so it's only mindless speculation they can go on. I feel strongly all they've identified is a separate aboriginal tribe.

      Evolutionist want to wave these flimsy based "findings" with their elaborate speculations and this one will follow the same path as all the other hoaxes they've tried to pass off as some type of link to evolution.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:55 am |
      • fimeilleur

        I'd rather listen to the musings of anthropologists around the world, contemplating the evidence before them, who come to a common conclusion, than the milions of clergy, pastors, rabies, clerics, mulahs, etc reading the same book and arriving at 38000 versions of "truth". And in responce to your post about the Hadron Collider scientists... can you name the scientist you are quoting? Or are you just pulling that out of your a$$ too?

        August 31, 2012 at 5:04 am |
      • AlyssaJ

        You "feel stongly?" Tell me this, if you have pains in your chest and you go to a cardiologist and she says that you have damage to your heart that requires surgery, or you will die, do you tell her that you feel strongly that it's really just your gallbladder?

        It's astounding how many laymen think they can deduce evidence better than the people who were trained and continue to work in that field.

        August 31, 2012 at 7:18 am |
      • Wilbour

        I was taught evolution by my teachers 30 years ago and that we came from apes, then Neanderthal then Cro-Magnon man. Now we are being told that we are from another wave of bi-peds who became human before leaving Africa around 50,000 year ago. I can assume that there will be a different theory 30 years from now. Scientists contradict each other over inter-breading and common ancestors with regards to shared DNA. Perhaps we will never know the whole truth but I am sure we get closer to it with each new theory.

        August 31, 2012 at 9:31 am |
      • ry

        Can't reconstruct an entire civilization, but CAN reconstruct an entire genome and compare it to other known genomes. It's a new world out there, folks, it's not just old school archaeology anymore. Genetic data is the ultimate evidence, and it doesn't lie.

        August 31, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • christy lee lee

      You're right !!

      August 31, 2012 at 6:29 am |
    • matt

      Perhaps when an Omnipotent Universe-creating god relates his story to an illiterate sheep herder, to be then passed down through generations as an oral tradition before being finally written down, don't you think He may have spoken metaphorically. I mean, the use of parables does run in the family...

      August 31, 2012 at 7:06 am |
    • Rob

      I agree, you really are an awful teacher. Your personal belief system has no place in the curricula. Scientifically sound ideas are the only thing that can be called knowledge, and what you should teach.

      August 31, 2012 at 7:39 am |
    • ry

      As a teacher, it would be more constructive to say "I don't know" and direct them to sources where they can learn more. This is the information age – there's no need to make something up and lie to them, especially when they're that young and impressionable.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Seyedibar

      You're correct. Religion is wrong... not just sometimes, but in every instance.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Chris

      If you are telling your students anything other than the cold hard truth that there is no chance of creationism then you are doing them a disservice and helping hold back our entire race.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • lasermetrologist

      Comestible, that is a foolish answer to give to children or anyone else. As a Christian, I don't accept the commonly held ideas about the origins of our world and the life contained in it. However, if I am challenged to defend my stance and somebody asks me a question that I can't answer, simply saying that it was a trick by God to test our faith is a straw man (and a dishonest argument at that). Just be genuine and honest, say you don't know the answer but then educate yourself on the matter so that if the question is raised again you can give a better answer. 1 Peter 3:15 says we should be ready to give an answer for the hope we have, and common sense tells us that the answer should be reasonable. I can't blame the non-creationist community for finding arguments like yours utterly laughable. Isaiah 1:18 is an invitation from God to reason about human nature; obviously God is concerned with logic and reasoning. It is unreasonable to believe that God planted a bunch of red herrings in the soil and rocks just for the cause of testing the faith of some people. We know from real observable science that fossils are the remains of dead creatures that were once alive. The fossils that get dug up were once living creatures; not just tricks from God to test faith. Follow the logical path and research paleontology and biology and learn more about these creatures and the unique features of the geologic medium they are most usually found in. You will be surprised how many better answers you will find by educating yourself than just simply saying that they are just tricks from God to test faith.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      " They can't both be right." Why not? If humans came from apes, it didn't prevent YahWeh from talking out of the burning bush, and Jesus came and hung on the cross even though His human body had monkey-fingers on its feet. What's real was always real, only our understanding has changed.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
      • Nick

        Why is it that so many Biblical literalist come out to 'play' when genetics is the science topic of the day and not, say, quantum mechanics? If there is any science that should offend religious sensibilities, it should be QM since it touches on the very nature of existence itself. It gives "the-middle-finger" to just about all our every day notions of common sense.
        Genetic mutations that give a slight edge in survivability? Easy to understand...
        A cat being simultaneously alive *and* dead? Probabilities that you will suddenly pop into existence in the room next door?.. Blasphemies! The lot of them!

        September 1, 2012 at 3:09 am |
  65. Rufus T. Firefly

    We are so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as unique on this planet. It's humbling to realize that in addition to Neanderthals and modern humans, Homo floresiensis and Denisovans now amount to at least four different groups of hominins sharing the planet as little as 30,000 years ago.

    August 31, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • Jim

      Personally, I think it is exactly that which should inspire awe and not some absurd claim that out of billions of galaxies and billions of stars in each that some magical being chose one small group to be "special".

      August 31, 2012 at 2:59 am |
  66. Russ

    So little ability to understand evolution and DNA, it's pathetic. Seems the Creationists have filled their empty little heads with mush.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      Easy to do for credulous and willingly ignorant.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      It's an example of Medieval Thought. Complicated theories about meat turning into maggots and bears licking their cubs into shape. Angels dancing on pinheads, and the pinheads are allowed to vote.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  67. Adam

    Adam and Eve in the bible..where can they be. Maybe extinct, maybe another group, maybe never.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • vulpes

      Myth vs. science ... learn the difference

      August 31, 2012 at 1:48 am |
  68. Miked

    There is a lot of talk that certain blood types are so rare that people believe they must have been god-like nemphalines from another planet because the blood type is unnatural. What is unnatural is countless generations of inbreeding of the European Neanderthals that has mutated to that rare blood type. Nothing special about them, just lies given to soften the blow of unnatural breeding methods from our embarrassing human past even animals don't inbreed.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • lasermetrologist

      Miked, animals do indeed inbreed.

      August 31, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • SWH

      Even animals don't inbreed? Trust me, I worked at a game ranch in a previous life and your beloved animals were guilty of inbreeding. We had to "cull" them out of population ;)

      Have a nice day.... Inbred!

      August 31, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "they must have been god-like nemphalines from another planet " You are trying to say NEPHILIM, aren't you? Odds are something from another planet would use a different system entirely for its DNA-equivalent, so not likely they could interbreed. And hey. look up 'mules,' which are what happens when a male donkey breeds a mare. If it's a male horse and a female donkey, you get a less-useful hinny. "Do you like it when Scraps grabs your leg and rubs up and down?"

      August 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  69. phazon

    How do we have the Chicken if the Egg came first because that is where those chickies come from.

    August 31, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • W.R.

      The best answer to this question I've found so far is:
      The Chicken and the Egg are lying in bed. The Chicken is smoking a cigarette with a satisfied look on it's face and the Egg is frowning and looking put out. The Egg mutters to in one in particular, "I guess we answered that question."

      August 31, 2012 at 5:22 am |
      • DebAH


        August 31, 2012 at 5:51 am |
      • Bible Clown©

        I've seen that cartoon. Sam Gross, right? And she says "You ALWAYS come first." The actual answer from DNA analysis is that someone crossed a Red Jungle Fowl with a Gray Jungle Fowl, and it laid chicken eggs.

        August 31, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • jamann

      That's easy. The egg came first. There were eggs millions of years before there were chickens.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Seyedibar

      the chicken came last, since ancient ancestors of chickens were being born of eggs for millions of years before chickens came into existence.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • donna

      The egg came first, because any genetic variation that resulted in what we call a chicken happened before it developed.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  70. Timetraveler

    I know the hand in the picture is that of a female. But how?

    August 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • klatu

      Good observation Timetraveler. The hand is female and one can tell by the index finger being almost the same length as the middle finger.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • thethirdorder

      Because of the ladybug on her pinky, obviously.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:48 am |
  71. Old Timey

    We will continue to discover the journey our species has taken through the ages. Quite a beautiful thing knowing that we have continued to change over eons.

    August 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      Nicely stated.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • DebAH

      I agree

      August 31, 2012 at 5:51 am |
  72. deano

    Modern humans also share DNA with worms,slugs,marsupials,monkeys,apes,and a host of bacterial life.....did we mate with all those in antiquity too?

    August 30, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Yes, when our ancestors were worms, slugs, marsupials, monkeys, apes, and bacterial life... they all had s.ex... this is why they are called ancestors... oh, never mind. Open a science book.

      August 30, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Let me correct myself, our ancesters were never monkeys or apes, we share a common ancester WITH monkeys and apes. This common ancester is the one who had all that monkey lov'n. :-)

        August 30, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
      • Gadflie

        Actually, technically we are apes.

        August 31, 2012 at 12:00 am |
      • donna

        fimeiller, Our ancestors were definitely apes, just not modern ape species. Apes are large, tailless primates, and our ancestors have been apes for millions of years. And as Gadflie says, we are still apes.

        August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
      • Nick

        Sir... I am a proudly law abiding, god fearing, patriotic, *eukaryote* organism and I will *not* be lumped in with the likes of bacteria and archaea!

        September 1, 2012 at 3:29 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Nick,

        and I chose to ignore the laws of gravity because holding the scale above me gives me a better feeling about my weight than when I actually step on it.

        Nobody cares how you feel about the facts. The facts are that nothing in biology makes sense outside of common ancestry and descent with modification. Common ancestry forms the core of evolutionary biology. The processes and patterns represent the frontiers of evolutionary biology, where current research yields new discoveries and increases our understanding of the how descent with modification occurs, how species change over time, and how new species form. Evolution happens. The relative importance of various processes and the inference of patterns of evolutionary change are hypotheses that evolutionary biologists test. For example, scientists continue to explore when and why feathers evolved and how birds gained flight. Scientists, however, do not doubt that species have changed over time, that is, descended with modifications from previous species, and that all known organisms share common ancestry.

        Evolution (common ancestry) provides an excellent framework for making and testing predictions – for instance, why humans have 46 chromosomes, while all of our closest relatives, the other great apes, have 48. By collecting evidence from the physical appearance of chromosomes as well as the sequence of DNA, biologists found support for the hypothesis that during the course of evolution, human chromosome 2 formed through the fusion of two pre-existing chromosomes, thereby reducing the total number of chromosomes.

        Now here's the fun part... grab a very good microscope (or find a friend or university that has one) and look at the results yourself. See if any of this is make believe.

        September 1, 2012 at 4:38 am |
      • fimeilleur

        With thanks to the NCSE...

        September 1, 2012 at 4:49 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Nick... my apologies... you got me... clever fella... :-)

        September 1, 2012 at 4:55 am |
      • Nick


        No problem!

        September 1, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • MonarchzMan

      Seems like pretty good evidence that we share a common ancestor with those organisms. But then again, we have a bit more common genetically with these early hominids than we do with the organisms you listed...

      August 30, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      You don't seem to understand phylogenetic analysis in the least.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:16 am |
    • JLS639

      The Denisovans' genes are closer to modern humans than they are to chimps. What they look for are mutations unique to Denisovans and not found in any of the major human or chimp haplotypes (look up haplotypes on Wikipedia if you are curious about them). Then, they look for Denisovan mutations in human populations.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Avatar

      Still getting your science education from Fred Flintstone cartoons?

      August 31, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • Seyedibar

      yes we did, at the age when we were also slug/bacteria/microbial.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • ry

      No we did not. You understand the concept of common ancestry, no? You understand that your puppy shares genes with wolves, but is not the product of a wolf mating, yes?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Person of Interest

      For the simple fact we can manipulate a similar strand of DNA in one species and do the same in humans to get similar results shows that at one point we were all connected in a similar way at some point. You can look the the DNA of some animals and tell how susceptible to cancers or heart diseases it is and find those same markers in humans. You can call it intelligent design but if God was creative enough to make us why did we need to have similar buidling blocks?

      I'm not saying there is no "creator", I'm agnostic. I'm just saying too many people think they have a "relationship" with him and funny enough, not one person can completely agree with another about what he says. As far as I'm concerned the minute someone says humans and dinosaurs were walking the earth together they need to have a brain scan.

      August 31, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  73. Roger Cotton

    People 100 years from now will look back on this article and laugh. That is could be so far from fact. We are constantly being fed unprovable conjecture by folks in the sciences hungry for a paycheck. At the end of the day, we will find that in fact we are transplants from another world and DNA is much more complicated than we currently think.

    August 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      So, we're supposed to take your word for it then?

      August 30, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
    • noDogInFight

      ...and at the present time, we can look at your input and laugh...

      August 30, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • TheBob

      Maybe if you had spent a little more time actually studying science and understood it rather than rolling doobies you wouldn't be saying crap like this.

      August 30, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
      • UnBob


        Really? I know some astute and very intelligent college graduates who rolled doobies (actually, they use vaporizers nowadays) and it didn't affect their understanding or appreciation of science.

        I could throw back at you that you need to put down the beer, but I won't... (see what I did there?)

        August 31, 2012 at 2:58 am |
    • kormallain

      Wait... I recognize the style of thinking...Is that you Mr.Akin? Thank you so much for taking time out, from your busy schedule on the senate science committee.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • ElmerGantry

      Roger got his edjumacayshun from the self proclaimed all-knowing, all-caring El Rushbo on the Execellence In Buffoonery (EIB) network.

      August 31, 2012 at 12:59 am |
    • MashaSobaka

      Someone has seen a few too many science fiction films, I think.

      August 31, 2012 at 1:31 am |
    • JPopNC

      Thank you Roger Cotton...well put. Same goes with the Hadron Collider scientists. "Look...we may think we thought we found what we'd like to think we found". "Now give us more money!"

      August 31, 2012 at 3:59 am |
      • Nick

        I agree, totally!

        Taxpayers should have nothing to do with that trash. What has that particle physics mumbo-jumbo thing ever done for the average person? It is not like they have given us things like PET scanners, X-ray machines, nuclear weapons (sadly), electron microscopes, MRI machines and semiconductors – or anything like that.

        As a licensed psychic, using my magic crystal ball, I predict nothing concrete will ever come from investigating the fundamental workings of matter and energy.

        August 31, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • ry

      They sequenced the entire genome. That is not "conjecture." You can go look it up yourself in a database online, and compare it to the genomes of modern H sapiens, Neanderthals, and any other speicies you would like – cats, dogs, whatever. Nonscientists love to dismiss peer reviewed work when they have no idea HOW rigorous that peer review is, especially to get into a journal like Science. This is not something likely to be disproved in the next 100 years any more than the fact that bacteria cause disease was disproved 100 years after the discovery.

      August 31, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Bennyboy

      If you're so sure that science is a fraud, I assume the next time you visit a hospital and they recommend a treatment to cure some disease you have, instead you'll say sorry I don't trust your experience, I'd rather pray?

      September 2, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
      • John P. Tarver

        Science changes and Darwin's notional hypothesis is false under his own very low standard for a theory. (divergent from the scientific method) To continue to teach evolution as a means to species in schools is fraud.

        September 2, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • a Martin

      @Roger Cotton

      Transplants from another world? Well yes. Nobody has denied that. Nobody says that life originated here on Earth.
      Or do you mean we didn't evolve to become humans here on Earth?

      ”We are constantly being fed unprovable conjecture by folks in the sciences hungry for a paycheck”

      It's hard for me to understand that some think scientists generally do things for money rather than curiousity. I'm quite sure you're wrong.

      September 3, 2012 at 3:55 am |
      • John P. Tarver

        Retro-viruses from uter space is at least a possible origin of species, while evolution as a means to species is false.

        September 3, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • JP Kelley

      "hungry for a paycheck"...this would be news to most researchers at these universities, who, in my experience, are working 70+ hour weeks in the office setting or up to 90-100 hours per week when conducting research in the field. All of this, while balancing the teaching of 200-500 students at a time, committee meeting, reviewing peer-reviewed manuscripts, writing research grants (of which up to 50% will go towards humanities departments), supervising undergraduate and graduate students, and doing outreach with local schools. We don't do it for the money, and I find it strange that many people have this view.

      September 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  74. deb

    A genetic 'receipe'?

    August 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Jim

      Deb, using the term "recipe" is simply an anaolgy to make it understandable to us mortals. Like a recipe, the combination of DNA in your genome produces a different result (like a different cake) because it has different ingredients than my genome, for example.

      August 31, 2012 at 3:02 am |


  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer