# In glory like their star subspecies *The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 31 Jan 2002* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### maa32 *31 Jan 2002, 04:17* on the subspecies with tails in In glory like their star: Monkeys? They are more genetically similar to us than a lot of animals we lump together into the same species are to each other. I don't know how Gene feels about evolution... actually, I take that back. He's a Lamarckian, isn't he? And he defends it on the basis that the usual attacks are actually attacks on Lesenkoism or something... whatever. And this means that the changes one generation makes can affect future generations ... in light of all the dangerous chemicals that I had to play with in lab, this is obviously true ... "Do Not Inhale: Mutagen - causes heritable genetic defects" How many times have I seen that label too late? (And radiation and whatnot) An interesting statement that may influence Wolfe's ideas about evolution came from the pope about three years ago: "evolution might be more than a theory." (Catholics also enjoy some freedom from strict interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis: they illustrate a truth like Jesus' parables without having to be literally true - their explanatory powers serves the divine will just as the parables instruct without having basis in "reality") In any case, I know very little about monkeys ... do they live in the desert? From Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark, and some other cultural stereotypes that might linger in the back of my mind for no substantial reason, I think they do. (Remember that monkey from the movie? It was an evil spy or something ...) OK, just my two cents. Marc Aramini ---