Zimmer on evolutionary compromises

The relationship between genes and taste and alcolohism Zimmer mentioned was interesting. As a lover of spicy foods, it is a mystery why we should like them. Spicy foods are yummy, but what's the point? It looks like one possible reason has to do with parasites and the immune system.

While not an expert in the subject, I would suspect that since the plants probably evolved the spicy compounds to dissuade insects and kill bacteria, it makes sense that in an animal as large as humans are (less susceptible to the concentrations) and with a tendency to scavenge meat after the large predators have had their fill, a taste for spicy plants might be selected for. Love of spices requires becoming partially desensitized to the burn so while having less of a reaction to the spice would allow the consumption of "medicinal" spices, it might diminish the ability to taste toxins. This might explain why the love of spices has not become a universal trait in humans just as having a taste for or revulsion for alcohol has pros and cons.

I started drinking Tabasco sauce to win dares as a child and then developed a taste for spices - I was a weird kid.

Posted by Apesnake on November 28, 2005 10:06 AM (e) (s) ... I started drinking Tabasco sauce to win dares as a child and then developed a taste for spices - I was a weird kid.

The link between these genes and and how it might change the taste of alcohol is interesting.

It better explains my friends who don't like the taste of beer. It's not that they are prudes who don't know how to have a good time. Instead, they are genetic freaks!

The business of liking spices brings in all sorts of issues, on several meta-levels of evolution.

For starters, it's not *completely* unique to humans -- I've heard at least one anecdote of a squirrel picking it up: A FOAF was trying to defend their bird-feeder against squirrels. After watching these guys climb poles and do tightrope acts on wires, they tried chili-flavored seeds. (Birds are unaffected by capescin.) A few days later, they watched a squirrel eat a seed or two, briefly "huff" and wipe their muzzle, then eat another, repeat....

This would seem to point towards the (in)famous epinephrine response to pain, and the general point that mammals can *learn* that a given pain or other unpleasantness isn't actually dangerous. And of course, humans (et al) can build "culture" out of such learning experiences, passing their lessons onto their fellows. When combined with natural selection operating on cultural units, and/or observation of consequences for the actions of other individuals, this suffices to explain the widespread adoption of spices among humans.

There's also the more general point that humans are very good at adapting to new environments, diets, etc.... The flip-side of human intelligence (over from "immediate adaptation") is variability -- that is, it allows a group of humans with more-or-less similar genetic suites, to nevertheless maintain fair diversity of behavior within a group, which comes in handy when confronting new situations. (I.e., back to adaptation, but on a higher meta level!)

Likewise, being able to (imperfectly) metabolize ethanol is useful, but also has liabilities, especially when we learn to concentrate the stuff. Having some members who *can't* metabolize ethanol (like many Asian subraces) gives the larger community some protection against those liabilities. Eventually (centuries), I suspect that we'll see the spread of more mutant strains who are "immune" to various narcotics....

PS: Tabasco sauce? Hah! That stuff's half vinegar! ;-)

PS: Tabasco sauce? Hah! That stuff's half vinegar! ;-)

There's also the more general point that humans are very good at adapting to new environments,

Back to the "curse of Ham"...Funny how Noah gets drunk and falls over naked...yet his son commits the "sin" by seeing this...Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Spices have clear antibacterial effects, which may be why hotter countries feature spicier cuisines. Sherman and Flaxman wrote an article about this topic in the March/April 2001 issue of American Scientist--you can view an abstract of the article on their site but the article itself is only available to subscribers.

HPLC_Sean: I think the interpretation is clear enough, but it still sounds like hypocrisy to me. Isn't Noah primarily at fault here? But he gets to deliver the curse instead of being subject to it. The moral is, what, to be a gracious enabler of alcoholics in your family? Notice that Noah never did that again. Public ridicule works, once again.

I agree, by the way, that it's often good to be discreet and to spare others' dignity, but I don't see how Noah gets off the hook in this story. It seems to be almost the definition of patriarchal morality. The take-away is that he's the father so you respect him even when he doesn't deserve a lot of respect. And yes, I realize that's in the commandments, and that the Old Testament tradition is patriarchal. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

Here is the Straight Dope on the Noah/Curse thing:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah2.html

There is a lot more there than what is there.

Spices also help the taste of meat that has been stored without refrigeration.

Many curries show remarkable medicinal effects.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A581311

Is that why we have a Christmas ham? Because Jesus gave us a new covenant and we are representing our collective forgiving of ham's sin of laughing at his drunken father's wet blankets?

Speaking of biblical explanations of things, I'd always wondered why I have the same number of ribs as the females whose ribs I have counted, until I came across this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=606174 .

I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself. I highly recommend following steves link.

PaulC: You would publicly ridicule your father to get him to stop drinking because "it works"? Ouch! You think Noah should be cursed because he got drunk after "saving" man and animal-kind from "destruction"? Ouch! Pretty harsh if you ask me.
Let's not forget that drunkenness is not a sin, but dishonoring your folks is. To me, the moral is that all men have moments of weakness; notwithstanding, they should not be ridiculed by their sons.
BTW: Rabbinical scholars do not consider Noah to be among the great wise men like Abraham, Joseph or Moses. They consider Noah to be a simpleton and a highly fallible Biblical character who was pressed to perform extraordinary acts.
The same rabbi that I was paraphrasing in my last comment explained that a wiser man would have planted wheat fields, an orchard, or olive groves, but Noah was only interested in getting drunk. Some say that the despair of beholding the shattered world before him drove him to drunken despair.
The straightdope article is great. Thanks for that link KeithB!

Why did anyone care whether Noah was drunk? Remember the guy who got drunk at that party and everyone painted his face with girl's makeup and glued cigarette butts to his forhead and tied his shoelaces together and unzipped his pants and pulled his penis out and put his hand in a cup of warm water to see if the old trick is true? Remember when you discovered that it was? That guy might have been mad at the time but he probably laughed about it later. Noah must not have had much of a sense of humor. It's not like they posted his picture on the internet or something.

Since the guys over at "Answers in Genesis" have so kindly offered to produce cartoons to illustrate biblical texts - (see the so sad it's funny thread) -I've asked them to produce one for me to illustrate this incident, perhaps to show the evils of the demon drink.
They've promised to get back to me.
Incidentally the idea that somehow Ham was being punished because he squealed to his brothers that his dad was drunk and naked is hardly fair - which one of them squealed to Noah when he woke up with a hangover?

BTW: Rabbinical scholars do not consider Noah to be among the great wise men like Abraham, Joseph or Moses. They consider Noah to be a simpleton and a highly fallible Biblical character who was pressed to perform extraordinary acts.

Ham was just practicing "tough love." He no longer wanted to be Noah's enabler.

I think spiced foods have two advantages in pre-industrial cultures:

(1) they have a strong taste. Most "wild" foods don't. As a longtime backpacker, I can personally attest that after a week or two of rice and macaroni (and frog legs and roast squirrel), one gets pretty damn desperate for anything that tastes strong. Anything.

(2) they cover up the odor/taste of meat that has not enjoyed the benefit of refrigeration.

And anyone who doesn't like the taste of beer, just hasn't had the right beer. Just drop on by anytime and I'll introduce you to the joys of porter. ;>

As a longtime backpacker, I can personally attest that after a week or two of rice and macaroni (and frog legs and roast squirrel), one gets pretty damn desperate for anything that tastes strong. Anything.

Comment #60541 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 28, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s) I think spiced foods have two advantages in pre-industrial cultures: (1) they have a strong taste. Most "wild" foods don't. As a longtime backpacker, I can personally attest that after a week or two of rice and macaroni (and frog legs and roast squirrel), one gets pretty damn desperate for anything that tastes strong. Anything.

Heh. This was shortly after Lenny discovered that there are some places I don't deliver pizza to.

Question, consider yourself begged.

I even offered to pay for the helicopter. ;>

Who the heck is this Steviepinhead guy?

Aren't there already enough Steves of one kind or another on this blog?

Why not come up with an original moniker, like, well, Lenny, for example?!? (Hmmm: Lennypinhead, I kind of like the sound of that!)

And, more importantly, why would this Steviepinhead presume to answer Lenny's helicopter comment--which was clearly directed to moi, the one and only original Pizza Guy?

Well, like they say, don't get mad, get even: so, to set the record straight, I do have a turnaround time, and I don't do helis, limos, cigarette boats, or rocket ships--I've got one pretty hard-used Celica, on which I've gotta pay my own gas, tax, license, and insurance (but I do get to have the cool little pizza delivery sign on the top).

Helicopters, for crying out loud! And now, to, ahem, top it all off, I got freakin' pinheads trying to pimp my ride. Sheesh!

In case anyone is interested:

Genesis 9:24 states that Noah awoke from his wine and "realized what his small son had done to him". This cannot refer to his having seen his father naked or talking about it, say the sages of the Talmud. It must be something he "had done (a real bona fide act) to him". After futher analysis (tractate Sanhedrin) the sages conclude that he either emasculated Noah or had intercourse with him.

Now we can really see why Noah cursed.

Carol
1) You forgot to mention JL.
2) Comment #60583 : It's the biggest load of crock I have ever heard.
3) For anyone that does not know, Carol has her own secret version of the Bible, but you should be able to see that from the above text.
4) Carol just dismissed the Rabbi explanation (as per the post of HPLC_Sean) as utter BS, because she and JL are the ONLY ones that know the REAL secret bible. She is also an expert on ancient Hebrew culture, ID and bananas.

Lenny wrote And anyone who doesn't like the taste of beer, just hasn't had the right beer. Just drop on by anytime and I'll introduce you to the joys of porter.

Lenny: the ultralight backpacking thing sounds kinda cool. How do you go about catching birds and the like? Is it easy to get enough to keep yourself going?

Now we can really see why Noah cursed.

Lenny: the ultralight backpacking thing sounds kinda cool. How do you go about catching birds and the like? Is it easy to get enough to keep yourself going?

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 29, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s) .... I have a small alcohol stove that I made from two empty beer cans.

Renier:
Carol is not that far off the mark.

Refer to the Straight Dope articles listed above. The castration/sodomy thing is real rabbinical/early Christian speculation.

Posted by KeithB on November 29, 2005 11:50 AM (e) (s) Renier: Carol is not that far off the mark. Refer to the Straight Dope articles listed above. The castration/sodomy thing is real rabbinical/early Christian speculation.

ROMANS 3;23 says "all have sinned" All means all.Yet Gen 6,9 says Noah was a just and PERFECT man ,how could Noah be perfect if all men have sinned? What about Noahs wife, his sons and their wives, why were they given special treatment they were not sinless and perfect?
Does anyone else ask these questions?????????

PS: Tabasco sauce? Hah! That stuff's half vinegar! ;-)

— David Harmon

3) For anyone that does not know, Carol has her own secret version of the Bible, but you should be able to see that from the above text. 4) Carol just dismissed the Rabbi explanation (as per the post of HPLC_Sean) as utter BS, because she and JL are the ONLY ones that know the REAL secret bible. She is also an expert on ancient Hebrew culture, ID and bananas.

— Renier

Posted by Apesnake on November 29, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s) ... True but when you are a kid it is pretty harsh. It is what I call a gateway sauce. Later in life I took a full spoonful of Dave's Insanity Sauce and having survived (barely) I decided to do the same with Dave's Ultimate Insanity Sauce....

There's also the more general point that humans are very good at adapting to new environments

— Dave Harmon

I always considered that the reverse was more true. Humans are the best creature at adapting an environment to suit them.

— Stephen Elliott

Oh, and we've also physically adapted to various environments! Besides skin pigmentation and climate-correlated build, we have stuff like those hemoglobin-based malarial defenses, the variant circulatory responses found in Inuits et al, and probably subtler stuff we haven't pinned down yet. Anybody want to lay odds on pulmonary mutations being concentrated in response to air pollution?

Renier,
Something like thirty years ago Isaac Asimov wrote a book (that coincidentally was) called "In The Beginning", which compared origins according to science and origins according to geneiss, just like Landa's book. It's been about twenty years since I read it but, if I remember correctly, he also points out the rape/castration of Noah possibility. While I'm certain no one here has any respect for Carol, I'm equally certain everyone here does respect Asimov, and the suggestion was not original to him. It might be hard to believe judging from Carol's LOL(Love-of-Landa) but biblical analysis does predate Landa.

Apesnake,
You're not missing anything. Last July I got a copy of Landa's book via inter-library transfer (my little county library had to go all the way to some jewish college in Penn. to find it). I readily admit I'm not competent to comment on the Hebrew, but the book itself had little to recommend; very limited historical linguistic analysis of hebrew words, something Asimov did better; no history of where the original documents came from that the text was assimilated from, something else I remember Asimov doing. The book was arbitrary in some places, as Dr Perakh has pointed out, and about half the book was wasted on verses that don't even impact on the creation debate. I feel sorry for Dr Perakh if he spent good money on the book because even the two dollar transfer fee I paid was misspent.

If you want to read a book, try Asimov's. I aim to grab a copy if I ever see it in a used book store.

Sincerely,
Paul

Posted by David Harmon on November 29, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s) ... Of course, we've also been known to trash the environment, so it can't support us... any more. (q.v. Fertile Crescent, now known as the Middle East.)...

but there's not a heck of a lot we can do to change climate

once people became sedimentary...crops etc.

Wait long enough, and people--like most other organisms--can undergo fossilization.

At that point, I think they might safely be described as sedimentary.

Reading yet another "review" of Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, this time by Paul Flocken, reminds me of the preverbial elephant in the room that everybody ignores. Mark Perakh comments on the transliteration style, some have commented on the front cover, on the back cover, on the spine, and now Flocken weighs in with perceptive commentary about the "limited historical linguistic analysis".

The elephant here is the following: Does the book deliver on its promise to demonstrate that the original Bible can reasonably be translated in a manner that even a literal interpretation in no way conflicts with science? If the answer is yes, this is a most important and surprising result. Millions of people are under the impression that a literal Bible is contradicted by science and to reconcile the two one needs to eviscerate the words of the Bible beyond recognition.

Landa's book was not intended to be a thick scholarly tome that would be very difficult for the typical fundamentalist to wade thru in less than three years. (For that type of book read his TORAH AND SCIENCE, Ktav Publishing, 1990.) It was intended as an easy breezy read, to open the door to a very surprising idea.

Scientists should be welcoming this book as a friendly and helpful instrument in the battle we currently are engaged in. Deep down the source of the cultural war is the literal reading of the Bible. The creationists openly tell us this is the case. The ID folks deny it, but we know better.

Let's get something straight, friends. Religion is not an intellectual endeavor for most people, it is an emotional one. The battle between science and religion is one of fighting emotional attributes with intelectual arguments. It's like trying to separate a man and a woman who are intensely in love with each other by intelectually arguing with them that they are not right for each other. It is a losing proposition. After 150 years we can easily see how the science/religion debate can go on in perpetuity. The intellectual side (science) needs all the help it can get. It behooves you to stop blindly fighting this friendly book. It should be welcomed and supported. At the very least it ought to be given SERIOUS consideration, not the cockamamie clap-trap it has been getting here up to now.

While the book by Asimov sounds interesting I think I might have been exposed to many of the ideas in it from later sources quoting him.

I have no problem with Asimov or even Carol comparing old scriptures with the current scientific view of the origins and development of life, anymore than when Muslims find similarities between words in the Koran and the description of the expansion of the universe (though the claim that this proves Mohammad had divine access to accurate cosmology tickles my skeptical bone - that is the one just under my missing rib). Motivations for such comparisons might include giving the YECers some food for thought, expressing ones own beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to a scientifically minded audience or just as an exercise in comparative literature.

I quickly diverge, however, when it seems that the attempt is being made to pick and choose reality to fit the scripture in question or to use the similarities as evidence for the scriptures in an unjustified manner. There seems to be a fine line between finding compatibility between two systems of thought and violently compressing them together. The key to that line seems for me to be literalism. Literalists seem to be the most likely to want to see history and science made to fit the text.

For me Genesis is the least problematic book of the Bible. If Asimov wrote anything explaining Ezekiel I would be far more interested. That whole book makes Pat Robertson look sane. Maybe the Hebrew is different but whatever sauce he was eating I want no part of. The whole of it can be summed up with the phrase "Jerusalem is being a skank and God hates skanks!" even though it goes on and on and on.

The elephant here is the following: Does the book deliver on its promise to demonstrate that the original Bible can reasonably be translated in a manner that even a literal interpretation in no way conflicts with science?

— Carol

Reading yet another "gratuituous mention" of Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, this time (as always) by carol clouser, reminds me of the preverbial crashing theist bore in the comment thread that everybody ignores. Nearly everybody comments on the obsessive shilling, some have commented on her inability to think about anything else, in the back cover, on the spine, and now ben weighs in with perceptive commentary about the "limited contribution to conversation about the actual subject of the post".

The elephant here is the following: Does the book deliver on its promise to demonstrate that the original Bible can reasonably be translated in a manner that even a literal interpretation in no way conflicts with science?

— Carol

Apesnake,

I will make you an offer you cannot refuse.

I will arrange to have a free copy sent to you provided you commit here publicly to read it cover to cover and post an honest and thoughtful 300 word review in this blog. Your review must address the elephant question I described above and appear here within a month of receipt of the book.

Do we have a deal?

Clearly, carol would have a free copy of IN THE BEGINNING OF sent to anyone who would read it cover to cover, because obviously she is an obsessed prosyletiser whose principal purpose in life is to get people to read the book.

Not to respond for Ape, but it's hard to imagine an offer easier to refuse than to invest a couple hours being indoctrinated into whatever superstitious silliness Judah Landa has convinced carol to spend her life peddling for him.

My first thought on seeing Carol's offer was that this would be one of the easiest offers to refuse since a trucker in a bar offered to show me his "Renoir". He said it would make quite an impression, which is what I was afraid of.

Not knowing Hebrew means that I need to take work on the assumption that Judah Landa's translation is accurate. I also can only speak as a layman (undergraduate) in regards to the science. There is also the fact that I have looked at the first few pages on Amazon.com and as an atheist/agnostic I found it to be somewhat snooze inducing. If you don't really put much stock in the scriptures it is hard to get interested in attempts to compare them with science.

However, I am not one to shy from a task just because it is boring or pointless. I once worked in a government office after all and I did once eat a big glob of Dave's Ultimate Insanity Sauce just to see if it could be done. (Seriously leave the Ultimate stuff alone or diluted it to ridiculous proportions - I still sweat ice water when I think of that).

So here is what I will do. I will read the book and provide my humble opinion on it. I would rather not give my address out to strange people or publishers but I can get the book through inter-library loan. Given exams and holiday travel I will not be doing this until the end of the first week of January. Also, Panda's Thumb is not my blog and I doubt that I will be coming in under 300 words so I will post it on my blog and leave a link in the comments when I am done and I see you post a comment. I will even mention elephants.

I will arrange to have a free copy sent to you provided you commit here publicly to read it cover to cover and post an honest and thoughtful 300 word review in this blog.

If, as Carol claims that Landa claims that God dictated, the Noachian flood was only "local," then what the heck was all that stuff about God promising never to do it again?

Do what again? No more large-scale, devastating but still-"local" floods? Try that one on with the folks in N'orleans or the Indian Ocean.

Or no more world-wide floods?

The latter makes more sense of the entire text, but flatly contradicts science.

The former makes no sense at all.

Oh, Carol!

Sounds like we got something going here. I look forward to reading your review, Apesnake. In the meantime, let me know via email if you need anything.

Sounds like we got something going here.

Good Rev Lenny,

I was responding to Apesnake's lament (#60741) that he/she was having a difficult time getting a copy of the book. It sounded like he really wanted to get his hands on it. Since I am in a position to help in this matter, my offer was the right thing to do.

And why is it "marketing" when he gets a FREE copy? And what if he comes back with a negative review? Is that free desireable publicity?

Steviepinhead,

You raise some very interesting issues but no cigar, sorry.

The verses in Genesis after the flood repeatedly state God's promise to not again destroy life IN THE MANNER THAT HE HAD DONE. In other words, it is a promise not to bring another flood on the same scale and with the same severity and consequences, that would destroy all life over such a large, but not global, area. This in and of itself does not at all negate the proposition that the Biblical flood was less than global in scope.

But what about later floods? Well, do you know of any in particular that matched the Biblical flood in scope and severity? And if you do know with certainty of such an occurance, was it an act of God or an act of nature? Is not God promising not to intervene but to allow nature to take its course, as verse 8:22 seems to be saying?

You bring up Katrina. Well, Katrina was a hurricane, not a flood. God is certainly not promising that henceforth all will be honky-dorry and humankind will never again endure any calamities. The area that was flooded during Katrina did so because man-made levees were negligently erected and then ignored until it collapsed in places during the hurricane. Is God or man responsible for that?

But, as I said, you raised some profound issues, unlike the usual anti-Bible tirades here that so often are so vacuous.

I believe it's called "free publicity".

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

The verses in Genesis after the flood repeatedly state God's promise to not again destroy life IN THE MANNER THAT HE HAD DONE.

— Carol

This might help
This stuff is all free

Practical Campbell
Intelligible Design

You will probably have to create/project/found a free associate account to read it, on the associate
home page

http://www.jcf.org/practical-campbell/Practical-Campbell_20051128_Intelligible-Design.pdf

No More Horizons down loadable MP3

http://www.jcf.org/media.php

There are six talks relevant to the subject at hand

Apesnake,

Reading the Bible literally doesn't mean that profound questions will not arise. It does mean that words mean what they say and say what they mean. In this case, the Biblical flood is less than global and thus there is no contradiction with the findings of science (that a global flood did not and could not have occured so recently).

The issue you and Steviepinhead raise impinge upon the larger question of whether God is "entitled" to reverse or revoke a prediction or promise based on, say, changed circumstances. (Asuuming in the case of the flood that the promise has been broken, something that has not been established.) That seems to happen in quite a few areas. Such as the promise to Abraham that his offspring will suffer at the hands of the Egyptions for 400 years, but they do so only for 210 years.

If you as a parent promise a child a certain punishment (no TV for a month) in response to a certain offense (not doing homework) and then you relent and either rescind, diminish or delay the response for some reason after the offense is perpetrated, are you a liar? Or is it understood that all promises are subject to certain conditions even if not stated explicitly. This certainly is the operating principle in a court of law. And the Talmudic rule for Biblical interpretation is that "the Bible (that is the pentateuch) speaks the language of ordinary people engaged in ordinary conversation".

Carol

Defending the errors and broken promises again? Is that your job or God's? Translating the Bible as you wish and then filling in all the errors with reasoning away the lies and ... sounds very dishonest to me. How do YOU know there are no errors and lies in the Bible? Have you any proof of this, or do you realise that all you are doing is trying to cover up a big mess? Tell me one thing. What is it that you are trying to achieve here at PT?

Carol, can you please provide Biblical justification for drawing a distinction between 'acts of god' and 'acts of nature', as you do above?
Precisely where and how does the text justify such a distinction? I.e., where and how do you find in the Bible any mention of god abdicating responsibility for all which occurs [modulo the contentious issues where human free will is or can be alleged to be involved -- we are talking nature here and which parts god controls and which part he/she/it doesn't].

hugs,
Shirley Knott

OK,we all know how inconsistent God can be,in Gen 8:21"and the Lord said in his heart,I will not curse the ground any more for mans sake,for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth,neither will again smite any more every living thing as I have done.
God said he would not curse the ground any more for mans sake.His reason is not that man is ,or will be good,but because the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth.
So God destroyed man because of his wickedness.Now he promises NOT to destroy him again for the same reason ,his wickedness?????????
I find it difficult to see how any book as flawed as the Bible could promote the advancement of man.

While not a theist (or even much of a deist), I would have thought that if there is a God she/he would have some degree of transcendence over the temporal world. In other words God would probably see changing circumstances coming at least in a probabilistic sense. I know I can to a limited degree.

While not on the topic of literalism (or of traits which are only partially selected for (a diversion from which I am partly responsible for - my bad) it seems that the God of the Bible is very un godlike and very human like. The getting angry, the need to "test" people like Moses by "pretending" to forget the flood promise, the need to be bought off via sacrifices, the expressions of regret at his own actions etc. (The showing of his loins to Ezekiel - twice if I recall - might be included.)

I also find Shirley Knott's question of interest.

neither will (I) again smite any more every living thing as I have done.

— God

Carol,
If you are still lurking, please tune in tomorrow morning.
Sincerely

Paul,

Well, here I am and see nothing.

Despite your stated lack of respect for me, I will treat your comments with the respect all human beings created in the image of God deserve. But I may need to be brief due to my workload at this time of year.