Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Greenlander's DNA Sequenced, After 5,000 Years 80

Posted by timothy
from the finally-died-of-birthday-cake-poisoning dept.
TinFinger writes "The genome of a 5,000-year-old man from Greenland has been sequenced from scalp hair remains. He belonged to the now-extinct Saqqaq, who are genetically more closely related to east Asians than to contemporary Native North Americans. Although both contemporary Inuit and the extinct Saqqaq migrated from Siberia across the Bering Straits, the Saqqaq migration was a much later one (5,000-10,000 years ago, compared with 20,000 for the Inuit). All that is left of the Saqqaq today are a few archaeological sites in Greenland. Genetic analysis revealed that 'Inuk' was stocky, possibly with a receding hairline, had a cold-adapted metabolism, A+ blood type, and possibly a rather bad haircut. The hair sample from which the DNA was sequenced was excavated in 1986 and was archived at the National Museum of Denmark. It was only recently rediscovered by a research team who spent a fruitless three months at Saqqaq sites looking for hair samples for genome analysis."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenlander's DNA Sequenced, After 5,000 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Sunday February 14, 2010 @05:12PM (#31137060) Homepage Journal

    Clone the guy and see if he is capable of learning and living in this more advanced human environment.

    if he can then there will be a lot to say about god and darwin.

    And what, exactly would that be? That modern-humans can learn and adapt behavior patterns from those around them? A human born within the last 5,000 years or so is not all that different, especially in terms of cranial capacity. So I would suspect that the individual would be able to learn at a reasonable rate compared to the rest of us and display the ability to follow social norms just as any other person.

    Now, seeing whether or not this person's immune system could stand up to today's stronger viruses and engineered pharmaceuticals would be interesting. However, it might prove to be a very good case NOT to bring back archaic forms of life.

  • by greentshirt (1308037) on Monday February 15, 2010 @07:01AM (#31142528)
    So you're going to tell him not to rely on a (sourced) wikipedia article, but to rely on an (unsourced) google search? Logical consistency fail in aisle 3.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...