Comments on: The 13,000-year old tree that survives by cloning itself http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/ Dive into the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science news with award-winning writer Ed Yong. No previous experience required. Sat, 26 May 2012 10:52:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Brian Too http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-12191 Brian Too Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:28:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-12191 I was thinking that the article missed the Aspens, and vaguely wondering "wot's Pando", and didn't put it together that these are connected! Here's a fine original link for those interested. http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/thetremblinggian285/?searchterm=aspen I think one interesting distinction is that Pando is a single organism. The article above says that the Jurupa oak consists of many organisms related by a cloning process. Or at least that's how I read it. I was thinking that the article missed the Aspens, and vaguely wondering “wot’s Pando”, and didn’t put it together that these are connected!

Here’s a fine original link for those interested.

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/thetremblinggian285/?searchterm=aspen

I think one interesting distinction is that Pando is a single organism. The article above says that the Jurupa oak consists of many organisms related by a cloning process. Or at least that’s how I read it.

]]> By: john h http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6123 john h Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:00:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6123 Cloning is cheating. I'll stick with the bristlecone pine as the oldest organism. Cloning is cheating.
I’ll stick with the bristlecone pine as the oldest organism.

]]> By: Chris M. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6122 Chris M. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:04:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6122 The Jurupa Mountains are right across the river from Mt. Rubidoux, I was just looking at this range yesterday! Question, though: is calling it a continuous cluster 2.5 kilometers in width a typo? The paper mentions a cluster about 25x8 meters, with 70 stem clusters, and the whole range is quite small and too discontinuous for anything on that larger scale. Anyway, remarkable stuff, even if the growth-based age estimates are likely to have extremely low precision. I'll have to go find it (and bring some water to apologize for interrupting) one of these summers. The Jurupa Mountains are right across the river from Mt. Rubidoux, I was just looking at this range yesterday!
Question, though: is calling it a continuous cluster 2.5 kilometers in width a typo? The paper mentions a cluster about 25×8 meters, with 70 stem clusters, and the whole range is quite small and too discontinuous for anything on that larger scale.
Anyway, remarkable stuff, even if the growth-based age estimates are likely to have extremely low precision. I’ll have to go find it (and bring some water to apologize for interrupting) one of these summers.

]]> By: Briana http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6121 Briana Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:02:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6121 I'm not sure about the dating anyway, inevitable christian sensitivities aside. The article about the holly said they really didn't know if they were right about the age, and there are flaws in carbon dating that can't be ignored. In all honesty, you may be able to determine what came before what (well, even that is disputed in certain situations), but declaring this-or-that is such-and-such years old is very arguable. And wait a minute... does this mean if I clone myself continuously, I live forever? Too bad I wouldn't be around to enjoy it... I’m not sure about the dating anyway, inevitable christian sensitivities aside. The article about the holly said they really didn’t know if they were right about the age, and there are flaws in carbon dating that can’t be ignored.
In all honesty, you may be able to determine what came before what (well, even that is disputed in certain situations), but declaring this-or-that is such-and-such years old is very arguable.
And wait a minute… does this mean if I clone myself continuously, I live forever? Too bad I wouldn’t be around to enjoy it…

]]> By: Murfomurf http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6120 Murfomurf Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:06:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6120 I wonder if there are any olive trees more than 2 000 years old? They seem to reproduce by spreading trunks from the base roots and are pretty well un-killable. Has anyone looked at the ones around the Mediterranean? Just that I remember some olives in Nimes, France that were several thousand years old and guessed there might be some even older ones about. I wonder if there are any olive trees more than 2 000 years old? They seem to reproduce by spreading trunks from the base roots and are pretty well un-killable. Has anyone looked at the ones around the Mediterranean? Just that I remember some olives in Nimes, France that were several thousand years old and guessed there might be some even older ones about.

]]> By: BdN http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6119 BdN Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:30:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6119 <blockquote> Pando is older than humans. [citation needed] (Unless you're also just kidding...)</blockquote> <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/1312652" rel="nofollow">It's been estimated</a> by some <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/1932983" rel="nofollow">to be approximately 1 000 000 years old.</a> And modern humans are generally considered to be about 200 000 years old.

Pando is older than humans.
[citation needed] (Unless you’re also just kidding…)

It’s been estimated by some to be approximately 1 000 000 years old.
And modern humans are generally considered to be about 200 000 years old.

]]> By: raven http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6118 raven Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:17:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6118 <blockquote>wikipedia Creationism: Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to Young Earth creationism‎: According to one recent poll, <b>Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44% of adults in the United States. ...</b></blockquote> Case closed. Maybe this 13,000 year old oak was left over from a previous universe. According to the people who know the universe is 6,000 years old, this one is scheduled to end any day now or 2012, which ever comes first. So if universes last 6,000 years, it fits perfectly.

wikipedia Creationism:
Creationism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to Young Earth creationism‎: According to one recent poll, Young Earth creationist views are held by as many as 44% of adults in the United States. …

Case closed. Maybe this 13,000 year old oak was left over from a previous universe.
According to the people who know the universe is 6,000 years old, this one is scheduled to end any day now or 2012, which ever comes first. So if universes last 6,000 years, it fits perfectly.

]]> By: raven http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6117 raven Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:02:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6117 <blockquote>spiff lying: There are a large spectrum of origin beliefs that fall under the umbrella of "creationism", and very few of them believe in a young earth. It comes across as philosophically ignorant to imply that all creationists are young earth creationists as this article does.</blockquote> <blockquote>Quote: US poll The Bible is - "the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word." 31% - "the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally". 47% - "an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man." 19%</blockquote> A fundie death cultist lying. LIke that never happens. I googled it, unlike spiff who just made things up. YECism isn't usually asked on polls per se but related questions give a percentage in the USA between 30 to 45% of the population. This is 90-135 million people. Higher than the 60 million Geocentrists. I don't call almost half the population "very few". Intelligent Design is dying out. Even the Dishonesty Institute has many YECs. It was just YECism in a sheet and that didn't fool anyone so they are heading back to YEC. And Spiff, learn to read someday. This was a great article about a fascinating plant, a Palmer Oak that was growing and left behind when the last ice age ended, one that is 13,000 years old. It is completely accurate to point out that nearly half of the US population thinks this plant is twice the age of the universe. It is just a fact spiff, something you have no acquaintance or interest in. It is also funny, something you also have no interest in. If certain groups of ignorant xians are going to be ridiculous, they can expect to be laughed at by educated and intelligent people. Deal with it.

spiff lying:
There are a large spectrum of origin beliefs that fall under the umbrella of “creationism”, and very few of them believe in a young earth. It comes across as philosophically ignorant to imply that all creationists are young earth creationists as this article does.

Quote: US poll
The Bible is
- “the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.” 31%
- “the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally”. 47%
- “an ancient book of “fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.” 19%

A fundie death cultist lying. LIke that never happens.
I googled it, unlike spiff who just made things up. YECism isn’t usually asked on polls per se but related questions give a percentage in the USA between 30 to 45% of the population. This is 90-135 million people. Higher than the 60 million Geocentrists. I don’t call almost half the population “very few”.
Intelligent Design is dying out. Even the Dishonesty Institute has many YECs. It was just YECism in a sheet and that didn’t fool anyone so they are heading back to YEC.
And Spiff, learn to read someday. This was a great article about a fascinating plant, a Palmer Oak that was growing and left behind when the last ice age ended, one that is 13,000 years old. It is completely accurate to point out that nearly half of the US population thinks this plant is twice the age of the universe.
It is just a fact spiff, something you have no acquaintance or interest in. It is also funny, something you also have no interest in. If certain groups of ignorant xians are going to be ridiculous, they can expect to be laughed at by educated and intelligent people. Deal with it.

]]> By: Spiff http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6116 Spiff Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:13:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6116 There are a large spectrum of origin beliefs that fall under the umbrella of "creationism", and very few of them believe in a young earth. It comes across as philosophically ignorant to imply that all creationists are young earth creationists as this article does. There are a large spectrum of origin beliefs that fall under the umbrella of “creationism”, and very few of them believe in a young earth. It comes across as philosophically ignorant to imply that all creationists are young earth creationists as this article does.

]]> By: echidna http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-6115 echidna Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:47:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/26/the-13000-year-old-tree-that-survives-by-cloning-itself/#comment-6115 Daniel, You might want to distinguish between religion and wilful ignorance. It's a jab at those who disregard evidence for the sake of religion. Daniel,
You might want to distinguish between religion and wilful ignorance. It’s a jab at those who disregard evidence for the sake of religion.

]]>