Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Marriage and Population Explosion

Expand Messages
  • elareau
    ... From: Michael Tong To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com Date: Saturday, January 01, 2000 12:35 AM Subject:
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Michael Tong <mtong@...>
      To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com <DebunkCreation@onelist.com>
      Date: Saturday, January 01, 2000 12:35 AM
      Subject: [DebunkCreation] Marriage and Population Explosion



      >The article even has a picture of the ideally attractive face as seen by plastic surgeon Stephen >Marquardt. I am not an anthropologist, but the features look Anglo. Add long blonde hair and I >think this is indeed the ideally attractive feminine face to men of all ethnic groups because they >were created to have this attraction. Notice that there is nothing vague about what I am saying.

      This "ideally attractive" face you mention is the construct of ONE person. As such I'd hardly consider it a universal ideal. So the features are caucasian. Big whoop. Personally, I find asian features attractive, and I know many other guys who do as well. Does this make asian features an "ideal"? I don't think so. Do you EVER talk about scientific evidence for your moronic claims, or is it all "I feel" and "I think"? Can you not distinguish between sociology, anthropology and the biology of evolution? What does ANY of your blithering have to do with evolution, pro or con? And why do you never respond to the specific criticisms addressed to your your posts? Exactly how far up your ass is your head? I just gotta know.

      Regards,

      Ed
      Visit my Wacky Genre TV website at:
      http://www.geocities.com/smelmo1/
    • vapid@uisreno.com
      M. Tong -- Karl Lembke is correct in saying that the challenger has to provide evidence in order to bring into question the current theory. However, the
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
        M. Tong -- Karl Lembke is correct in saying that the challenger has to
        provide evidence in order to bring into question the current theory.
        However, the evidence does not have to be overwhelming for the
        challenging theory to be taught alongside the current theory.

        David -- You are correct. But we are discussing the fact of evolution,
        not the theories that explain how it works. So far, I haven't read
        anything from you that suggests that you have an alternate explanation
        of the evidence.

        M. Tong -- All the challenger has to do is to ask some questions that
        the current theory can't answer convincingly and use his own theory to
        answer the questions. A stalemate is a victory for the challenger
        because then both theories would have to be taught until the weight of
        evidence enables one to prevail over the other. So let the challenge
        begin.

        David -- Which theory in particular are you attempting to disprove.
        Puncutated Equillibrium, or...?

        M. Tong -- Sol claims that sexual selection explains the attractive
        traits mentioned in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. How does sexual selection
        explain one ethnic group's attraction for another ethnic group's
        traits? The article mentions how men preferred women with large eyes.
        Of course, Asian women don't have large eyes. Michael Suttkus believes
        the study involved North American men. This is nebulous since every
        ethnic group is probably represented in North America. The article also
        implies that
        men have a preference for woman with blonde hair. Obviously, every
        ethnic group doesn't have blonde hair.

        David -- Nice long paragraph that doesn't say anything. What's your
        point?

        M. Tong -- The article even has a picture of the ideally attractive face
        as seen by plastic surgeon Stephen Marquardt. I am not an
        anthropologist, but the features look Anglo. Add long blonde hair and I
        think this is indeed the ideally attractive feminine face to men of all
        ethnic groups because they were created to have this attraction. Notice
        that there is nothing vague about what I am saying.

        David -- It is true that you are not being vague, however you are
        arguing from your conclusion. you have yet to demonstrate that humans
        were created in the first place. Stehpen Marquardt does not speak for
        everyone, by the way. Further, it is nice that you think all humans
        were created to think blonds are attractive, may we have some evidence
        of this, please?
        Blond hair is the rarest on Earth (unless you are in any
        Scandinavian country). Why would the beings create us to think that
        blond hair is the ultimate when so few have it?

        M. Tong -- In response to my question asking the reason for the high
        divorce rate, the evolutionists in this community seem to agree with me
        that humans do not have the instincts to stay with their spouses.
        However, no one said whether human children require two biological
        parents for optimum growth - physical and mental. I believe they do.
        Once again, I believe that the beings did not create humans with
        instincts to stay faithful to their spouses, but gave them strict
        marriage laws. That is why these laws often were part of a society's
        religion.

        David -- Great. You can believe whatever you want. I don't believe
        that, as I have never seen any evidence to suggest that what you say is
        true. Got any evidence?
        I will say that I believe that the beings you describe are morons.
        Why would they create us with insticnts in one direction and then give
        us laws that require opposite behavior?
        Can you please explain what this has to do with the gene pool
        changing over time?

        M. Tong -- A kiwi's wings may require minimal energy, but smaller wings
        or no wings would require less. The argument is that this will require
        another mutation. Since the crocodile looks the same as it did during
        the dinosaur days, this might be a long time. I believe the wings
        either has a function that is presently unknown to humans or is
        decorative. Not every feature on a car has a function. Remember the
        rear end spoiler.

        David -- Yes, evolution takes a long time. Have you ever seen a kiwi?
        Why do you think little stubs would be decorative? Have you observed
        their mating habits to determine if these stubby little wings are in any
        way effective in attracting a mate (or read the work of anyone who
        has)? Or are you just making something up to make it look like you are
        thinking? Are you suggesting that the kiwi has useless wings for
        asthetics?
        Your car analogy is a good one to a point. Rear spoilers do exist,
        but they have a function. On fast cars they help keep the rear tires on
        the ground. That's why Indy cars have them, in the front and in the
        back. Street cars have them because it makes the car "look faster."
        Most street legal cars can't attain the speeds where a spoiler would be
        useful. Of course, you are forgettting the fact that chicks dig the
        spoiler, man. Attracting a mate is a function.

        M. Tong -- Homo Erectus was around for more than the 1 million years
        that Michael Suttkus says. Try 2 million years. Wasn't there another
        bipedal Homo called Australopithecus anamensis that lived 4 million
        years ago? That's plenty of time for Homo to have evolved a better
        back. Wasn't Neandertal so muscular that they made Conan the Barbarian
        look like a wimp? Yet, the same back design supported them.

        David -- Obviously, the time span you mention is not enough time to
        develop a better back, or we would have one. How did you come to the
        conclusion that 4 million years is enough time for backs to have
        evolved?
        The life span of the hominids you mention was undoubtedly short, so
        probably back pain was rare if not nonexistent. Back pain increases
        with aging, sadly. Fitness also effects back pain; the more fit your
        abs the less back pain you feel. We have bad backs more now because we
        are becoming more and more sedentary. And not lifting with your legs,
        of course. (Safety first!)

        M. Tong -- Also, most marriages did occur after puberty, so the amount
        of body hair at
        that time of life would matter. Are you assuming that there is no
        relation
        between the amount of body hair at age X and the amount of body hair at
        age
        X +
        Y? Karl Lembke
        Only the body hair at puberty when girls got married matter. At this
        time the selection process
        has ended.

        David -- You are arguing against yourself here. You claim (with no
        evidence) that we were created to be unfaithful, and then claim that
        once married the selection process is over. If nobody is being
        faithful, surely the search for mates continues?

        M. Tong -- How much progress are we making? A way to alleviate much
        human suffering is to decrease the human population. This would
        eliminate environmental problems and increase the food supply. With
        modern contraceptives, this is possible, but is not being done. Could
        some of these beings be frustrating human efforts?

        David -- We are making a good deal of progress. There is a population
        explosion because medical science is keeping people alive longer,
        getting people through childhood healthier, and farmers are supplying
        most of the planet with more than enough food. The places where the
        people have little or nothing ot eat suffer for political reasons, not
        because of lack of food, by the way.
        There are religions that specifically forbid birth control. Let me
        guess: That idea was planted by the beings, right? And when the Pill
        came out, the beings were incensed because we were beginning to thwart
        their scheme.
        By the way, the West has been experiencing a shallow decline in
        birth rates since the introduction of the Pill.

        M. Tong -- A question for evolutionists? Why is there a human
        population explosion? Don't nature supposed to be balanced as long as
        the creatures in an ecosystem evolve together?

        David -- There is a population explosion because sex is fun, and in most
        developing nations it is the only form of recreation available yet they
        have little or no access to contraceptives. All organisms are evolving
        together. We are just changing the environment at an exponential rate
        (which isn't evolution, incidentally).

        I have a few questions for you. What evidence for the existence of
        beings do you have? Where are they from? How did they get here? What
        is their purpose, and how do you know?

        David Fisher
      • Michael Suttkus
        ... So, you have some evidence somewhere? When are you going to present it? All you have so far is idle speculation and some questions you don t like the
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
          "Michael Tong" <mtong@...> wrote:

          >Karl Lembke is correct in saying that the challenger
          >has to provide evidence in order to bring into
          >question the current theory. However, the evidence
          >does not have to be overwhelming for the challenging
          >theory to be taught alongside the current theory.

          So, you have some evidence somewhere? When are you
          going to present it? All you have so far is idle
          speculation and some questions you don't like the
          "official" answers to, but for which you can't present
          any reason why the answers are wrong.

          I always like to point out that the existence of the
          polar ice caps and snow on top of the mountains
          (closer to the sun, in COMPLETE contradiction to KNOWN
          physics!) is evidence that Norse Creationism is
          correct. So far, the Norse "theory" is better
          supported than yours.

          Please, present one prediction of your theory that we
          can check with experiment, or one piece of physical
          evidence that supports your theory.

          >All the challenger has to do is to ask some
          >questions that the current theory can't answer
          >convincingly and use his own theory to answer the
          >questions.

          Let's see.

          Evolution can't explain in detail how eukaryote cells
          evolved from prokaryote cells, so I proclaim that my
          theory that aliens from Gamma Syadris Minor created
          the cells by constructing them in a lab to just look
          like they were related. Thus, my theory needs to be
          taught.

          Sorry, this just doesn't work. You have to have
          independent evidence of your theory before it can even
          be considered. Further, the questions you are
          demanding that evolution answer are largely unrelated
          to evolution. You might as well demand that the laws
          of motion explain why the speed of light is a
          constant.

          >A stalemate is a victory for the challenger because
          >then both theories would have to be taught until the
          >weight of evidence enables one to prevail over the
          >other. So let the challenge begin.

          Sorry, the massive weight of evidence is in favor of
          evolution. We have a fossil record, genetics studies,
          biogeographics, functional mechanisms, direct
          observation of evolution, including speciation in the
          field and in the laboratory.

          You have, um, well, you expect evolution to deal with
          a few cultural issues that it isn't even supposed to
          cover. What exactly supports your theory? How do
          your "Beings" fit into the fossil record,
          biogeographics, genetics studies, and the fact that we
          have observed evolution repeatedly?

          >Sol claims that sexual selection explains the
          >attractive traits mentioned in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.
          >How does sexual selection explain one ethnic group's
          >attraction for another ethnic group's traits?

          Different people are attracted to different people.
          What's the point? Not every American finds Oriental
          women attractive. While there may be an attraction to
          the exotic (i.e., not local), why does it have to be
          anything more than just people wanting what they don't
          have locally? People of different ethnic groups than
          the one you live in simply stand out more. So what?

          >Michael Suttkus believes the study involved North
          >American men. This is nebulous since every ethnic
          >group is probably represented in North America.

          Cultural studies tend to work on subgroups, such as
          focusing on North American White Males. It makes data
          interpretation much easier.

          >The article also implies that men have a preference
          >for woman with blonde hair. Obviously, every ethnic
          >group doesn't have blonde hair.

          I've never been fond of blonde myself. So?
          Absolutely none of this does anything to support your
          notion that beauty is genetically determined. Please
          site some studies of genetics. Even twin studies
          would do!

          >The article even has a picture of the ideally
          >attractive face as seen by plastic surgeon Stephen
          >Marquardt. I am not an anthropologist, but the
          >features look Anglo. Add long blonde hair and I
          >think this is indeed the ideally attractive feminine
          >face to men of all ethnic groups because they were
          >created to have this attraction.

          But you said that Anglo men were attracted to Oriental
          women earlier. This contradicts this claim.
          Switching horses in mid stream again?

          In any event, it doesn't seem to be a big surprise to
          anyone but you that North American Caucasians find
          North American Caucasians attractive. So?

          >Notice that there is nothing vague about what I am
          >saying.

          Lots of stuff is vague. Created by whom? Where?
          When? How? Where did the fossils come from? Why do
          we just look like we evolved? Where is the direct
          evidence that they were created?

          >In response to my question asking the reason for the
          >high divorce rate, the evolutionists in this
          >community seem to agree with me that humans do not
          >have the instincts to stay with their spouses.

          Humans have instincts (especially as related to child
          rearing), but humans also have cultures and
          personalities that very frequently override those
          instincts, making them an imprecise indicator of
          action.

          >However, no one said whether human children require
          >two biological parents for optimum growth - physical
          >and mental. I believe they do.

          That's nice. Believe what you like. Many would argue
          that two parents is quite insufficient for "optimum
          growth" and that's why we need to return to the
          extended family concept. Many radical feminists argue
          (not very well, much waving of hands and little
          evidence, not unlike Michael Tong) that a single
          female parent is the best possible family structure,
          and that any other parental figures (read: evil men)
          hinder the child's growing independence.

          So, where is your evidence? Me, I think that extended
          families are much better, or that even a polygamist
          family would have advantages (I'm going to hear it for
          that one!). How can you say that two parents is
          optimum?

          >Once again, I believe that the beings did not create
          >humans with instincts to stay faithful to their
          >spouses, but gave them strict marriage laws.

          That's nice. Where's the evidence that the beings
          even exist, much less gave us anything? When did they
          give the laws? How did they manage to give such
          different laws to so many different cultures, ranging
          from the almost non-existent Celtic prohibitions on
          sex outside of marriage ("Don't have sex with someone
          other than your spouse while your spouse is there.")
          to Christian Medieval absolutist position ("Sex is for
          the purpose of having children, it is wrong to gain
          any pleasure from sex and good Christians consider it
          a duty.").

          >A kiwi's wings may require minimal energy, but
          >smaller wings or no wings would require less.

          So? Again, evolution isn't finished with anything.
          If a Kiwi mutated to lack wings, it probably would be
          slightly more successful than the others, but so what?
          It hasn't happened yet. No big deal.

          >The argument is that this will require another
          >mutation. Since the crocodile looks the same as it
          >did during the dinosaur days, this might be a long
          >time.

          Again, ignorance makes your arguments rather
          ineffective. Crocodiles have changed quite a bit
          since then, despite an overall similarity. Me, I miss
          the terrestrial, almost bipedal crocodiles we had for
          a while before the dinosaurs appeared. They would
          have been cool to see!

          >I believe the wings either has a function that is
          >presently unknown to humans or is decorative.

          The wing is so small it can't even more enough to pick
          up the feather's over it. You almost have to dissect
          the animal to find them. What possible function could
          it have?

          Of course, you still haven't explained how we have all
          these fossils in evolutionary order, or why genetics
          recapitulates that order.

          >Not every feature on a car has a function. Remember
          >the rear end spoiler.

          So? Then the wings don't have a function either and
          you are working against your own argument.

          >Homo Erectus was around for more than the 1 million
          >years that Michael Suttkus says. Try 2 million
          >years. Wasn't there another bipedal Homo called
          >Australopithecus anamensis that lived 4 million
          >years ago? That's plenty of time for Homo to have
          >evolved a better back.

          We do have better backs than they did. Their backs
          were even worse than ours for being bipedal. We are
          getting better, slowly, incrementally, completely in
          accordance with evolution.

          And there were three Australopithicids, A. afarensis,
          A. robsutus, and A. africanis, although it has been
          suggested recently that A. africanis and A. afarensis
          should be considered one species.

          >Wasn't Neandertal so muscular that they made Conan
          >the Barbarian look like a wimp?

          No, they were not as well muscled as modern people,
          due to nutrition. Please try to get your science from
          science books, not caveman movies.

          >Yet, the same back design supported them.

          Neandertals were the same species as us, so that's not
          any great surprise.

          >Also, most marriages did occur after puberty, so the
          >amount of body hair at that time of life would
          >matter.

          Huh? That's my whole point!

          >Are you assuming that there is no relation between
          >the amount of body hair at age X and the amount of
          >body hair at age X + Y? Karl Lembke Only the body
          >hair at puberty when girls got married matter. At
          >this time the selection process has ended.

          This doesn't make in sense at all in relation to what
          I said. My point was simply that less hair gave an
          appearance of youthfulness, while puberty had
          alternate indicators (menstruation, breast size, and
          hip development).

          >>Sure you can. We fight human suffering all the
          >>time. If your theory is correct, we are therefore
          >>fighting those beings, and we don't even need to
          >>believe in your completely unsupported theory.

          >How much progress are we making? A way to alleviate
          >much human suffering is to decrease the human
          >population. This would eliminate environmental
          >problems and increase the food supply. With modern
          >contraceptives, this is possible, but is not being
          >done. Could some of these beings be frustrating
          >human efforts?

          Sure. Probably beings from Alpha centauri. Or the
          Norse gods. Alternately, it could just be human
          nature, or the Catholic Church.

          Meanwhile, human suffering is going down. Smallpox
          has been eliminated, polio will be gone within two
          years. Scarlet fever is no longer a real threat.
          Leprosy is practically unheard of. So many of the
          traditional terrors of the human condition are
          vanishing into memory. Your beings aren't doing a
          good job these days.

          >A question for evolutionists? Why is there a human
          >population explosion? Don't nature supposed to be
          >balanced as long as the creatures in an ecosystem
          >evolve together?

          Please, please, PLEASE make a minimal effort to
          understand science.

          There is no inherent balance in nature. Nature
          unbalances itself constantly. Things go extinct as a
          result. Other things take over. No big deal. In
          nature, no species is necessary or irreplaceable.


          =====
          "Learning without thought is labor lost;
          thought without learning is perilous."
          -Confucius
          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
          http://messenger.yahoo.com
        • Cardigan
          ... Only loud yells of agreement! Not the brand of polygamy practiced by the Mormons and other sexist groups, however. VMW *******************************
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
            At 11:09 AM 01/01/2000 -0800, you wrote:
            >From: Michael Suttkus <suttkus@...>
            >So, where is your evidence? Me, I think that extended
            >families are much better, or that even a polygamist
            >family would have advantages (I'm going to hear it for
            >that one!).

            Only loud yells of agreement!
            Not the brand of polygamy practiced by the Mormons and other sexist
            groups, however.

            VMW


            *******************************
            Vincent M. Wales, founder
            Freethought Society of Northern Utah
            PO Box 9104
            Ogden, UT 84409
            801-334-8376
            http://www.bee.net/cardigan/FSNU/
            cardigan@...
          • Liz Craig
            ... However, the evidence does not have to be overwhelming for the challenging theory to be taught alongside the current theory. All the challenger has
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
              --- Michael Tong <mtong@...> wrote:
              <snip>However, the evidence does not have to be
              overwhelming for the challenging theory to be taught
              alongside the current theory. All the challenger has
              to do is to ask some questions that the current theory
              can't answer convincingly and use his own theory to
              answer the questions. A stalemate is a victory for the
              challenger because then both theories would have
              to be taught until the weight of evidence enables one
              to prevail over the other. So let the challenge begin.

              No, this isn't the way it works. There are plenty of
              questions science can't answer right now. Those are
              the areas which are richest for researchers. Science
              is still the way to find the answers. If we teach
              superstition or mere speculation, we are misleading
              people. Also, how would we decide which "alternative
              answers" (unsupported by compelling evidence) to
              teach?

              <snip>
              The article mentions
              how men preferred women with large eyes. Add long
              blonde hair and I
              think this is indeed the ideally attractive feminine
              face to men of all ethnic
              groups because they were created to have this
              attraction.

              What the hell does this fixation with female
              attractiveness to males have to do with evolution?



              =====
              "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."--Gandhi
              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
              http://messenger.yahoo.com
            • lflank@xx.xxx
              ... Tong, will you PLEASE go to a fucking library and learn the damn difference between cultural evolution and biological evolution before posting any more
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
                On 31 Dec 99, at 21:34, Michael Tong wrote:

                > Karl Lembke is correct in saying that the challenger has to provide
                > evidence in order to bring into question the current theory.


                Tong, will you PLEASE go to a fucking library and learn the damn
                difference between "cultural evolution" and "biological evolution"
                before posting any more of your silly-ass drivel here?

                Jesus H Christ. . . .



                =======================================================
                Lenny Flank
                "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                Check out my reptile photos:
                http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                Creation "Science" Debunked:
                http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
              • Andy
                ... Homo sapiens. Homo neanderthalensis. Same genus. Different species. Andy
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
                  Michael Suttkus:

                  >Neandertals were the same species as us, so that's not
                  >any great surprise.

                  Homo sapiens. Homo neanderthalensis. Same genus. Different species.

                  Andy
                • Michael Suttkus
                  ... Actually, I m not sure what the problem is there. I mean, sure they don t let women have more than one husband, but can you imagine any woman really
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 1, 2000
                    Cardigan <cardigan@...> wrote:

                    >From: Michael Suttkus <suttkus@...>
                    >>Me, I think that extended families are much better,
                    >>or that even a polygamist family would have
                    >>advantages (I'm going to hear it for that one!).

                    >Only loud yells of agreement!
                    >Not the brand of polygamy practiced by the Mormons
                    >and other sexist groups, however.

                    Actually, I'm not sure what the problem is there. I
                    mean, sure they don't let women have more than one
                    husband, but can you imagine any woman really wanting
                    more than one man around the house? The general
                    consensus amongst the women I know is that having one
                    man is already annoying enough.

                    :-)

                    Of course the question of whether it would be moral or
                    not is completely separate from the question of
                    whether it would have advantages.

                    Real shame about that.


                    =====
                    "Learning without thought is labor lost;
                    thought without learning is perilous."
                    -Confucius
                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
                    http://messenger.yahoo.com
                  • Michael Suttkus
                    ... While I m never up to date on anthropology, the last time I checked it was Homo sapiens sapiens vs. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, two subspecies of the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 2, 2000
                      Andy <andyj@...> wrote:

                      >Michael Suttkus:

                      >>Neandertals were the same species as us, so that's
                      >>not any great surprise.

                      >Homo sapiens. Homo neanderthalensis. Same genus.
                      >Different species.

                      While I'm never up to date on anthropology, the last
                      time I checked it was Homo sapiens sapiens vs. Homo
                      sapiens neanderthalensis, two subspecies of the same
                      species, but there was debate.


                      =====
                      "Learning without thought is labor lost;
                      thought without learning is perilous."
                      -Confucius
                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
                      http://messenger.yahoo.com
                    • Andy
                      ... From: Michael Suttkus [SMTP:suttkus@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 9:37 AM To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com Subject: [DebunkCreation] re: Marriage
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 2, 2000
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Michael Suttkus [SMTP:suttkus@...]
                        Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 9:37 AM
                        To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com
                        Subject: [DebunkCreation] re: Marriage and Population Explosion

                        From: Michael Suttkus <suttkus@...>

                        Andy <andyj@...> wrote:

                        >Michael Suttkus:

                        >>Neandertals were the same species as us, so that's
                        >>not any great surprise.

                        >Homo sapiens. Homo neanderthalensis. Same genus.
                        >Different species.

                        <While I'm never up to date on anthropology, the last
                        time I checked it was Homo sapiens sapiens vs. Homo
                        sapiens neanderthalensis, two subspecies of the same
                        species, but there was debate.>

                        So I've heard (thanks Jim and Liz). Now that it's come up,
                        I seem to remember about a year ago a brief news flash
                        to the effect that someone had discovered evidence that
                        the two interbred and that we carry neandertal genes to this
                        day (as some anthropologists had posited for years). I never
                        found the follow-up. Time to do a little digging.
                        In the meantime, I retract my comment.

                        Andy


                        =====
                        "Learning without thought is labor lost;
                        thought without learning is perilous."
                        -Confucius
                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
                        http://messenger.yahoo.com
                      • lflank@xx.xxx
                        ... Nope---in fact some genetic evidence was found showing Neandertals to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 2, 2000
                          On 2 Jan 00, at 10:06, Andy wrote:

                          > I seem to remember about a year ago a brief news flash
                          > to the effect that someone had discovered evidence that
                          > the two interbred and that we carry neandertal genes to this
                          > day (as some anthropologists had posited for years).


                          Nope---in fact some genetic evidence was found showing
                          Neandertals to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis.



                          =======================================================
                          Lenny Flank
                          "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

                          Check out my reptile photos:
                          http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
                          Creation "Science" Debunked:
                          http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437
                        • spencer james
                          ... From: lflank@ij.net To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com Sent: January 2, 2000 6:57:41 PM GMT Subject: RE: [DebunkCreation] re: Marriage and Population Explosion
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 2, 2000
                            ------Original Message------
                            From: lflank@...
                            To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com
                            Sent: January 2, 2000 6:57:41 PM GMT
                            Subject: RE: [DebunkCreation] re: Marriage and Population Explosion


                            From: lflank@...

                            On 2 Jan 00, at 10:06, Andy wrote:

                            > I seem to remember about a year ago a brief news flash
                            > to the effect that someone had discovered evidence that
                            > the two interbred and that we carry neandertal genes to this
                            > day (as some anthropologists had posited for years).


                            (Lenny)Nope---in fact some genetic evidence was found showing
                            Neandertals to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis.


                            Lenny Flank


                            ---------SPENCER----I recall reading that there is a group of tribal people
                            in one of the Central Asia Republics that have been thought to have
                            possibly Neandertal genes.
                            -----Also, several years ago, there was a popular novel, and i forget the
                            name, something like "The Flesh Eaters" or whatever. It was based upon a
                            diary of a middle ages Muslim who had traveled up and stayed with the
                            Vikings. He describes raids by and upon a group of people who are described
                            as being very different. Some had speculated that such may have been some
                            surviving Neandertals or perhaps some surviving clan with some Neandertal
                            genes.
                            -----However, it is my understanding that it is believed that there were no
                            survivors of a male Neandertal ---female Sapiens cross because of
                            impossibility of delivering the oversized fetal head through the Sapien
                            birth canal. Also, I understand that although feasible the survivors of a
                            male Sapiens and female Neandertal are thought to be very rare. In summary,
                            as I understanding the situation, it is thought that the cross breeding of
                            the two groups was very rare considering that they both lived in the same
                            areas for thousands of years.


                            Respectfully submitted,


                            Spencer James

                            -----------------------------------------------
                            FREE! The World's Best Email Address @...
                            Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
                          • James L. Hartley
                            Um, Eaters of the Dead , a fiction novel by Michael Crichton in turn based on the old legend Beowulf, with the interesting plot turn of adding
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jan 3, 2000
                              Um, "Eaters of the Dead", a fiction novel by Michael Crichton in turn based
                              on the old legend Beowulf, with the interesting plot turn of adding
                              Neanderthal-type creatures. Good book, totally fiction though.

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: spencer james [SMTP:benign1@...]
                              Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:58 AM
                              To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com
                              Subject: [DebunkCreation] RE: RE: re: Marriage and Population Explosion

                              From: spencer james <benign1@...>

                              ------Original Message------
                              From: lflank@...
                              To: DebunkCreation@onelist.com
                              Sent: January 2, 2000 6:57:41 PM GMT
                              Subject: RE: [DebunkCreation] re: Marriage and Population Explosion


                              From: lflank@...

                              On 2 Jan 00, at 10:06, Andy wrote:

                              > I seem to remember about a year ago a brief news flash
                              > to the effect that someone had discovered evidence that
                              > the two interbred and that we carry neandertal genes to this
                              > day (as some anthropologists had posited for years).


                              (Lenny)Nope---in fact some genetic evidence was found showing
                              Neandertals to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis.


                              Lenny Flank


                              ---------SPENCER----I recall reading that there is a group of tribal people
                              in one of the Central Asia Republics that have been thought to have
                              possibly Neandertal genes.
                              -----Also, several years ago, there was a popular novel, and i forget the
                              name, something like "The Flesh Eaters" or whatever. It was based upon a
                              diary of a middle ages Muslim who had traveled up and stayed with the
                              Vikings. He describes raids by and upon a group of people who are
                              described
                              as being very different. Some had speculated that such may have been some
                              surviving Neandertals or perhaps some surviving clan with some Neandertal
                              genes.
                              -----However, it is my understanding that it is believed that there were no
                              survivors of a male Neandertal ---female Sapiens cross because of
                              impossibility of delivering the oversized fetal head through the Sapien
                              birth canal. Also, I understand that although feasible the survivors of a
                              male Sapiens and female Neandertal are thought to be very rare. In
                              summary,
                              as I understanding the situation, it is thought that the cross breeding of
                              the two groups was very rare considering that they both lived in the same
                              areas for thousands of years.


                              Respectfully submitted,


                              Spencer James

                              -----------------------------------------------
                              FREE! The World's Best Email Address @...
                              Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
                            • Elissa Feit
                              ... Some recent fossil findings in the Iberian penninsula of humans with both h.sapiens and neanderthal characteristics from around 25,000 years ago, which is
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jan 4, 2000
                                lflank@... wrote:

                                > From: lflank@...
                                >
                                > On 2 Jan 00, at 10:06, Andy wrote:
                                >
                                > > I seem to remember about a year ago a brief news flash
                                > > to the effect that someone had discovered evidence that
                                > > the two interbred and that we carry neandertal genes to this
                                > > day (as some anthropologists had posited for years).
                                >
                                > Nope---in fact some genetic evidence was found showing
                                > Neandertals to be a separate species, H. neandertalensis.

                                Some recent fossil findings in the Iberian penninsula of
                                humans with both h.sapiens and neanderthal characteristics
                                from around 25,000 years ago, which is a couple of thousand
                                years after the neaderthals died out.

                                Heheh. I saw it on some TV show, and my 5th search engine
                                finally brought this up:

                                http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/skeleton990416.html


                                - elissa@...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.