<?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/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Anthropologists have uncovered what appears to be the first and only evidence of preserved flesh from an early pre-human ancestor nearly 2 million years old	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/anthropologists-have-uncovered-what-appears-to-be-the-first-and-only-evidence-of-preserved-flesh-from-an-early-pre-human-ancestor-nearly-2-million-years-old/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/anthropologists-have-uncovered-what-appears-to-be-the-first-and-only-evidence-of-preserved-flesh-from-an-early-pre-human-ancestor-nearly-2-million-years-old/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:41:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John H		</title>
		<link>https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/anthropologists-have-uncovered-what-appears-to-be-the-first-and-only-evidence-of-preserved-flesh-from-an-early-pre-human-ancestor-nearly-2-million-years-old/#comment-28318</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John H]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://behindtheblack.com/?p=12181#comment-28318</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Science done by a closed process means fewer eyes looking at data, and too many chances for errors to pass unnoticed,&quot; says Hawks. &quot;An open process has the chance of improving research by broadening it. We want stronger, clearer results, and we want to anticipate every important criticism. If a significant comparison can be added by people who have the right tools, why not get those people involved? If we stand a chance of finding those people by making the process more open, why not do it?&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Science done by a closed process means fewer eyes looking at data, and too many chances for errors to pass unnoticed,&#8221; says Hawks. &#8220;An open process has the chance of improving research by broadening it. We want stronger, clearer results, and we want to anticipate every important criticism. If a significant comparison can be added by people who have the right tools, why not get those people involved? If we stand a chance of finding those people by making the process more open, why not do it?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
