Re: Homo heidelbergensis

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"
• Previous message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"
• Maybe in reply to: NICHOLLS PHILIP A: "Homo heidelbergensis"
• Next in thread: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"

In article <2sffdp$m4m@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Ethan Vishniac <ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>In other words, Stanley may be guilty of exaggeration, but he's basically
>right.

Perhaps I did, for didactic reasons.

Perhaps I should recast my point into more precise terms.

The closest thing we know of to a seperate gene pool among modern
humans is the Jews. Yet, even they show a small level of
interbreeding with the local populations they live among -
enough to be (barely) noticiable in less than 2500 or so years.
[Dating from the Babylonian Captivity].

How, then, could two populations of *one* species* (especially
one as culturally changeable as ours) *possibly* remain fully
distinct for an *order* *of* *magnitude* longer time (18 times
as long, at least).

-- 

NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


May the peace of God be with you.

• Next message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"
• Previous message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"
• Maybe in reply to: NICHOLLS PHILIP A: "Homo heidelbergensis"
• Next in thread: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Homo heidelbergensis"