Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis epidemic in Europe

Re:Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis ep... by gwern on Monday August 24, 2020 @07:42PM (#24266736)

The diversity argument is stronger. Even if you argue that the skeletons post-date Columbus, now you also need to argue that it wasn't just one case that came back but several (or that the understanding of its mutation clock & strains are wrong).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis ep... by raducu on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @02:54PM (#24274692)

It's not like there weren't voyages after Columbus, you know.

The other strains could have come from the other, more numerous voyages after Columbus.

The question is when were the first skeletons in America first shown to have had syphilis, if it's earlier than the 1400's and in Europe there were none, the question is settled.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis ep... by xhkkffbf on Monday August 24, 2020 @08:14PM (#24266942)

Well, there were more than one sailor on the expedition -- and there's no reason why one sailor couldn't bring back multiple strains. In some cases, a dominant strain drives out the others, but not in all microbes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis ep... by raducu on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @02:56PM (#24274713)

Am I missing something here?

Why is this about Columbus, the skeletons are dated mid 1400's - 1600's.

This is quite ridiculous. This is like that one star that is like 80 million years older than the Big Bang, in the estimated age range.

[ Parent | on HN ]