# Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/father-humankind-340-000-years-old-210033011.html

DNA evidence has revealed that the oldest known common male ancestor is 340,000 years old, more than twice as old as previous estimates.

New Scientist reports that the sample comes from a recently deceased man named Albert Perry. After the African-American South Carolina man died, one of his relatives submitted a sample of his DNA to a company called Family Tree DNA for analysis.

The findings were published in the The American Journal of Human Genetics and may require researchers to adjust the known timeline of humankind’s evolution.

And the historical mark came at something of a bargain—the company does historical DNA analysis on individuals for about $150.

All previously compared DNA samples pointed to a common Y chromosome traced back to man who lived between 60,000 and 140,000 years ago. But Perry’s DNA sample broke the trend, not matching up with this common ancestor.

"It's a cool discovery," Jon Wilkins of the Ronin Institute in Montclair, N.J., told New Scientist. "We geneticists have been looking at Y chromosomes about as long as we've been looking at anything. Changing where the root of the Y-chromosome tree is at this point is extremely surprising."

After the initial tests on Perry’s DNA, geneticists at the University of Arizona conducted further tests to confirm the anomaly. The Y chromosome in Perry’s test matched up with those of 11 men who all lived in one village in Cameroon.

University of Arizona researcher Michael Hammer says Perry’s DNA suggests there may have been an earlier species of humans that went extinct—but not before interbreeding with the more modern version of man.


----------



## BobKat (Mar 7, 2013)

Thats cool


----------



## panfried0419 (Mar 7, 2013)

Pretty cool.


----------



## JFS (Mar 7, 2013)

Quit spreading the devil's lies.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 7, 2013)

Well there ya go.
.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 7, 2013)

Separating the wheat from the chaff is hard work sometimes but worth it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 8, 2013)

Seems like it is probably backed up by science I don't understand. Very interesting..


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 8, 2013)

I wonder what dude looked like?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 8, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I wonder what dude looked like?



me too


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 8, 2013)

me, three.


----------



## Asath (Mar 10, 2013)

Darn it.  Now I'm going to have to reprint all the invitations to this summer's Rapture party . . .


----------



## bullethead (Mar 10, 2013)

Asath said:


> Darn it.  Now I'm going to have to reprint all the invitations to this summer's Rapture party . . .



quality


----------



## Nastytater (Mar 10, 2013)

Makes me kinda wonder how scientist got DNA from someone who lived back 60,000 to 140,000 years ago to test it against. Or am I missing something?....Probably missing my Y-Chromosome Tree huh.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

Asath said:


> Darn it.  Now I'm going to have to reprint all the invitations to this summer's Rapture party . . .



Don't waste a stamp on me, I've got an open invitation. I have to admit, I don't know when that will be though.

Beam me on up, Jesus.


----------



## Asath (Mar 11, 2013)

Looks like it's been postponed by a few hundred thousand years.  I'd concentrate on eating foods that are heavy in polysorbate 60, for the preservative qualities . . .


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Don't waste a stamp on me, I've got an open invitation. I have to admit, I don't know when that will be though.
> 
> Beam me on up, Jesus.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 11, 2013)

Nastytater said:


> Makes me kinda wonder how scientist got DNA from someone who lived back 60,000 to 140,000 years ago to test it against. Or am I missing something?....Probably missing my Y-Chromosome Tree huh.



I agree...... It may be completely "logical" to get there, but since I don't understand it, it is absolutely not logical to me.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 11, 2013)

Nastytater said:


> Makes me kinda wonder how scientist got DNA from someone who lived back 60,000 to 140,000 years ago to test it against. Or am I missing something?....Probably missing my Y-Chromosome Tree huh.



Archeology


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 12, 2013)

Finding something that did contain DNA... sure... Something that STILL contains DNA... that's a little more questionable to me.


----------

