Fury (
19 Jan 1995 17:42:00 GMT

In article <> (J. Moore) writes:

> What you're missing is that we share ancestors.

Or (to put it another way) one ancestor may fulfill a number of
functions on that line; after all, to some extent or another we're all
related, right? To make it simpler, imagine that there are only two
humans in the earth, a man and a woman. They have a daughter and son,
who in turn have a daughter and a son, who in turn have a daughter and
a son, who ... etc. Of course, reality lies somewhere between this
'completely related' model and the original poster's 'completely
unrelated' model, in which there is a one-to-one correspondance between
ancestoral relationships and people.

Hmm, I can't decide if this is more or less clear. Make sense, anyone?


"But the first thing next morning we reflected |
If one by one we counted people out |
For the least sin, it wouldn't take us long | -- Robert Frost,
To get so we had no one left to live with." | "The Star-Splitter"