Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oldest Intact Red Blood Cells Found on Iceman

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the next-on-discovery-cloning-the-iceman dept.

Science 104

sciencehabit writes "A team of researchers has zoomed in on two spots on the body of the Iceman, a mummified, 5300-year-old hunter found frozen in the Alps in 1991: a shoulder wound found with an embedded arrowhead and a hand lesion resembling a stab wound. The scientists used atomic force microscopy, a visualization method with resolution of less than a nanometer, to scan the wounds for blood residue. They discovered red blood cells — the oldest in the world to be found intact — as well as fibrin, a protein needed for blood to clot. The presence of fibrin indicates that the Iceman, nicknamed Ötzi, didn't die immediately after being wounded."

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (3, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869229)

Scan reveal Ötzi asshole who no respected bro?

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869335)

You fucking piece of shit! You're a little nigger!

I hope a plane flies into another American building! Oh, yeah! Now you understand life itself! I am bootyass process!

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (4, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869377)

Off our meds today, are we?

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (2)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871981)

Today was No Meds Day and nobody told me?!

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Chonnawonga (1025364) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869503)

Scan reveal Ötzi asshole who no respected bro?

Funny, but based on a "Flintstones" understanding of neolithic humans. Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it. Check out Sex at Dawn: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335976553&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869747)

Monogamy is relativity new. A few hundred years old. There is a reason the penis is shaped in such way as to try to remove semen from a previous mate before ejaculating.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870143)

[citation needed] x 2

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870165)

I'm pretty sure it was an XKCD reference about intelligent design.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870383)

There is no citation for the first since it's clearly not true (without using a strange definition of few) - there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old.

For the second: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf [epjournal.net]

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870551)

You do realize that the bible has been rewritten a ton of times, right? Like a TON of times...by almost every biblical "power"...to remove things that they believe were incorrect or to add things that were "missing"?

I didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (4, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870765)

Sure it has. And there are lots of parts that we have copies of that are more than a few hundred years old. So how is that relevant in the slightest.

If you have some strange irrational fear of the bible as a set of documents then we have a bunch of records from China related to marriage significantly older than a few hundred years.

Confucius talked about it a lot, for example. Or is that all edited by the illuminai in your paranoid world?

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870975)

I have no strange irrational fear of the bible...I'm simply saying that if you are using it as a reference point, you need to get specific as to the references you're basing your argument off of if you want anyone to pay attention because it is not exactly accurate to the time period that you're asserting it is. Even the parts that we have copies of are exactly that...copies. Granted, some few documents are from near that time period and maintain historical accuracy (at least to the specific historical period in which they were written), yes, but the majority were rewritten from memory after the most accurate "original" document burned. Also, most of the documents that can be considered historically accurate only share similar base concepts with the current iterations of the same passages in what we now know as the bible.

If you were to say that the specific passage you are referring to is also recorded in historical documents from the actual time period and to provide references to that, I would assume that you were not just basing your argument off inaccurate data. As it sits, you just said that the bible refers to monogamy and therefore it existed as a standard societal concept for more than a few hundred years and, as I said, the bible is largely historically inaccurate.

I have spent 15 years researching the bible and its iterations and also happen to have been a pastor at one point in my life. I have quite a bit of respect for the bible so I'm not sure where your illuminati references come from or how you have come to the conclusion that I live in some paranoid world...all I've said is that the bible is not a reliable resource for specific or even generalized historical references like the one you randomly threw out there.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871335)

So basically the GP says that monogamy is no more than a few hundred years old with absolutely NO references or citation, and the poster responds with documented counter-examples, yet you grill him for not specifically being able to exactly pinpoint the date they were written.

By the way, what's a few hundred years? 3? 4? 6?

I don't know much, but I'm pretty sure monogamy wasn't invented in the 1400s.

dumbass

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871397)

It doesn't matter that what we have is copies. If the copy is more than a few hundred years old then it is irrelevant if it was edited before then. It established the reference as older than a few hundred years.

The ten commandments would be the obvious passage. Don't commit adultery. We have copies that are 2000 years old - the nash papyrus and the dead sea scrolls.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871719)

So you just made my argument for me. You have gone from saying that the bible references monogamy more than a few hundred years ago to saying that portions of the bible are old enough to reference it and then to saying that original materials that the bible was based upon have references to it. All I said was that your original argument that "the bible says so means it is so" is incorrect.

If you had started with a reference to the dead sea scrolls you would have been unequivocally correct. Also, in your initial response if you had specified one of the copies that makes these references and that was also more than a few hundred years old, you would have again been correct. As it is, you made a poor argument and I pointed out that your argument was incorrect because you were using generalizations that prove nothing. I may be labeled a troll or you may think I'm nitpicking, but I'm absolutely tired of these generalized arguments that everyone uses now to prove their points. In this case, your original argument was correct but not for the reason that you stated. We DO have historically accurate documents FROM THE TIME PERIOD (again as I stated above) that are not a mishmash of collective remembrances, edited documents, and modified copies and you finally made a valid argument proving your point.

I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871837)

I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.

Statements are not hard evidence, Dr. Logic.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873321)

All I said was that your original argument that "the bible says so means it is so" is incorrect.

I never claimed that so have fun with your straw man. I gave one example that most people will have heard of in reply to a statement in a slashdot comment. If you expect rigorous citations in this forum you are a moron. I intentionally qualified my claim, which you ignored in order to build with that straw.

I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.

You are a spectacularly bad professor of logic, but to each his own.

Seriously read it: "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old".

Do you disputed that there are parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old? Apparently not, and you'd have to be really stupid to do so since we have plenty of copies that are more than a few hundred years old.

Do you disputed that some parts of the bible reference monogamy? Apparently not, since you claim to know a bit about it and didn't challenge that part.

So, you disputed that there's an intersection of those two? Obviously not since you took my completely unsourced claim that the dead sea scrolls do in fact contain such references without challenge.

Changing the statement to the dead sea scrolls just excudes a whole bunch of other copies that are more than a few hundred years old. We have a vulgate from the 8th century, for example. Why would I want to do that.

And how does your logic zealotry lead you to " didn't read your link because your first statement is just silly". An obviously factual claim is just silly?

There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any biblical manuscripts that are more than a few hundred years old and hence don't believe your claim". It'd be wrong of course, but that's fine.

There'd be no issue with saying "I don't think there are any such references in the manuscripts that are more than few years old, it's just in more recent ones". Again, it'd be wrong but perfectly fine to state and await evidence.

But you didn't do any of those. You just declared it "silly". An true statement that lacks rigorous citation is "silly"? In a slashdot comment?

Of course asking for a citation would be to much for your professorship, so instead declare it "silly" and don't bother with an unrelated point that clearly was a citation all by itself.

In summary, you are a fool.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870421)

A roughly conical head wider than the shaft...basic physics man. And it makes evolutionary sense, all issues of monogamy aside.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870585)

And it makes evolutionary sense,

No it doesn't. It goes counter to other sexual physiology -- like the nap-inducing refractory periods in men. Evolution would favor the men who could stay awake and make sure no other dudes were encroaching on their lady, yet here we are -- clocking out within 30 seconds after blastoff. The dude who dozed would be replaced by the dude who didn't.

What you're proposing is just modern mythology instead of... you know... science.

Also, the sexual dimorphism of men being, on average, slightly larger than women, means that humans tend more toward polygamy than polyandry -- at least based on observations of other animals.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (4, Interesting)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870719)

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871087)

That says nothing about evolutionary reasons. Sure it's a feature of the anatomy but you can't leap to declaring an evolutionary cause from that. Well if you are a real scientist, if you are a psychologist or a sociologist or an economist then go right ahead as usual.

Maybe the mutation that resulted in the changing of the shape also had other effects. And those effects are what gave a fitness edge and the anatomy just came along for free.

Maybe there was a population bottleneck at some point and that feature just happened to make it through by pure chance.

You can't just pick your favorite reason and claim it as a fact with no evidence.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871773)

It should be obvious - if the woman gets pregnant from YOU and not the guy who fucked her just before you, that's an evolutionary advantage to YOU. More kids for you = evolutionary win.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871991)

But why have polygamous monkeys penisses shaped quite different from a human one, while the penisses of males of more monogamous monkeys are more similar to ours? Wouldn't that be completely wrong from a "penis shaped to throw out concurrent's semen" point of view?

(And why, o why, are half of the offspring in a orang-utan harem with one dominant male, the silverback, not related to said dominant male? Maybe those simplicistic world views that can't imagine something quite far from a one-man-one-woman situation are not very imaginative at all? And maybe conclusions drawn with that little imagination stray somewhat from the observed reality?)

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872109)

I'm not linking it to monogamy or polygamy, I'm only saying that the human penis is shaped to clear semen and it's evolutionarily advantageous.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872453)

I can't be the only one who just threw up in their mouth a little after reading that.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

uncqual (836337) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871137)

clocking out within 30 seconds after blastoff.

I always figured that was an evolutionary adaptation that allowed the female to get away before the male got around to his second list of priorities and demand she cook and clean and beat her if she didn't.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

rilian4 (591569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870375)

Monogamy is relativity new. A few hundred years old.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years. The Apostle Paul's letters on the subject date back to the first century and the Ten Commandments(Do not commit adultery) to before 1000 BC.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870443)

Moses is closer to 1500 BC. It would be interesting to do a DNA search to see how many mutations he has in his DNA. I think Genetics gives a much more scientific and reliable date than radiometric dates, which are shown to be wrong on materials with known dates.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870713)

Creationist propaganda. No one listen to this idiot.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870481)

...except that adultery only seemed to apply if the female was married. The Bible mentions that David had quite a few concubines when he moved into the house of Jerusalem.

Not that I disagree that monogamy has been preached and practiced for more than just a few hundred years....

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870645)

Polygamy is not the same as adultery. Early Christians were polygamous, according to historical record. Paul and Solomon were polygamous and so was Jacob (Father Israel). With the exception of Jacob, all of these practiced under Mosaic Law or at least the "Do not commit adultery" continuance (that Paul made) of that law.

However, monogamy was far more typical than polygamy, polygamy being more an exception to the rule under specific circumstances (i.e. post-war, when half the men had been killed)

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39876079)

Early Christians owned as many wives as they could afford. As there were lots of poor people there were lots of monogamy.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870725)

Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years.

And people have been ignoring it just as long.

Which may or may not suggest that from a biological perspective, monogamy is a purely social construct. Quite possibly one which doesn't work so well.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870965)

A link to Amazon.com is useless as a citation here, so do you mind explaining how they could possibly know the sex habits of people who all died before the invention of writing?

BTW, the book you linked was written by a psychologist, not a paleontologist. So the guy has no more credibility in that field than you do. Sorry, but your citation is even worse than at first glance.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871183)

It struck me as off-topic to go into great detail, but since you insist, their argument rests on many pillars. For example, there is (as mentioned in another post) the shape of the human penis. There is also the size of the male testicles. Both of these point to high rates of sperm competition, and are not seen in more monogamous species. There is also anthropological research on current hunter-gather societies, where group sex and shared parentage are common. As a professional historian (no, really) I appreciate your scepticism about such indirect reasoning, but it's actually a compelling and interesting read, which is why I recommended it.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871957)

Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it.

I can believe that, but I don't believe for a second that they didn't have the concept of jealousy.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872789)

Not everyone cares about such trivial matters...

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873227)

.. you're talking about the people who don't give a damn about the people they're having sex with.

Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869993)

There was a big protest yesterday, and I could help but notice the number of business men, and elderly who where involved.

Just sayin' that maybe you should actually talk to them instead of just watch the nut jobs the media puts on the air?

Excellent! (4, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869341)

Now we can clone this caveman creature, on a private island, with a theme park tourist-attraction setting! Spare no expense, of course!

Re: red blood cells have no nucleus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869453)

all they do is truck oxygen around until they are absorbed and eliminated. Nothing to clone. Useful if you want to give them a coating to attract and leach out viruses, too, since such viruses cant do anything once they land in one.

Re:Excellent! (1)

MassiveForces (991813) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869537)

Although RBCs don't have any DNA on-board, just about every other cell does - so it's a question of quality if you want to resurrect a clone. But why? He's anatomically a modern human. If you were going to clone him why not yourself? ;)

Re:Excellent! (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869683)

We need to clone him, let him grow to an adult, stab him with a spear, and then put the clone back into the ice. Leave no trace!

Re:Excellent! (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870259)

We need to clone him, let him grow to an adult, stab him with a spear, and then put the clone back into the ice. Leave no trace!

Following that logic, what makes you think this has not already happened before...how do we know we're not working with a clone already?

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870723)

Well, if we clone him, we should be able to tell pretty easily. I mean, you know a copy of a copy is never as clear as the original, so if our clone comes out really blurry with a bunch of artifacts on the edges, we'll know the one we found was a clone.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871515)

I'd say the typical ancient burial site, with a disjointed skeleton and surrounded by a few burial items is almost precisely "blurry with a few artifacts on the edges." I guess everything we dig up is a clone.

Re:Excellent! (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871671)

I guess that just means the Prime Directive is working.

Re:Excellent! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869863)

Because if you clone a 'caveman' you will have a lot less outrages then if you did it with a 'normal' person. Mostly because the people who are against it are idiots.

You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869903)

The people who are against human cloning happen to be the people who believe that "cavemen" were just as human as you or I.

Re:You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871201)

Yes, and they also believe cavemen lived when dinosaurs roamed the earth and that all this happened just a few thousand years ago.

Re:You're the idiot - it wouldn't help a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39875999)

Yes, and they also believe cavemen lived when dinosaurs roamed the earth and that all this happened just a few thousand years ago.

The guy lived 5300 years ago. This is good. If it was significantly more than 6000 years ago, all of bible-toting America would be against it (it's hard to deny something exists if it's growling and throwing rocks at you).

Re:Excellent! (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873275)

mmm, i wouldn't say "they" are against cloning people because of stupidity. It's more like they are against unregulated cloning specifically. What rights does a clone have? Trying to build sane regulation for cloning would be a nightmare that no politician could navigate successfully.

Also, it's a popular viewpoint that anything sub-human is ok to experiment with. I am not ok with it, but many are. But i think cloning of people SHOULD be pursued with oversight and transparency. No clone slave armies and all that :)

Re:Excellent! (1)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875591)

What rights does a clone have? Trying to build sane regulation for cloning would be a nightmare that no politician could navigate successfully.

Yes, we face that problem all the time with identical twins - deciding what rights they have is a political nightmare! The fact that clones are not just identical twins, but time-shifted identical twins makes the problem more complex than the human mind could unravel.

Re:Excellent! (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39878059)

Way to be a dick. In this case cloning is the act of artificially creating a person.

Also, lol! So a natural birth with identifiable mother and father is the same as a child born via a research institute? In that case, you wouldn't mind if the US gov phased out the volunteer army and gets darpa to fill the ranks via clones.

The problem isn't just the cloning. The problem is also ownership and property. You can own a research mouse but can you do the same with a human? If every experiment results in a (hopefully physically normal) person that has to be supported until adulthood then it would get extremely expensive for a company. The kid is also "working" for the company since birth. Or can a company abandon a clone to society? How many research clones would get adopted each year? Can the company kill a clone (or abort if it is still unborn)? Probably not since companies are typically not moral.

Was your intention to add something to the conversation or just barge in and act like a ass?

Re:Excellent! (1)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885907)

So a natural birth with identifiable mother and father is the same as a child born via a research institute? In that case, you wouldn't mind if the US gov phased out the volunteer army and gets darpa to fill the ranks via clones

Who's being a dick now? Of course you can't own a person - we settled that about 150 years ago (at least in the US; YMMV). If the darpa clones WANT to join the army, they're entitled to do so same as anyone else; if not, they can't be forced into it any more than anyone else. If you start with the common-sense premise that the rights and responsibilities of a person arise because of their personhood, and are independent of how they came to be a person, it all pretty much sorts itself out.

Perhaps there are as many as three separate issues:
- are babies whose genes come from one parent legally different from babies whose genes come from two parents? I can't think of any reason they would be.
- are babies who develop outside of wombs legally different from babies who develop inside wombs? Again, I can't think of any reason they would be.
- are babies born of surrogate mothers who were paid by a corporation legally different from babies born of surrogate mothers paid by an individual? I still can't think of a good reason why they would be different.
Plus of course there are many possible combinations, but even if you mix all 3 (a corporation pays for a single person's DNA to be cloned into a human and somehow has the fetus develop without the aid of a womb) I still can't see how the legal system could or should allow the corporation to "own" the person (or kill them, or whatever). Once the person reaches adulthood they're no different than anyone else; the only thing even slightly tricky is the first 18 years.

Yes, if the company somehow ditches responsibility for the person's upbringing the expense would fall on society at large - but that already happens all the time (via orphanages, adoptions, etc) and given the likely expense of the cloning process I can't see there being a significant additional burden to society.

As for being physically normal, random birth defects do and probably always will occur, but if it can be shown that the company's actions (or inactions) were negligent, I'd expect the system to treat the company much like it does a pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, does other drugs, etc (I'll admit I don't actually know how high the bar is, or what happens to the parents who exceed the threshold). Companies could go out of business, but then again mothers who smoke and drink and whatnot die and somehow we muddle through.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869549)

The power went out! The electric fences containing the cavemen are down!

Re:Excellent! (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869807)

Oh my God. Do you know what this is? This is a caveman egg. The cavemen are breeding.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Walterk (124748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869571)

They already did that, I do believe he was POTUS for 2 terms and started wars in Iraq & Afghanistan..

Re:Excellent! (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869855)

Not the movie reference I was expecting, I was expecting something more like this one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087452/ [imdb.com]

Re:Excellent! (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870639)

They should build a historical themepark set in the time when Timothy Hutton was considered an A-list actor.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870129)

Or, just take the survivors of the 2012 elections, much cheaper than clone a caveman.

Not much of a caveman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873993)

He would be indistinguishable from us. Well maybe if we put a some fur speedos on you..

Don't get all that excited.... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869467)

About this article. At least I'm not. Yes, they found some secondary evidence of blood cells which presumably helps forensic analysis in some unspecified way. The authors don't think Otzi exsanguinated immediately because they found, again secondary, evidence of something-that-could-be-fibrin. Fibrin is found in blood clots so they assumption is that he lived long enough for his clotting system to figure out that something bad was happening and it ought to try and do something about it.

Although hardly an expert in Neolithic spear damage analysis, I wouldn't expect someone speared to just keel over and die in a couple of breaths like one sees on TV. Even if he bled out over 20 minutes or so, I would expect some (ineffective) clot formation.

So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (4, Funny)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869527)

It's groundbreaking! Scientists have proved that people 5000 years ago had blood! Expect it to be in the newspaper headlines tomorrow morning...

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869847)

FAIL. God didn't create the universe until about 500 years later than that. Icemen are just something extra the jews threw in while they were burying all those dinosaur bones.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39871553)

He was frozen due to all the carbon stuff causing made made global warming, see its happened before all you non-believers!

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869545)

Oh, and to further go into AM pedant mode - I would not characterize the RBCs found in Otzi as 'intact' using any typical definition of the word. "Not completely trashed and identifiable by complex, detailed molecular analysis" would be closer.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869731)

I thought the same thing when I read:

The scientists used atomic force microscopy, a visualization method with resolution of less than a nanometer, to scan the wounds for blood residue.

I am no expert, but isn't a RBC typically visible under a standard microscope?

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (2)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869653)

So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.

Already been done, Otzi was Type-O, Rh+:
http://www.science-fare.com/article/%C3%B6tzis-entire-genome-sequenced-first-time [science-fare.com]

Most interesting part to me was the finding that he had Lyme Disease (or something very closely related to Lyme).

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869901)

You're not wrong -- you're just not completely right.

Otzi's blood type is old news -- I wrote the story you sourced.

But, since its publication, it's been advanced -- they actually found blood cells, not DNA telling us what kind of blood cells they'd be.

I'm just waiting to interview Dr. Zink and I'll put a relevant story up on the site!

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870191)

Prove that you are Lee Flohr and I'll concede.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870935)

Send me a business email: lee.flohr@sciencefaremedia.com -- I'll send you one back :)

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869909)

OMG, there were ticks 5000 years ago! Shocking revelation!

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869869)

Its a unique glimpse into a long vanished way of life and people, an ancient culture of which very little if anything survives today. Some of us find every little detail to be quite fascinating, and who knows, maybe we'll be able to put a few more pieces together and build a more complete picture of our ancestors.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 2 years ago | (#39874379)

Its a unique glimpse into a long vanished way of life and people, an ancient culture of which very little if anything survives today. Some of us find every little detail to be quite fascinating, and who knows, maybe we'll be able to put a few more pieces together and build a more complete picture of our ancestors.

Considering when Otzi lived, if he had any children that has present day descendants, odds are he is everyone's direct ancestor. The period of is life is before the identical ancestors point [sciencedaily.com] , before which, everyone who alive is either the ancestor of all human beings alive today, or the ancestor of nobody alive today.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870891)

Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case?

Other than the fact they've never found red blood cells that old before? Probably not.

The point here is that they continue to uncover a wealth of information from this Iceman.

In this case, the "crime" isn't so much important as what all they've been able to reconstruct from this body.

Identifying clotting agents in a 5000 year old corpse is definitely getting into uncharted territory. Probably more about the archeology and anthropology as much as anything.

I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.

LOL, have you recovered red blood cells from a 5000 year old mummy? You make it sound like what they're doing is common place or something.

Re:Don't get all that excited.... (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872585)

As I read it the interesting thing is that the blood is well preserved, which implies he was frozen immediately after he died. There has been some debate over whether he died where he was found or whether he was carried there for a ritual funeral. Kind of sounds like he died pretty close to where he was found.

It's not clear to me that he was a hunter though. There are other signs that he and some companions were in a big and bloody fight shortly before he died (I believe he had blood from other people on his clothes and knife). Sounds more like a raiding party or warriors than hunters.

Now you know what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869533)

We should call the CSI people to find the murderer !

Re:Now you know what to do... (4, Funny)

Norwell Bob (982405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869623)

Allow me to... [sunglasses]
Spearhead this one.

Re:Now you know what to do... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869815)

Re:Now you know what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869995)

Wrong tune. That's for CSI NY, the only remotely tolerable CSI (the "I'll create a gui interface using visual basic to see if I can track down an ip address" nonsense notwithstanding).

For the Horatio flavor you want "Won't get fooled again"

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Re:Now you know what to do... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869905)

YEEEAAHHHHHH!!

Re:Now you know what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869959)

He used to be an caveman like you, then he took an arrow in the shoulder.

Can't help myself.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869569)

He was a hunter until he took an arrow to the knee...

internet please forgive me.

ace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869575)

Soon they'll discover that the iceman's DNA contains ace of base pairs.

Re:ace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870043)

Kimi Raikkonen is finnish, not swedish. So it'll contain Lordi, of course, none of this Ace of Base lamo techno-pop for him.

Tyrannosaurus Tissue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39869579)

Wait, I thought I remember reading about some tissue that was recovered from a T-Rex. Wouldn't that contain the oldest?

Iceman? (3, Funny)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869607)

Iceman isn't dead. Goose is.

Re:Iceman? (1)

Norwell Bob (982405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869867)

It's not your FAULT, Maverick! Now, let's oil up and go play some volleyball. I love the way you flex when you check your watch.

Re:Iceman? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870285)

Iceman isn't dead. Goose is.

You sure about that? Seems Icemans career has pretty much melted away into nothingness.

Maverick... (1)

TheTruthIs (2499862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869619)

Must be quite pissed off.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39869857)

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS!

--
BMO

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING

Re:THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870465)

Where is the +1 Lebowski mod when I need it?

Re:THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS LARRY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870895)

For context, this is the television-edited quote from The Big Lebowski, which originally was "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass."

They did good work cleaning that one up, I have to say.

Captcha: CLASSY

Woo7!? fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39870401)

all servers. Coming non-fucking-existant. DOG THAT IT IS. IT on an endeavour 3oth believed that turd-suckingly is the group that TRIUMPHS WOULD SOON this exploitation, Baby take my that comprise as one of the but now they're bought the farm.... Are the important this is consistent Baby take my are She had taken the project is in and arms and dick Future. The hand FreeBSD had long previously th]ought would take about 2 A GAY NIGGER up my toys. I'm If you have

Good News/Bad News (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 2 years ago | (#39870849)

Good news is that after waiting more than five thousand years, Ã-tzi finally was able to be seen by the ER docs for the wound in his hand and shoulder.

Bad news is that, in the meantime, his insurance policy lapsed.

didn't die immediately after being wounded." (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871255)

>didn't die immediately after being wounded."

>a shoulder wound found ..and that implies that the shoulder of our ancestor did not have vital organs, like heart or brain.

Cold Case! (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39871619)

But just you wait. We'll get the bastard that did this to Ötzi!

Looks like Otzi used to be an adventurer like us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872391)

but then he took an arrow to the shoulder

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>