Well, if you treat them like Ann Widdecombe, e.g. put a bag on 'em, they might just work as sex slaves.

Definitely a two-bagger. One for her head, and one for yours in case hers falls off!

"Any of the other nutters on the bus."

Priceless.

look at the reflection in the window?

>> ^robbersdog49:

Definitely a two-bagger. One for her head, and one for yours in case hers falls off!


And one by the door in case a friend walks in on you.

Do creationists believe in Neanderthals?

If so... how?

>> ^raverman:

Do creationists believe in Neanderthals?
If so... how?


A quick googling indicates the Creationist argument regarding neanderthals has traditionally been that they were just regular humans suffering from bone ailments, perphaps caused by malnutrition, lack of vitamin D, etc.

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?

EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA

>> ^rebuilder:

>> ^raverman:
Do creationists believe in Neanderthals?
If so... how?

A quick googling indicates the Creationist argument regarding neanderthals has traditionally been that they were just regular humans suffering from bone ailments, perphaps caused by malnutrition, lack of vitamin D, etc.


/facepalm

>> ^castles:

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?
EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA


The difference is hereditary and pair structure. Genetically speaking, many of the chromosome base pairs are nearly identical from animal to animal. Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example. However, other pre-Homo sapiens's and Neanderthal could, and unlike mules, mate and have non-sterile offspring. The 1-4% is direct ancestry. If you were to compare, like that study did with mice, actual base pair similarity, it would rank higher than chimps most likely (99.9999% or something). However, there is a chance that they are more dissimilar than chimps, and through some reproductive fluke, were still able to have virile offspring. The point is, the difference he was highlighting is the direct mating heritage of early man with Neanderthal, much like someone saying they are 4% Indian, even though they are both 100% human.

Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example

Although what you say is 100% accurate, I think that chromosomal variance is not the biggest reason that such a union cannot be consumated...

>> ^Tojja:

Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example
Although what you say is 100% accurate, I think that chromosomal variance is not the biggest reason that such a union cannot be consumated...


Yes, she left me...thanks for bringing up the painful memories!