 |
|
A fascinating discovery was made under the crown of a spruce in Fulu Mountain in Dalarna. Scientists found four “generations” of spruce remains in the form of cones and wood produced from the highest grounds. The discovery showed trees of 375, 5,660, 9,000 and 9,550 years old and everything displayed clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup as the trees above them. Since spruce trees can multiply with root penetrating braches, they can produce exact copies, or clones. The tree now growing above the finding place and the wood pieces dating 9,550 years have the same genetic material.
That’s even older than I feel – by the end of winter.
I’m in Umeå baby! Yeah!
No it isn’t
http://www.apstas.com/Mt__Read_Huon_pine.html
it is from Tasmania, A stand of huon pine trees in Tasmania that are 10500 years old. Same sort of genetically identical vegetative reproduction as in the article.
I’m not sure if “genetically identical” should qualify as the “same individual” plant in this case. Many plants can create identical clones, actually, I think there’s one sort of flower that is present all over north america that is basically genetically identical everywhere. I think Richard Dawkins wrote about it in the selfish gene.
pj
#2, 3 – really should read the linked articles. Does not describe an oldest living tree. The trees in the article are 2-3,000 years old.
#5 read the original article, those spruces are also the product of a very similar vegetative reproduction method, the physical trees you see are clones of older plants. it is near enough the same process for all trees discussed here.
The original article is quite specific about clones – beneath the original, still living tree. Your reference only cites surviving clones descended from an original tree – now dead and gone.
You don’t understand the difference?
Hmmm…
Don’t you think they should cut it down and count the rings just be certain of its age?
In the Swedish example, It is a stand of trees sharing the same vegetative reproducing root system, each individual tree only lives about 600 years.
From the original article
“…their ability to push out another trunk as the other one died…”
Clarified here:
http://www.sikunews.com/art.html?catid=10&artid=4671
“Researcher Leif Kullman of Umea University told The Local the individual trees would not be more than a few hundred years old but were generated from the same genetic root system.”
More;
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47931/story.htm
“Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died”
There is no 9000 year old original tree.
Now, don’t you get the similarity?
Between the 9000 year old Swede and the 43,000 year old Tasmanian – it is a very similar method of genetic renewal through vegetative reproduction.
C’mon folks, isn’t it enough to just point out that the trees “are really old” and think that’s kinda cool?
I say we cut ’em all down and count the rings. We MUST know which is really the oldest.
Oldest living organism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine
So, if a person clones himself for 3 generations that would produce the worlds oldest person of say
~200 years old? Interesting…
And here I thought it was just Creationists that used questionable science to prove their ideas.
Gee, something OLDER than McCain ??? Is it possible ??? No matter, Bush is on his way with a CHAIN SAW, and Cheney will follow up with a BULLDOZER to eradicate any sign of the ancient tree !!! Then they can DRILL FOR OIL or STRIP MINE COAL there !!!
Thanks for posting that framitz. Precious memories. In forestry myself and still shaking my head at some twit breaking his ‘coring tool’–they’re called increment borers or, affectionately, inkies–and getting the OK to reach for a chainsaw to drop an ancient Bristlecone. I’ve broken one inky auger in 18 years. He could’ve come back with a second auger and easily resampled the tree at another point. Also heard that Prometheus was cut into rounds and used to make lovely clocks and desktop ornaments for forestry officials.
Donald R. Currey, a student of the University of North Carolina, was taking core samples of bristlecones in 1964 when he discovered that “Prometheus” was over 4,000 years old. His coring tool broke, so the U.S. Forest service granted permission to Mr. Currey to cut down “Prometheus”. After Prometheus had been felled, 4,844 rings were counted on a cross-section of the tree, making “Prometheus” at least 4,844 years old, the oldest non-clonal living thing known to man.
This proves the creationists are right. The earth is about 10000 years old, no, 15000, no 30000, no 40000…
#16 – I bet those ornaments and clocks only lasted a few years. Something else came along and caught their eye and the old tree went to the land fill.
How do they decide if something is a natural clone? The stem is the deciding factor? I’m wondering about some seedless plants that have wide distribution, putting up stems from the spreading root system.
Maybe these trees are old, and maybe they’re not … http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf
#20
from your linked article:
“The great ages claimed for individual BCPs are based on the assumption that the trees grew no more than one ring per year. These ‘ages’, generating a master chronology of 8,700 years, are plainly contradictory to the biblical timeframe.”
The creationist article was somewhat entertaining for it’s Blantent BullShit,
Thanks
it’s like distant starlight. God put some trees here and there, already aged several thousand years old, just to confuse the shit out of us. Great sense of humour, the Christian god.