Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
David Sullivan
4983 Followers
bendvisFeb 8, 2012
That's really something to wrap your brain around. Those same plants that are alive today were chilling in the water when:
1) the Bubonic Plague ravaged the known world (~1500 AD),
2) the Babylonian Empire held all of the Middle East (~500 BC)
3) The Pyramids were under construction (~2500 BC)
4) People were first learning to use irrigation to grow crops(~5000 BC)
5) Grain farming started (~10,000 BC)
6) Humans first started migrating into North America (~15,000 BC)
7) Homo Erectus went extinct (~30,000 BC)
8) Humans Left Africa (~50,000 BC)
If those plants are 200,000 years old, then they are quite possibly as old as the human race.
Schweppesale2Feb 8, 2012
The human race is 5-7million years old.
bendvisFeb 8, 2012
Anatomically modern humans (Homo Sapiens) have existed for ~200,000 years.
You're right though, predecessor humanoid species have existed for ~6 million years, but they were strictly plant-eaters.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/bodies
angrycat70Feb 8, 2012
That's when the Battlestar Galactica and fleet limped into orbit and the Colonials and the hybrid Hera were added to the gene pool.
dpenningtonFeb 8, 2012
LOL!
mrdugFeb 11, 2012
I wish I could digg you up a thousand times for that, greatest reply I've read in awhile.
PreferredMNFeb 7, 2012
This is really incredible.
PatriceBeaulieu12Feb 7, 2012
It amazes me how scientists can figure this stuff out.
whacklyFeb 8, 2012
They just make it up and call it science. #s**tbelieverssay
bcarl314Feb 8, 2012
I think you're confusing religion with science.
whacklyFeb 8, 2012
uh... derp
kvnkaneFeb 8, 2012
my blackberry feels older
gladiator9318Feb 8, 2012
so
gbudavidFeb 7, 2012
I guess that makes it OLD:)
caseycooldFeb 7, 2012
"12,000 and 200,000 years old"
That's a f**king SWAG
phpistastyFeb 8, 2012
I'm assuming that the gap is by marking changes. What its saying is that its either a really new species, or a really old one. Hence, the probably >100,000.
whacklyFeb 8, 2012
no, i don't think that's what it's saying.
phpistastyFeb 8, 2012
To analyze a species you collect DNA samples , sequence them, and compare differences. The more a species procreates, the more changes in the DNA. Fewer changes means a new species, or a species that hasn't undergone much change. The article uses humans as its example to try and illustrate the point. The plant reproduces asexually (less genetic exchange) and clones itself (continuation of the current DNA).
Unless I read a different article....
wipisFeb 9, 2012
Yes I believe you are right. FTA " the seagrass was between 12,000 and 200,000 years old and was most likely to be at least 100,000 years old."... "it can reproduce asexually and generate clones of itself."... "They are continually producing new branches."
The article didn't explain how we know they are so old very clearly. But by looking at the reproduction rate and using DNA testing to see how many generations there are from one plant. You can get a pretty good of how old they are.
moxleyFeb 8, 2012
It's not Joan Rivers?
analogkid1Feb 8, 2012
The following is directly from their research paper. It appears to me that they're saying that the estimate of 80-200k years is "unlikely" due to sea levels at the last ice age. I think it's a matter of media misinterpretation. Interpret it however you wish:
The scenario of a km-range spread achieved exclusively through clonal growth requires that the clones reach a minimum age of about 12,500 years. Applying the same estimates to the genets shared between the two pairs of meadows, located 7 km apart between Formentera and Ibiza and 15 km apart around a cape in Formentera (Fig. 3), yields a minimum age estimate between 80,000 and 200,000 years, projecting the origin of the clones well into the late Pleistocene. Although there is no biologically compelling reason to exclude this possibility, we consider it to be an unlikely scenario because local sea level changes during the last ice age (from −80,000 to −10,000 years) would place these sampling locations on land (the sea was 100 metres below its present level).
anomaly100Feb 7, 2012
I thought....I thought I was the oldest living thing on Earth:-(
alanocuFeb 9, 2012
My first guess was going to be Joan Rivers.
anomaly100Feb 9, 2012
I wanna be second!
chongqingkingFeb 8, 2012
that just can't be right... those wiggly seagrass are 40 times older than the beginning of time according to Creationists!
tacotortillaFeb 8, 2012
"using a theory to interpret an observation does not prove the theory"
mrzaikoFeb 8, 2012
But, can you smoke it?
suniasunshineFeb 9, 2012
That is down right remarkable.
positivetangentsFeb 9, 2012
We discover the oldest living thing on Earth and realize that we are killing it... how terrible.
liujia167Feb 9, 2012
GOOD
akashchanderFeb 9, 2012
Good I lost the title...
rixar13Feb 9, 2012
"The analysis, published in the journal PLos ONE, found the seagrass was between 12,000 and 200,000 years old and was most likely to be at least 100,000 years old."
Whoa, that's older than my great great great Grandma...
gimiesomeFeb 9, 2012
I thought they were talking about za za gabor.....
rixar13Feb 9, 2012
"The analysis, published in the journal PLos ONE, found the seagrass was between 12,000 and 200,000 years old and was most likely to be at least 100,000 years old."
Whoa, that's older than my great great great Grandma...
ancientshoesFeb 8, 2012
so what this 'study' is telling us, is one of those blades of seaweed are up to 200,000 years old? or the 'patch' that it's growing on? is the 'patch' one giant continuous organism? I think someone is full of s**t or didn't understand the study when the wrote the article
williepepperFeb 8, 2012
They found Hillarie's vajanina?
thespookFeb 8, 2012
I hate to break it to you, but the telegraph is NOT the oldest thing on earth.
brian1625Feb 8, 2012
So the plant is asexual. Why didn't it die of disease? a virus. It's strange that it's written that "oh it's cause they reproduce asexually" without noting that asexual reproduction is a bad idea for longevity!
shreeraamshreeFeb 8, 2012
hmm wait wait...u can't use those words oldest living things...lake vostok has answers
it would have the oldest creature if it has survival environment
myurbanswaggaFeb 8, 2012
hmm is it real results?
greenleaflinkFeb 8, 2012
right next too it was a ipod case....clearly faked by science to demote god as a the creator.
markbenson88Feb 8, 2012
Marvel of nature indeed
Mightee1122Feb 8, 2012
between 12,000 and 200,000 years old and was most likely to be at least 100,000 years old.
Though they state it is older than anything else around, that is a wide margin of error.
dteleFeb 8, 2012
"...between 12,000 and 200,000 years old and was most likely to be at least 100,000 years old"
Covering all the bases
paechanFeb 8, 2012
How can you not relate that statement to the distribution of the data?
whacklyFeb 8, 2012
because acknowledging that the information is meant to demonstrate the awesomely wide range of ages found in the collected samples doesn't allow him to sneer disdainfully.
dilberterFeb 8, 2012
Remember this stupid comment above you next time someone asks you "why do I need to learn x? When am I ever going to need to know that in real life?"
dteleFeb 9, 2012
What?
123nhanhFeb 8, 2012
Gogo
123nhanhFeb 8, 2012
http://123nhanh.vn
robertlanceaustinFeb 8, 2012
Wow, really, SoMeWhErE between 12,000 and 200,000? Glad you could provide an approximate estimate! (not) they must have had government accountants running this survey - it's no wonder we have our national debt with "experts" like that :-)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikec1998Feb 8, 2012
This statement is so stupid it makes my head hurt, how does dating the age of a plant have anything to do with the accounting practices of the federal government?
tawny6812Feb 8, 2012
Oldest living being? Kt event was 65 mya. Please tell me you are all being facetious...
soonerdude711Feb 8, 2012
lulz, confused girl is confused.