In Consideration of Genotyping

Yeah, that last thing I wrote just because I had to write something. I used to write here everyday, but the fire has died. Still, we have to observe traditions, or discipline, or whatever. So I hacked out that uninspired series of sentences. Hey, it's a free country. I do what I want. And if that sounds like a contradiction to what I just said about having to observe traditions, well that's your problem not mine. I'm an anarchist now, and the best form of, well, not government since that's exploitative, but of living together is just banding together in small communities. But that's not government, since you can leave and live by yourself, like a berserker in the wilderness, so you'd better conform to the rest of us, loser. And property is theft. The best economic system doesn't currently exist and hasn't actually ever been developed or evolved at this present time, but capitalism is anti-human. I'm opening a knitting shop and will be protesting the Olympics with drums and torches and Native American elders. It will be far out. And you can't commit violence against property.

Which brings me to my point. Technicians have completed a "first draft" in reconstructing the genome of a Neanderthal female. I insist on spelling it Neanderthal, rather than tal. Not quite sure why. Just oppositional I suppose. But wouldn't it be cool, to map that out? -- see just precisely how far from human they actually were? Except such a formulation of the issue includes an Evolutionary bias, and I'm not an Evolutionist, so I guess I'm either a hypocrite or sarcastic. Or both of course. There's no need for an excluded middle here. And I certainly am both, but not I think in this instance. Now I'm just insincere, although I've forgotten about what, since this sentence or paragraph or whatever is so long and I'm too lazy to raise my eyes up several lines to refresh myself as to what the specific was.

Nevertheless, regarding the reconstruction of the DNA of a Neanderthal female, 30,000 years old don't you know, from Croatia, we find this fascinating sentence: "The fragments of DNA from the woman's bones were assembled using human and chimpanzee genomes as references." I'll let it stand by itself for a moment.

Further along we learn that "When an organism dies, enzymes break DNA into small fragments of only a few hundred base pairs or less. The DNA is also chemically changed over time, which can lead to incorrect interpretations of the sequence. Not only that, but over 90% of the DNA in the samples came from bacteria or other contaminants rather than the bone." Sounds a bit like reconstructing an alabaster bust after it has been pulverized with mallets. Maybe they should have picked a sample that was better preserved?

Point is, when there's that much room for artistic interpretation, it's no longer objective science. We find the same problem in the reconstruction of homo erectus remains. I won't go into the details. Wrote a book about it once. Enough to say that from disarticulated fragments you can just sort of decide how sloping you think the forehead should be.

Some years ago Neanderthals were reclassified as fully human, Home sapiens neanderthalensis, as distinct from us, Homo sapiens sapiens. The Geico apemen are a comical fiction. It's sort of a slander, although against a presumably extinct race, so that's okay, unless Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton want to expand their natural base. You know, race-mongering, for humans other than those whose ancestry derives from elsewhere than Africa. There may be a buck in it, so, yes, they will. I say this because true "Homo erectus" are not extinct. Their non-fraud skeletons are indistinguishable from Australian aborigines. No, that's not racist -- not from me, anyway. Maybe you. Likewise, Cro-Magnons are not extinct. They survived on the Canary Islands into Modern times as the Gaunches -- blond and blue-eyed, actually -- related it seems somehow to the Berbers.

All very strange, or at least interesting -- if you're not a racist. There's only one kind of human, is the point, and that's fully human. If we were to go by skull shape, I'd be some sort of giant gibbon, since I've got a forehead you could crack coconuts with. It's very masculine. All the chicks really dig it, all sloping and knobby. Sexxxy. And have I mentioned recently how much I like my penis and accoutrement? But I seem to have wandered slightly from my theme.

I got an email today about the ancestry of Greenlanders, the joke being that they were my people, Nordic, when it was actually the indigenous people being referenced. You know, Eskimos. No surprise. Out of Siberia, per DNA analysis of four hairs from an ancient dead man. The fellow's "genes reveal he was a fairly young man, robustly built to exist in a frigid climate, with A-positive blood, dark skin, brown eyes, and thick, black hair on a scalp genetically susceptible to baldness. His ear wax was dry - unlike that of most Europeans and Americans, and his genes determined that his front teeth were shovel-shaped, a characteristic of many Asian people today." No, doesn't sound like me at all. No mention at all of a magnificent ape-like forehead -- the best kind to have.

Well, I guess that's it. To summarize, I'm the bomb, really hot and sexy, so desirable, currently available to hot sexy chicks who may apply by emailing their measurements and a tasteful but fully revealing body shot to nastymonsterboi1981 @ hotmale dot com. Put "do me now" in the subject line. Act fast, because I'm insatiable, but there are only so many hours or minutes in a day.

J