Wally Day wrote:
>
> >I've
> >also read that ice-age population bottlnecks could have accelerated the
> >evolutionary progress or adaptation in Europe by weeding out genetic
> >traits unsuited to those conditions.
>
> Which is a good argument for looking more closely at 50,000-100,000 years
> ago, rather than 2,000,000 years ago.

Read somewhere recently (drat, never can remember where I
see these things. Probably need to eat more blueberries or
something) that recent gene analysis suggests that european
ancesteral population fell to as low as 70 (seventy!!)
people some 70,000 years ago, and that all modern european
descent people are quite inbred as a result, far more than
other major populations. Sounds like that neolithic invasion
of middle eastern farmers was a pretty good thing, and
didn't go nearly far enough. A little gene mixing is a good
thing in inbred populations.

My kids are half breeds, I sure hope they end up with those
big, tough asian teeth, not my thin, weak caucasian things.
Well, they are getting less bread and refined sugar than I
did, so they will probably have better teeth anyway. If I am
lucky, they will end up as handsome and talented as Tiger Woods...