This is a pretty well done paper. I think we have to be careful though to not be hypocritical when we defend our side of the argument. From what I could tell (based on a quick google search), this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. If I missed this, I'm sorry.

I would be interested to hear what some of the scientific community has to say about the methods and the markers chosen. I'm not an expert in genetics, but I find the use of mitochondrial DNA markers to be a little interesting when it's known that mitochondrial DNA is more highly conserved than nuclear DNA from generation to generation. This has the potential to influence the results in our favor.

Like I said, I think this generally supports our argument, but we should be careful to consider it gospel, lest we end up no better than the people who assume the Rodda paper is fact without questioning it.

[ Show Entire Thread ]