Neanderthal DNA

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:30 am

There will be an attempt to extract DNA from fossilized Neanderthal remains according to this article:

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1451622006

Could be a tough assignment. The attempts to extract useable DNA from Kennewick man failed, and he was nowhere near as old as these remains. IF they are successful, it could be very interesting.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:53 pm

SCIENTISTS are attempting to extract DNA for the first time from the fossilised bones thought to be of a Neanderthal man who roamed Britain 35,000 years ago.

DNA from fossilized bones?

That's gonna be more than a little hard.

Hope you've had a good weekend OAS.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:09 pm

I wondered about that too. Not possible as far as I knew.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:19 pm

Well, it's some small town newspaper reporter running a story I guess. Not unusual.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:30 pm

I doubt that a bone can be fossilized in only 35,000 years. Probably just a reporter who did not do his homework.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:49 pm

Bones can (and did) fossilize in weeks.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:08 pm

Minimalist wrote:I doubt that a bone can be fossilized in only 35,000 years. Probably just a reporter who did not do his homework.

I would suspect so - I can't find any other reference to the time period required for fossilization but 35,000 years may be a little young (and I'm damned sure it isn't a few weeks! lol!)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:48 am

The mineralization (fossilization) time is a function of the water percolation rate around the fossil and the mineral content and temperature of the water, oas, we'll get you up to speed eventually, but it looks like it will take a while in your case.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:50 am

I think it will be more difficult to find raw "Neanderthal" tissue than the T-Rex tissue, because the dragons ("dinosaurs") were rapidly entombed in sediments, but the "Neanderthals" were rotting in the open, or in caves, or buriels, so their bones should have mostly deteriorated.

However, at the close of the Ice Age, with the rapid runoff and sedimentation then, there could be some "Neanderthals" with the many animals in the polar frozen muck.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:38 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:36 pm

I'm pretty sure that's the best you can do, Beagle.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:21 am

Meanwhile, on a related topic......

http://www.topix.net/content/newscom/10 ... 1867784658

French and Belgian archaeologists say they have proof Neanderthals lived in near-tropical conditions near France's Channel coast about 125,000 years ago.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:07 am

Yes, near tropical conditions is what you had there in southern Spain, during the Ice Age, when those most ancient megalithic structures there, both on land and now-submerged, were being built.

The Ice Age coastlines of northen Europe, northern North America, and northern Asia were also different than today, much rain with accompanying lush vegetation for all the bovines and predators, and why all this, because the Ice Age oceans were paradoxically warmer than today, so it rained much more in the middle latitudes, and Ice Age snowfall fell in the extreme latitudes, and at higher elevations in the middle latitudes, and the shorelines in the extreme latitudes remained free of icepack build-up because of the proximal warmer oceans, during the Ice Age.

Paradoxically warmer oceans is the only way to explain the Ice Age, it's hydrology 101.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:25 am

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/20 ... erthal.php

The results, along with those of subsequent studies, indicated that Neanderthals contributed little, if any, DNA to modern humans. Instead, they appear to have been displaced by modern humans—the taller, more graceful creatures with round skulls and prominent chins who first appear in the fossil record in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. The Neanderthals retreated into more remote parts of Europe before going extinct. Paabo's work means that during the thousands of years that Neanderthals shared the continent with modern humans, there was probably little interbreeding between the two groups. The same thing happened in other parts of the world: archaic populations of humans in Africa and Asia gradually went extinct without leaving an obvious genetic trace.

The club spreading it's propaganda. Is this the same fossil that we have been waiting on? I'm confused

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:38 am

The club spreading it's propaganda. Is this the same fossil that we have been waiting on? I'm confused

I can see that youre confused from your erroneous belief in a club
got any evidence that it even exists ?
LINK ?