🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
(Edwin L Turner) writes:

     All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
     female ancestor on their purely maternal line....

I wonder why Creationists haven't picked up on this.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi

In article <1248@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
> (Edwin L Turner) writes:
> 
>      All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
>      female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
> 
A small correction:  this refers ONLY to mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA,
and so for the vast majority of the population says nothing about a single
common female ancestor.  Nor does it imply a population bottleneck 200,000
years ago.  It seems to me this "Eve" business has been really messed up
by the media.  (1) She's the "eve" for mitochondria only.  (2) It makes
no statement about the human population because 200,000 years is *tiny*
relative to the tempo and mode of primate mitochondrial evolution.  [See
the paper by Wesley Brown et al., J. of Molecular Evolution, 18:225-239
1982, "Mitochondrial DNA sequences of Primates: Tempo and Mode of 
Evolution"]

Note that the other women alive at the time could have left mitochondria
in their descendants who did not have female offspring as recently as
2 generations ago, thus making it look as though there is an "Eve".  
I'd suggest those interested in this topic who want a more intelligent
handling of the topic see the September/October issue of The Sciences,
pp. 30-37.  Note, though, that even The Sciences blew it: the cover
says "Who was the mother of all mankind?".  Amazingly fuzzy thinking!
I am quite amazed at the degree of misinformation this work has caused.

By the way, "molecular clock" fans:  this may be one of the few cases
where a molecular clock has been claimed and there is a clear cut case
which supports the argument.  For those non-biologists reading this,
the "molecular clock" was proposed by Allan Wilson in a review in
the Annual Review of Biochemistry in 1977.  The argument goes that the
rate at which base changes occur ("mutation") happens, on average,
regularly over long periods of time.  If you can determine the "tick"
of the clock, you can do phylogenetic work to determine the divergence
time of two species from sequence comparison alone.  

This idea has so many holes in it I must admit I do not understand the
apparent general acceptance of the idea.

dan davison/t-10 ms k710/theoretical biology/los alamos national lab/
los alamos, nm 87545/dd@lanl.gov/...cmcl2!lanl!dd/dd@lanl.uucp

In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) writes:
>
>In 1983 there was a fairly extensive discussion of the above referenced
>topic started by an article I posted which I reproduce, in part, below:
>
>-All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common female
>-ancestor on their purely maternal line.  In other words, tracing back to
>-one's mother's mother's mother's ... mother will bring everyone back to a
>-single individual woman.  She is estimated to have lived between 50,000 and
>-500,000 years ago.
>-
[Material left out]
>...  It
>remains true that the result suggests that our species has had at least one
>rather close brush with extinction, direct or statistical.

Just because we have common ancestors does not mean that we have had a
"close brush with extinction".  Not even close.  No more so than any other
organism on this planet.

Notice that the time from divergence was measured by the accumulation of
mutations.  It is this accumulation (among other factors) that keep the
genetic diversity of the species.  Also, remember that the size of the
human mitochondrial DNA is about 65K bases, while the entire genome is
about 3 BILLION (US Billion, really 1000 Million) bases.

While the EVE model is an interesting 'fact' it is hardly the stuff to
force us to rethink human evolution.  I teach it in my General Genetics
and Population Genetics classes to drive home the point of the extreme
difficulty in understanding MACRO evolution by completely understanding
MICRO evolution.
-- 
Ted H. Emigh, Dept. Genetics and Statistics, NCSU, Raleigh, NC
uucp:	mcnc!ncsuvx!ncsugn!emigh	internet:  emigh%ncsugn.ncsu.edu
BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCC                  @ncsuvx.ncsu.edu:emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu

In article <1248@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
> (Edwin L Turner) writes:
> 
>      All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
>      female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
> 
> I wonder why Creationists haven't picked up on this.

They will, once they've explained away the fact that "Eve" lived at
least 50,000 years ago; kinda goes against the biblical version.

Also, bear in mind that "Eve" wasn't *the* common ancestor, she was
*a* common ancestor.  All they know is that we can all claim direct
descendancy from her somewhere in our past.

I remember something about there being a very small population (as few
as six) of women from whom we all come.  "Eve" was the only one of this
group who we *all* can list in our ancestry.

-- 
		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.

In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner) writes:
>remains true that the result suggests that our species has had at least one
>rather close brush with extinction, direct or statistical.

Rather than a close brush with extinction, this suggests to me support for
either evolutionary or creationist beginnings (whichever you subscribe to).

Consider that there must be a beginning to the line for both scenarios, and
the 'single-ancestor' seems to be a requirement.

-- 
George Lehmann,  ...!uunet!apctrc!zgel05
Amoco Production Co., PO BOX 3385, Tulsa, Ok  74102  ph:918-660-4066
Standard Disclaimer: Contents are my responsibility, not AMOCO's.

> dd@beta.UUCP (Dan Davison)
>> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
>>      All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
>>      female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
> A small correction:  this refers ONLY to mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA,
> and so for the vast majority of the population says nothing about a single
> common female ancestor.

How does the fact that mitochondrial DNA was used in this evaluation
escape the conclusion of a single common female ancestor (SCFA for
short)?  Mitochondrial DNA comes exclusively from the female parent, and
if there was a single common original human mitochondrial DNA, it must
(barring unusually bizarre co-incidences) have come from a single female
at some point in time.  The evidence supports a single common ancestral
mitochondrial DNA, hence an SCFA.

> Nor does it imply a population bottleneck 200,000 years ago.

True.  There may have been any number of male ancestors, and the fact
that only one maternal line survived doesn't mean that it was the only
maternal line *at* *that* *time*.

> Note that the other women alive at the time could have left mitochondria
> in their descendants who did not have female offspring as recently as
> 2 generations ago, thus making it look as though there is an "Eve".  

Not only does it *look* as if there is an "Eve", there *IS* an "Eve" in
the sense meant -- that is, all *surviving* humans have an SCFA.  The
point is that the lines of descent of Eve's "competitors" may have died
out only recently, but they *DID* die out.  (Note that this Eve isn't
much like the biblical Eve, which may explain why creationists don't try
to exploit the cute naming of this hypothetical individual.)

> Note, though, that even The Sciences blew it: the cover
> says "Who was the mother of all mankind?".  Amazingly fuzzy thinking!
> I am quite amazed at the degree of misinformation this work has caused.

Um.... why is this "fuzzy thinking"?  In the sense meant, she *would* be
the mother of all mankind.  In the same sense that, say, your maternal
grandmother is the "mother of" you, your siblings, and your maternal
cousins.  It doesn't mean that she was the only female ancestor of yours
in that generation, just that she is a common one to the group of people
in question.

--
"What are we going to do?"
"S-s-s-simple," said Inigo after a while.
"Are you frightened too?" asked Fezzik in the darkness.
"Not... remotely," Inigo said with great care.  "And before, I meant to
say 'easy';  I don't know how the 's-s-s-s' got in there."

                --- from the book The Princess Bride by William Goldman

In article <1248@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
> (Edwin L Turner) writes:
> 
>      All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
>      female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
> 
> I wonder why Creationists haven't picked up on this.
> Rahul Dhesi         

Two reasons why Creationists haven't picked up on it:

	1. It was discussed in the scientific literature on evolution,
and if you reject evolution, you don't tend to keep up with the 
literature.
	2.  "Eve," so called, is far too old.  She is anywhere from
50,000 to 500,000 years old, and as everyone knows, the world was
created in 6 days and nights, oh, about 5000 years ago  (I'm not
whether Bishop Usher's calculations agree with the Jewish calendar,
which would put the Earth's age at 5248 years plus 4 1/2 weeks.)

-- 
	        Craig Werner   (future MD/PhD, 3 years down, 4 to go)
	     werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
                      "If I don't see you soon, I'll see you later."

I'm confused here.  Would anyone have suggested that humans evoloved more
than once?  As in there were several different times and different
places on the planet where humans arose from other primate forms.
It seems to me that an event as momentous as that in evolution would have
occured only once.  

I think far more about molecules than I do about organisms (they're too
complicated), but it seems obvious to me that if we evolved only once, we
have one common ancestor.

-tony
Molecular etc. Biology
Boulder, Co. 80303=0347

In article <1248@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
<In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
<(Edwin L Turner) writes:
<
<     All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
<     female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
<
<I wonder why Creationists haven't picked up on this.

Easy, the same evidence also shows that this common ancestor was too far back
to fit in with the Bible. And this (and similar) evidence also shows "recent"
common ancestors with gorillas (and very slightly les recent with chiimps).

As I recall, human DNA is similar enough to gorilla that a hybrid would
quite likely be viable! Of course, no one is going to try it. It is a real
can of worms ethically....

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

I guess I'm just feeling exceptionally stupid this morning, but there
seems to be a gaping hole in this argument somewhere.  Somebody
enlighten me.

Years ago, I learned that just by the propagation of the number of
needed ancestors, versus the diminishing size of the human species as
you go backward in time, there is a point not that far back where
everybody now is the descendent of everybody then who left
descendents.

Now we discover, after this argument is well known, that there is
something that everyone inherits only from their mother, and zappo,
all but one of the women back then suddenly have no living
descendents?  I don't believe it.

How about, instead, that by the usual same set of circumstances that
eventually extinguishes family names, all but one of the lines
somewhere passes only through the male side.

So, sure, there's some lady back then who is mother to us all in the
sense that the mothers of everyone living today can trace their
ancestry back entirely on the maternal side to her, but this doesn't
seem to be too big of a surprise; we knew it all along.  This doesn't
mean that the other ladies of that era don't also have lots of
descendants, male and female, alive today, though.  Just remember that
tracing ones ancestry back entirely through the female side represents
a vanishingly small portion of all your ancestors as you go further
back in time.

Look at it another way.  If tomorrow we discover something which is
inherited entirely from the father (an inclusion from the sperm coat,
for example ;-), we will immediately discover that there was also an
"Adam".  Doesn't mean all the other fellows didn't leave descendents,
though, just that somewhere along the way they were all daughters.

Does this make sense, or is it just low blood sugar at work?

Kent, the man from xanth.

In article <1367@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes:
>
>	2.  "Eve," so called, is far too old.  She is anywhere from
>50,000 to 500,000 years old, and as everyone knows, the world was
>created in 6 days and nights, oh, about 5000 years ago  (I'm not
>whether Bishop Usher's calculations agree with the Jewish calendar,
>which would put the Earth's age at 5248 years plus 4 1/2 weeks.)

Not so, my esteemed Mr. Werner.  I don't have a Bible handy for an 
exact quote, but the verse which says something like: "The earth was 
without form and void" could be *equally* *as* *well* translated
from the original Hebrew as "The earth became a waste and a desolation."
This comes right before the bit about the world being created in 6 days
and nights, implying that God *RE*created the world in 6 days and nights 
after wiping out an older failed model.  Everybody knows the earth is
older than 5248 years.  

People who believe in evolution don't keep up with creationism.  

-- 
Laura Watson             ...ihnp4!ddsw1!dino

Contentment is the smother of invention.  

In article <548@bucket.UUCP>, leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> In article <1248@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> <In article <894@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
> <(Edwin L Turner) writes:
> <
> <     All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common
> <     female ancestor on their purely maternal line....
> 
> As I recall, human DNA is similar enough to gorilla that a hybrid would
> quite likely be viable! Of course, no one is going to try it. It is a real
> can of worms ethically....
> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
> CIS: [70465,203]


Amazingly,  I read a short article in the newspaper some time ago
(which I'm trying to recall from memory, so please bear with some vagueness)
about some researchers in Italy who had been experimenting with fertilization
of human eggs with either gorila or chimp sperm (or the other way around).

They were able to cause fertilization, as evidenced by the start of cell
division,  but only for a very short time (on the order of days), so there
was never anything resembling an embryo.  After someone revealed to the press
the nature of the experimentation,  it was called off.  However,  this does
raise some very critical ethical questions.  At the present rate of advances
in genetic engineering, many of the ethical questions need answers quickly.

The scariest part of the article was a quote from one of the researchers
who said something to the effect of:  (paraphrasing) "Just think!
We could create a race of human/ape hybrids that we could use for manual
labor!"

The article concluded with the following food for thought (perhaps far-fetched;
perhaps not):  To what extent would/should human civil rights be "granted"
to such a human/ape hybrid?  As of now,  there is a relatively clear distinctionmade between
humans (with rights, at least ideally), and all other animal forms, who have
essentially no rights.    As we learn more about ape and porpoise intelligence,
we may decide we are in need of animal rights in some cases.    Even if apes
never have rights,  what about a half-ape/half human?  Do they get a sub-set
of human rights?  What about the inevitable combinations like 3/4 human-1/4 ape
or other mixes of human/ape genes.  How about voting rights (1/2 vote for
a half-human?)  What about the exceptional half-human that's more intelligent
than some full-human?

The cans of worms that this would create are incredible.  Barring some sort
of control or legislation over genetic experimentation,  we are bound to see
something shocking occur within 10 years. Of course,  how to control
things (ie., legislate ethics) is also a difficult question.  Frankly,
I don't expect to see anything happen in this area until something dramatic
happens, causing some amount of public outcry.

Bob Schleicher
ihlpl!rs55611

(Perhaps someone who remembers the article more clearly can elaborate.
The article I read was in the Chicago Tribune quite a few months ago.)

	Having seen some of the technical references, let me address what
the scientific point that is trying to be made.

	The speciation in question is 

		Homo sapiens sapiens
	from	Homo sapiens archaic (extinct, poss. several species)

	The postulate is that if sapiens developed as a separate subspecies
and then interbred with existing archaic sapiens, there would be different
lines of maternal descent.  If instead, modern sapiens supplanted archaic 
sapiens, then one would be able to account for all Restriction Fragment
Length Polymorphisms by means of a single tree.  As it happens, the
latter can be done, so that Homo sapiens sapiens (which is we) spread
throughout the world by migration and supplantation rather than outbreeding
with indigenous populations.
-- 
	        Craig Werner   (future MD/PhD, 3 years down, 4 to go)
	     werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
                     "Well that's my story, not that it matters..."

In article <548@bucket.UUCP>, leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> As I recall, human DNA is similar enough to gorilla that a hybrid would
> quite likely be viable! Of course, no one is going to try it. It is a real
> can of worms ethically....

I don't believe this is correct, but of course, i could be wrong.  I remember
that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees all seem to be about equidistant from
some common ancestor on the evolutionary tree--that gorillas are as closely
related to man as they are to chimpanzees; ditto with chimps.

I do recall reading that human hemoglobin is close enough to gorilla
hemoglobin (the difference is one amino acid in one protein chain) that it is
virtually certain that some human has the equivalent of gorilla hemoglobin in
his veins.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

In article <2911@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, rs55611@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Robert E. Schleicher) writes:
> In article <548@bucket.UUCP>, leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> > 
> > As I recall, human DNA is similar enough to gorilla that a hybrid would
> > quite likely be viable! Of course, no one is going to try it. It is a real
> > can of worms ethically....
> > 
> Amazingly,  I read a short article in the newspaper some time ago
> (which I'm trying to recall from memory, so please bear with some vagueness)
> about some researchers in Italy who had been experimenting with fertilization
> of human eggs with either gorila or chimp sperm (or the other way around).
  ......................
> The scariest part of the article was a quote from one of the researchers
> who said something to the effect of:  (paraphrasing) "Just think!
   .......................
> The article concluded with the following food for thought (perhaps far-fetched;
    ..............................
> a half-human?)  What about the exceptional half-human that's more intelligent
> than some full-human?
      ...........................
> (Perhaps someone who remembers the article more clearly can elaborate.
> The article I read was in the Chicago Tribune quite a few months ago.)


Mr. Schleicher
I think your memory of the newspaper article is extremely vivid.
   
This topic, with all tangent offshoots, ranging from learned 
discussions of crossbreeding chains (A -> B ... -> P, but not P -> A),
to blazing issues of human rights, women's rights, morality and
in general religions, filled the net for over a month just after
the article was published.
Perhaps someone has these discussions archived and would send
a digestified or raw tape of them to Mr. Schleicher. I hope the net 
audience is not so transient that the discussion repeats the same 
material.

Hello,

I suspect that the matter of voting is already solved in the US by a
clause in the constitution - something to the effect that 5/8 of a
vote is assigned to "others".
					Eric

In article <10107@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
> 
> I remember
> that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees all seem to be about equidistant from
> some common ancestor on the evolutionary tree--that gorillas are as closely
> related to man as they are to chimpanzees; ditto with chimps.
> 

This was a matter of contention until recent comparisions of human, chimp, and
gorilla DNA showed that gorillas were closer, as in the diagram below.  If I
remember correctly, the point where the gorilla/human ancestor split from
chimps is not very far from the point where gorilla and human lines split.


		      ------- chimps
		      | 
		-------  ---- gorillas
		      |  |
		      ----
			 |
			 ---- humans

					 Robert Reimann.

In article <257@ddsw1.UUCP> dino@ddsw1.UUCP (Laura Watson) writes:
> the [Bible] verse which says something like: "The earth was 
>without form and void" could be *equally* *as* *well* translated
>from the original Hebrew as "The earth became a waste and a desolation."
>This comes right before the bit about the world being created in 6 days
>and nights, implying that God *RE*created the world in 6 days and nights 
>after wiping out an older failed model.  Everybody knows the earth is
>older than 5248 years.  

Ms. Watson seems to be implying that the Earth was laid waste 5,248
years ago.  If Ms. Watson doesn't have any scientific evidence to
support this conclusion, I suggest she go and sulk in the corner.
I'm sorry that science has left Ms. Watson behind, but I wish she
would quit trying to drag others back with her.

>People who believe in evolution don't keep up with creationism.

This is because we know better than to waste our time on it.

However, lest Ms. Watson accuse me of being closed-minded, I will
state that I welcome any argument she has to put forth that is based on
_scientific_ principles.  The requirements are:

	- Quotes and references only from generally recognized
	  scientific sources.  The Holy Bible is therefore
	  excluded.  Data from experiments you conduct yourself
	  is allowed.

	- Any theory proposed must be testable.  I.e., if it is
	  false there must be a way to prove that it's false.
	  In addition, the theory must pass such tests as are
	  put to it.

	- Assertions made without supporting evidence are not allowed.
	  Evidence must come from sources as mentioned above.

	- For the theory to gain acceptance, it must make better
	  predictions (more often correct) than the old accepted
	  theory, or make equally good predictions but be much simpler.

I am well aware that Ms. Watson will think these requirements unfair,
but I don't see why she feels that so-called "creation science" should
be the only theory exempt from them.
-- 
 /''`\   DISCLAIMER: Ideas should not be        Andre Guirard
([]-[])     held responsible for the		ihnp4!mmm!cipher
 \ o /      people who believe in them.		Ombro de Sro. Ed.
  `-'

> rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann)
> If I
> remember correctly, the point where the gorilla/human ancestor split from
> chimps is not very far from the point where gorilla and human lines split.
> 
> 		      ------- chimps
> 		      | 
> 		-------  ---- gorillas
> 		      |  |
> 		      ----
> 			 |
> 			 ---- humans

Um.  I don't think this is correct.  In the "Eve" episode of Nova last
year, the diagram was resolved by molecular similarity studies in the
opposite way (that is, "chimps" and "gorillas" should be exchanged in
the above diagram).

If *I'm* remembering the program correctly, the human-chimp common
ancestor existed about 5 million years ago, and the human-chimp-gorilla
common ancestor existed about 8-12 million years ago.

Molecularly, gorillas are an equal distance from either humans or chimps
(about 95% similarity according to the Nova episode mentioned), while
chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas (about 98% similarity).

--
"It was just paper before and it's still just paper."
                        --- Sam Walton, Oct 19, 1987
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

In article <7034@sgi.SGI.COM> rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann) writes:

>This was a matter of contention until recent comparisions of human, chimp, and
>gorilla DNA showed that gorillas were closer

>					 Robert Reimann.

An article in Monday's Los Angeles Times indicated that
extensive gene mapping resulted in chimps having more
common genomes (is that the correct term?) with humans
than gorillas.

Now, could we start talking about something other than
this in soc.women ?

Steve Hyland
SAIC

"There's a seeker born every second" -- The Firesign Theater

The DNA hybridization method, which has been nicely calibrated against
the fossil birds, gives the gorilla branch at 10-11 Myr, the chimp-
hominid split between 7.7 and 6.3 Myr.  This method is the most accurate
so far because it utilizes all the nuclear DNA, not just what is expressed
(and is thus under various rates of natural selection).  The 90+ percent
junk DNA isn't under selection and so probably has a constant clock rate
compared to proteins.
			William H. Calvin
			University of Washington NJ-15, Seattle WA 98195

In article <343@dg-rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg-rtp.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
> > rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann)
> > If I
> > remember correctly, the point where the gorilla/human ancestor split from
> > chimps is not very far from the point where gorilla and human lines split.
> Um.  I don't think this is correct.  In the "Eve" episode of Nova last
> year, the diagram was resolved by molecular similarity studies in the
> opposite way (that is, "chimps" and "gorillas" should be exchanged in
> the above diagram).

I sent mail to rmr saying more or less the same thing.  He wrote back, saying
that he rechecked his sources, and he got gorillas and chimps transposed,
and also that his news access has been flaky and to go ahead and post the
correction.

My source says that gorillas and chimphumans diverged about 6 million years
ago, and chimps diverged from humans about 4.5 million years ago.  The
article goes on to suggest that perhaps humans should be reclassified as
Pan Sapiens (interesting idea, but i would give long odds against).


david rickel
decwrl!:19:ebahei