>GM>Even more suggestive is the treatment of the opening at
>>the base of the skull. The foramen magnum is normally about an
>>inch and a quarter in diameter. In all but two of the Solo
>>skulls, it had been widened considerably by hacking with stone or
>>wooden tools. similar mutilation of skulls was carried out at
>>choukoutien, as we have seen, and has been observed among
>>cannibals of the present day, who widen the opening so they can
>>reach into the skulls to scoop out the brains."~Bernard Campbell,
>>Humankind Emerging, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1985), p.
>>404-405
>
>This argues against your point. Why go to all the trouble to
>make a neat bowl out of the top of the skull, when the easiest
>way to get at brains is through the existing opening at the
>neck?
Precisely, The Neanderthal didn't simply get to the brain via the foramen
magnum--he carved the skull which took a lot of work if all he wanted was
brain he could have gotten it a lot simpler. Why the extra work? ritual???
>
>While it is theoretically possible that this neandertal's nuclear DNA
>might have modern human genes, while his mtDNA doesn't, this is
>thought unlikely:
See my post to Cliff on Christmas day.
>I asked you below how you know it was "an experimental error" and you
>simply cite the article. How about a quote where it says its was "an
>experimental error".
Stephen, Stephen, when one has performed experiments one can recognize an
experimental error. There was no anthropologist that disagreed with my
contribution in the Anthro E-mail news.
>>SJ>It may not be "huge" but it is statistically significant. A random
>>>sample of modern humans would have expected a maximum of only *8*
>>>different base-pairs:
>
>GM>No a random sample would be expected to have a maximum of 24 differences. 8
>>is the average difference.
>
>OK. I will rephrase it: from a random sample of modern humans we
>would have expected an average difference of 5-8 base-pairs:
Good But averages are averages it is the range that is important.
>See above. It would be appreciated if you would please supply a
>quote from the Cell article that says that this was an "experimental
>error". Thanks.
"Neandertal sequence is 27.2+/-2.2 (range 22-36) substitutions."~Krings,
Matthias, et al, 1997. "Neandertal DNA
Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell, 90:19-30, p.
24-25
The +/- is one standard deviation and (range 22-36) are the range of the
individual measurments.
>GM>It was accepted into the Anthropological E mail news. That is what I said.
>
>I know what you "said". What I asked was "What was the *result*?"
>Since its been "nearly 5 months", I would have thought that if your
>point had any validity it would have been a hot topic and
>would have largely invalidated the study. What happened?
No one criticised it.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm