R. Scott Jokerst scott_jokerst at data-transport.com
Mon Mar 4 12:29:56 EST 1996

Of course, I'd like to side-step the whole issue of truth vs. alegory in
replying to this stream to raise a small but interesting observation
regarding human (or any other species') evolution - from a biology

Assuming one can discern when when the fine line jump occurs to the
appearance of a new species / subspecies / race / etc. (a mental construct
- admittedly, with little practical relevance)... then the "first human",
whenever she or he appeared, was naturally born of parents not fully human.
And, its siblings - unless identical twins were involved - we're not
likely fully human either.  And, of course, its mate(s) were also not
likely to be fully human.

This observation does not intend to imply what fully human is, or that
there is any attribute or collection of attributes which describes what
fully human would be (a subjective endeavor for sure, likely to favor the

I also don't intend to imply that evolutions to distinct species happen in
a generation - just offering something for thought at the dinner table.

(BTW - My comments here are entirely personal, and do not reflect one way
or the other on the official viewpoints of Biological Data Transport.)


At 3:20 PM 3/3/96, Michael P. Watkins wrote:
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>> Please explain then that if Adam and Eve were the first humans, how one
>> of their children, Cain, was able to "take a wife" as told in Genesis.
>> What kind of wife did he take?  An orangutang?  The Bible is a work of
>> fiction designed to keep people subservient to the preachers.

  ---> R. Scott Jokerst            scott_jokerst at data-transport.com  --->
--->   Biological Data Transport   http://www.data-transport.com       --->
 --->  510-648-8229                510-648-8279 (FAX)               --->

More information about the Bioforum mailing list