> Johnny Rea wrote:
>
> > I don't really understand what you want me to say. I guess you think that
> > unless
> > someone finds the bones of Adam and proves that his DNA was the first human
> > DNA on the planet that you won't believe he was the father of all mankind?
>
> First off, i dont know if you have ever heard of RNA before. But if you had,
> you would know that there is no father of mankind like you think. That term
> does not apply. There is no possible way that a single man was the father of
> the species. It is a nice thought though. If someone did find these bones,
> which could still exist if they are only a 6000 years old, they would not be
> the first human bones or DNA. We have bones and DNA much older than that. We
> recently found a whole body that was older than that frozen in ice.
>
For that matter, Ancient Egypt had a thryving culture in 4002 BC. It wasn't at its
height yet, but it certainly wasn't a single couple sitting sitting under a tree
eating apples while their kids killed each other.
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net
"I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat Bill Clinton" -Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential election