BillHoyt said:
Right on the first point. Regarding the second point: at the pub a bit early tonight, jj?
Cheers,
heh.
YOU NOTICED!
I was waiting, I was waiting!
BillHoyt said:
Right on the first point. Regarding the second point: at the pub a bit early tonight, jj?
Cheers,
jj said:
heh.
YOU NOTICED!![]()
![]()
![]()
I was waiting, I was waiting!
BillHoyt said:
You're conversing with a giant, blinking, telescopic eye and you expect otherwise?![]()
jj said:
Heh, then you're conversing with WHAT, Bill?![]()
BillHoyt said:
A talking head, obviously...
The DNA sequences from the Paglicci specimens fell "well within" the range of variation of modern humans, and "differ sharply" from findings on three Neandertals that have been published so far, the authors report online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.
...
Some scientists are thrilled at the results. This work is "another nail in the coffin" of the multiregional hypothesis, says Stanford University anthropologist Richard Klein. But others point out that it's impossible to be 100% certain whose DNA they've got. Fred Smith of Loyola University in Chicago, who is sympathetic to multiregionalism, says that despite all the precautions the authors took, "no protocol exists that will prove these sequences are authentically ancient DNA and not more recent contamination."