(I am not really âup onâ the state of paleontology and related research, so this may be a face-palm-level question, in which case I apologize for taking up everyoneâs time.)
This article got me thinking about the effect of being able to do genome sequencing from DNA on the field. Has it been revolutionary, or is it just another tool? Does it make it easier to confirm theories, or is it something thatâs nice to be able to use when you can, but hasnât really had much impact overall?
I would expect it would be limited because of the diffculty in finding usable DNA (i.e., DNA that hasnât degraded too much, as they did in this case), but I would think it could open up lots of possibilities in terms of assessing migration of populations.
If you are not checking out Gutsick Gibbon, you absolutely should. She is a PhD candidate currently defending her thesis and still finds time to make 1-2 hour discussion videos on human evolution. And she is funny as hell. Highly recommended!
ETA: Oh yeah, why it applies to your post! She âgripesâ lightheartedly about the confusion all in interbreeding in Asia causes in sorting out the threads of human evolution. To the point that she changes the âmuddle in the middleâ title for all the intertwined human relatives and ancestors found there to âthe orgy in the middle.â There was an awful lot of boinking going on! At one point she says, âIt would make it a lot easier in they kept it in their loincloths a bit more.â
Details in the new research suggest that Neanderthals may have been unexpectedly sophisticated in their approach to nutrition, too.
I think this is actually mistaken, though. Utahraptors were predators, so presumably attacked when they were hungry and back off when they thought something wasnât worth the effort to tackle. Geese are herbivores and so have no such considerations.