Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (18985)	5/30/2007 3:41:13 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217699

No, more like 7% if I remember rightly. The "Genghis" gene isn't much different from the "Pharaoh" gene or "Caesar" gene or "King George II" gene actually. Not to mention the Ngapuhi gene. teara.govt.nz All those blokes ruled with total force and brutal suppression of anyone they fancied. When that original great great great ... grand father of us all came out of Africa 30,000 years ago, the world he found was already full of human males, standing their ground, defending their realms and little tribal lives in hunter gatherer survival mode. He and his descendants [that's us] conquered all males who had gone before. The process wasn't all conquering. A lot of it was babes fancying one bloke over another, germs killing some but not others, food supplies suiting some but not others and so on over a vast array of genetic selection processes, smart ones figuring out how to grow better wheat and how to sell better stuff. But a lot of it was conquering and death at the hands of other blokes. We can even guess that it was 2 of 3 were eliminated from the gene pool by force of other blokes because the great great great ... grandmother of all non-Africans arrived out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. Three times as long ago as the bloke who fathered all. The female/male difference was due to blokes fighting. Mqurice