<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Discrepancy Between Cranial &amp; mtDNA Data Of Early Americans Or Sample Size?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anthropology.net/2009/06/01/discrepancy-between-cranial-mtdna-data-of-early-americans-or-sample-size/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anthropology.net/2009/06/01/discrepancy-between-cranial-mtdna-data-of-early-americans-or-sample-size/</link>
	<description>Beyond bones &#38; stones</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 15:52:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weekly PLoS ONE News and Blog Round-Up &#171; everyONE &#8211; the PLoS ONE community blog</title>
		<link>http://anthropology.net/2009/06/01/discrepancy-between-cranial-mtdna-data-of-early-americans-or-sample-size/#comment-14204</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Weekly PLoS ONE News and Blog Round-Up &#171; everyONE &#8211; the PLoS ONE community blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropology.net/?p=1968#comment-14204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] to South America. Some detailed discussions of the paper have been posted at Wired Science, Anthropology.net and Dienekes’ Anthropology [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to South America. Some detailed discussions of the paper have been posted at Wired Science, Anthropology.net and Dienekes’ Anthropology [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kambiz</title>
		<link>http://anthropology.net/2009/06/01/discrepancy-between-cranial-mtdna-data-of-early-americans-or-sample-size/#comment-14180</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kambiz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropology.net/?p=1968#comment-14180</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the comment Luis. You&#039;re hypothesis is also a valid one which I didn&#039;t fully recognize until your comment. Much appreciated!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment Luis. You&#8217;re hypothesis is also a valid one which I didn&#8217;t fully recognize until your comment. Much appreciated!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://anthropology.net/2009/06/01/discrepancy-between-cranial-mtdna-data-of-early-americans-or-sample-size/#comment-14176</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropology.net/?p=1968#comment-14176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi. Neither of the hypothesis is correct, IMO, but rather a fourth one:

Mongoloid traits were part of the variability at the peopling of Eastern Asia and were gradually becoming more and more common on what we can largely consider a random (but maybe also sociological) evolution. 

Many populations anyhow still display non-Mongoloid variability, and this is even more common in Native America, where actually Mongoloid traits are interwined in a complex network of many diverse ones, often non-Mongoloid. You just can&#039;t tell me that, for example the nose of Evo Morales (a very typical Native American nose, specially in the Andes) is &quot;Mongoloid&quot; - it is not. There are many other such non-Mongoloid traits still surviving in Native America and also in parts of East Asia, notably SE Asia. 

And, btw, very good point about the sample being awful. You can&#039;t draw any conclusions based on such minimalistic local sample.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi. Neither of the hypothesis is correct, IMO, but rather a fourth one:</p>
<p>Mongoloid traits were part of the variability at the peopling of Eastern Asia and were gradually becoming more and more common on what we can largely consider a random (but maybe also sociological) evolution. </p>
<p>Many populations anyhow still display non-Mongoloid variability, and this is even more common in Native America, where actually Mongoloid traits are interwined in a complex network of many diverse ones, often non-Mongoloid. You just can&#8217;t tell me that, for example the nose of Evo Morales (a very typical Native American nose, specially in the Andes) is &#8220;Mongoloid&#8221; &#8211; it is not. There are many other such non-Mongoloid traits still surviving in Native America and also in parts of East Asia, notably SE Asia. </p>
<p>And, btw, very good point about the sample being awful. You can&#8217;t draw any conclusions based on such minimalistic local sample.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

