Ice-Man DNA a Mystery

Ice-Man DNA a Mystery

www.mirror.co.uk

A mummified iceman 5,300 years old unearthed in the Alps belonged to a previously unknown branch of humans, say scientists.

No trace of lineage can be found, so the violently-killed male - dubbed Oetzi - is unlikely to have descendants.

Oetzi, discovered in 1991 near the Austro-Italian border, is on display in Bolzano, Italy.

But a Leeds University team has now isolated DNA that is always passed on by mothers - and it matches no recognised family tree.

The researchers say in Current Biology: "It suggests Oetzi's lineage is extinct."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Came across this is the Daily Mirror and couldn't see it posted on here yet.

For such an impressive find you'd expect more than just a side article hidden near the creases next to some lame story about mistaken idendity.

If the news was ever truthful and did what it was supposed to do, imagine the things we would know, and not the usual media crap about whose boob implants are better and why that makes them a good mother.

Remirah

www.mirror.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

More on the Iceman DNA:

Infertility link in iceman's DNA

Oetzi, the prehistoric man frozen in a glacier for 5,300 years, could have been infertile, a new study suggests.

Genetic research, published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, also confirms that his roots probably lie in Central Europe.

Oetzi's body was found in the melting ice of the Schnalstal glacier in the Italian Alps in 1991.

Examination of his remains has already revealed the Copper Age man almost certainly died as a result of a fight.

bbc news

Fascinating story this one. I remember seeing something on TV about it. I love these types of finds.

I dont see the big consipracy here.

I dont find it all that strange that a 5000 year old branch of lineage is missing.

I would assume, that there is many familys/lineages that have disapeared in that time frame, am I wrong?

I'm not really suprised that they found a DNA that isnt found today. There are probably many more that we dont know about. Cool article. thanks

[edit on 31-10-2008 by isa75]

Originally posted by JbT


I would assume, that there is many familys/lineages that have disapeared in that time frame, am I wrong?

Of course.

If you don't have kids, or get killed before you have kids, that's pretty much thousands (maybe millions) of years of your ancestry down the drain. There are many people that do not have kids.


This is assuming you don't have any brothers or sisters.

Of course this is what I was thinking.

I guess the question was more to the lines of what is the point of this topic?

That he didnt have any brothers/sisters or kids? What is the "mystery" as the topic states?

If you were to read other articles they go onto talk about how this man might have been unable to reproduce.

"Mystery" solved?

[edit on 31-10-2008 by JbT]

I think you're all missing the point. There are genetic markers passed down in the mitochondrial DNA that identify your race (or at least the races of your ancestors). They can trace back almost everyone to the origins of the different races we have today, but they're saying they don't know where this guy came from because there's no trace of his ENTIRE RACE today.

Weird...

I was under the impression they could trace all Mitochondrial DNA back to 1 Mitochondrial Eve (many stories all over about it). Now are they saying that this one doesnt fit into that category?

But a Leeds University team has now isolated DNA that is always passed on by mothers - and it matches no recognised family tree.

Very interesting.

Originally posted by ATruGod
I was under the impression they could trace all Mitochondrial DNA back to 1 Mitochondrial Eve (many stories all over about it). Now are they saying that this one doesnt fit into that category?

I was going to ask the same question. So who does this Oetzi descend from and where?

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Clark W. Griswold]

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


No.
You have it backwards. The article says that no known modern DNA contains traces of Oetzi's DNA. It does not say that Oetzi's DNA does not trace back to "Eve's" DNA.

They were looking for his descendants and could find none.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Clark W. Griswold

Originally posted by ATruGod
I was under the impression they could trace all Mitochondrial DNA back to 1 Mitochondrial Eve (many stories all over about it). Now are they saying that this one doesnt fit into that category?

I was going to ask the same question. So who does this Oetzi descend from and where?

Maybe he's Jesus.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

 

No.
You have it backwards. The article says that no known modern DNA contains traces of Oetzi's DNA. It does not say that Oetzi's DNA does not trace back to "Eve's" DNA.

That can't be it. If so, then how is this newsworthy? There's lots of people who never go on to have kids, childless people die every day.

Iam obviously confused, yes.

news.bbc.co.uk...
In this link above they state this:

The team also looked at patterns in Oetzi's DNA to try to establish more information about his roots.

The scientists discovered that he belonged to the K1 subdivision of the haplogroup known as K.

This article states that this mummy is part of the halogroup known as K. K is rare among europeans, but found within the Alp's regions (where he was found).

So, yea. I guess I need to do some research about genetics to understand fully becasue they then state this:

The researchers also found that Oetzi belonged to a fourth subcategory of the K1 group that had previously not been seen.

As I understand it, they know where part of his genetics is from, but one part of the his gene is unknown.

Again, I dont find that totaly out of the normal.

I guess it is interesting that we now have a sample of genetics that was previously unknown.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by JbT]

reply to post by LogicalExplanation


The were looking for his descendants. Wouldn't it have been cool if they found them?

Originally posted by LogicalExplanation
That can't be it. If so, then how is this newsworthy? There's lots of people who never go on to have kids, childless people die every day.

This is exactly my point. Its not ATS news worthy. I dont think. At least not to the general ATS populous looking for conspiracy, mystery and suspence.

Now, is it science news worthy? sure is. But I go to science journals to read science new. I come to ATS for the fringe topics.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by JbT]

So they're just saying that he has no living relatives, not that he is an entirely new race or even species?

Well, that's no fun...

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Yarcofin]

I found a couple of articles that may explain it a little better.

There is this from MSNBC..

MSNBC

The results showed that Ötzi fits in genetically with a particular group of living individuals who share a common ancestral DNA sequence. Over time, different individuals and groups can branch off from the main group, genetically speaking. Ötzi’s DNA belonged to a cluster of lineages whose members are still common throughout Europe today.

However, nearly all members of this cluster belong to one of three sub-lineages, or sub-clusters. And Ötzi didn't. His DNA placed him on a completely distinct, fourth sub-lineage, for which there are no other members alive today — at least none have been found so far. His lineage branched away from his nearest modern relatives about 20,000 years ago.

That means Ötzi's maternal lineage is either extremely rare or has died out.

So they say that Otzi's sub-line is either very rare or died out.

BUT!!

I did find this that claims they have found someone related to him..

Aussie News

The hunter would have been equally amazed to learn that a few members of his ancient clan may still be living in his old hunting grounds along the Austrian-Italian border.

Alan Cooper, head of the University of Adelaide's Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, said: "We have found someone very, very closely related."

So this Austrialian team is reporting they have found an anscestor.

It can't be both - either not existant or they found someone right off.

Originally posted by Frogs

So this Austrialian team is reporting they have found an anscestor.

It can't be both - either not existant or they found someone right off.

Science in action. Now there will attempts to replicate both results.

It seems we did have a strange history. History we don't know yet.
For instance where are the giants? Why they became extinct? What killed them?
Not only they are nowhere to be found but neither any accidental relatives survived. The Bible says that Abraham took some Jews and wondered the desert for some generations. Why was that? They were obviously not lost for 40 years in a desert. Was Abraham doing a check on the purity of their next generation? That they were safe from the awful discovery that their future generations were still relating with giants?
Why the genes of that unfortunate iced human were unapologeticaly wiped off from existence from mother nature? Was he a second or a third descendant of something that mother nature did not like?
We humans undoubtedly belong to the winner species. The one and only that survived. But why us?

I might be out of topic, but these questions need answers and are very relevant with what we are talking about. Extinction and preservation.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by populardisbelief]