RE: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

Reminds me of when I was in the Air Force and an enlisted man returned
after a two year tour at Thule, Greenland to find his wife had a five
month old child. Before he could say anything his wife said, "I know
what you're thinking but go talk to the flight surgeon."
 
So he went to the flight surgeon's office and explained that he had
spent two years at Thule, Greenland and when he got home his wife had
greeted him with a five month old child, to which the doctor said,
"Well, it happens."
 
"It does"?, the startled young airman replied. "Okay, if you say so."
 
Note the doctor didn't say the child was his.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
 
Don't call the divorce lawyer just yet.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-10-14-wonderqu
est_x.htm
Most of us learned the model for determining eye color that G.C.
Davenport and C.B. Davenport devised in 1907. The Davenport model
wrongly says brown eye color is always dominant over blue eye color,
which means that two blue-eyed parents always have blue-eyed kids. We
know better now.
"Although not common, two blue-eyed parents can produce children with
brown eyes," says Richard A. Sturm, a Principal Research Fellow at the
Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in
Brisbane, Australia.
 
On May 7, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Dick Fischer wrote:

Hi Rich, you wrote:
 
>>You also are also way too obsessed with phenotypes when you should be
looking at genotypes. This is like falsely accusing a woman of adultery
based on the eye color of the child. There is a need to take a DNA test.
The latter is definitive while the former is not.<<
 
Now I have an obsession?. Let's see, I have blond hair and blue eyes.
If I were married to a blond haired, blue eyed woman, and she gave birth
to a dark haired, brown eyed child you think I would have to resort to a
paternity test? We were able to figure those kinds of things out long
before DNA was discovered. It goes back to Gregor Mendel.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:24 AM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
 
 
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:
 
Let's take your 51K figure for the last migration of H sapiens out of
Africa. Black hair and brown eyes characterize black Africans, Asiatics
and native Americans. Only in the area where cross breeding is
therotically feasible, or dare I way likely, do we see human beings with
blond or red hair and blue eyes, and a bump at the base of the skull.
Since we do know Neanderthals had red hair and a clump at the base of
the skull, and keeping in mind the bone-jumping predisposition of our
forebears, why would we not suspect a Neanderthal genetic input? On
what basis would you think otherwise?

Here's your problem. 51 kya is the *first* migration and not the *last*.
The PNAS study I cited looked at other scenarios with earlier
migration(s). They didn't pan out with migrations starting at 51 kya.
The model preferred by the data is migration from Africa into Eurasia
*starting* 51 kya followed by exponential rather than instantaneous
growth. Those who remain mult-regionalists do not claim that Neanderthal
came from Homo Sapiens but rather the remaining Neanderthal had limited
breeding with Homo Sapiens showing up *for the first time*. This is why
I Iabel your view as bizzare.

 You also make the DNA extracted from Neanderthal as dicier than it is.
While there is still a possibility of contamination by modern humans
that would only make Neanderthal to appear genetically closer than they
really are. As it stands there is too much genetic distance between
Neanderthal from modern Europeans that would need to have been
selectively swept away. The issue here is really only for the nuclear
DNA because the MtDNA is relatively solid. The studies I am citing look
at the MtDNA, the Y chromosome DNA, and the autosomal DNA. Combined with
the fossil data they all point in the same direction.

You also are also way too obsessed with phenotypes when you should be
looking at genotypes. This is like falsely accusing a woman of adultery
based on the eye color of the child. There is a need to take a DNA test.
The latter is definitive while the former is not.
 
Rich Blinne
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 8 09:28:33 2008