Is my niece's husband a relative?

[Gus]

How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?

I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to you." (There is no contact info to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)

By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?

[dhruva....@gmail.com]

Last year I attended a niece's wedding and afterwards I was referring to her husband as "nephew-in-law" when I talked about him to others, e.g. "My nephew-in-law works as an aeronautical engineer".
But even as I write it now, I find it rather stupid- "niece's husband" would have worked pretty well- if nothing else it's the same number of syllables.

[Bob Martin]

Any member of the human race?

[Arcadian Rises]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:05:27 AM UTC-5, Gus wrote:

Since we don't have the economic need to live within a tribe,
or even a clan, anymore, we can afford to base our relations
on pure affinity, of the elective kind. You may call your
friendly distant relatives, or even some decent ex-in-laws,
just "family", while you may never call your estranged brother.

Of course, the way we label our relatives becomes more strict
in probate law, when the helpful and nurturing ex-in-law who
took good care of the dying sister of her ex-father-in-law
gets nothing from the dear departed estate.

[Peter T. Daniels]

My cousin married (at the age of 40) a woman with a son by a previous
marriage, who with his wife has produced (so far) three sons in slightly
more than three years (they said they were aiming for six).

The son is my step-cousin-once-removed, his wife is my step-cousin-in-law-
once-removed, and the children are my step-cousins-twice-removed.

I'm only uncertain as to whether to place the "-in-law" as above, or after
"-removed."

[Don Phillipson]

"Gus" <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e3858ab-b22d-475f...@googlegroups.com...

If it mattered, you could ask the originator of the form.

Patterns may differ between the UK and USA, but "relative" seems
usually to denote blood relations; i.e. the spouses of your relatives
become members of your family yet are related by marriage
rather than by genetics.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[James Silverton]

I've seen the name cousin-by-marriage used and it's quite a useful term
if you worry about such things. I tend to regard (and they return the
regard) the children of my wife's best friend as nieces and nephews. In
fact, *their* children call me "Uncle Jim."

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Nick Spalding]

James Silverton wrote, in <l605du$pan$1...@dont-email.me>
on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:21:40 -0500:

Stretching that a bit further, the ex-girlfriend of one of my grandsons
still calls me "Grandpa".
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Jenn]

I'd probably toss a coin for that answer. After a certain point, imo, I'd
only include blood relatives as being related to them. :-)

--
Jenn

[Jenn]

Nick Spalding wrote:
> James Silverton wrote, in <l605du$pan$1...@dont-email.me>

>> I've seen the name cousin-by-marriage used and it's quite a useful
>> term if you worry about such things. I tend to regard (and they
>> return the regard) the children of my wife's best friend as nieces
>> and nephews. In fact, *their* children call me "Uncle Jim."
>
> Stretching that a bit further, the ex-girlfriend of one of my
> grandsons still calls me "Grandpa".

My daughters best friend calls me "momma".

--
Jenn

[Mike Barnes]

Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com>:

In that context, specifically, I'd say that being married to a blood
relative might count as "related", so if it's important it would be
better to use someone else.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Tony Cooper]

I would think the intent of the requirement is to have the form-filler
provide a source that is more objective than a close relative might
be. I don't think it's a matter of actual bloodlines.

In that case, a cousin who is not a close acquaintance of the
form-filler would be acceptable.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Peter T. Daniels]

I expected that from my other cousin (the first one's older brother) 's
three kids, whom I didn't meet till they were about 14, 12, and 10 (I
was in Chicago, they were in New Rochelle), but they went straight to
first name.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:54:30 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> be. I don't think it's a matter of actual bloodlines.

At first glance I read that as "bloodiness."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.


--
athel

[Leslie Danks]

Damn! I was going to ask the cat to witness my application for a new
passport.

--
Les (BrE)

[John Briggs]

Don't ask your banana either...
--
John Briggs

[Tak To]

That is not true unless there was only one cell
at the very beginning.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[John Briggs]

On 13/11/2013 20:25, Tak To wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 2:59 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2013-11-13 13:23:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:
>>
>>> in 2022398 20131113 130527 Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>>
>>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>>>> you." (There is no contact i
>>>> nfo to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)
>>>>
>>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>>>
>>> Any member of the human race?
>>
>> Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>
> That is not true unless there was only one cell
> at the very beginning.

You share 70% of your DNA with a banana.
--
John Briggs

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2013-11-13 20:25:19 +0000, Tak To said:

> On 11/13/2013 2:59 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2013-11-13 13:23:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:
>>
>>> in 2022398 20131113 130527 Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>>
>>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>>>> you." (There is no contact i
>>>> nfo to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)
>>>>
>>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>>>
>>> Any member of the human race?
>>
>> Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>
> That is not true unless there was only one cell
> at the very beginning.

It doesn't follow. Even if there were many unrelated cells at the
beginning (which I don't believe, but no matter) descendants of all but
one of them have (almost certainly) died out. (I wrote "all living
creatures", not "all creatures that have eveer lived".) Look up "LUCA"
on the web: you may not agree that LUCA is a real concept, but if so
you're out of step with the overwhelming majority.

--
athel

[Peter Moylan]

On 14/11/13 09:18, Lewis wrote:
> In message <sSz4lIf6...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>

> Different organizations have different ideas of who is "related" to you.
> Generally, these are all generally included:
>
> Siblings, children, parents, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and
> *current* in-laws.
>
> Uncles, aunts, great aunts/uncles, second cousins, and ex-inlaws are
> often not "related".

So my niece is related to me, but I'm not related to her? Interesting,
but not entirely surprising.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Katy Jennison]

On 13/11/2013 20:01, Leslie Danks wrote:

I was all set to get a well-regarded professional cat of my acquaintance
to witness mine, but I read all (all!) the small print and discovered
that as long as my new photo was still recognisable as the same person
as the one in my old passport, it didn't need to be countersigned at all.

--
Katy Jennison

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

By coincidence I'm in the middle of renewing my passport at the moment.
I've done the online form-filling and expect to get the printed verison
of it in a few days time. Then I can sign it and send it off with the
expiring passport and some recent photos. And then I can use the new
passport as authentication of the photo I'll be supplying when renewing
my driving licence. If all goes smoothly I won't need anyone to
countersign any photos.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:18:45 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <sSz4lIf6...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
> Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Different organizations have different ideas of who is "related" to you.
>Generally, these are all generally included:
>
>Siblings, children, parents, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and
>*current* in-laws.
>

Presumably that includes adoptees as well as natural relatives.

>Uncles, aunts, great aunts/uncles, second cousins, and ex-inlaws are
>often not "related".

[Gus]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:23:23 AM UTC-5, Bob Martin wrote:

egads... this is going to be harder than I thought. I will have to find someone from another species, or planet?

[Gus]

But my family knows me better than any others, at least in regards to what the form is about. Doesn't make a lot of sense tbh.

[Gus]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:57:49 AM UTC-5, Jenn wrote:

> I'd probably toss a coin for that answer. After a certain point, imo, I'd
> only include blood relatives as being related to them. :-)
> --

I will use your post as a defense, in case Johnny Law comes a calling.

[Gus]

My 4 nephews/nieces almost always call me by just my first name.

[Gus]

I will have to bring this up at the meeting, after it concludes.

[Gus]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:25:19 PM UTC-5, Tak To wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 2:59 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> > Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>
>
>
> That is not true unless there was only one cell
> at the very beginning.

I will take a dna test, and see... Don't all living things share some dna? Not sure about methogens.

https://www.23andme.com/

[Gus]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:44:17 PM UTC-5, John Briggs wrote:

> You share 70% of your DNA with a banana.
> --

This helps explain my affinity with bananas.

I bought a t-shirt at Haight-Ashbury once. It is banana with a think cloud above that says "God help me... I think I'm a banana"

I wish I could still wear it, but that ship left harbor years ago and has not been sighted again. People would read it and then look confused, then walk away. Most of them.

[Jenn]

Salute! Permission granted, sir. I know a fellow netizen who says we are
all related and distant cousins, anyway.

--
Jenn

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/2013 9:20 pm, dhruva....@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:05:27 AM UTC-5, Gus wrote:
>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>
>>
>>

>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to you." (There is no contact info to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)

>>
>>
>>
>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>

> Last year I attended a niece's wedding and afterwards I was referring to her husband as "nephew-in-law" when I talked about him to others, e.g. "My nephew-in-law works as an aeronautical engineer".
> But even as I write it now, I find it rather stupid- "niece's husband" would have worked pretty well- if nothing else it's the same number of syllables.
>

The trouble with that one is that I end up saying "one of my nieces'
husbands", which makes my nieces sound polygamous, so I've gone back to
"one of my nephews-in-law".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/11/2013 9:30 pm, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Gus" <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1e3858ab-b22d-475f...@googlegroups.com...

>
>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>
>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>> you." (There is no contact info to ask a question; just a website that
>> does not clarify much.)
>>
>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>

> If it mattered, you could ask the originator of the form.
>
> Patterns may differ between the UK and USA, but "relative" seems
> usually to denote blood relations; i.e. the spouses of your relatives
> become members of your family yet are related by marriage
> rather than by genetics.
>

I've never come across a situation like that where I have had to decide
who was a relative and who not. For me, the ones I am in contact with
are relatives - blood connection or not - so I have or may have a cousin
in Blackpool, but since we're not in touch, he may as well not exist,
whereas my late brother-in-law's brother, despite living in far-off
Switzerland, is a friend and, as far as I'm concerned a relative. So if
I ever had a form like that, I'd have him sign as "brother" or one of my
nephew-in-laws as "nephew". I don't think they're going to ask for birth
certificate and genealogy charts.

What is so strange is that most forms that mention anything about family
at all usually ask for someone who is _not_ related.

[Robert Bannister]

Oh. I've just realised I missed the "not" in the original. I'd say
anyone apart from really close family - best they don't have the same
surname as you, but otherwise I doubt they will check.

[R H Draney]

Gus filted:

>
>How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>
>I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to you."
>(There is no contact info to ask a question; just a website that does not
>clarify much.)
>
>By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?

I'd say you can cut it off at "direct ancestor, direct descendant, or
sibling"...anyone too close to marry (which further implies that your own spouse
is not a relative)....

If they want to nitpick about it, point out that on average, two randomly-chosen
people of the same race are almost certain to be at least tenth cousins and may
be closer than that, so there may not *be* anyone not related to you....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[R H Draney]

John Briggs filted:

Not a problem...my banana and I haven't been on speaking terms for years....r

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:18:43 -0800 (PST), Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:44:17 PM UTC-5, John Briggs wrote:
>
>> You share 70% of your DNA with a banana.
>> --
>
>This helps explain my affinity with bananas.

But not kindred?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Tak To]

Any two books of the same language would share
a significant portion of the words and 100% of
the letters.

[Dr Nick]

Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> writes:

> On 11/13/2013 3:44 PM, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 13/11/2013 20:25, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2013 2:59 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2013-11-13 13:23:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:
>>>>
>>>>> in 2022398 20131113 130527 Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>>>>>> you." (There is no contact i
>>>>>> nfo to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any member of the human race?
>>>>
>>>> Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>>>
>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell
>>> at the very beginning.
>>
>> You share 70% of your DNA with a banana.
>
> Any two books of the same language would share
> a significant portion of the words and 100% of
> the letters.

Only if they were written by descendants of the original users of the
same language. That all life uses pretty well the same genetic code and
clearly related machinery strongly suggests they all share a common
ancestor. What other model would you suggest?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:57:05 -0800 (PST), Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>But my family knows me better than any others, at least in regards to what the form is about. Doesn't make a lot of sense tbh.

Obviously it depends what the form is for.

It is possible that a relative might feel obliged to give "facts" that
are biassed in your favour. Someone who knows you but is not related to
you would not normally feel that sort of obligation.

[Cheryl]

On 2013-11-13 6:48 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <sSz4lIf6...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>
> Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com>:

>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>
>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to

>>> you." (There is no contact info to ask a question; just a website that

>>> does not clarify much.)
>>>
>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>

>> In that context, specifically, I'd say that being married to a blood
>> relative might count as "related", so if it's important it would be
>> better to use someone else.
>
> Different organizations have different ideas of who is "related" to you.
> Generally, these are all generally included:
>
> Siblings, children, parents, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and
> *current* in-laws.
>

> Uncles, aunts, great aunts/uncles, second cousins, and ex-inlaws are
> often not "related".
>
>

Until it changed recently, a local employer had a rule that you could
take family leave time to help relatives living under the same roof.
Elderly parents who lived under a different roof didn't qualify.

They've quietly added all parents to the list of relatives you can take
family leave to help.

--
Cheryl

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Tak To skrev:

> That is not true unless there was only one cell at the very
> beginning.

Aren't you related to both your father and your mother?

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter Moylan]

So, if the old photo doesn't look like you, the requirement is that the
new photo also doesn't look like you?

[R H Draney]

Lewis filted:
>
>In message <5285654f$0$303$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>

> Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> Tak To skrev:
>
>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell at the very
>>> beginning.
>
>> Aren't you related to both your father and your mother?
>

>Sexual reproduction is rather recent, all things considered.

Speak for yourself, you lucky bastard....r

[John Ritson]

In article <slrnl8bebi....@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.co
m.dontsendmecopies> writes

>In message <5285654f$0$303$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>
> Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>> Tak To skrev:
>
>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell at the very
>>> beginning.
>
>> Aren't you related to both your father and your mother?
>

>Sexual reproduction is rather recent, all things considered.
>

According to Philip Larkin
"Sexual intercourse began in 1963 (which was rather late for me)
Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP."
--
John Ritson

[Katy Jennison]

I think that's a fair inference. However, someone must once have signed
the back of some earlier photograph, possibly decades ago, confirming
that that one looked like me; so if the most recent two don't, some
hapless passport official some time in the past wasn't doing his/her job
properly.

--
Katy Jennison

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2013-11-13 23:58:56 +0000, Katy Jennison said:

> On 13/11/2013 20:01, Leslie Danks wrote:

>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-11-13 13:23:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:
>>>
>>>> in 2022398 20131113 130527 Gus<gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>>>>> you." (There is no contact i
>>>>> nfo to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)
>>>>>
>>>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>>>>
>>>> Any member of the human race?
>>>
>>> Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>>

>> Damn! I was going to ask the cat to witness my application for a new
>> passport.
>>
>
> I was all set to get a well-regarded professional cat of my
> acquaintance to witness mine, but I read all (all!) the small print and
> discovered that as long as my new photo was still recognisable as the
> same person as the one in my old passport, it didn't need to be
> countersigned at all.

In 1996 my passport was stolen, just five days before I was due to go
to Australia. The Australians were very nice over the phone and said
that as long as I could produce a new passport they could give me a new
visa immediately. The British consulate, on the other hand, was very
nasty over the phone and said that it would take a minimum of three
weeks, and then only if they were satisfied with my story, and I'd only
get a one-year passport. However, when I got there the next day, by
which time my wife had got various official-looking people to send them
faxes certifying to my honesty and to the (supposed) damage to the UK
economy that would follow if I wasn't able to go to Australia. They
could also see that I was white, able to tie a tie, beardless and not
very young, and they were as pleasant as could be. At that point I
found that I had lost the photos I had had signed the previous day.
They said, no matter, there is a photographer down the street. When I
said that they wouldn't be signed, so how would they know it was me,
and they said that was no problem either. They then produced a new
passport so quickly that I was able to get to the Australian Embassy
before they closed for lunch, and caught an earlier train home than I
had reserved.

--
athel

[Mike L]

I think I'm misunderstanding Tak. I certainly hope so: we've already
got one apparent creationist aboard, and that's more than enough.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

British immigration officials can't be the only ones like it, but they
do seem to be prisoners of their nasty little assumptions. I've often
had the wog treatment at passport control till I opened my mouth.

--
Mike.

[Tak To]

On 11/14/2013 1:57 AM, Dr Nick wrote:
> Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> writes:
>
>> On 11/13/2013 3:44 PM, John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2013 20:25, Tak To wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2013 2:59 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-11-13 13:23:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> in 2022398 20131113 130527 Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> How far does "relative" (as a noun) extend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a form, and it says not to be filled out by "someone related to
>>>>>>> you." (There is no contact i
>>>>>>> nfo to ask a question; just a website that does not clarify much.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By "relative" would you assume: immediate or blood relative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any member of the human race?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why restrict it to humans? All living creatures are our relatives.
>>>>
>>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell
>>>> at the very beginning.
>>>
>>> You share 70% of your DNA with a banana.
>>
>> Any two books of the same language would share
>> a significant portion of the words and 100% of
>> the letters.
>
> Only if they were written by descendants of the original users of the
> same language.

What do you mean? An Australian aborigine writing
in English would not use words like "the", "is", "at"
or "in", and none of the letters A-Z?

My point is that information at the word or letter
level gives no hint to the relationship of the
authors.

And we don't even know what most of the DNA means.

> That all life uses pretty well the same genetic code and
> clearly related machinery strongly suggests they all share a common
> ancestor. What other model would you suggest?

But what is your model? In particular, what does "a
common ancestor" mean? A single cell? A single strain
of RNA? How does this gave rise to other strains of RNA?
If multiple strains or cell arose simultaneously, then
what prevented them from "spawning" completely separated
lines (trees)?

I agree that separated lines typically results in
disparate forms. However, it is not an absolute
certainty. It depends how what other viable forms
there are.

(Before continuing the debate, let me clarify that
I took the "all living creatures [are our relatives]"
to mean "all living creature _that_has_ever_existed_".
Otherwise, the author would be agreeing with me
that there could be multiple "ancestors".)

I don't have a model. I choose to remain agnostic
about whether there was only one "ancestor".

[Tak To]

I am not sure who "we" are, but I hope "we" is not
so paranoid that "we" see Creationism everywhere.

[Robert Bannister]

When I was twenty-one, I got so many complaints from customs officials,
I had an updated photo added to my British passport. For some reason
best known to themselves, they stuck it in the space for "Wife". So
there was this fresh-faced, 15 year-old at the top with an evil-looking,
bearded man as his wife. Got lots of laughs from the customs people
after that.

[Robert Bannister]

On 15/11/2013 2:04 pm, Lewis wrote:
> In message <5285654f$0$303$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>
> Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>> Tak To skrev:
>
>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell at the very
>>> beginning.
>
>> Aren't you related to both your father and your mother?
>

> Sexual reproduction is rather recent, all things considered.
>

So, all things considered, we are pretty damned lucky to be living
during a time when it is being used.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:25:19 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
wrote:

>On 15/11/2013 2:04 pm, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <5285654f$0$303$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>
>> Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>> Tak To skrev:
>>
>>>> That is not true unless there was only one cell at the very
>>>> beginning.
>>
>>> Aren't you related to both your father and your mother?
>>
>> Sexual reproduction is rather recent, all things considered.
>>
>
>So, all things considered, we are pretty damned lucky to be living
>during a time when it is being used.

So you aren't a chip off the old block, then?

[Mike L]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:21:04 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

"We", this being a group, refers to the group: cf "In Milan we have a
famous opera house and two fine football clubs". I don't see
creationism everywhere, but it does scare me. Jenn's approach looked
very much like attacks I've seen elsewhere, but if that's what it was,
it got derailed by her misunderstanding of the group. But now she's
got a foot in the door we'll sooner or later see if my hunch was
right.

Your remark about the need for a single initial cell for it to be true
that all life was related looked to me very like a special creation
claim - which is why I thought I might be misunderstanding it.

--
Mike.