Archaeologica.org

So just when the OOA Orthodox Crowd is stirring up a big batch of Cool-Aid after news that humans outside of Africa have Neanderthal genetics, along comes this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154119.htm

It appears that archaic boogie nights weren't just restricted to get-downs with Neanderthals, but Denisovans too!

So ... based on the distribution being primarily SE Asia, I'm going way out on a limb by declaring that Denisovans and Asian H erectus are one and the same (no Chris, not H heidelbergensis). Now, would some decent scientist out there please do an autosomal DNA analysis on Native Americans to determine if there is another archaic group in the mix?

Digit's racial stereotype theory is gaining traction ... we all aren't the same, but just a little different depending on our ancient geographical origin. Well, it's all about diversity, right?

I'm going way out on a limb by declaring that Denisovans and Asian H erectus are one and the same

Will that limb take the weight of two Cog?

Roy.

When I wrote my book, I got dumped on for using the term "Homo Heidelbergensis".
Of course, there's been so many finds since then.

What you folks are passing right by is the obvious: the Zamanshan Impact separated that hominid group into two or more groups.

Impacts likely explains some of the later mt DNA differentiations as well.

What you folks are passing right by is the obvious: the Zamanshan Impact separated that hominid group into two or more groups.

EP, the above is so obvious I cannot find reference to it on the internet. A little more info would go a long way in explaining your comment. When, where? What, how? Etc. Thanks.