Re: [BBC] Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'

From: Adam L. Beberg (beberg@mithral.com)
Date: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 17:26:59 PPET

• Next message: Jeff Bone: "Re: Hedging bets"
• Previous message: rbfar@ebuilt.com: "NTT Buying chunks of ATT?????"
• In reply to: ThosStew@aol.com: "Re: [BBC] Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'"
• Next in thread: Gordon Mohr: "Re: [BBC] Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'"

On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 ThosStew@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/2000 4:47:34 AM, beberg@mithral.com writes:
>
> >But the finding raises new questions, not least because our most recent
> >paternal ancestor would have been about 84,000 years younger than our
> >maternal one.
>
> > aka the mother of all conundra

No mystery, just another biblical theory ruined by reality.

Oh the horror...

- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
  http://www.iit.edu/~beberg/
  beberg@mithral.com

• Next message: Jeff Bone: "Re: Hedging bets"
• Previous message: rbfar@ebuilt.com: "NTT Buying chunks of ATT?????"
• In reply to: ThosStew@aol.com: "Re: [BBC] Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'"
• Next in thread: Gordon Mohr: "Re: [BBC] Genetic 'Adam never met Eve'"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 17:32:17 PPET