Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Renfield; donmeaker
By the way, on second reading, I noticed (!) that I had misunderstood what exactly was being studied.
I had assumed, since it's the latest cutting-edge of technology, that these folks were studying DNA extracted from ancient teeth.

No. They were looking at the teeth themselves, morphologically, not at DNA from those teeth.
They found that teeth from homo antecessor did not closely enough match our own to be considered -- in their opinions -- as common ancestors with Neanderthals.

I'd say that's fine, since the truth of the matter seems to be highly complicated, and may-or-may-not directly include homo antecessors.
So this study simply tells us that science is still a long way off from finding definitive answers.

21 posted on 10/25/2013 1:59:38 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

I remembered the 20 percent number from somewhere, and probably got it wrong. iT IS heck getting old.

my apologies.


22 posted on 10/25/2013 6:53:04 AM PDT by donmeaker (The lessons of Weimar will soon be repeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson