|
|
Re: Life explained
D K Murray (sw.library@zetnet.co.uk)
Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:54:52 GMT
Wm. Wilson wrote etc. <snip>
Its not always obvious to us, however white and masculine we are,
which characteristics might turn out to have survival advantages,
which is one major flaw in eugenics. You quoted a good example:
sickle cell anaemia. WHY has this not simply died out? (CLUES:
admixture, diseases of the blood.)
Anyway, I am beginning to suspect that this D.Mac. chappie is as
useful a contributor to this (sci.) newsgroup as Ed. the Con., and
far less amusing, so perhaps it is time to go! This is my last post
in this thread: I'm going to follow a genuinely funny thread for a
while, when I'm not following the useful and informative ones (HINT:
it's getting cold in here, throw another skull on the fire, dear.)
PS all views expressed by me are personal, although my employers are
not racist creationists. My testosterone count is just right, despite
my regular sunbed use.
PPS for the record, orientals have been building technological
civilisations much longer than us honkeys, despite their effeminate
lack of oomph. Were the first known technologists in the wider sense,
the real innovators (Homo habilis) oriental, white or black? How were
their testosterone levels? And levels just in men, or in women too?
The creators of ancient civilisations in the middle east, in north
africa, and probably further south in africa, were likely much
browner than modern europeans (see ancient egyptian art). But since
Dunk has produced no visible argument, and no detectable evidence,
I'm probably wasting my breath.
|