Re: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 22:40:32 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Redheads descended from Neanderthals?"

    Others on ASA thought me to be strange because of my simplistic theory of
    thinking that God could make more than one universe:

    But this flies as science in a Christian context??

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    (snip)

    > Now, the theological implications of this are obvious. If we have
    > Neanderthal genes, even one Neanderthal gene, we simply can't have
    > apologetical scenarios which separate us from them as is done by many of the
    > apologists. So, why don't apologists pay attention to data like this? I
    > wish I knew.
    >
    > REferences
    >
    > Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of theNeanderthals, (New York:
    > Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.93
    >
    > R. Harding and J. Rees "Interpreting patterns of polymorphism in the
    > melanocortin 1 receptor gene
    > "http://hgm2001.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/Workshops/Workshop06/hgm0046
    > .htm
    >
    > glenn
    >
    > see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    > for lots of creation/evolution information
    > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    > personal stories of struggle

    To which I ask:

    Which apologists have "ignored" this "data"? When was it published and has any
    "apologist" refuted the "data"?

    I've never heard of this before and I'm not sure that red headed neanderthals
    mean anything more than other established genes.

    Is this "data", a "theory", or a "fact"?

    Is this email a preemptive criticism of potential ignoring by "apologists" ---
    or has it already been observed?

    Finally is the premise really a logical extrapolation of the "data"?

    Is it not possible that the author should consider himself to be an "apologist"
    for his area of his (clearly limited) science specialty and his own published
    pet theory -- (which is not universally accepted insofar as I know)?

    But, I could well be wrong (as I often am) -- as a newcomer to this list.

    Apologies to Glenn in advance, should he think me to be unkind to his email and
    his published theory.

    =============================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic
    If you have already found the truth
    without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    ===================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 22:41:18 EST