Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!sbishop
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: We've got Eve.  Now what about Adam?
Message-ID: <1990Dec11.105612.2009@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 15:56:12 GMT
References: <15461@cs.utexas.edu> <0bLsVz600Vpb0ftUp_@andrew.cmu.edu> <15566@cs.utexas.edu> <1110@ai.cs.utexas.edu> <22079@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: University Computing Services, Wright State University
Lines: 14

In article <22079@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, davisd@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (David M. Davis - Public Safety) writes:
> 
>    I recall reading about a problem with this study. I can't recall what the
> problem was. If it was in the analysis or in the data but there was a 
> problem. It is an interesting theory, (I saw the NOVA that talked about it.)
> 
> davisd@ucs.orst.edu

The best book on the topic is _The Search for Eve_.  It covers all the
arguments on the subject very well.  BTW, the main complaint is that using
The Eve Theory, all other lines of humans around the world at that time 
are considered to have gone extinct.  This doesn't do well with the 'bone'
scientists since they see a definite pattern with the fossil bones through
out that period and later on as to inheritance of certain characteristics.