[ClearCase_guy]

I see this stuff as very similar to Global Warming computer models. We don't really understand the data. We like to pretend that we can predict the weather 100 years from now, and we like to predict that we have a deep understanding of genetics. I'm just not convinced. They are just taking a big pile of genetic data and -- Voila~! -- postulating a new kind of hominid.

Nice hypothesis, I suppose. But how will the idea ever be tested? How can this be substantiated in any way?

I see this as little better than stoned college freshmen sitting around saying, "Wow, wouldn't it be cool if ...". But real science should operate at a slightly higher level than that.

[trashcanbred2]

No... actually mDNA has nothing to do with computer models nor with phony baloney predictions. It is at least an attempt to get at the truth which is more than I can say for other forms of beliefs.

[wastedpotential]

Assuming that any theory about the things we see from earth’s past can be substantiated today by the scientific method is folly. We can’t observe any of the actual phenomenon that caused these changes.

However, theories are postulated and then accepted as scientific fact. Those who argue those facts are labeled “flat earthers.” What is interesting is that over time, they often change the “facts” to fit new “discoveries.”

It does sound like global warming :)