blobrana wrote:
Hum,
That site offers only an opinion.
It doesn`t back it up with any science....
For example there are two types of DNA. The first is y-chromosome DNA (y-DNA) which is found in the nuclear DNA of the cells. Y-DNA testing follows the paternal line back in time.
The second DNA type is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is in the portion of the cell that does not contain nuclear DNA. MtDNA testing follows the maternal line back in time.
You can have hair analysed for y-DNA and mitochondrial mtDNA. For mtDNA analysis, you can just use the hair itself. However, for y-DNA you must get the "root" or "bulb" of the hair. The root contains the nuclear DNA which includes y-DNA. The "shaft." is the hair without the root or bulb, and thus without the nuclear y-DNA.
The colour of the hair changes over time, take a woolly mammoth for example...they are always depicted as having red hair, when in reality they may have been completely black.
And the sites notion that Neanderthals were somehow less evolved seems a bit disturbing. it is quite plain that they were highly adapted to live in a cold europe, and they did so successfully for thousands of years, until climate change, (and encounters with companion). They just thought differently to us...
(do we have any evidence of Neanderthal aggression?)
My point exactly (read my earlier post), but the has a nice line:
"While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small. "
Which is probably the most accurate description of the situation. IMHO
