1. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    26 Mar '10 12:51
    http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767281&source=features_box_main

    Using the latest DNA-sequencing technology, Dr Krause and his colleagues worked out the order of the genetic “letters” of over 1m fragments of DNA from their sample. By looking for overlaps between these fragments and fitting the resulting contiguous sequences to reference sequences from humans and Neanderthals the team were able to come up with a DNA sequence for most of the mitochondrion, and it was nothing like one that would have been expected from either a modern human or a Neanderthal.

    I think the article over-emphasizes the "human" connection, though. It might veru well be a non-homo hominid.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Mar '10 15:48
    Originally posted by Palynka
    http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767281&source=features_box_main

    [i]Using the latest DNA-sequencing technology, Dr Krause and his colleagues worked out the order of the genetic “letters” of over 1m fragments of DNA from their sample. By looking for overlaps between these fragments and fitting the resulting contiguous ...[text shortened]... icle over-emphasizes the "human" connection, though. It might veru well be a non-homo hominid.
    Nice new discovery, saw the piece. They have to wait for more DNA analysis to clear the air since mitochodrial dna is only half the picture. The critics won't be happy till that is done.
  3. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    26 Mar '10 16:53
    Just realized that the original article talks about it as a hominin, while the economist wrote hominid.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    27 Mar '10 21:46
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Just realized that the original article talks about it as a hominin, while the economist wrote hominid.
    That would be a typo, it's hominid.
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    28 Mar '10 15:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That would be a typo, it's hominid.
    Not necessarily

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini
Back to Top