3 ms·
This hypothesis was already falsified by DNA study long time ago. https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg200782 https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg200782
by zachguo 8y ago
This hypothesis was already falsified by DNA study long time ago.
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg200782 https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg200782
- pugworthy 8y agoGlad to see this. My first thought was, "Wouldn't DNA show something?"
- flukus 8y agoMy first thought too, but with small population breeding with a much larger surrounding population for 100 (20 year) generations could we really expect much roman DNA left? Maybe they're homeopathic Romans.
- kjeetgill 8y agoThey find Neanderthal DNA in people, is it so far fetched?
- flukus 8y agoGood point. I guess the prevalence of the genes in the existing population could explain it. If we took some Europeans and and left them to interbreed in South Africa for 2 millennium we'd probably find much less neanderthal DNA than in their now distant cousins in Europe. Or more likely is that my simple mathematical thought model breaks down with real world genetics. Any geneticists in the house?
- JetSpiegel 8y agoThis is referenced on the article. The title is pure clickbait.