Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

USA TODAY ^ | 8/18/2003 | Tim Friend

[demlosers]

Human body lice appear to owe their origin to the invention of clothing, and the types that reside on our bodies appear to have hitchhiked along as modern humans migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago.

Mark Stoneking and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made the connection between the origin of clothing and the rise of human body lice by checking so-called molecular clocks found in the cells of all living creatures.

[LiteKeeper]

Or, we could accept the testimony of an eyewitness. He tells us that He provided clothes because of the shame of sin that Adam and Eve experienced. Since He was there, I think His version is a whole lot more reliable.

[snopercod]

The picture in the article looks suprisingly like Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts.

[CO_dreamer]

Lice offer clue to origin of clothing.

Kmart, right?

[RightWhale]

the rate that specific types of mutations accumulate in DNA. These molecular clocks

Dr Kaku says that DNA mutates 1% in a million years. Doesn't seem like it wuld be a good calendar for periods much smaller than 1 million years.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

So they've finally figured out Ol' Crusty?

[tet68]

Lets not nit pick, just chat amongst yourselves.

[ibtheman]

100,000 years ago the stupidity of so called educated people! hey why don't they just read the bible, and do some serious research reguarding biblical history, time lines, and go to some dig sites that prove the real time line on this earth, about 10,000 years, not 100,000 years! I have learned you can be educated, but still not be to intelligent!

[August West]

Not a reliable source for scientific inquiry.

[LiteKeeper]

Not a reliable source for scientific inquiry.

What evidence do you have to back up your assertion? There is not a single instance in the Bible that references anything scientific where it has been demonstrated as wrong. Do you disallow it because it is not "naturalistic?" If so, you are going to have a hard time dealing with such things as information, the mind, and other non-material realities that naturalistic science cannot touch.

[August West]

The onus is on the person trying to prove reliability, not the other way around. What evidence do YOU have? I disallow it as it is basically hearsay. Just because something is printed in the Bible does not make it true. I happan to believe that most of it is true, but faith is no substitute for empirical evidence. I don't understand what you mean by "naturalistic".

[Right Wing Professor]

A time line of 10,000 years is inconsistent with all sorts of dating methods, from radiocarbon, to tree rings, to the DNA of these lice, which have about 40,000 years worth of changes in them. Other radiometric data methods show some earth rocks to be as old as 3.6 billion years.

But hey, on the one hand you have literally scores of different lines of scientific evidence saying the earth is billions of years old; and on the other you have just one of several hundreds of different creation myths from different tribal groupings, this one saying the earth is 6,000 years old. I can't believe educated people would believe all that science over a literalistic reading of one book.

[Right Wing Professor]

40,000 years of evolving lice.

[Aracelis]

Aww, heck...you beat me to it. :^)

[Junior]

The nit-picking's already begun...

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's a lousy way to find a date.

[balrog666]

Or, we could accept the testimony of an eyewitness. He tells us that He provided clothes because of the shame of sin that Adam and Eve experienced. Since He was there, I think His version is a whole lot more reliable.

Oh, yes, let us thank Him for head lice, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Herpes Simplex Virus Type II, Hepatitis B, Syphilis, HPV or Venereal Warts (Condyloma Acuminata), Trichomoniasis, Crab Lice (Pediculosis Pubis), and Scabies.

Praise Him for His wonderous works!

[f.Christian]

Rote science on the death march ...

"They have ... lost ((link)) --- a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

[Aracelis]

There once was a louse named Fred,
Who made his home on top of a head.
He thought it refined,
To sit quiet and dine,
While the landlord did sleep in his bed.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar