Pants Were Optional, 100,000 Years Ago

RobertB-DC writes "German scientists have used differences in the DNA of lice to determine when humans started wearing clothes. It seems lice are highly specialized -- head lice lay their eggs only on hair, while body lice hide theirs in the folds of clothing. Using the differences in the two species' DNA and a "standard" mutation rate, the scientists determined when clothing-specific lice (and by extention, clothes) came into existence. No comment, though, from Calvin Klein."

Comments

Re:For follow-up research

[spectral]

I'd be more interested in finding out whe dressing up became the norm. I don't see why what I look like matters as much as my ability to do the job and do it well.

How accurate is this really?

[gooru]

Using the differences in the two species' DNA and a "standard" mutation rate, the scientists determined when clothing-specific lice (and by extention, clothes) came into existence.

The article states that the "scientists" calculated one metronome per 30,000 years and thus concluded that body lice branched off from head lice about 72,000 years ago. What?!?!? How likely is it that mutations really occur on average without much of a deviation from the mean that regularly? For all we know, mutations occur in leaps and bounds. It might be very similar to those annoying studies of amortized cost in my algorithms classes. Sure, great, probability theory is great and all, but what about reality?