Isis sent me this story when it first broke a couple of days ago, but I had hoped it would go away. But - it has not - so, Isis, here is the story, the latest version from the BBC. Lots of to-do about a "new ancestor of humans" - only, she probably is not. Unless it can be shown that this female who is "dated" to between 48,000 to 32,000 years ago has her mitochondrial DNA present in today's humans, she cannot be an ancestor. Amazingly, from a sliver of a finger bone artists have managed to come up with a very human-looking representation of what this ancient female looked like! Modern reconstructive forensic science! The miracles never cease! This is better even than Eve being created out of one of Adam's ribs!
DNA identifies new ancient human dubbed 'X-woman'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
Thursday, 25 March 2010
As I understand the current results, there is no evidence that the "X woman" contributed anything to the line of modern humans. So - she is not an ancestor. By scientific definition, she cannot be. Notice, however, the use of the loaded term "woman" rather than using the more generic term "female." "Woman" definitely connotes a human being - which the female could not be, since she shares no mitochondrial DNA with modern females according to current DNA test results. So - let's see what the "further testing" that is planned reveals. What will be reported in the popular press if further tests turn out to point to something other than a "modern human" connection? Anyone want to place a bet?
No comments:
Post a Comment