2-1-2 Creation 0 Contents 2 Foundation 2-1 Postulates Caring 2-1-4

2-1-3 Creation Is Making Something Out Of Eternal Matter

 0 Introduction 0.1 The Background Of Civilizing 0.2 Love of Doves (many mate for life) 1 Mating Systems in Sexual Animals 1.1 The Evolution of Sex 1.2 Variance in Mating Success and Bateman's Principle 1.3 Female Mate Choice 1.4 Male Mate Choice 1.5 Types of Mating Systems 1.5.01 Monogamy 1.5.02 Polygyny 1.5.03 Resource Defense Polygyny 1.5.04 Harems 1.5.05 Leks 1.5.06 Polyandry 1.5.07 Resource Defense Polyandry 1.5.08 Cooperative Polyandry 1.5.09 Polygynandry 1.5.10 Promiscuity 1.5.11 Sperm Competition 1.6 Conclusions 1.7 Glossary 1.8 References and Recommended Reading See the moon hit: 2-1-0 Definitions For Cosmology. 2 Walking Upright 2.1 Compare a Chimp with an Early and Modern Human 2.2 Benefits and Costs of Walking 2.3 Breast-Feeding in Prehistoric Times 3 Hunter Gatherer Societies 3.1 The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil 3.1.1 Maternal Instinct crosses the Species Line 3.2 So what brought about the change as humans evolved out of Eden? 3.2.1 Many women accusemen of misogyny to express their misandry! 4 Race, brain size, and IQ: The case for consilience Wikipedia 4.1 Male-Female Brain Differences 4.2 Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved 4.3 Sex Differences in IQ 4.4 different 4.4 Conventional wisdom overturned 4.5 WISC-R 4.6 Raven Progressive Matrices 4.7 Real world effects in Mensa Notes on the papers Conclusions References Human Characteristics: Humans Change the World Stone Age Europeans were first native Americans First Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago Mammoth Bone Shelters Conclusions 9 Discussion

0 Introduction

The laws of physical survival are what has written and/or erased genetic development of a species. In some sense the genetic code of a species is a history of what time and chance code variations worked best to survive and propagate.

This left a dominant male fascist control tendency on one side (because that was the male nature that tended to make genetically healthy pregnancies) and on the other side the raped, victimized and dominated females survived and have babies by being attracted to the invader, manipulating chiefs, priest, and the tribe to have some sense of control over her life.

Great Ape females and other mammals seldom commit infanticide but there is a continuing history of human maternal infanticide. Some years in the 1990's Russia had are more abortions than live births. Not to mention the murder of live births (in Karachi, Pakistan there is a charity that picks up dead babies out of the garbage to give them a human burial)!

 Pakistan - Baby Girls Discarded in the Trash. mp4

These genetically predestined behaviors can be and are modified by various Anthropoculture (human child rearing cultures).

0.1 The Background Of Civilization

The background of stopping child sacrifice was the foundation of the Jewish People with Abram as the archetype.

 Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden Military Commander Gustav II Adolf; widely known in English by his Latinized name Gustavus Adolphus, or as Gustavus Adolphus the Great; was the King of Sweden from 1611 to 1632 and is credited as the founder of Sweden as a Great Power. Wikipedia Born: December 9, 1594, Tre Kronor, Stockholm, Sweden Died: November 6, 1632, Lützen, Germany Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg

In the early mammoth hunting Anthropculture there were few people in the harsh conditions giving a respect for each life.

The mammoth task of hunting, killing, hauling and sailing tons of a Mammoth's meat led to a male Anthropculture of male integrity and group workmanship ability.  These were not genetic but came from fathering.

After a three or four years of the maternal nursing bond, the boys and young men were trained in these successful male group behaviors and much of this male Anthropculture was passed from generation to generation in Scandinavia.

The honorable male Anthropculture in Scandinavia from prehistoric Mammoth times because it was not broken by invasion. They were such good defenders that Islamic domination of the Iberian peninsula could not overtake some of the settlements.

In fact their male group skills were so good that after with drawing from dominating the Kiev, the Kievian lords had so much trouble with infighting that they invited the Vikings to return and rule over them setting up what would become the Tzar family.

### Slavic sources

According to the earliest East Slavic record, the Primary Chronicle, the Rus' were a group of Varangians among others like Swedes and Gutes who lived on the other side of the Baltic Sea, in Scandinavia and as far as the land of the English and the French.[9] The Varangians were first expelled, then invited to rule the warring Slavic and Finnic tribes of Novgorod:

The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians — Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom". Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gutes, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated.

—The Primary Chronicle[11]

Later, the Primary Chronicle tells us, they conquered Kiev and created the state of Kievan Rus' (which, as most historians agree, was preceded by the Rus' Khaganate). The territory they conquered was named after them as were, eventually, the local people (see Etymology of Rus and derivatives for further details).

The pagan Vikings gained a reputation for honor in the Christian Byzantine Empior that they were hired as protectors against Islamic terrorists.

### Varangian Guard

The Varangian Guard (Greek: Τάγμα των Βαράγγων, Tágma tōn Varángōn) was an elite unit of the Byzantine Army, from the 10th to the 14th centuries, whose members served as personal bodyguards of the Byzantine Emperors. They are known for being primarily composed of Germanic peoples, specifically, Scandinavians (the Guard was formed 60 years before the end of the Viking age) and Anglo-Saxons from England (particularly after the Norman Invasion).

The guard was first formed under Emperor Basil II in 988, following the Christianization of Kievan Rus' by Vladimir I of Kiev. Vladimir, who had recently usurped power in Kiev with an army of Varangian warriors, sent 6,000 men to Basil as part of a military assistance agreement.[1][2][3] Basil's distrust of the native Byzantine guardsmen, whose loyalties often shifted with fatal consequences, as well as the proven loyalty of the Varangians, many of whom served in Byzantium even before, led the Emperor to employ them as his personal guardsmen. Over the years, new recruits from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland kept a predominantly Norse cast to the organization until the late 11th century.

The Scandinavian Anthropculture of honor male until the devastation of the 30 years war and death of Gustavus Adolphus. When his daughter Christina tool the throne it was the end of the honored male culture and the rise of female and homosexual domination through liberation

My thesis is that family caring developed on family farms and this caring environment set the background for the development of caring and peaceful belief systems of Christianity and Buddhism.

Further that the harsh life of herding, nomadic living and/or serfdom and cast societies were in conflict with the peaceful belief systems of Christianity and Buddhism.

Much deeper than just the behavioral impacted of family farming is the background of life's genetic development based on three predestining principles:
1) What parents propagate to give healthy physically healthy children,
2) What parenting gives physically healthy children the best chance of living to physically propagate grandchildren, and
3) What parenting gives behaviorally healthy children the best chance of living to  propagate behaviorally healthy grandchildren.

In this section I want to give a reality foundation to have insight into our genetic human nature, why Anthropculture is so important for achieving the potentials of intelligent life. How the archetype insight represented by Abraham, Moses and Jesus the Christ were so important for Anthropculture. Where the European Male Anthropculture of group honor and integrity came from and how it disappeared. Why the highest levels of Anthropculture have been realized in societies of family owned farms. This was true in Family Farm Europe, China and America.

0.2 Love Of A Dove (many mate for life)

Mourning Dove

Mourning Dove

Pair of doves in late winter in Minnesota

For the Native American author of the same name, see Mourning Dove (author)

 Winter only (blue), summer only (light green), and year-round (dark green) range

As I have labored on this website for many years. The last two years 2012-2013 Olga has stayed in Russia to care for a granddaughter. I have been alone Summers in New York and Winters in Florida. In 2012-13 winter in Florida, while working downstairs I noticed a dove set on our back patio and coo to me. In my aloneness in enjoyed the sound "coo coo coo" with a break and then repeated. I would say back "I love you".

When I  worked at  the upstairs bedroom desk a Dove would come and set on the balcony handrail and the same conversation would go on.

They are shown as only in North America but last Spring here in the Russian Caucuses while walking with my granddaughter I heard a Dove and responded to it. We were waiting for Olga to come out of a clinic and the responding to the Dove went on for some time and it moved closer.

Last Summer in New York I listened to the Doves as I worked and now in Russia I noticed a Dove calling from the next building and coming to the tree outside my window at times.

1 Mating Systems in Sexual Animals

By: Michelle O. Krasnec, Chelsea N. Cook & Michael D. Breed © 2012 Nature Education

Citation: Krasnec, M. O., Cook, C. N. & Breed, M. D. (2012) Mating Systems in Sexual Animals. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):72
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427
You may reproduce this material, without modifications, in print or electronic form for your personal, non-commercial purposes or for non-commercial use in an educational environment.

One of the most fascinating aspects of human life is how we choose our mates. Animals also choose their mates, sometimes with a great deal of care. Mating systems are important to understand because they reflect the result of natural selection on mate choice, and ultimately on strategies for maximizing individual reproductive success.

A mating system describes how males and females pair when choosing a mate. Males and females differ greatly in the investment each makes to reproduce, and may therefore approach mating with differing strategies. To study these differences, scientists observe mating systems and describe how males and females come together. When choosing mates, animals evolve species-typical strategies for maximizing their reproductive success — this results in considerable diversity among animal species in their mating patterns.

In this article we first discuss why sexual reproduction exists, and how differences between males and females affect mating systems. We move on to consider the evolution of mate choice, and then we describe the types of mating systems found in animals.

## 1.1 The Evolution of Sex

Asexually reproducing animals pass on all of their chromosomes, and consequently all copies of each gene, to their offspring. In contrast, due to meiosis, diploid sexually reproducing animals have two copies of each chromosome but only pass one copy of each chromosome on to an egg or sperm cell. This means that a sexually reproducing diploid animal only passes half of its total genes on to its offspring. Despite the cost of losing half of the potential passage of genes to the next generation, sexual reproduction is much more common than asexual reproduction among animals because it provides several evolutionary advantages. The major advantage of sexual reproduction comes from genetic recombination. Genetic recombination allows an organism's offspring to be genetically diverse. Sexual reproduction increases the chances of acquiring favorable mutations and is unlikely to propagate deleterious ones. Genetic diversity within a group of offspring is advantageous as the local environment changes. This idea becomes clear when we examine organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Aphids, for example, will favor asexual reproduction when their environment is stable. When the environment is going to turn cold, most species of aphids reproduce sexually, because sexual reproduction produces eggs that are freeze tolerant and can diapause during the winter (Simon et al. 2002). Genetic diversity may also lead to evolved defenses against parasites and disease. The mud snail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum, is host to several trematode parasites. Sexual individuals of this species are more common in areas where risk of trematode infection is high. In areas where the risk of infection is low, asexual individuals have displaced sexual ones (King et al. 2009). This suggests that the genetic diversity acquired from sexual reproduction is necessary for this species to defend against parasites, as asexual individuals may not easily survive in areas where parasites are high.

Sexual reproduction often involves evolutionary differentiation of males and females. Females typically produce significantly fewer gametes (eggs) than males and invest heavily in each one. On the other hand, males produce many gametes (sperm) and invest little into each one. These strong differences in gamete investment between the sexes leads to reproductive strategies between the sexes that, in some cases, conflict. Females may spend more care than males selecting a mate due to the high cost of their gametes.

Figure 1: A male bighorn sheep.

The large horns are used in combat between males during mating season, and likely evolved as a result of intrasexual selection.

1.2 Variance in Mating Success and Bateman's Principle

A key element of the study of mating systems is understanding how many mates an animal has in its lifetime. Bateman's principle helps to make predictions about mating success and number of mates. Bateman's principle postulates that variance among females in mating success is low, whereas variance among males in mating success is high. This stems from the fact that one mating in females should be enough to fertilize all their eggs whereas in males reproductive success is based on the number of times they have mated. In other words, nearly all females in a population mate and have offspring, but relatively few males mate successfully (Figure 2). Those males that do mate tend to mate with many females-thus a few males have very high reproductive output, but many males have little or no reproductive output (Bateman 1948). This leads to the prediction that sexual selection should act more strongly on males, leading to greater elaboration of behavior and structures used in attracting mates in males than in females.

 Figure 2: Bateman’s principle. These figures illustrate Bateman’s principle — after one mating, female mating frequency increases and relative fitness remains constant, as the sperm from one mating is adequate to fertilize all the female’s eggs. In males, as mating frequency increases relative fitness also increases proportionally. © 2012 Nature Education Modified from Hauber & Lacey 2005. All rights reserved.

Criticisms of Bateman's theory focus on the generality of the predictions. Contrary to the predictions of Bateman's principle, there are several possible advantages to female multiple matings. The female cichlid fish Pseudotropheus spiliopterus mates with any male they meet because they have a high risk of getting predated and a small population. This often leads to multiple matings by a single female (Kellogg et al.1998). Mating with any male that is seen ensures that these cichlids have a chance at producing offspring. The female Malawi blue cichlid has a high population but still participates in multiple matings. In this case multiple matings occur to avoid inbreeding and increase genetic diversity among the offspring (Kellogg et al. 1998). Additionally, multiple matings by females may increase the likelihood that they will find a compatible mate, one that is not sterile, or even help prevent infanticide.

1.3 Female Mate Choice

Mate choice is also a key element of mating systems. In most species, females are choosier when picking a mate than males. A significant reason for this is the higher investment females make in each gamete than males. Females may prefer certain males for a variety of reasons, including "good genes", meaning that the male has attributes which predict better survivorship of the offspring, good potential parenting by the male, or possession of resources by the male that will support the offspring during their growth and development.

Additionally, in most species, females are more likely to provide parental care. Females that carefully select their mates are at a lower risk of losing their reproductive investment. Males may be under strong selection for certain traits that are favored by females. Most females look at these traits as indicators of their partner's fitness. Selection favors females that choose males that enhance the likelihood of her offspring's success. Males with more elaborate ornamentation, or that are more colorful, can be displaying a good indicator of value as a mate, and may win the chance to mate with a particular female. (Figure 3). Although mating is important, it can be a costly event — females are predicted to be choosier about selecting their mates than males because of risks during mating, such as aggression or disease transmission, which may negatively impact the female's reproductive output.

 Figure 3: Eyespots from peacock tail feathers. Elaborate ornamentation usually evolves in intrasexual selection and is used in mate choice. © 2012 Nature Education Photo courtesy of Michael D. Breed. All rights reserved.

1.4 Male Mate Choice

The importance of male mate choice is controversial. Older theory predicts that male mate choice should be less common in animals. However it plays an important role in many mating systems, and the cost of mating for males may have been underestimated in earlier studies. Male mate choice occurs most often when males are substantially involved in caring for their offspring, or when there is great variation in the quality of the females as mates within a population. If males are choosy about their mate, then over time females may evolve ornamentation or coloration that is subject to sexual selection.

1.5 Types of Mating Systems

1.5.01 Monogamy

Social monogamy is the behavioral pairing of a single male with a single female. It is most common in birds and rare in other animals (Figure 4). Theoretically, individuals in monogamous pairs will both contribute to the defense and parental care of offspring. Choosing an inappropriate mate could have a high fitness cost (see the sections above for more on mate choice). Because the costs of poor mate choice in monogamous species can be so high, in some instances organisms engage in strategies of either serial monogamy or extra-pair copulations. Extra-pair copulations are very common in birds (Petrie et al. 1998, Stutchberry 1998). Monogamy reduces the potential for genetic variation among a female's offspring. By mating with more than one male over the course of her lifetime, a female gains higher genetic variation among her offspring. The benefits of monogamy, which are shared parental care and territorial resources, are maintained by having only one mate at a time, or by concealing extra-pair partnerships

 Figure 4: Blue-footed boobies. Many bird species, such as these blue-footed boobies are monogamous. © 2012 Nature Education Photo courtesy of Michelle O. Krasnec. All rights reserved.

1.5.02 Polygyny

Polygyny is the association of one male with multiple females. This mating system is found in a few birds and insects, but is most common in mammals. Polygyny is a strategy used by males to increase their reproductive fitness.

1.5.03 Resource Defense Polygyny

In resource defense polygyny, groups of females are attracted to a resource — males then compete for territorial possession of the resource, and, by extension, mating priority with females at the resource (Beletsky 1994). Thus, individual males form territories centered on resources needed for successful mating (McCracken 1981).

1.5.04 Harems

Another common type of polygyny is membership in a harem, a defended group of females associated with one male. Females may initially associate in a harem for group defense, or they may be herded together by a male. Males compete for control of the groups. Harems typically exhibit a dominance hierarchy among the females in the group.

1.5.05 Leks

A lek is an aggregation of males that are each seeking to attract a mate. Within a lek, males typically perform sexual displays. Unlike most other mating systems, leks are not associated with resources. Aggregations of males may be near particularly attractive females or in areas where females are likely to travel (Lank et al. 1995, Aspbury & Gibson 2004). It is thought that males form leks because they attract more females than do isolated males. Attracting more females is a strategy used by males to help increase their reproductive success.

1.5.06 Polyandry

Polyandry is a group with one female and many males. Polyandry is a reproductive strategy that helps a female ensure reproductive success by providing her with multiple mating options.

1.5.07 Resource Defense Polyandry

In the Spotted Sandpiper, females control resources, which in turn controls male mating associations (Oring et al. 1994).

1.5.08 Cooperative Polyandry

The Galapagos hawk exhibits cooperative polyandry. In this case all males in the group copulate with the female and all participate in brood provisioning (Fabborg et al. 1995).

1.5.09 Polygynandry

Some mating systems have looser male-female bonds within groups. In polygynandrous groups, multiple females and males mate with each other, and males may care for the broods of several females. Chimpanzees and bonobos rely on this strategy — it allows groups of males and females to live together and spend less time being concerned with mate competition. Polygynandry may be advantageous from the female's perspective because it causes paternity confusion, which decreases infanticide and allows her to have multiple males care for her brood (Hrdy 1981, 2000).

1.5.10 Promiscuity

In promiscuity there are no pair bonds, and males and females, although sometimes choosy, often seem to mate randomly. As it is typically more advantageous for one or both sexes to pick their mate, promiscuity may occur in species for which the environment is unpredictable (Birkhead 2000, Burton 2002).

1.5.11 Sperm Competition

Although sperm competition is not a type of mating system per se, it is a form of male-male competition that plays an important role in mating systems. If more than one male mates with a female in a short time period, competition can occur after the males have released their sperm (Fisher & Hoekstra 2010). In other words, once a male has released sperm, its sperm must be the first to reach an egg. This is often apparent in animals that use external fertilization. In aquatic animals that release their gametes into the water, animals that release the largest amount of sperm, and sperm that are highly capable of swimming, are likely to produce the most offspring (Stoltz & Neff 2006). Animals with internal fertilization also experience sperm competition. Several mechanisms have evolved to facilitate a male's reproductive success with females that have multiple mates. For example, in one species of damselfly, males physically remove any sperm present from the female before it mates (Waage 1979). Sperm competition adds to the difficulty of obtaining a successful reproductive event by males.

1.6 Conclusions

To transfer their genes to the next generation successfully, animals need to choose a suitable mate. Failure to do so leads to low or no reproductive success — that is, poor fitness. But reproductive success can also hinge on the number of mates, and on social interactions that extend beyond mating. By classifying social interactions, scientists have been able to identify different types of mating systems, such as monogamy and polygyny. The mating systems described in this article represent a variety of strategies to achieve reproductive success. The diversity of mating systems in animals is a fascinating example of the incredible variety of solutions that a complex evolutionary problem can yield.

1.7 Glossary

Bateman's Principle: The theory that females almost always invest more energy into producing offspring than males, and therefore, in most species, females are a limiting resource over which the other sex will compete.

fitness: The relative measure of the reproductive success of an individual passing its genes to the next generation.

genetic recombination: The process of creating allelic variation in offspring by exchanging DNA; typically happens during sexual reproduction.

harem: A group of females associated with a single male. Typically the male in the harem defends his group of females.

lek: A mating system which consists of an aggregation of males where each is seeking to attract a mate. Leks are not associated with resources; however it is thought that leks attract more females than a single male would attract.

resource defense polygyny: A mating systems in which males establish a territory around resources needed for mating success. In this system multiple females will join the male in his territory.

polyandry: A mating system where one female pairs with many males.

polygyny: A mating system where one male is associated with many females.

promiscuity: A mating system where there are no pair bonds. In this case is seems that males and females mate randomly.

serial monogamy: A mating system in animals where they pair with a mate for one mating season but change mates over the course of a lifetime.

social monogamy: The behavioral pairing of a single female with a single male.

Aspbury, A. S. & Gibson, R. M. Long range visibility of greater sage-grouse leks: A GIS-based analysis. Animal Behaviour 67, 1128-1132 (2004).

Bateman, A. J. Inter-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349-368 (1948).

Coleman, S. W. et al. Female preferences drive the evolution of mimetic accuracy in male sexual displays. Biological Letters 3, 463-466 (2007).

Beletsky, L. D. & Orians, G. H. Site fidelity and territorial movements of males in a rapidly declining population of yellow-headed blackbirds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34, 257-265 (1994).

Birkhead, T. Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Burton, C. Microsatellite analysis of multiple paternity and male reproductive success in the promiscuous snowshoe hare. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80, 1948-1956 (2002).

Faaborg, J. et al. Confirmation of cooperative polyandry in the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36, 83-90 (1995)

Fisher, H. S. & Hoekstra, H. E. Competition drives cooperation among closely related sperm of deer mice. Nature 463, 801-803 (2010).

Grether, G. Intrasexual competition alone favors a sexually dimorphic ornament in the rubyspot damselfly Hetaerina americana. Evolution 50, 1949-1957 (1996).

Hauber, M.E. & Lacey, E.A. Bateman's principle in cooperatively breeding vertebrates: The effects of nonbreeding alloparents on variability in female and male reproductive success. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45, 903-914 (2005).

Hrdy, S. B. The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Hrdy, S. B. The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 907, 75-96 (2000).

Kellogg, K. A. et al. Intraspecific brood mixing and reduced polyandry in a maternal mouth-brooding cichlid. Behavioral Ecology 9, 309-312 (1998).

King, K. C. et al. The geographic mosaic of sex and the Red Queen. Current Biology 19, 1438-1441 (2009).

Lank, D. B. et al. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating-behavior in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378, 59-62 (1995).

Lande, R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 78, 3721-3725 (1976).

McCracken, G. F. & Bradbury, W. Social organization and kinship in the polygynous bat Phyllostomus hastatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 8, 11-34 (1981).

Oring, L. W. et al. Mate acquisition tactics in polyandrous spotted sandpipers (Actitis macularia): The role of age and experience. Behavioral Ecology 5, 9-16 (1994).

Petrie, M. et al. The degree of extrapair paternity increases with genetic variability could be characterized as cryptic polyandry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 16, 9390-9395 (1998).

Rosenthal, G. G., & Evans, C. S. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95, 4431-4436 (1998).

Simon, J. C. et al. Ecology and evolution of sex in aphids. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 34-39 (2002).

Stoltz, J. A. & Neff, B. D. Sperm competition in a fish with external fertilization: The contribution of sperm number, speed and length. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19, 1873-1881 (2006).

Stutchberry, B. J. M. Breeding synchrony best explains variation in extrapair mating system among avian species. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43, 221-222 (1998).

Waage, J. K. Dual function of the damselfly penis: Sperm removal and transfer. Science 203, 916-918 (1979).

2 Walking Upright

Walking One Step at a Time

The earliest humans climbed trees and walked on the ground. This flexibility helped them get around in diverse habitats and cope with changing climates.

Silhouette of Sahelanthropus tchandensis. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios From at least 6 to 3 million years ago, early humans combined apelike and humanlike ways of moving around. Fossil bones like the ones you see here record a gradual transition from climbing trees to walking upright on a regular basis.

7–6 million years ago

Sahelanthropus may have walked on two legs.

Becoming bipedal

By 6 million years ago

The oldest evidence for walking on two legs comes from one of the earliest humans known, Sahelanthropus. Walking upright may have helped this species survive in the diverse habitats near where it lived—including forests and grasslands.

Leg support

6 million years ago

\Silhouette of Orrorin tugenensis for femur. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studio. The upper part of this thigh bone is similar in size to those of other large apes. But the angled part more closely resembles that of modern humans. It formed a strong bridge with the hip to support the body’s weight, suggesting Orrorin tugenensis walked upright.

Strong knee

4.1 million years ago

Every time you take a step, you briefly stand on one leg—putting stress on your leg bones. The wide area of bone just below this the knee joint in Australopithecus anamensis is a result of that stress. It provides strong evidence that this individual walked upright.

Mostly bipedal

By 4 million years ago

Silhouette of Australopithicus afarensis with vertebrae Fossils from around this time period come from early human species that lived near open areas and dense woods. Their bodies had evolved in ways that enabled them to walk upright most of the time, but still climb trees. As a result, they could take advantage of both habitats.

Curved spine

2.5 million years ago

The curve of your lower back absorbs shock when you walk. It is uniquely human. You can see a similar curve in the spine of this early human, Australopithecus africanus, who walked upright in a way very similar to modern humans.

Hip support

1.95 million years ago

The size and broad shape of the hip bones of Homo erectus are similar to a modern human’s, showing that this early human species had given up climbing for walking.

Fully bipedal

By 1.9 million years ago

Silhouette of Homo erectus pelvis. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios The pelvis and thigh bones (outline to right) of Homo erectus are similar to modern humans, and show that this early human was able to walk long distances. That ability was a big advantage during this time period. East Africa’s environments were fluctuating widely between moist and dry, and open grasslands were beginning to spread.

Long leg

1.89 million years ago

The long thigh bones of Homo erectus enabled its owner to take long strides and therefore to walk farther and faster than earlier humans.

2.1 Compare a Chimp with an Early and Modern Human

Modern chimpanzees occasionally walk upright, but their skeletons are not adapted for regular walking on two legs.  Early humans evolved skeletons that supported their bodies in an upright position.  Modern humans have bodies adapted for walking and running long distances on two legs.

Skull

Drawings of skulls of a chimpanzee (left), early human (middle), and modern human (right). Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios The spine of a chimpanzee connects with the skull at the back, holding the head at an angle.

The spine of early humans connected with the skull underneath, stabilizing the head when walking upright.

Upper Leg Bone

Drawings of upper leg bones of a chimpanzee (left), early human (middle), and modern human (right). Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios Because the connection between the upper thigh and hip bones is short in chimpanzees, the hip muscles cannot contract effectively to provide support for upright walking.

The connection between the upper thigh and hip bones was longer in early humans than in chimpanzees, and its base thicker.  The hip muscles could provide support for walking.

The connection between your upper leg and hip bones is long. Its base is strong and able to withstand the stresses of walking and running.

Lower Knee

Drawings of lower knee bones of a chimpanzee (right), early human (middle), and modern human (left). Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios The chimpanzee knee joint is lightly built, so chimpanzees cannot rest their weight on one leg at a time to walk for long periods.

The early human knee joint was strong, enabling this early human to regularly support its weight on one leg at a time during walking.

Strong knee joints help support your body’s weight on one leg at a time while walking long distances.

2.2 Benefits and Costs of Walking

Scene illustrating a few of the benefits of upright walking. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studios

Benefits

As environments changed, walking on two legs helped early humans survive by:

• making it easier to pick fruits and other food from low-lying branches;

• freeing hands for carrying food, tools, or babies;

• enabling early humans to appear larger and more intimidating;

• helping early humans cover wide, open landscapes quickly and efficiently.

Silhouette of a modern human with back pain Costs

Back pain and other skeletal problems are relatively common in modern humans, an unfortunate side effect of walking upright. Distributing all our weight on just two limbs can have painful consequences, like lower back pain, slipped disks, arthritis in hips and knees, and collapsed foot arches.

Try it!

• Press your fingers beneath the top bones of both of your hips.

• Now stand on one leg at a time.

• Can you feel the muscles contract?

These are the muscles that support your body during walking. They attach to the areas that curve inward above the hip socket.

2.3 Breast-Feeding in Prehistoric Times

Did cave-babies have attachment parents?

By

Photo by Michal Cizek/AFP/Getty Images

The cover of the May 21 issue of Time magazine, featuring a woman breast-feeding her 3-year-old child, has reignited the debate over the appropriate age to stop nursing. Without the influence of lactation consultants, parenting magazines, and judgmental acquaintances, for how long did prehistoric women breast-feed their little cave-babies?

Probably for two to four years. The fossil record provides little indication of weaning times, so the best evidence we have comes from our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees and bonobos wean their young at the age of 4 or 5, while gorillas do so about a year earlier. It’s tricky to translate those ages into human years, though. A couple of developmental milestones coincide with the cessation of nursing in the great apes:  the emergence of adult teeth and the growth of the offspring to about four times its original birth weight. Humans develop their adult teeth at age 5 or 6, but they've quadrupled in size by 2 1/2years old. (Children in developing countries tend to grow more slowly, and would nurse until age 3 by this measure.)

The numbers produced by the animal analogy are likely a bit too high, because they ignore important differences between man and ape. Female chimpanzees, for example, leave their families upon reaching sexual maturity and are famously promiscuous, which means they don’t get a lot of help in rearing children. Given this social structure, it may be easier for them to hold off on weaning infants until the age of 4 or 5.

A Homo sapiens baby, on the other hand, enjoys the support of relatives on both sides of the family tree, including the preparation and sharing of food. In addition, humans are unique among the primates for their reliance on “baby food”—a diet specialized to ease the transition from breast milk. (It’s not clear when people started using baby food, but it may go back a long, long time.) The existence of a transitional diet would make it easier for humans to start weaning at an early age, which would in turn allow human women to have children more regularly than our ape relatives.

3 Hunter Gatherer Societies

Anthropologists have studied the weaning customs of hunter gatherer societies, and found significant variation. The !Kung San of the Kalahari desert stop breast-feeding at around 4 or 5 years of age. The Hadza of Tanzania wean about six months earlier than the !Kung. The Aché people of Paraguay wean earlier still, at around 3 years of age. This suggests that human culture and lifestyles have influenced the practice of breast-feeding since the beginning of civilization, although anthropologists still aren’t sure exactly what factors account for the differences.

Video Explainer: Why Do Parrots Parrot, and Do They Know What They're Saying?

This video was produced from an original Explainer by Will Oremus.
Click to view a saved copy.  flv

Want more questions answered? You can now watch video Explainers at Slate's News Channel on YouTube.

Brian Palmer is Slate's chief explainer. He also writes How and Why and Ecologic for the Washington Post. Email him at explainerbrian@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Explainer thanks Katherine Dettwyler of the University of Delaware and co-editor of Breast-Feeding: Biocultural Perspectives, Katherine Hinde of Harvard University and author of the blog Mammals Suck, and Meredith Small of Cornell University and author of Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent.

Please, do not get caught up in women's liberation and academic ignorance about breast feeding. We see that there is genetically ingrained behavior for survival reasons. They include mammalian males physically dominating females and mammalian females harboring covert resentment of males. While the lengthy maternal caring and  nursing bond is a strong female genetic trait of survival, in female humans it is in competition with the hatred engendered by male rape and domination.

In subhuman females there is not the logical speech and thinking of cause-effect relationships and the subhuman females do not associated the pregnancy and child with the rape and male domination!

Human females do associate the pregnancy and child with the genetic resentment of the father and this causes a love-hate conflict in feelings for the pregnancy and child!

3.1 The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

Great Apes mothers do not kill their healthy children and many breast feed till the equivalent of 5 or 6 years old (Chimpanzees and Bonobean their young at the age of 4 or 5).

Some years in Russia there are more abortion tha live births (world wide over 50,000,000 a year!) and to talk about a mother being a homemaker and  breastfeeding till 3 of 4 is to commit political and academic suicide! Why this big difference in infanticide and breast feeding?

The natural survival behavior of animals in the wild is represented in the "Garden of Eden!" That was before the knowledge of "Good ans Evil".

What was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" that the archetype first female (Eve) eat the fruit of?"

What was the snake that temped EVE and told her it was ok to eat the fruit?

To have intuitive insight in to these questions we need awareness of the genetic formative environment. Any one in a present day Russian countryside city sees the mammalian rape of female cats and dogs when they are in heat. In the wild it is the strongest male that takes what he wants but mammalian females raised with a healthy maternal nursing bond cares for infants (even of another species)!

3.1.1 Maternal Instinct crosses the Species Line

We know that a female puppy taken away from its mother to soon does not know how to care for its young! My Uncle Bill had a Mink Ranch and the secret to being a good mink rancher was to choose the mothers well based on the care they received. The rest you made fur coats out of. Daycare is part of the answer to why so many women choose abortion and reject breastfeeding but that is not the whole answer because human infanticide and child sacrifice is historical.

When I was young in the 1940s and 1950s there was a saying "as safe as a baby in its mother's womb!"

Abraham is the Anthrop-culture archetype for not sacrificing children and that is what separated the Jews as a sanctified people! He must turn in his grave to see the rate of legalized child murder in the womb today.

3.2 So what brought about the change as humans evolved out of Eden?

To answer this we must expose the "myth of the noble savage".

What was the cause of this millions of years of warfare? The main answer was being attacked by another band to get the young women!

What would cause this type of behavior? This behavior led to:
1) the stronger males taking females and
2) that prevented the genetic destruction caused by inbreeding.

One of the basic laws of nature: What propagates continues and genetic inbreeding destroys a family, village or tribe!

But why do women often resent pregnancy, breastfeeding and childcare when our forbearers the grate apes do not?

The answer is simple if we look at two things.
1) Genetically ingrained resentment of males by females comes from the history of male rape and is genetically normal in most mammals.
2) Second is the humans developed logical speech for "cause-effect relationships". The subhuman mammals do not have the logical ability to associate the offspring with the male rape resentment so it never became genetically ingrained in subhumans.

3.2.1 Many women love to use the word misogynist to justify their hatred for men.

As an aside:

1) Kevin Rudd replaced Julia Gillard - ALP caucus deposed Julia Gillard in June this2013 with, her recycled replacement Kevin Rudd.

Published on Jun 26, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zupzw570H-Q

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's pledge to rebuild relations with the business community started with an angry backlash when he allowed passage of legislation clamping down on

2) Tony Abbott replaced Kevin Rudd - Labor Party Trounced In Australian Elections -- Tony Abbott To Be The Next Prime Minister

Published on Sep 7, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkDGnfMVhTA

Tony Abbott promises to provide a "trustworthy and competent" government after winning Australia's general election.

3) SYDNEY (AFP) Sep 7, 2013 - Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, quietly exited politics Saturday, congratulating the woman who has taken over her constituency as Labor faced defeat in national elections.

4 Race, brain size, and IQ: The case for consilience

Welcome to Cambridge Journals Online

J. Philippe Rushton a1 a1 Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada rushton@uwo.ca http:/www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html

Abstract

Data from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), autopsy, endocranial measurements, and other techniques show that:
(1) brain size correlates 0.40 with cognitive ability;
(2) average brain size varies by race; and
(3) average cognitive ability varies by race. These results are as replicable as one will find in the social and behavioral sciences. They pose serious problems for Rose's claim that reductionistic science is inadequate, inefficient, and/or unproductive.

4.1 Male-Female Brain Differences

Male-Female Brain Differences
http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html

 What kind of brain do you have? There really are big differences between the male and female brain, says Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University. In his new book, the Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain (published by Penguin) Baron-Cohen shows that, indisputably, on average male and female minds are of a slightly different character. Men tend to be better at analysing systems (better systemisers), while women tend to be better at reading the emotions of other people (better empathisers). Baron-Cohen shows that this distinction arises from biology, not culture. What is missing here is that the right and left hemispheres of the cerebrum in men are more specialized with one side logical/verbal and the other hemisphere is patter/nonverbal. The female tends to be more like the great apes where the two hemispheres tend to be duplicates. That is why females have a better chance of being able to walk and talk after a stroke. Cell numbers: men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue. Many women have asked me why men need more brain tissue in order to get the same things done. Cellular connections: even though a man seems to have more brain cells, it is reported that women have more dendritic connections between brain cells. Corpus collosum size: it is reported that a woman's brain has a larger corpus collusum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemisphere faster than men. Men tend to be more left brained, while women have greater access to both sides. Language: for men, language is most often just in the dominant hemisphere (usually the left side), but a larger number of women seem to be able to use both sides for language. This gives them a distinct advantage. If a woman has a stroke in the left front side of the brain, she may still retain some language from the right front side. Men who have the same left sided damage are less likely to recover as fully. Limbic size: bonding/nesting instincts - current research has demonstrated that females, on average, have a larger deep limbic system than males. This gives females several advantages and disadvantages. Due to the larger deep limbic brain women are more in touch with their feelings, they are generally better able to express their feelings than men. They have an increased ability to bond and be connected to others (which is why women are the primary caretakers for children - there is no society on earth where men are primary caretakers for children). Females have a more acute sense of smell, which is likely to have developed from an evolutionary need for the mother to recognize her young. Having a larger deep limbic system leaves a female somewhat more susceptible to depression, especially at times of significant hormonal changes such as the onset of puberty, before menses, after the birth of a child and at menopause. Women attempt suicide three times more than men. Yet, men kill themselves three times more than women, in part, because they use more violent means of killing themselves (women tend to use overdoses with pills while men tend to either shoot or hang themselves) and men are generally less connected to others than are women. Disconnection from others increases the risk of completed suicides.

4.2 Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved

Volume 17, Issue 2, August 1994, Pages 257–271

Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved

Psychology Department, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland

 Psychology Department, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland Received 9 July 1993Available online 28 May 2002 Abstract Males have larger brains than females, even when corrected for body size, and brain size is positively correlated with intelligence. This leads to the expectation that males should have higher average levels of intelligence than females. Yet the consensus view is that there is no sex difference in general intelligence. An examination of the literature shows that the consensus view is wrong. Among adults, males have slightly higher verbal and reasoning abilities than females and a more pronounced superiority on spatial abilities. If the three abilities are combined to form general intelligence, the mean for males is 4 IQ points higher than the mean for females. Among children up to the age of around 14 yr the sex differences are smaller because girls mature earlier than boys. The evolutionary selection pressures responsible for greater intelligence in males are discussed.

Sex Differences in IQ

Human Characteristics: Humans Change the World

 Modern humans evolve in Africa. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studio

|.For millions of years all humans, early and modern alike, had to find their own food. They spent a large part of each day gathering plants and hunting or scavenging animals.  Then, within just the past 12,000 years, our species, Homo sapiens, made the transition to producing food and changing our surroundings. We have been so successful that we have inadvertently created a turning point in the history of life on Earth.

200,000 Years Ago

Modern Humans Evolve in Africa

During a time of dramatic climate change, modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved in Africa. Like early humans, modern humans gathered and hunted food. They evolved behaviors that helped them respond to the challenges of survival.

The first modern humans shared the planet with at least three species of early humans. Over time, as modern humans spread around the world, the other three species became extinct. We became the sole survivors in the
human family tree.

 Modern humans exchange resources over long distances. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studio.

By 164,000 years ago

Modern humans collect and cook shellfish

By 130,000 years ago

Modern humans exchange resources over long distances

By 90,000 years ago

Modern humans make special tools for fishing

Between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago

By 77,000 years ago

Modern humans almost become extinct. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studio.

Modern humans record information on objects

Near-extinction!

Modern humans almost become extinct; as a result of extreme climate changes, the population may have been reduced to about 10,000 adults of reproductive age.

By 70,000 years ago

Extinction!

Homo erectus becomes extinct

By 60,000�40,000 years ago

Modern humans create permanent drawings

Homo neanderthalensis becomes extinct. Image courtesy of Karen Carr Studio.

By 50,000 years ago

Modern humans reach Australia

By 40,000 years ago

Modern humans reach Europe

By 28,000 years ago

Extinction!

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) become extinct

My Conjecture:

By 17,000 years ago

Extinction!

Homo floresiensis becomes extinct, leaving modern humans (Homo sapiens) as the sole survivor in the once diverse human family tree

Stone Age Europeans were first native Americans

Published time: February 28, 2012 20:14 Edited time: February 29, 2012 10:40

Diorama of a scene where ancient people are hunting mammoths.
Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg (RIA Novosti)

Europeans may have been the first people to settle in America, possibly more than ten thousand years before anyone else set foot there.

�A series of European-style tools dating from twenty-six-thousand to nineteen-thousand years ago have been discovered in six separate locations along the east coast of the United States.

Archaeologists previously thought that America was populated by migrants making their way from Siberia to Alaska, and then spreading through the rest of the continent.

But the first of these Asian tribes started moving there about 15,500 years ago � and there is no evidence of human activity in Siberia or Alaska from before that time.

Professors Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradford, the two archaeologists who made the discovery, suggest Europeans moved across the Atlantic during the peak of Ice Age.

At the time, a vast tranche of ice covered the Atlantic. The Stone Age migrants would have been able to survive the journey by killing seals, hunting the now-extinct great auks (a sort of giant penguin) and fishing. The archaeologists suggest they may have even used boats for large parts of their travel.

Further evidence of their thesis is a knife discovered in Virginia in 1971. Recent tests showed that it was made from French flint.

The new hypothesis is unlikely to change what we know about the Indians who greeted the Europeans upon their arrival.

The Siberian migrants came to America for longer and in greater numbers, and were either wiped out or absorbed by the European tribes.

But it does explain the long-standing mystery of the genetic code and language of some Native American tribes that appear European, not Asian in origin.

Further digs are planned deeper inland up to Texas this year, and will help historians and archaeologists understand just how far the original European colonization went.

Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago

By Brian Vastag, February 29, 2012'

 Smithsonian Institute anthropologist Dennis Stanford, left, and University� (Bonnie Jo Mount/Post )

When the crew of the Virginia scallop trawler Cinmar hauled a mastodon tusk onto the deck in 1970, another oddity dropped out of the net: a dark, tapered stone blade, nearly eight inches long and still sharp.

Forty years later, this rediscovered prehistoric slasher has reopened debate on a radical theory about who the first Americans were and when they got here.

Archaeologists have long held that North America remained unpopulated until about 15,000 years ago, when Siberian people walked or boated into Alaska and then moved down the West Coast.

But the mastodon relic found near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay turned out to be 22,000 years old, suggesting that the blade was just as ancient.

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Its makers probably paddled from Europe and arrived in America thousands of years ahead of the western migration, making them the first Americans, argues Smithsonian Institution anthropologist Dennis Stanford.

"I think it's feasible," said Tom Dillehay, a prominent archaeologist at Vanderbilt University. "The evidence is building up, and it certainly warrants discussion."

At the height of the last ice age, Stanford says, mysterious Stone Age European people known as the Solutreans paddled along an ice cap jutting into the North Atlantic. They lived like Inuits, harvesting seals and seabirds.

The Solutreans eventually spread across North America, Stanford says, hauling their distinctive blades with them and giving birth to the later Clovis culture, which emerged some 13,000 years ago.

When Stanford proposed this "Solutrean hypothesis" in 1999, colleagues roundly rejected it. One prominent archaeologist suggested that Stanford was throwing his career away.

But now, 13 years later, Stanford and Bruce Bradley, an archaeologist at England's University of Exeter, lay out a detailed case -- bolstered by the curious blade and other stone tools recently found in the mid-Atlantic -- in a new book, "Across Atlantic Ice."

"I drank the Solutrean Kool-Aid," said Steve Black, an archaeologist at Texas State University in San Marcos. "I had been very dubious. It's something a lot of [archaeologists] have dismissed out of hand. But I came away from the book feeling like it's an extremely credible idea that needs to be taken seriously."

Other experts remain unconvinced. "Anyone advancing a radically different hypothesis must be willing to take his licks from skeptics," said Gary Haynes, an archaeologist at the University of Nevada-Reno.

At the core of Stanford's case are stone tools recovered from five mid-Atlantic sites. Two sites lie on Chesapeake Bay islands, suggesting that the Solutreans settled Delmarva early on. Smithsonian research associate Darrin Lowery found blades, anvils and other tools found stuck in soil at least 20,000 years old.

Displaying the tools in his office at the National Museum of Natural History, Stanford handles a milky chert blade and says, "This stuff is beginning to give us a real nice picture of occupation of the Eastern Shore around 20,000 years ago."

Further, the Eastern Shore blades strongly resemble those found at dozens of Solutrean sites from the Stone Age in Spain and France, Stanford says. "We can match each one of 18 styles up to the sites in Europe."

In 2007, Lowery, who also teaches at the University of Delaware, was hired by a landowner to survey property on Tilghman Island, Md., at a place called Miles Point. Almost immediately, Lowery saw a chunk of quarzite jutting out of a shore bank. It was an anvil, heavily marked from repeated beatings, a clear sign that it was used to make stone tools. Lowery dated the soil layer holding the anvil and other stone tools with two methods, radiocarbon dating and a newer technique, optical stimulated luminescence. Both returned an age of at least 21,000 years.

"We were like, geez . . . what the hell is going on here?" Lowery said.

Another site, 10 miles south, Oyster Cove, yielded more Stone Age artifacts. Those too, came out of soil more than 21,000 years old.

Lowery published the finds in 2010 in Quaternary Science Reviews, but the report made nary a ripple in the conservative world of archaeology, where new ideas tend to progress at a glacial pace. "People are going to think we've clearly gone off our rocker here," Lowery remembers musing.

One problem: The ancient dates came from the soil, not the artifacts themselves.

"It's an indirect date," Dillehay said. "You need a feature like a hearth or something that's clearly human. But it's still suggestive."

In 2008, Lowery toured a tiny museum on Gwynn's Island, Va., at the southern end of the Chesapeake. He asked the curator if the museum had any stone tools. They did: The eight-inch blade, displayed next to a bit of mastodon tusk and a molar, recovered by the Cinmar.

Lowery immediately called Stanford. "He got real excited," Lowery said.

## Montana Boy - Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe

Despite general resistence, representatives of tribes in the US recently gave their blessing for DNA analysis of the remains of a Stone Age child. Research conducted on the boy's genes indicate that Native Americans have European roots.

By Rex Dalton

Shane Doyle of the Crow Nation gave permission for the DNA analysis of the 12,600 year old bones.

It must have been a pretty special child, otherwise the two-year old wouldn't have been buried in such a ceremonious manner. The boy was sprinkled with celebratory red dust and given distinctive stone artifacts for his last journey.

The characteristic fluting of the stone weapons serve as archeological evidence that the boy, who died some 12,600 years ago, came from the Clovis culture. It was one of the earliest New World groups, disappearing mysteriously a few centuries after the child's burial in present day Montana. From the summit of a hill towering over the burial site near the Yellowstone River, the boy's Ice Age contemporaries could monitor their hunting grounds for mammoth and bison.

Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy's origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.

Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas -- from the Alaska's Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes -- are descended from Montana boy's lineage.

Surpring Similarities

Last week, the scientists  published the results of sequencing the child's DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.

This earned Willerslev's team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages -- when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over -- in greater detail than ever before.

A third of both juveniles' DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal'ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany's Swabian Jura mountains.

The results of the finds in Montana and Siberia now provide the scientists the opportunity to trace metabolic characteristics, susceptibility to disease and other properties during the intercontinental migrations.

Overcoming Resistance to Research

The analysis of the Montana probe is important for still another reason: It may signal a new era for genetic analysis of such ancient remains, overcoming a tradition of resistance from Native-American communities. Although American museums house the remains of many pre-historic inhabitants of North America, DNA analysis of them has largely been blocked by resistance from their descendants.

But this time, the relevance of the Willerslev team's studies was appreciated by representatives of the Crow, the Northern Cheyenne, the Flathead and the Blackfoot Nations. None of the leaders representing these nations near the burial site resisted the publication of the DNA data. "This is righteous science," Shane Doyle, a member of the Crow Nation, said after learning of Willerslev's project in September.

This success would not have been possible without the family that owned the land on which the remains were found in 1968. Years ago, the owners of the ranch, Mel and Helen Anzick, had the idea to have the bones' DNA analyzed. The challenge was later picked up by the couple's daughter, Sarah, herself a molecular biologist who worked on decoding the human genome in the late 1990s. She is a co-author of the Clovis publication in Nature.

Sarah had considered extracting DNA samples from the Clovis bones while working on the initial human genome project. But the technology was not mature enough at the time, and her plan faced resistance from some Native Americans.

Enthusiastic about the new findings, she said: "When I saw the results, I almost jumped out of my skin I was so excited." The Anzicks' 35 hectare (86 acre) property is located approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles) north of Yellowstone National Park, set amid undulating prairie. In past centuries the ranch's lookout hill served as a bison trap: Hunters could drive the animals over a cliff to more easily kill them for food.

At the same time the hill offered early inhabitants shelter from the fierce winds. The gales also blow the snow off the grasslands, thereby attracting foraging game that natives could hunt. Indeed year-round feed was the reason that Mel Anzick bought the land as pasture for his horses.

The boy's remains and the artifacts were uncovered by a tractor moving earth. Over subsequent years, portions of the collection were sent to various scientific groups for study across the United States. Some bones went to Arizona, others to Washington DC's Smithsonian Institution.

For decades, Native Americans were outraged by what they see as disrespectful treatment of remains -- their link to "the ancient ones" -- which were displayed in museums and shipped around like baggage. They fought tenaciously for their rights, earning in 1990 a federal law allowing for repatriation of human remains along with funerary artifacts.

However, the legislation only affected finds from government-owned land. The Montana boy's bones were found on private land. Thus it was up to the Anzick family to make the only known Clovis bones available to scientists for DNA sequencing.

An Explosive Issue

Such genetic analysis of Native American bones is highly controversial. It is a sacrilege to some. Others fear it could link their ancestors to Europeans, as this study has done. And some worried it could be misused in tribal disputes over who shares in the economic bounty from casinos that operate on the sovereign reservations.

An ongoing federal court case shows just how explosive the issue is. University of California archeologists are fighting for the right to conduct DNA analysis on a pair of 9,300 year-old skeletons found on the San Diego campus. If the scientists lose the case, many such human remains could be repatriated to the tribes.

The sequencing plans first materialized when Willerslev took on the project four years ago. In addition to being a renowned authority in decoding ancient DNA, Willerslev also has experience in negotiating with indigenous peoples on such sensitive projects. In 2011, he sequenced the first Aborigine genome from DNA in hair samples held in a British museum. This enabled him to show that Australia's original inhabitants descended from peoples who had left Africa a full 70,000 years ago.

Willerslev sought Aboriginal leaders' permission to publish the results. He remembers arriving in the Outback after a long drive, exasperated by his driver's assertions' that he would not get consent. "They will never agree, never agree", the driver repeated. After meeting Aborigine leaders, Willerslev won their endorsement for publication, even securing a written proclamation from the governing council.

Understanding Sensitivities

After starting the Clovis project about four years ago, Willerslev and colleagues planned to follow the same course and seek permission from Montana tribes for publication. The first meeting was organized by 70-year-old Montana archeologist Larry Lahren, who has helped the Anzicks to look after their collection for decades. He knew well the sensitivities, too. "Historically, the US government has treated Native Americans like livestock. It was always white man's rule," he said.

On a blue-sky September afternoon last year, the scientists finally were to meet Doyle of the nearby Crow Nation. Willerslev and some members of his team waited anxiously on the Anzick ranch for Doyle to arrive. Doyle knew nothing about the bones, but from the hill he could point to landmarks of more than a century of his family's history. While Doyle grew up amid poverty on the Crow reservation, he now has a doctorate and teaches at Montana State University in Bozeman.

Gathered at the burial site, Willerslev revealed the team's results: the remains' age, the boy's ancestry to native tribes of the Americas and the links to Siberia and Europe. Doyle's reaction would determine whether or not Willerslev's study could be published or not because the scientist had promised to destroy it if he didn't obtain permission.

After learning the results, Doyle was emotionally overcome. But then, with the tension relaxed, he joked with Willerslev about wondering if he would be told he himself was of Danish ancestry. Finally Doyle proclaimed: "This boy is my cousin."

Doyle fetched a drum from his van, conducted a short ceremony and sang to his newfound relative. Afterward, Doyle agreed to introduce Willerslev to the other Montana tribes, with the group setting off that week for reservation visits.

As a result of these discussions, plans are underway to rebury the bones at their discovery site on the Anzick ranch. There also is to be a roadside monument for all Native Americans to visit -- just like the white man's cemetery across the highway in the tiny hamlet of Wilsall.

Mammoth Bone Shelters

Mammoth bone homes gave us knowledge of how Europeans were feeding on the Mammoths in pre-historic times

30 bone hut sites out of Mammoth bone made by prehistoric humans during the Paleolithic period has been found (as deep as 22.5 m deep) in Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine in Europe. The huts and houses were Circular or oval huts and as much as 15 to 20 feet in diameter. The oldest are dated to be 27,500 years old, (Ukraine houses are dated at between 12,000 and 19,000 years ago) and whole villages have been found, being the oldest towns found. Humankind started creating urban centers like those clusters of homes 15,000 years ago, during the Ice Age.

Mammoth Bone Dwellings

Mammoth bone dwellings are a very early type of housing constructed by Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherers in central Europe during the Late Pleistocene. A mammoth (Mammuthus primogenus, and also known as Woolly Mammoth) was a type of enormous ancient now-extinct elephant, a hairy large-tusked mammal that stood ten feet tall as an adult. Mammoths roamed most of the world, including the continents of Europe and North America, until they died out at the end of the Pleistocene. During the late Pleistocene, mammoths provided meat and skin for human hunter-gatherers, and, in some cases during the Upper Paleolithic of central Europe, as building materials for houses.

A mammoth bone dwelling is typically a circular or oval structure with walls made of stacked large mammoth bones, often modified to allow them to be lashed together or implanted into the soil. Within the interior is typically found a central hearth or several scattered hearths. The hut is generally surrounded by numerous large pits, full of mammoth and other animal bones. Ashy concentrations with flint artifacts appear to represent middens; many of the mammoth bone settlements have a preponderance of ivory and bone tools. External hearths, butchering areas and flint workshops are often found in association with the hut: scholars call these combinations Mammoth Bone Settlements (MBS).

Dating mammoth bone dwellings has been problematic. The earliest dates were between 20,000 and 14,000 years ago, but most of these have been redated to between 14,000-15,000 years ago. However, the oldest known MBS is from the Molodova site, a Neanderthal Mousterian occupation located on the Dniester River of Ukraine, and dated some 30,000 years earlier than most of the known Mammoth Bone Settlements.

Settlement Patterns

In the Dnepr river region of the Ukraine, numerous mammoth bone settlements have been found and recently redated to the epi-Gravettian between 14,000 and 15,000 years ago. These mammoth bone huts are typically located on old river terraces, above and within a ravine trending down to a slope overlooking the river. This type of location is believed to have been a strategic one, as it is placed in the path or near the pathway of what would have been migrating animal herds between the steppe plain and the riverside.

Some mammoth bone dwellings are isolated structures; others have up to six dwellings, although they may not have been occupied at the same time. Evidence for contemporaneity of dwelling has been identified by refits of tools: for example, at Mezhirich in Ukraine, it appears that at least three dwellings were occupied at the same time.

Mammoth Bone Hut Dates

Mammoth bone dwellings are not the only or first type of house: Upper Paleolithic open air houses are found as pitlike depressions excavated into the subsoil or based with stone rings or postholes, like that seen at Pushkari or Kostenki. Some UP houses are partly built of bone and partly of stone and wood, such as Grotte du Reine, France.

Mammoth bone hut dwelling sites: Seminivka, Dobranivichki, Mezhirich, Ioudinovo, Gontsy, Ginsy, Elisseevichi, Molodova, Timonovka (all in Ukraine)

Sources

This glossary entry is a part of the About.com guide to Upper Paleolithic, the guide to Ancient Houses and the Dictionary of Archaeology.

Iakovleva L, and Djindjian F. 2005. New data on Mammoth bone settlements of Eastern Europe in the light of the new excavations of the Gontsy site (Ukraine). Quaternary International 126–128:195-207.

Iakovleva L, Djindjian F, Maschenko EN, Konik S, and Moigne AM. in press. The late Upper Palaeolithic site of Gontsy (Ukraine): A reference for the reconstruction of the hunter–gatherer system based on a mammoth economy. Quaternary International(0).

Iakovleva LA, and Djindjian F. 2001. New data on mammoth bone dwellings of Eastern Europe in the light of the new excavations of the Ginsy site (Ukraine). Paper given at the World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

Marquer L, Lebreton V, Otto T, Valladas H, Haesaerts P, Messager E, Nuzhnyi D, and Péan S. 2012. Charcoal scarcity in Epigravettian settlements with mammoth bone dwellings: the taphonomic evidence from Mezhyrich (Ukraine). Journal of Archaeological Science 39(1):109-120.

Svoboda J, Péan S, and Wojtal P. 2005. Mammoth bone deposits and subsistence practices during Mid-Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe: three cases from Moravia and Poland. Quaternary International 126–128:209-221.

Mammoth Bone Dwellings

Related Resources

More on Ancient House Types

Related Articles

By 15,000 years ago

Modern humans reach the Americas

Conclusion

1. From prehistoric times the Scandinavia had a strong anthropculture of male honor and integrity in male group operations like sailing, fighting and hunting. The foundation for this was:

1. The healthy childhood maternal nursing bond.

2. The respect for the fathers.

3. The culture of male training of young males.

2. With the affluence of the upper classes of leaders and merchants in the renaissance, wet- nurses and surrogate mothering eroded the development of children in caring ability and left many of the upper class children unable to develop beyond narcissism and homoerotic stages during childhood brain development.

3. The background of physical reality is creation as a process of objects forming out of finite densities of eternal and infinite Space, Matter and Motion.

4. Earth is incredible that it violated time and chance to have a chemical evolutionary environment stable with liquid water and oxygen air in the order of billions of years.  This relatively stable planetary environment led to chemical and biological evolution. The laws of nature that govern the physical (electromagnetic, particle, nuclear and atomic), chemical, cellular and multi-cellular evolution material universe are called the Logos.

5. With a constant background of cosmic radiation causing changes in the chemical structure there were two competing effect.

1. A destructive mutation of a replicating molecule that harmed the reproductive and/or survival ability of the organism.

2. A constructive mutation of a replicating molecule that enhanced the reproductive and/or survival ability of the organism.

6. Sexual reproduction had two major effects on evolution:

1. It enhanced the ability of an offspring to survive and reproduce by taking one half of the genetic ladder from each parent, that way the offspring could develop based on the stronger side of the genetic ladder even if the other side was defective.

2. The implication for inbreeding (sexual reproduction with a close relative) is that there is a much greater probability of both the maternal side and the paternal side of the genetic ladder having the same genetic weakness giving a genetically disabled child. This is why historical Jews, isolated tribes, isolated villages and the inbreeding nobility of Europe have a greater probability of some genetic illnesses.

7. The problem of genetic weakness from inbreeding had some important effect on what behaviors improve the chances of propagating children that were healthy enough to survive and propagate. Two examples of this were:

1. Because of having so many genetically sick children, in some Eskimo cultures a man passing through was offered the wife or daughter for the night.

2. Much longer and with strong genetic influence was the hunter gatherer development of men killing or being killed in attacks to take the desirable women. This process went on for much mammalian history and by the law of what behavior propagates physically healthy offsprings leaves the genetic changes that led to propagation.

1. In men what tended to be successful was:

1. Men that were bigger and stronger.

2. Men that could separate thinking about the here and now response to daily living and the planning the future attack of defense. This led to the brain hemispheric specialization with one side pattern none verbal and thee other sice logical verbal.

3. Men that could work together in coordinated combat or hunting.

2. In women what tended to be successful in propagating was:

1. Attractiveness to an attacking male.

2. Being attracted to the invader.

3. Once an adult parent in a tribe having power to effect her outcome in dealing with her dominant male by:

1. Going along to get along.

2. Manipulating community opinion regarding her dominant male.

3. Manipulating the dominant male (chief of priest).

Discussion

The basis of modeling reality is a set of postulates that form a foundation to reason on. To postulate is to suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning,

A basic set of postulates for a system is the minimum number of basic facts (true or false) needed to logically deduce the behaviors of the system.

The proof of a model (set of postulates) of a reality is if the model behaves the same as the observed reality.

The basic postulates here are space, matter and motion! That is a simple sentence but the words will mean different things to different people.  Words needed to define physical behavior like speed, acceleration, time, space like momentum, energy, and force ment different things to different writers. Physical Science got its footing with people like

A factor $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ for a charged particle in an electromagnetic field is a dimensionless quantity that could be a factor in any of the physical entities present in the interaction of a particle of mass (m) and charge (-e) moving with a speed (v) in a magnetic field (B).

The purpose of section "1.6.0 Creation" is to lay a foundation for insight into the laws of nature, the laws of nature that are responsible caring and the laws that are the foundation for the potential for caring (see: 1.2 Levels of Caring and Response Ability.)

Hi Uncle Myles,

I'm working on the Foundation part of my website http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_foundation/1-06_christs-spirit/1-6-00_postulates.htm

I am here in Russia with no one that speaks English but Olga. So it is hard for her to spend time with me to talk about Physics and the nature of physical reality. I called Bob but did not get an answer and thought of you. I looked for your phone number and I don't have it here so I am writing you.

I'm working on my website, I'm writing the discussion part at the section end. I'm getting into the problem of giving exact meaning to words by the need to operationally define them (which is the foundation for the great advancements from Galileo, Descartes and Newton). I have references to them in another section that is in the works. http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_foundation/1-06_christs-spirit/1-6-22_sprit-of-truth-physical-science.htm

I see where the academic ignorance of action at a distance got its start with Newton's Inverse Square Law Of Gravity. But Newton knew that "action at a distance" was goofy! (1).

There is no vacuum. The sea of Aether (2) is where particles are formed from vortex rings of the Aether. Gravity is a shadow effect of Aether motion (imagine light having momentum and how light shining from all directions would push two objects together because of the shadow between them creating a relative pressure difference.

The Aether was rejected because of a misunderstanding of the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment. Lorenz introduced the  beta factor $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ to explain the change in length.(3)

I have Galileo, Descartes and Newton in my reference to scientists motivated by the Christian concepts of reality like "In God we live and move and have our being" and Jesus saying, "It is better I go away. (In His sacrifice removing the priesthood from between us and our source of existence [God]) I will send the Spirit Of Truth that will teach you all things and bring into mind what I have said."

How much of God's laws we had learned since your mother was born! When she was born there was no electricity, no cars, planes, rockets to the moon, they were just discovering chemistry and physics!

I have so much in the works due to revision from seeing clear that the process leaves much of my web site a mess. But taking the time to write this to you has helped me connect a few dots.

If you would not mind a call sometimes, please email me your phone number.

With care, Don

(1^) From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis

3.2 Action at a distance

In the letters, Newton also responds to certain prominent reactions to the theory of gravity in the Principia. One of the most vexing issues raised by the theory is obviously the problem of action at a distance (Hesse 1961), and any interpretation of Newton's own understanding of this problem must account for his correspondence with Bentley. For instance, in a letter to Bentley from 1693, we find the following stark rejection of action at a distance, one that may be Newton's most famous pronouncement on the subject:

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it (Janiak 2004, 102).

It appears that if accepting Newton's theory of gravity commits one to accepting action at a distance, Newton's sense of what counts as an intelligible cause of motion would be violated by his own theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2^) Luminiferous aether

In the picture below the parallel lines with arrows could represent light from a distant source but not the Aether.

The Aether is fragments of matter flying in all directions. To see how it travels through its self you can get an idea viewing the physics balls toy at

The luminiferous aether: it was hypothesised that the Earth moves through a "medium" of aether that carries light

In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, æther or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1]

Following the negative outcome of aether-drift experiments like the Michelson–Morley experiment, the concept of aether as a mechanical medium having a state of motion lost adherents. It has been replaced in modern physics by the  goofy  theory of relativity and quantum theory.

goofy     because the photon is leap frogging

Length contraction

A big challenge for this theory was the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. According to the theories of Fresnel and Lorentz a relative motion to an immobile ether had to be determined by this experiment, however, the result was negative. Michelson himself thought that the result confirmed the aether drag hypothesis, in which the aether is fully dragged by matter. However, other experiments like the Fizeau experiment and the effect of aberration disproved that model.

A possible solution came in sight, when in 1889 Oliver Heaviside derived from the Maxwell's equations that the magnetic vector potential field around a moving body is altered by a factor of $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$. Based on that result and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile ether in accordance with the Michelson–Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and independently of him Lorentz in 1892[A 2] (already quantitatively) suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio. In 1895[A 1] Lorentz proposed three possible explanation for this relative contraction:[B 3]

• The body contracts in the line of motion and preserves its dimension perpendicularly to it.

• The dimension of the body remains the same in the line of motion, but it expands perpendicularly to it.

• The body contracts in the line of motion, and expands at the same time perpendicularly to it.

Although the possible connection between electrostatic and intermolecular forces was used by Lorentz as a plausibility argument, the contraction hypothesis was soon considered as purely ad hoc. It is also important that this contraction only affected the space between the electron but not the electrons themselves, therefore the name "intermolecular hypotheses" was sometimes used of this effect. The so-called Length contraction without expansion perpendicularly to the line of motion and by the precise value $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ (where l0 is the length at rest in the ether) was given by Larmor in 1897 and by Lorentz in 1904. In the same year Lorentz also argued that also electrons themselves are affected by this contraction.[B 4] For further development of this concept, see the section #Lorentz transformation.[A 3]

(2) Aether drag hypothesis

In the 19th century, the theory of the luminiferous aether as the hypothetical medium for the propagation of light was widely discussed. An important part of this discussion was the question concerning the state of motion of Earth with respect to this medium. The aether drag hypothesis dealt with the question whether the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. According to the first variant no relative motion exists between Earth and aether; according to the second one, relative motion exists and thus the speed of light should depend on the speed of this motion ("aether wind"), which should be measurable by instruments at rest on Earth's surface. Specific aether models were invented by Augustin-Jean Fresnel who in 1818 proposed that the aether is partially entrained by matter. The other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether is completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter.

While Fresnel's almost stationary theory was apparently confirmed by the Fizeau experiment (1851), Stokes' theory was apparently confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881, 1887). This contradictory situation was resolved by the works of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895, 1904) whose Lorentz ether theory banished any form of aether dragging, and finally with the work of Albert Einstein (1905) whose theory of special relativity doesn't contain the aether as a mechanical medium at all. [1] [2] [3]

(3^Basic concept]

This theory, which was developed mainly between 1892 and 1906 by Lorentz and Poincaré, was based on the aether theory of Augustin-Jean Fresnel, Maxwell's equations and the electron theory of Rudolf Clausius.[B 1] Lorentz introduced a strict separation between matter (electrons) and ether, whereby in his model the ether is completely motionless, and it won't be set in motion in the neighborhood of ponderable matter. As Max Born later said, it was natural (though not logically necessary) for scientists of that time to identify the rest frame of the Lorentz ether with the absolute space of Isaac Newton.[B 2] The condition of this ether can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the ether (with no further specification), related to the charges of the electrons. Thus an abstract electromagnetic ether replaces the older mechanistic ether models. Contrary to Clausius, who accepted that the electrons operate by actions at a distance, the electromagnetic field of the ether appears as a mediator between the electrons, and changes in this field can propagate not faster than the speed of light. Lorentz theoretically explained the Zeeman effect on the basis of his theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1902. Joseph Larmor found a similar theory simultaneously, but his concept was based on a mechanical ether. A fundamental concept of Lorentz's theory in 1895[A 1] was the "theorem of corresponding states" for terms of order v/c. This theorem states that a moving observer with respect to the aether can use the same electrodynamic equations as an observer in the stationary aether system, thus they are making the same observations.

Length contraction

A big challenge for this theory was the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. According to the theories of Fresnel and Lorentz a relative motion to an immobile ether had to be determined by this experiment, however, the result was negative. Michelson himself thought that the result confirmed the aether drag hypothesis, in which the aether is fully dragged by matter. However, other experiments like the Fizeau experiment and the effect of aberration disproved that model.

A possible solution came in sight, when in 1889 Oliver Heaviside derived from the Maxwell's equations that the magnetic vector potential field around a moving body is altered by a factor of $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$. Based on that result and to bring the hypothesis of an immobile ether in accordance with the Michelson–Morley experiment, George FitzGerald in 1889 (qualitatively) and independently of him Lorentz in 1892[A 2] (already quantitatively) suggested that not only the electrostatic fields, but also the molecular forces are affected in such a way that the dimension of a body in the line of motion is less by the value $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ than the dimension perpendicularly to the line of motion. However, an observer co-moving with the earth would not notice this contraction, because all other instruments contract at the same ratio. In 1895[A 1] Lorentz proposed three possible explanation for this relative contraction:[B 3]

• The body contracts in the line of motion and preserves its dimension perpendicularly to it.

• The dimension of the body remains the same in the line of motion, but it expands perpendicularly to it.

• The body contracts in the line of motion, and expands at the same time perpendicularly to it.

Although the possible connection between electrostatic and intermolecular forces was used by Lorentz as a plausibility argument, the contraction hypothesis was soon considered as purely ad hoc. It is also important that this contraction only affected the space between the electron but not the electrons themselves, therefore the name "intermolecular hypotheses" was sometimes used of this effect. The so-called Length contraction without expansion perpendicularly to the line of motion and by the precise value $\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$ (where l0 is the length at rest in the ether) was given by Larmor in 1897 and by Lorentz in 1904. In the same year Lorentz also argued that also electrons themselves are affected by this contraction.[B 4] For further development of this concept, see the section #Lorentz transformation.[A 3]

PS: I see that Bob returned my call but it is the middle of the night now and I would wake Olga by making a call. She needs her sleep as we are raising a 4 year old granddaughter (Darina) and Olga needs her rest to care for her.

Donald J. Johnson Sr.

• Paul said, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for. the evidence of things unseen!"

But he also said, "In God we live and move and have our being."

Jesus said, "It is better I go away. I will send the Spirit of Truth and It will teach you all things..."

Don said, "When your mother (my Grandma) was born, they did not have cars, electricity, planes, rockets, or atomic bombs. Look how much of ...God's laws we have learned by the Spirit of Truth!

When I was born (1939*) before women were raised in daycare and could bond with their children, autism was 1 in 2000. Now for boys in 2013 it is about 1 in 50 and for girls about 1 in 75. Except in the Amish it is still about 1 in 2000.

Maybe we need to learn some of God's laws of home making and mothering and father from the Amish.

*The war took women out of the home and there children don't know how to care much beyond "I want..." and "Look at me ..."

Now so many boys are raised in daycare they don't know or want to be a father, they just want feed the snake!

Maybe we can learn God's laws of raising children healthy and make it a punishable crime to violate a child's right to life and healthy child development, healthy enough to raise healthy children and defend our Christian value of honest caring homes rather than bottle feeding and daycare!"

Love and miss you, from Russia with care, Don

When Olga saw your work and interest in how things work, she said, "Now I know where you get it from (The Pelton Blood).

But having failed two years and quitting after the first week of 9th grade, I think it came from building pig pens and chicken coops before my brain got corrupted with what they are teaching in the Universities today.

There "big bang" came from eating beans and the warped time and space came from warped minds.

Now children are indoctrinated with these "SCIENTIFIC" book and they believe it because there early brain development was corrupted and they are like little Muslims that have memorizied Sura 9 and will strap on a bomb to kill them selves and others out of faith in what they were taught before they could think for themselves.

What a by to teach Physics by Investigation. I had class sizes of 14 or 18 and they worked in pairs. What a joy to watch their joy as they discovered and asked for the math skill to analyze their observations!