Not Out of Africa?
100 Year Old hair: Australian Aboriginal Hair Tells
Two Stories of Human Migration
Australian Aboriginal Hair Tells Two Stories of
Human Migration
Finally the
Australian Aboriginal people have been allowed to drag themselves off the bottom
rung of the evolutionary pecking order. An article appearing in the New York
Times (September 23) written by Nicholas Wade, stated that “a lock of hair,
collected by a British anthropologist a century ago, has yielded the first
genome of an Australian Aborigine.” The content within seems to summarise both
the unexpected findings of this genetic analysis, and equally, a series of
unresolved questions that the researchers openly concede do contradict their
central hypothesis.
Until the
announcement of the mapping of the genome of the hair of one Aboriginal man,
the First Australians were assumed to be youngest of all races. So entrenched
was this view, when Professors Alan Wilson and Rebecca Cann presented their
seminal paper, The Recent African Gensis
of Humans, proposing that “genetic studies reveal that an African
woman of 200,000 years ago was our common ancestor,” their timing and
sequencing, through the assistance of a ‘molecular clock’ they devised, was
predicated upon the belief that the Africans were at least three times older than
the Aboriginal Australians.
Originally
claimed to be last of the four races to evolve, they have been repositioned to
either second or equal first. Over the last 50 years, it has been a constant
ascension. It was claimed the First Australians came into existence 12,000
years ago, then 20, followed by the quite popular 40,000 years, since then
there has been talk of 50,000, 60,000 and now we hear 75,000 years is a more
appropriate timing. So equivocate the ‘experts,’ however, the custodians of
Aboriginal lore and ancient history we have been consulting maintain none of
these offerings are correct.
Before
examining the Aboriginal custodian’s time-line, we need to examine what was
discovered in the laboratory, along with the ambiguities attached to this new
date. When reading this report what becomes immediately apparent is a liberal
use of qualifiers (“best guesses,” “series of puzzles,” “enigma,” “we can’t
really put geography in there”). We are of the belief the second and third
sentence of Wade’s opening paragraph are pivotal in establishing the bona fides
of this reversal in the positioning of the emergence of the Australian
Aboriginal race, and upon further analysis, highlight two popular assumptions
which contain flaws that seriously undermine any attempt to supply “best
guesses.” It must be pointed out this is not meant to be a critique of either
Wade or the scientists involved, they are relying upon what is readily
available and accepted by nearly all authorities as fact.
Nevertheless,
Wade states that “the Aboriginal genome bolsters genetic evidence showing that
once the Aborigine’s ancestors arrived in Australia some 50,000 years ago, they
somehow kept the whole continent to themselves without admitting any outsiders.
The Aborigines are thus direct descendants of the first modern humans to leave
Africa without any genetic mixture from other races so far as can be seen at
present.” Within these two sentences, are what we believe two elemental errors.
The first relates to the notion of entry into Australia occurring 50,000 years
ago.
We are aware
of ten sites/artefacts which are all claimed to be much older than the 50,000
years proposed, and what needs to be factored into any investigation of these
locations and objects is that if just one is actually correct, the proposed
date of 50,000 years is wrong. Conversely, for this entry date to stand firm,
all ten findings must be wrong, nine out of ten is not enough.
Each of these
more challenging dates has the backing of highly qualified authorities/Elders,
and of course in many instances, but not all, has attracted criticism from
equally respected academics. The sites/relics include: Great Barrier
Reef-firestick farming-180,000 years, Lake Eyre-skull cap-135,000, Lake
George-firestick farming-120,000 years Jinmium-tools-116,000-175,000 years,
Devonport-engravings >75,000-116,000 years,
Jinmium-engravings-75,000-116,000 years. Panaramitee-engraving-75,000 years,
Snowy Mountains-pebble chopper-60,000-100,000 years, Rottnest
Island-tools-70,000 years and Lake Mungo-modern human skeleton->60,000
years.
Obviously all
sites/relics have both critics and advocates, but again our goal is anything
above 10%. For now an examination of four of these dates will be sufficient,
especially since in each of the three sites and artefact we will now examine
the probability of the older date is more likely.
Gurdup Singh
was considered the leading expert in the field of core extraction. When
supervising the drilling of a 4,000,000 year old core sample from the bed of
Lake George (NSW) he noted a rather perplexing increase in the concentration of
charcoal from 120,000 years onwards. Not only was the segment in stark contrast
to the pattern repeated over the earlier 3,880,000 years, the appearance of
noticeable peaks within this huge increase coincided with higher lake levels
and greener vegetation. With the possibility of drought, lightning strikes and
other natural agents discounted, Singh was left with only one possibility:
human involvement through firestick farming.
None have
challenged the implied human intervention through fire, but Richard Wright has
questioned the date and according to respected archaeologist Josephine Flood,
he “has argued convincingly for a date of about 60,000 years. To be honest
either number achieves the same purpose and isolation. Obviously, if Singh is
right, then the Out-of-Africa theory is not, but Wright’s 60,000 years offers
little assistance and quite a stretch in logic. Lake George is over 100
kilometres from the coast and over 2,000 kilometres from any assumed northern
entry point. Rightly assumed by Flood to be “beach huggers” explanations as to
how such a complex community was established in such a distant location 10,000
years before these Africans supposedly first stepped ashore is a daunting task.
At a location
over 2,000 kilometres from any suggested northern entry point there is an
intricate rock carving of a crocodile head which was ‘discovered’ in 1923 at
Panaramitee (SA). Not only is it an extremely fine piece of art, it was
chiseled into rock over 75,000 years ago. Owing to the surrounding landscape
and position, Josephine Flood was compelled to concede, “I am going to be so
bold to suggest that it may derive from a time when terrestrial crocodiles and
humans actually co-existed in South Australia, although the youngest crocodiles
found so far date to 75,000 years at Cuddie Springs.” This animal could never
be carved into rock unless a natural and permanent part of that region in
distant times. That is the Law and can never be questioned, painted or engraved
unless it was living within that tribal estate.
The third
site, although closest in age to the claimed 50,000 year entry date, in many
respects is the most inconvenient. Lake Mungo is more than 1,000 kilometres
from the Top End. Until quite recently, the remains of a man and woman often
referred to as Mungo Man (WLH3) and Mungo Woman (WLH1) were assumed to be
nearly 30,000 years old. An extensive re-analysis of the bones of WLH3 through
the use of three dating techniques, under the supervision of Dr. Alan Thorne,
Rainer Grun and Nigel Spooner returned dates well in excess of 50,000 years.
Dates of 62,000 years were obtained through Electro Spin Resonance (ESR) and
Uranium Series, and in what must reduce considerably the potential that all three
approaches are faulty, analysis by Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL)
returned a date of 61,000 years.
What needs to
be factored into this ancient equation is that the activities associated with
the disposal of WLH3 are indicative of long-standing occupation, and something
even more fascinating, religion. Around the corpse was a thick coating of red
ochre, the body was positioned in exactly the same manner as that recorded by
first settlers, and the front two teeth were removed when this male was a teenager.
Such traits strongly suggest religion was an integral part of this community
over 60,000 years ago.
Undeniably the
research and science underpinning Thorne’s date has met with criticism. Jim
Bowler challenges the methodology behind this comparative study, and although
conceding the original dating of Mungo 1 and 3 was in need of revision, is more
comfortable (as is nearly all of mainstream academia) with a shared date of
44,000 years. Although this more acceptable take can accommodate the suggested
50,000 years entry, it also refashions Bowler’s strident denial into an
each-way bet. In 1983 Bowler, along with Gurdup Singh and Peter Ouwendyke,
released the findings of their study of a core sample extracted from the Great
Barrier Reef. According to all three academics they found evidence of firestick
farming spanning back to 183,000 years. As it stands, whether relying on
Thorne’s work or that of Bowler and his colleagues, the proposed entry date of
50,000 years is far too conservative.
Each of these
three sites is the province of other experts, the fourth is neither a site nor
is it unfamiliar to us. We have seen Angel John’s pebble chopper. Extremely
worn and heavily striated by glacial abrasion, we are both convinced it is no
less than 60,000 years and could be over 100,000 years old.
The Snowy
Mountains has been subject to three glacial eras, the lightest and most recent
finished 15,000 years ago, while the two earlier events were of a much greater
duration. The next occurring 60,000 years ago, and the third glacial period was
40,000 years earlier. So severe and pronounced is the erosion exhibited, it
seems impossible to envisage so much damage was solely the result of the last
brief glacial event.
For the sake
of balance, let us assume that down the line all nine sites and Angel John’s
chopper were proved to be less than 50,000 years old. The second of the two
sentences Wade opened with also contains another proposal that is not supported
by the facts. If keeping “the whole continent to themselves without admitting
any outsiders,” and reputedly “without any genetic mixture,” one may ask why is
the research examining Aboriginal mtDNA, Y Chromosomes, blood groupings and
skull morphology consistent in denying one locality: Africa?
Returning to
the notion of a molecular clock, ‘Eve’ and a shared African ancestry, the paper
has within a real air of absolute conviction that everything was now resolved.
This declaration was regarded as the final word, and the resolution of “15
years of disagreement” between two branches of science. Wilson and Cann
triumphantly proclaimed victory on behalf of the molecular geneticists
declaring that “we won the argument, when the paleontologists admitted we had
been right and they had been wrong.”
With the case
closed and bragging rights secured in perpetuity, science had once again
provided certainty and an African ancestry. Or so it seemed, but not long after
their paper was published Rebecca Cann realised they were mistaken. In 1982 she
examined the mitochondrial DNA of 112 Indigenous people, including twelve
full-descent Aboriginals, and the results were in total opposition to that
which they assumed was fully resolved. Nevertheless, Cann was obliged to
contradict a central tenet of their paper, in stating that “mitochondrial DNA
puts the origin of Homo sapiens much further back and indicates that the
Australian Aboriginals arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far
earlier than any other racial type.”
Not only was
the emergence of Aboriginal Homo sapiens “far earlier” than any Africans, she
provided a sequence and motherland. “The Australian racial group has a much
higher number of mutations than any other racial group, which suggests that the
Australians split off from a common ancestor about 400,000 years ago. By the
same theory, the Mongoloid originated about 100,000 years ago, and the Negroid
and Caucasian groups about 40,000 years ago.”
The
realignment and reversal were of immediate concern to Alan Wilson. If Cann was
correct in detecting a “much higher number of mutations” they may as well tear
up their original paper. Desperate to resolve the obvious inconsistencies,
Wilson made two visits to Australia. In 1987, Wilson sampled the mtDNA of 21
full-descent Australian Aboriginals and provided 15 different strands. This
number was well outside what anyone expected and compelled Wilson to
unconvincingly conclude there were more than 15 pregnant females on the first
boat. A second visit in 1989 increased the crew size to levels that quite
literally sank the boat as it entered the water, and forced Wilson to abandon
Africa as the place where Homo sapiens originated. From a second sampling of
ten, a similar percentage (70%) of mutation was present. Upon receiving the
results of his second mtDNA sampling Wilson immediately admitted the
Out-of-Africa theory was wrong.
The math’s
wasn’t complicated: the agreed rate of mtDNA mutation for every new strand is
3,500 years, therefore 22x 3,500 =77,000 years. Wilson realised if he returned
and increased the population surveyed, so too would the crew-size increase. He
was left with no other option but to dismiss their original paper.
“It seems too
far out to admit, but while Homo erectus
was muddling along in the rest of the world, a few erectus had got to Australia and did something
dramatically different-not even with stone tools-but it is there that Homo sapiens have emerged and evolved …
Homo sapiens would have
evolved free from competition out of a small band of Homo erectus 400,000 years ago.”
Of itself,
such a radical repositioning is not conclusive and needs further corroboration
before it could gain any credence within the academic community. What continues
to amaze us is that there is ample evidence which spans many disciplines that
affirms what Wilson and Cann found, but for reasons that still escape us these
inconvenient truths have been ignored.
Of the many
investigations into the genetic characteristics of Australian Aboriginal blood
conducted to this date, the work of Roy Simmons (Commonwealth Serum
Laboratories) is impressive in terms of his studies’ scope, volume and stature.
He was granted access to over one thousand blood samples, including those
collected by Joseph Birdsell and Norman Tinsdale between 1926 and 1971.
Unfortunately, Birdsell and Tindale began their work “before mitochondrial DNA
studies arose in the 1980’s to revolutionise the field,” and were unable to
fully appreciate the implications of what lay within the vials. Simmon’s
primary task was to determine the location and ethnicity of those responsible
for Aboriginal settlement of Australia. He looked near and far, but regardless,
was none the wiser.
When examining
potential connections within the immediate neighbourhood, Simmons began by
comparing genetics with people and locations previously nominated as the most
likely candidates. He found there were “no genetic connections between the
Australian Aborigines and distant groups such as the Veddoid populations of
India or Sri Lanka.” Not content to restrict himself to one geographic area he
expanded his horizons, but to no avail, admitting he was “unable to provide any
clues as to the biological origin of the first Australians.”
Simmons held
one specific viewpoint with absolute certainty that placed him in opposition to
the traditional expectations of academia. “There is no blood group evidence to
indicate the African Negroes or Negritos had any connection to the Australian
Aborigines.” And in what can only complicate proceedings, not only did he
refute any African involvement in Australia, he felt there may be a need to
re-evaluate who actually were the first Homo sapiens. Simmons declared “that
the Australian data indicated that the Aborigines actually evolved earlier than
African Negroes.”
Simmon’s
conclusion and exclusion is a common response which was repeated by many other
Australian researchers. Josephine Flood found that the Australian Aboriginal’s
mtDNA was “most different from Black Africans.” Professor Keith Windshuttle was
even more expansive in delineating the African ‘no-go’ zone, insisting that “50
years of blood genetic research has failed to provide any clue to Aboriginal
origins … May I state here and now that our extensive blood survey … over 3
decades have produced no genetic evidence that the Negroes ever entered the
Pacific.” Tina Jamieson highlighted the two major problems all of these
researchers encountered, in that Australian Aboriginal “mtDNA is remarkably
high,’ which then logically leads to a situation where if this hypothetical
migration of Africans into Australia did actually take place, they “migrated
earlier than expected.”
A study
conducted of male equivalent to the female mtDNA, Y Chromosomes, was no less
Africa-friendly. Containing “two halotypes unique to Australian Aboriginals,”
the comparison made to populations outside Australia provided the same “unique”
pattern. It was noted that the people measured outside Australia produced 41
halotypes, whereas “most (78%) of Aboriginal halotypes fell into two clusters,
possibly indicating two original separate lineages of Aboriginal Australians.”
What does
become obvious is the repeated use of the term “unique,” which contradicts
Wade’s expectation that if these first African settlers were indeed sealed off,
thus “without any genetic mixture,” steadfastly refusing to admit “any outsiders,”
why is it that their mtDNA and Y Chromosomes bear no relationship to African
people?
Consistent to
that non-African theme is an analysis of over 10,000 vials of Aboriginal blood
which was originally collected to be used for transfusions. Josephine Flood’s
investigation begins where many others left off. “Uniquely, the full-descent
Aboriginals lacked A2 and B of the ABO group system, S of the MNSs system and
Rh negative genes r, r’ and r’’ … Western Desert people show a distinctive
genetic pattern with the world’s largest value of the N gene of the MNSs system
… possibly the world’s only racial group lacking in the S blood antigen.” If
compelled to use terms such as “uniquely,” “distinctive” “world’s highest” and
“completely lacking” describing a race that should be most similar to Africans,
there is nothing in this report that will provide comfort for those championing
the Out-of-Africa theory.
With mtDNA, Y
Chromosomes and all three blood groupings yielding no similarities to African
people, it should come as no surprise that a comparison of the skull morphology
of Australian Aboriginals was consistent in denying access to the African
people. Professor Lanarch (Sydney University) was unequivocal in stating that
“we therefore have no hesitation in omitting the Negritos as the ancestors of
the Australian Aborigines.”
When Wade
makes claim to when and where the “Aboriginals split” from their African
ancestors he wisely prefaces this theoretical division with a series of
provisos. “But the genetic data offers no information as to where these
population splits may have occurred,” noting that one of the team members of
the Danish Natural History Museum, Morten Rasmussen, announced that “we really
can’t put the geography in there.” So often this reality has been lost. Wilson
and Cann’s original paper, which they recanted, acknowledges that genealogy can
never supply geography when stating Eve was “probably”, never definitely, born
in Africa. As Wade correctly pointed out, “genetic dates are based on a mixture
of statistics and best guesses,” and in what must cast even more doubt in
assuming that “the earliest known human presence in Australia at 44,000 years
ago,” he also concedes that “the Aboriginal occupation of Australia presents a series
of puzzles.”
To that
“series of puzzles” we would like to add another fact that is always missing in
action whenever the Out-of-Africa theory is discussed. Let us assume all nine
sites/artefact are indeed 44,000 years or younger, and the collection of mtDNA,
Y Chromosome, blood analysis and morphology studies are also in error, there is
still remaining one event that contradicts common sense, human nature and runs
in direct opposition to the notion of Africans migrating from the homeland
irrespective of whether this occurred 75,000 years or even 60,000 years ago:
the eruption of Mount Toba.
Irrespective
of whether these Africans actually made their way to Australia, any such exodus
must first be assessed after factoring in the impact the Mount Toba eruption
had upon the world population. According to Josephine Flood, the “global
population was reduced even more when the Toba volcano in Sumatra erupted
74,000 years ago-the world’s disaster of the last 2 million years. This
enormous eruption spewed ash to the north-west covering India, Pakistan and the
Gulf Region in a blanket 1-3 metres deep and spread as far as Greenland … this
catastrophe reduced the world’s population to between two to ten thousand.” The
expectation being is that two isolated pockets of humanity, one in the southern
extremes of Africa, survived the holocaust, and secondly that Australia, which
escaped the cloud of thick ash, was unpopulated.
Our problem
is, as this eruption decimated the world population (except Australia) so
severely, what inspired the very few Africans still standing to move to unknown
locations? Such a scenario runs counter to human nature, surely after this
eruption the fortunate few would first re-establish their tribal estates then
slowly edge outwards. With so much of central and northern Africa now vacant,
why were these unoccupied estates ignored. Apparently breeding like rabbits,
the entire continent was restocked as they surged out of Africa. Ignoring
thousands of kilometers of Asian land now vacant, they sped onwards until
reaching the southern coast of Indonesia, then set sail towards a continent
completely unsighted.
Alternately,
with most of the world virtually unpopulated, and Australia untouched by the
eruption, this was an ideal opportunity to set sail from, never to, Australia.
As to which option makes more sense, it’s all a matter of “best guesses.”
From
Forgotten Origin @ http://forgottenorigin.com/100-year-old-hair-australian-aboriginal-hair-tells-two-stories-of-human-migration
"Out
of Africa" View of Early Human Origins Disputed
In 1987 a team of
Berkeley paleontologists led by the late Allan Wilson, did an analysis of
mitochondrial DNA from 147 individuals and declared emphatically that the rise
of modern humans occurred in Africa within the last 140,00 years and that all
present day humans are descended from that population.
In 2000, Eric
Lander of MIT's Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research announced that
modern Europeans are descended from no more than a few hundred African who left
Africa as recently as 25,000 years ago.
Fast forward
to 2007:
A team of
scientists who compared the skulls and DNA of human remains from around the
world say their results point to modern humans (Homo sapiens) having a single origin in Africa, reported
National Geographic July 17 issue. "We are solely children of Africa—with
no Neanderthals or island-dwelling "hobbits" in our family
tree," according to a new study.
The team led
by Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge, England, combined analysis of
global genetic variations with comparisons of more than 6,000 skulls from more
than a hundred ancient human populations. The new data support the single
origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans,
which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of
the continent some 50,000 years ago.
The new study also looked at 37 measurements from male and female skulls from
around the world. The chosen skulls were all less than 2,000 years old, making
them better preserved and more likely to give accurate measurements than older
skulls.
Wrong says
John Hawks, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of
Wisconsin—Madison and Erik Trinkaus, Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of
Physical Anthropology, Washington University, considered by many to be the
world's most influential scholar of Neanderthal biology and evolution.
Regardless of
what morphological or genetic data are offered, the two renowned
anthropologists, according to Anthropology.net are skeptical of any
research that claims final proof of a single origin for modern humankind,
particularly at the date of 50,000 bp, as there are clear indications from
Eurasia, Australia and possibly even America, that by this date, modern humans
were already living at all these locations, thousands of miles from Africa, and
could not possibly have been part of this presumed African exodus.
Another major
flaw in the Out of Africa argument is that the skulls chosen are so young in
comparison to the populations that were living at 50,000 bp - if they had
examined some of the 30,000 - 36,000 year-old skulls from Romania that Erik
Trinkaus has been looking at, they would have gained a different impression
from the uniform model of skull morphology in moderns than they propose.
Certain
genetic and anatomical traits “cannot be explained as a simple and complete
expansion of modern humans out of Africa,” Trinkaus said.
“The idea that humans get more uniform further from Africa is simply
ludicrous,” Trinkaus added, noting that modern-day Chinese and Australian
Aborigines look no more similar to each other than do Africans and Europeans.
Manica and colleagues took multiple measurements of more than 4,500 male fossil
skulls from 105 populations around the globe. They combined the results with
data from studies of global genetic variations in humans, finding that both
genetic and skull variability decreased with distance from Africa. So
populations in southeastern Africa held the highest variability compared with
populations in other countries.
“Humans seem to have poured out of Africa, spread out across the world, but at
a really quite uniform rate such that you get this lovely gradual loss of
diversity,” said study team member William Amos of the University of Cambridge.
The results held even when the scientists accounted for climate, since climate
conditions can lead to changes in skull features. “In very cold climates you tend
to generate a slightly thicker brow ridge. Whether or not that’s to keep
horrible blizzards out of your eyes, I don’t know,” Amos said.
John Hawks believes the paper is “mistaken.” A major flaw is that the current
research is largely based on skull variability. You can’t find the origin of
people by measuring the variability of their skulls,”
Differences in skull features are related to genetics, and genetic variation
depends on how much mixing occurs with other populations. “The main problem
with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to
15 years ago that we now know are wrong,” Hawks said.
“Africa is ecologically diverse, and cranial variation is a function of
environments,” Hawks added. In environments supporting hardy foods such as
roots, people would need bigger jaw muscles, and thus larger areas for muscle
attachments.
Hawks and Trinkaus imply that the study by Manica is far too simplistic to make
any sense.
In his own
research, Hawks is finding that natural selection has led to changes in
thousands of genes during only the past few thousand years.
“I’m really thinking just the opposite of this paper,” Hawks said. “There are
differences in the skull between populations, including their variability, but
it is mostly due to very recent effects and not the origin of modern humans.”
At the end of
the day, a resolution to the Out of Africa debate may be impossible, he said.
Most of the evidence can be interpreted as supporting both human-origins
theories. “It’s really hard to find observations that distinguish the two,”
Hawks said.
“The multiregional idea is identical to the recent African origin idea, except
for its prediction that Europeans and Asians were part of the single population
of origin and didn’t become extinct.”
Anthropology.net's Tim Jones eloquently sums up the multicultural vs. the
out-of-Africa theory: "The idea that much of the Pleistocene was populated
by people living in a technical and cultural coma, only wakened from their
collective slumber in the Upper Palaeolithic by the sudden pinprick of a modern
intelligence which arose from a single location at a specific point in time,
(enabling the florescence of our über-selves), is itself long overdue for
consignment to the compost heap of old theories based on out-moded
concepts."
From
Daily Galaxy @ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/river-out-of-ed.html
For
more information about evolution see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/evolution
For
more information about the human species see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/homo%20sapiens
-
See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section
You Can Help This Unique Independent
Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati
eBook!
Just click in the jar -
Images – http://biologyberezin.edublogs.org/files/2011/10/aborigine1-1gixjuq.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime450.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201109/r831263_7658416.jpg
And see
This
site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an
individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work
& author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original
along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or
software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay
glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please
send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading
this far…
Live
long and prosper!
