Answers in Genesis — The Ice Age

This one will make your weekend complete, dear reader. We found some wild and whimsical whoppers at the website of the creation scientists at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AIG) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

You’ve got to look at When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History? It’s far too long for us to do much more than pick out a few choice excerpts, but that should be sufficient to get you to click over there. It begins, with bold font added by us:

The Bible doesn’t say, “And then there was an Ice Age.” Yet it does give us the big picture of human history — as well as some critical details — which help us narrow down when the ice built up and then melted away.

Whoa — wait a minute! What ice age are they talking about if it’s not in the bible? We checked with scripture. To our astonishment, we found that the word “ice” appears only three times in the whole bible — and there is no mention at all of any ice age. Why do they think there was an ice age? Were they there? So that you’ll know how flimsy AIG’s story-telling is, the three scriptural references are:

Job 6:16 — Which are blackish by reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid

Job 38:29 — Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

Psalm 147:17 — He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

That’s it. That’s all there is. Yet AIG has a big long essay on a so-called ice age. Here’s what they tell us:

After two centuries of research, we now have enough information to begin recreating scenes from the rise and fall of the Ice Age. As a massive ice sheet expanded over Canada, it drove out most living things, and then it continued to push south into the Ohio valley. Eventually, the heavy snows stopped and the earth warmed.

This is outrageous! How do they know? They weren’t there! How often have they told us that we can’t rely on historical science? Only scripture is a reliable guide to the past. But just look at their essay — it’s all about a non-scriptural event! What’s wrong with those people? Ah well, let’s read on:

Many pieces of the “Ice Age puzzle” remain unsolved, but one thing is sure. Based on the Bible, we can be certain that the changes occurred within just a few human generations — not over millions of years. What follows is only a benchmark based on our starting parameters. The Bible gives us many clues to help us nail down the real time frame of the Ice Age. For example, when did it begin?

Good question. Here’s what they tell us:

The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abraham’s birth: eight.

What? In only eight generations, the human population went from just Noah’s family to the world of cities and nations that existed in Abraham’s time? We’ll have to digress from AIG’s essay, but let’s think about this.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. So in the first post-Flood generation there were those guys and their wives — three breeding couples, or families. If we do some math using generous assumptions, we shall assume that each couple produced three sons and three daughters — to allow for some essential incest — and if somehow none of them died young, then the second generation after Noah consisted of nine breeding couples, or families (three produced by each of Noah’s three sons).

For the third generation after Noah, we shall assume that each of those nine (incestuous) families produced three more couples, so that’s 27 families. For the 4th generation, multiply by 3 again and we get 81 families (remember that figure, we’ll come back to it). Fifth generation, 243 families. Sixth generation, 729 families, Seventh generation, 2,187 families, and by the 8th generation — when Abraham was alive — there were 6,561 human families. That’s roughly 13,000 married adults plus their kids, plus any of the adults’ aged parents who were still alive. That was the entire human population of the world in the days of Abraham.

In their next sentence, AIG also tells us:

God’s judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood.

Okay, so using our computations, when the great dispersal occurred there were then only 81 human families in existence, and those scattered all over the world. We assume only a dozen or so of those fourth generation families remained in the Middle East to populate the region with which Abraham was familiar in the 8th generation. That means in his lifetime, his part of the world — Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan — had only a fraction of the 6,561 human families then in existence. Your high school may have had more people than that.

We hope you’ll forgive our discussion of population; it was only a digression. Let’s get back to AIG’s essay on the ice age. After dismissing all the scientific evidence that it happened long ago, they say:

So it is reasonable to conclude that the start of the Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere (the Pleistocene) roughly coincides with the Babel judgment, around a century or so after the Flood (perhaps 2250 BC).

Okay, if they say so, but we remind you — none of that is scriptural. They continue:

The Bible also sheds light on the Ice Age’s end, though in an indirect way. If we can determine the dates of the first cities built after Babel, including Ur, and then show their relationship with dates for the last human and animal remains from the Ice Age, we can establish approximately when the Ice Age ended.

Uh huh. Here’s more:

The Bible mentions that some very important cities were established by Abraham’s day and continued to thrive throughout Old Testament times. For instance, the city of Abraham’s nativity was Ur. Abraham later passed through many other cities in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and Syria), Canaan, and Egypt. Since Abraham grew up in Ur, we know that it must have been founded before his birth.

And according to our calculations, each of those “very important cities” probably consisted of only a few dozen families. Anyway, AIG’s article goes on and on. Read it all if you like, but we can only handle so much of that stuff. For what it’s worth, your Curmudgeon’s humble opinion is that they’re all messed up, in more ways than we can summarize here. But who are we to disagree with Hambo’s creation scientists?

See also: ICR Explains The Tower of Babel.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

51 responses to “Answers in Genesis — The Ice Age

  1. Holding the Line in Florida

    Which one of Noah’s kids were the Neanderthals? The inquiring mind wants to know!

  2. The ability that people have to delude themselves is amazing…

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    I know it doesn’t have the same ring to it, but I’d call this CWAG, Creationist Wild- Ass Guess.

    And thanks to the CS who actually did math, now there is at least a shred of science going on here.

  4. Charles Deetz says: “And thanks to the CS who actually did math”

    If I’m CS, I can assure you there wasn’t much to the math. A 12-year-old could do it. Well, unless he’s a creationist.

  5. docbill1351

    What really happened during the Ice Age.

    Ken Ham, you’re an embarrassment to Nature!

  6. “The Flintstones were not a documentary.” – Lewis Black

  7. According to Ham, there are Neanderthal people, Cro-Magnon people, and the ancestral Babel people. Based on what little I know about human evolution, that means that Babel was populated by Homo Heidelbergensis.

  8. Strikes me as pulp fiction, and based on an erroneous interpolation of the Bible, but as the saying goes regarding Abraham, to Ur is human.

  9. Mark Joseph

    Just in case Mr. Ham is reading:
    “The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.” (source: Wikipedia)

  10. These delusional dimwits do not know post-diction from prediction. The only way the silly crap in the buyBull would have any meaning is to take someone who has never heard of science principle X (ice ages) then have this person read the buyBull and ask them what does this passage predicts or suggests? This of coarse has NEVER happened. Everything has been done as a post-dition after the fact. Just like the other fraud Nostradamus. Now I am not talking about telling the future events but rather things like–wow here it explains germ theory, here it says why pigs should not be eaten, here it explains the way the solar system is laid out. It is only lamely picked out by silly re-readings after the fact.

  11. The AIG article said, So it is reasonable to conclude that the start of the Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere (the Pleistocene) roughly coincides with the Babel judgment, around a century or so after the Flood (perhaps 2250 BC).
    This will no doubt come as a surprise to the Chinese. On their calendar, this is the year 4711 (2013 + 2698). In other words, their year 1 was around what we refer to as 2698 BC. (The math gets a little screwy because we have year 1 AD, year 1 BC, but no year zero. I’m not going to worry about the missing year in my calculations). So… did the Chinese go off and start their calendar 448 years before the ‘Babel judgement’ just to have a head start on making their language and culture different from others?

    On the Hebrew calendar, we are currently in the year 5773. If the AIG timeline is correct (ha, ha) the Babel event should be well documented in their recorded history. Dear diary, It’s the day after the first Sabbath of the planting season, year 1510. Went to our favorite Chinese restaurant for lunch, but could not place our orders… Couldn’t understand what the waiter was saying, and the new menus make no sense. Oy! Missing those egg rolls!

  12. Dear deluded ’48,

    If there had been Chinese don’t you think the Christmas Story would have read, “There was no room at the Hampton Inn, even though it provided free Wifi and a hot breakfast, thus Mary and Joseph sheltered at the Motel 6, a mangier option and after long travels found no restaurants in the vicinity and, verily, called for a Chinese take-away. Lo, the Three Wise Men delivered unto the couple a chicken chop suey, sesame beef, hot and sour soup, pork egg rolls, steamed rice and fortune cookies, which upon opening read, Lo, Unto the World a Child is Born.” And it was so, ah so.

  13. As a massive ice sheet expanded over Canada, it drove out most living things, and then it continued to push south into the Ohio valley.

    I didn’t consult a concordance, but I’m confident that there is no mention of Canada or the Ohio valley in the Bible.

    Why am I so confident? Because the Bible doesn’t have anything in it that could not be known to someone in the Ancient Near East. Why is the Bible written with the appearance of having been written without knowledge of anything that could not be known to someone in the ANE? That is like the question about why life on Earth was created with the appearance of having been evolving for billions of years.

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    Holy crap, did you check out the PDF close-up of the map in that article? The time-line gives a more complete picture of AIG’s assumed post-flood progression. Just crazy, I don’t know how else to describe it.

    When people entered Australia and Americas. The introduction of Mastodons and Mammoths. The improvement of stone tools. Who knows what assumptions they used to get this timeline. These guys are bonkers.

  15. Charles Deetz says: “Just crazy, I don’t know how else to describe it.”

    I donno. A lot can happen in just a few generations.

  16. You might be interested in the blog pathos.com, by James F. McGrath, and his brief comments on “Ice Age Creationism”. (Also take a look at another entry of the same date, “Is the Young-Earth Creationist Idea of God Compatible with Christianity?”.)

    “The whole thing illustrates just how bizarre a system of thought young-earth creationism is.”

    Ice Age Creationism

    “Dr. James F. McGrath is Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.”

  17. retiredsciguy

    @Charles Deetz 😉 — Thanks for the link to AiG’s craziness. Did you notice that “First tools and Human Fossils” appear about 100 years after Noah steps off the Ark? Makes you wonder how he built the Ark, since tools hadn’t been invented yet. (Hmm — I wonder if Ken Ham plans to build his replica using the same techniques — whatever they might be.)

  18. retiredsciguy

    Also thanks to TomS for the link to patheos.com. Another quote from Dr. McGrath:

    “I continue to wonder whether the folks at AiG are working to make Christianity look as foolish as possible, even while claiming their aim is to promote it.”

    Perfect!

    BTW, TomS, it looks like your auto-corrector did to you what mine tried to do — it’s “patheos.com” rather than “pathos.com” Pathos.com would be an apt title for AiG’s website, though.

  19. I decided to be fair to AIG and run the figures again, this time assuming a truly prodigeous rate of reproduction (but with equal numbers of male and female children, all surviving to adulthood). Let’s assume that eight children (four breeding couples) will be produced by each pair of parents. In this scenario, the second generation after Noah — the one produced by his three sons, would have 12 breeding couples — four couples sired by each of those three sons.

    Third generation (multiply those 12 couples by 4 again) = 48 breeding couples. Fourth generation = 192 breeding couples. (They’re all siblings or cousins — it’s fun that way.) According to AIG, those got scattered after the tower of Babel. Fifth generation = 768 couples. Sixth generation = 3,072 couples. Seventh = 12,288 couples.

    The eighth generation — Abraham’s — would then have 49,152 couples. That’s almost 100,000 married adults (plus their kids and aged parents). Again, they’re scattered all over the place because of Babel — they’re in China (building the Great Wall), in Peru (building Machu Picchu), in Cambodia (building Angkor Wat) etc., so there couldn’t be all that many in the region known to Abraham. How many? Who knows? If it’s 10% of the total population, then there would be maybe 5,000 married couples spread over Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan. That’s not enough to build one pyramid, and there wouldn’t be anyone left to inhabit Sodom and Gomorrah — or anywhere else.

  20. SC – excellent argument, even with 8 children per couple all of whom successfully produce grandchildren etc. That has to be a best case scenario. It effectively renders impossible the timeline that Ham claims for his ice age theory, and even for Babel.

    Assuming that the 4th generation 192 couple were living in babel at the time of the dispersal, with all 8 children each, and their parents – in other words, all of generation 3, 4, and 5. That would be 48+192+768, or a total of 1,008 humans of all ages and both genders. Those 1,008 people built the tower of babel that frightened god, while presumably also simultaneously building the city of babel, growing sufficient crops, making clothes, raising their numerous children, and most importantly, keeping up with their religious obligations. Even with modern tools, no population of 1,008 people (mostly children) could do a fraction of that – and per Ham, they had only the most basic stone age tools.

    The Babel People were also hampered by the requirement that they avoid any work at all one day per week.

    It’s time for someone to write Ham one of those emails that he answers now and then.

  21. Ed says: “That has to be a best case scenario.”

    No, I can do better. If each couple’s 8 kids were one male and seven females, and if the male takes his seven sisters as his harem, and then each female produces 8 kids, that’s the equivalent of having seven breeding couples instead of only four. If that happy pattern is repeated for a few generations, you can get a lot more people. But they’re mostly women and children. I’m sure Hambo will figure it out.

  22. docbill1351

    But they’re mostly women and children.

    That’s where the expression “women and children first” comes from.

  23. Look closely at the AIG map/timeline and you will be impressed once more at what an audacious liar Ken Ham is. Here again is the creationist map/timeline showing alleged shorelines during the Ice Age.

    Look sharp at Indonesia, and you’ll see that Bali and Lombok (the two islands east of Java, in order going east) are CONNECTED in the creationist map. This is a dirty trick because, of course, it relates to how animals could or couldn’t get from Eurasia to Australia.

    In reality, to get from Asia to Australia (after the Kangaroos and Koalas and saltwater crocodiles cross the Himalaya) there are at least two major sea barriers: the Lombok Strait, 250 m deep, between Bali and Lombok, and the Timor Trough, 3,300 m deep, between Timor and Australia. Based on finding old shorelines in the region (see this map), and on what we know from all around the world, 18,000 years ago, sea level might have been at most 140 m lower than at present. So even then, the Lombok Strait would be 110 m deep.

    Naturally, lying Ken Ham makes Bali and Lombok connected during the Ice Age, so that makes it perfectly plausible that Kangaroos, Koalas, platypuses, echidnas, thylacines, saltwater crocodiles, etc. could hop to Australia. Now if they could just get rid of the Timor Trough…

    As you probably know, the Wallace Line, discovered by co-discoverer of Natural Selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, runs through the Lombok Strait. Weber’s Line runs through the Timor Trough. Between these two lines is the biogeographical region called Wallacea, a region where neither the large fauna of Asia, nor the large fauna of Australia, ever penetrated.

  24. Charles Deetz ;)

    Diogenes, awesome tear-down, I didn’t know what to make of the map itself, it seemed the most plausible of that whole PDF to me, it could be from real scientific info for all I know. But you’ve shown it is silly conjecture just like the timeline. I never knew about the Wallace Line, but now I do. Quite a geographic challenge for Hambo, as if the Himalayas weren’t enough..

  25. Christine Janis

    Retired SciGuy said ” Did you notice that “First tools and Human Fossils” appear about 100 years after Noah steps off the Ark?”

    Also the first mastodons and mammoths. Guess it just took a couple of generations for those to evolve from the pair of elephants on the Ark. (Actually, not so bad for the mammoths —- just increase in size a bit and add some hair, but impossible for the mastodons, skull and tooth structure completely different from an elephant’s.)

  26. Charles:
    what to make of the map itself, it seemed the most plausible of that whole PDF to me, it could be from real scientific info

    You might thinks so, but there are major problems with Ham’s map– not only does the green part does not conform to shorelines during real ice ages, as I mentioned, another problem is that the white lines are NOT the modern shoreline, so the legend which claims that is wrong.

    The legend of the map identifies the white lines as modern shorelines, but this cannot be. I think the white lines might represent some period in the past or future when sea level was/will be HIGHER than it is now.

    For example, if you look at the white lines for Java, just east of Sumatra, it’s broken up into two parts, which I’ll call West Java and East Java. In reality that’s one island now. SFAIK the only way to break Java into two parts in the last few million years might be to raise the sea level. For Bali, Ham’s map shows no white lines at all; I had to infer the location of Bali, by reference to Java, Sulawesi, etc. Likewise if you look at Sulawesi, up to the north/east of Java, in reality right now it’s a connected spider-looking thing, but Ham’s white lines show it as disconnected blobs. (The natural history of Sulawesi is a very complicated jigsaw puzzle.)

    Biogeographers give the name Sundaland to the (now drowned) sub-continent once made up of Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Bali etc. (but NOT LOMBOK, not Sumbawa nor Flores!) connected ultimately to Asia. The green part of Ken Ham’s fake map has expanded the size of Sundaland considerably, connecting Bali to Lombok, including all of Sumbawa (!), and (I think) easternmost Flores. So that’s a big expansion. Flores is now a semi-disconnected east-west oriented archipelago. (You’ll recall that’s where they found the Hobbit, Homo floresiensis.) Compare Ken Ham’s map to this real map that shows, in green, the Flores archipelago (north), Sumba (southwest), and West Timor (southeast).

    Given that the Lombok Strait between Bali and Lombok is 250m deep now, that would mean they’re hypothesizing that sea level was more than 250 m lower than it is now. I don’t believe there was any point in natural history when sea level was more than 250 m lower than now— I know of no suggestions or hypotheses of that– unless maybe you go way back to Snowball Earth ~600-700 Mya. Perhaps Christine can enlighten us.

  27. Actually I should say Snelling’s map, not Ken Ham’s. That kind of article is beyond the ability of the Hamite.

  28. Christine:
    Also the first mastodons and mammoths. Guess it just took a couple of generations for those to evolve from the pair of elephants on the Ark. (Actually, not so bad for the mammoths —- just increase in size a bit and add some hair, but impossible for the mastodons, skull and tooth structure completely different from an elephant’s.)

    Do you have a concise source for major structural differences between mastodons and elephants?

  29. Christine Janis

    Diogenes:

    If you can read French, there’s this (may also have some useful references):

    Emmanuel Gheerbrant, Pascal Tassy
    L’origine et l’évolution des éléphants
    C. R. Palevol 8 (2009) 281–294

  30. /// but impossible for the mastodons, skull and tooth structure completely different from an elephant’s.) ///

    The mastodons looked a lot like modern Asian elephants

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon

  31. Borny says: “The mastodons looked a lot like modern Asian elephants”

    I thought Vito Corleone was a mastadon.

  32. Christine Janis

    “The mastodons looked a lot like modern Asian elephants”

    “Mastodon” means “breast tooth”. The teeth are low-crowned and bunodont (bumpy), rather like large primate or pig teeth. They are completely unlike those of an elephantid (Asian or African elephant, or mastodon), which are high-crowned with multiple complex ridges.

    Mastodon tooth

    Mammoth tooth

    Mastodon and elephantid lineages separated 25-30 million years ago

  33. Realist1948 said:

    Dear diary, It’s the day after the first Sabbath of the planting season, year 1510. Went to our favorite Chinese restaurant for lunch, but could not place our orders… Couldn’t understand what the waiter was saying, and the new menus make no sense. Oy! Missing those egg rolls!

    It’s a good thing I’ve given up Mt Dew, otherwise both keyboard and monitor would have been covered with it.

  34. ////“Mastodon” means “breast tooth”. The teeth are low-crowned and bunodont (bumpy), rather like large primate or pig teeth. They are completely unlike those of an elephantid///

    Yeah there are differences in the teeth etc, but my point was that the overall appearance of the mastodon wasn’t very different from present-day asian elephants.

  35. Gary wrote:

    It’s a good thing I’ve given up Mt Dew, otherwise both keyboard and monitor would have been covered with it.

    That is so unfair! I thought my follow-up was MUCH better. And, I’m always right. Get some more Mt Dew and try harder!!!

  36. Christine Janis

    “Yeah there are differences in the teeth etc, but my point was that the overall appearance of the mastodon wasn’t very different from present-day asian elephants.”

    Musk oxen look a bit like bison, but they’re from completely different lineages of bovids.

  37. Christine Janis

    Better example. Thylacines (“marsupial wolves”) look a lot like wolves (well, more like mangey coyotes), other mammals that creationists often claim are really the same thing.

  38. Christine,
    thanks for the article on proboscideans. Here is the abstract in English:

    Abstract: Origin and evolution of proboscideans. Recent palaeontological research has significantly enhanced our knowledge of the evolution of proboscideans, especially the beginning of their evolutionary history. New discoveries in the Early Eocene support, in particular, a lophodont ancestral morphotype for the Proboscidea and the African origin of the order, from which the Asiatic Anthracobunidae are excluded. The primitive Eocene proboscideans remain, however, poorly known. Other important discoveries have been made on the question of the origin of the moeritheres, of the deinotheres and elephantimorphs, and on the differentiation of elephantids. Palaeontology demonstrates in the Proboscidea a remarkably rich history, unsuspected from the extant relictual diversity, and one of the most spectacular morphological evolutions in the Mammalia.

    Emmanuel Gheerbrant, Pascal Tassy. L’origine et l’évolution des elephants (2009). Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 281-294.

  39. Actually you can see the images from the proboscidean article without paying, at this link.

  40. Note also this on Snelling’s Ice Age article:

    “Chat live with the author on the Answers magazine Facebook page (facebook.com/answersmagazine) on Tuesday, April 16, [2013] 2–3 PM/ET. Mike Matthews looks forward to answering your questions and responding to comments on our wall!”

    What do you guys say about me showing up to their FB page on April 16 and asking a few questions?

  41. Diogenes asks: “What do you guys say about me showing up to their FB page on April 16 and asking a few questions?”

    Go for it. But don’t expect any good answers. In fact, you’ll probably be banned (if Facebook allows that).

  42. ///// Better example. Thylacines (“marsupial wolves”) look a lot like wolves (well, more like mangey coyotes), other mammals that creationists often claim are really the same thing. ////

    The relation between elephants and mastodons is similar to the relation between humans and gorillas. Humans & chimps share a common ancestor. This common ancestor in turn shared a common ancestor with the gorilla. Similarly, modern elephants share a common ancestor called Primeelephas. Primeelephas in turn shared a common ancestor with the mastodon.
    This is not like the relation between Thylacines and wolves. The former is a marsupial while the latter an eutherian. They are far separated than the above cases.

  43. I know exactly what will happen, but perhaps a few pro-science types might enjoy the show.

  44. @Diogenes: I just added it to my calendar. 🙂

    I hope you will round up all your comments and post a condensed version on your blog.

  45. Christine Janis

    “The relation between elephants and mastodons is similar to the relation between humans and gorillas.”

    Not at all. Humans and gorillas diverged a maximum of 10 million years ago, and are in the same subfamily (Homininae).

    Mammoths and mastodons diverged around 30 million years ago and are in different families that aren’t even sister families.

    Here is the more pertinent example: Gibbons (Hominidae) and spider monkeys (Atelidae) —- both long-limbed brachiators (and the only primates that brachiate) — also with similar divergence times to mammoth/mastodon.

  46. Christine Janis

    To elaborate on the above:

    Similarities of gibbon/spider monkey to the Mammoth/Mastodon issue:

    Different families (but not sister families) within the same order

    Divergence time around 30 Ma

    Similarities (in comparison to other members of the same order) due entirely to convergence.

  47. Christine Janis: “Gibbons (Hominidae) and spider monkeys (Atelidae) —- both long-limbed brachiators (and the only primates that brachiate) …”

    I realize this is not germane to the point you’re making, but don’t orangutans brachiate as well? (At least the younger, more nimble ones?)

  48. Doc Bill said:

    I thought my follow-up was MUCH better. And, I’m always right. Get some more Mt Dew and try harder!!!

    Doc, you know I love ya. But this time, Realist had two, no three things (sir!) going for him: wording, timing, and content. It was truly the Perfect Storm that only my lack of Mt Dew prevented from causing an electronic catastrophe of epic proportions.
    There’s always next year…

  49. Tomato Addict says: “I hope you will round up …”

    Why does everything have to be round with you?

  50. Christine Janis

    “I realize this is not germane to the point you’re making, but don’t orangutans brachiate as well? (At least the younger, more nimble ones?)”

    Part of the suspensory, underbranch locomotion. But they don’t share the specialized (convergently) wrist anatomy of gibbons and spider monkeys than enables this as a fast gait. Speaking as someone currently typing with a broken wrist, I feel this quite keenly —–

  51. Because I’m afraid of being cornered.