Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 11

Queen Victoria's Jubilee List

Does anybody know where I can a complete list of all the royal guests at Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee and Diamond Jubilee?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps from a newspaper report of the time? You could ask at [1] for someone who has access to The Times archive. (The New York Times search is free [2] but currently down.) 174.88.9.150 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Montparnasse

Hi all. I just saw Les Mis the musical, which got me thinking about the book it is loosely based on, Hugo's celebrates Misérables. The character of Montparnasse (in the book) interests me in particular: from what I remember reading the book, Montparnasse was the young, handsome, well-dressed criminal, the one that spoke standard French rather than the dialects of the other villains. Thinking back, there must be some symbolism there but at the time I didn't notice it because I was too busy struggling with the French to think deeper into the book. What might have been Hugo's commentary there? 152.97.171.80 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but if he was treated better due to being "upper class", then Hugo might have been making a comment on the unfairness of the justice system. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Montparnasse is in no way a member of the upper classes; he's a thug who has learned how to parlay his good looks into charming those he would otherwise disgust. It was a common trope of the 19th century: the charming, superficially attractive violent criminal served the same purpose as the Pretty Missing White Woman trope does today, providing a combination of superficial shock and horror with secret titillation. Hugo's portrayal is a minor deconstruction - charming and handsome as Montparnasse is said to be, he's still clearly a thug - but he doesn't smash the trope to bits in the way that (for instance) Conan Doyle does in The Red-Headed League. --NellieBly (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Being perceived as a member of the upper class can get you better treatment, whether you really are or not. StuRat (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For another example of this trope, check out the Count of Monte Cristo, where Benedetto quite successfully charms the Parisian elite but doubles as the most reprehensible character in the book. eldamorie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Pelleprat

Is anyone know more about this man than here [3]? --109.186.6.158 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

but more important I look for someone who wrote dictionary about the new world in the fifteenth century - I found so many in wiki. His name is like Fifka - someone know? --109.186.6.158 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The second part of your question brings Peter Martyr's De Orbe Novo to mind, although I admit he doesn't sound much like "Fifka". Karenjc 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely 16th rather than 15th century? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

By and large yes, but he was chronicling some of his material in letters from the 1490s onward, with a chunk in 1501. Technically he wrote at least some of it in the 15th century even though publication in book form came later.I thought it was close enough for a quick suggestion :) - Karenjc 07:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what information you want... According to Backer-Sommervogel, Pelleprat was born in Bordeaux in 1609, entered the noviciat on 27 September 1628, initially was a teacher before becoming a missionary in 1639, died in New Spain on 21 April 1667, published works in Latin, French and Spanish including several funeral sermons... anything more specific you are looking for? eldamorie (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.6.158 (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

How can law of demand be derived from the Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent.

How can I address the above metnioned issue? this book explains a bit but rest of the (pages) explanation is restricted to commoner.--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you already asked this question above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Did I? It'd be best if I get specific explanation on this issue. That book link did not show it properly.Thanks in advance--103.10.78.202 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How can law of demand be derived from the Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent. 2

Hello, I asked this question before but got stuck in middle as I have not got proper explantion on this issue yet. Can anyone explain a bit or give direction How can I address this topic. I shall be greatful fo that. Thanks--180.234.108.99 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be a skeptic, but I would do this by using the observation from formal logic, that a false premise implies any conclusion. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you asked this at least twice before? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

People already attempted to answer your question. Please stop asking it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You say you got stuck in the middle. If you tell us exactly where you got stuck, we may be able to help, but other than that, please see the answers you got earlier. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

resolving diamond water paradox

How can I present a situation where diamond may be cheaper than water? thanks--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Increase the Organic composition of capital in the production of diamond to a higher rate than that of water, thus making diamonds cheaper in labour to produce than water, and taking advantage of the movement of value from low OCC to high OCC producers. In terms of short term price, glut the market due to the trade cycle (itself derivative of the cycle of replacement of capital goods in the OCC) temporarily changing the exchange values. You could also remove the use-value of diamonds, giving them an effective price of zero; or increase the labour hours per diamond to delta over zero ("electricity so plentiful it wouldn't need to be metered"). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What about water that has been nuclearly enriched to be isotopically pure ¹H₂¹⁶O? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Man with two bottles of water meets very thirsty man with diamonds in the middle of a desert ... Gandalf61 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There can be many variations on this: people in a lifeboat on the ocean, in a spaceship, in a submarine, on a mountaintop, etc. In each of those scenarios water is more important than diamonds. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with these hypotheticals (much like the "deer::arrow" hypothetical) is that they're divorced from the conditions establishing market rationality as the basis of human relationships. On a lifeboat the person who can command the persons with the guns/knives, on a submarine always respect the chain o'command, etc. I appreciate the impulse to model in vulgar economics, but more concrete models such as preference for wheat or rye at price points make more sense (except when you need to capture the imagination of 5,000 undergraduates...). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily one person in charge. There may not be any guns, or, if there are, that doesn't automatically mean that the person with them will become a dictator. And, even if he wanted to, he has to sleep sometime. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sci-fi scenario - A desert planet where diamond is a very common mineral but water needs to be imported from other planets. Roger (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No fiction required, that can really happen. A lack of water is quite common on planets. Being plentiful in diamonds isn't common, but is possible. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewels being common as dirt was used by Cordwainer Smith in his short story "On the Gem Planet" (one of his weakest efforts BTW). The Twilight Zone had a very similar plot device (with gold) in the episode "The Rip Van Winkle Caper", wherein practical transmutation leaves time-traveling robbers who emerge from suspended animation in the desert with now worthless ingots. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the similar plot where a bank robber with a million in cash manages to freeze himself until the statute of limitations runs out, then uses a pay phone to call for a cab: "Please deposit 10 million dollars for the first 3 minutes." :-) StuRat (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that diamonds may actually have a negative value in parts of Africa, where, if they find them near your house, they will evict you from your house to mine them, and kill you if you resist. StuRat (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, heavy water is worth more, by volume, than tiny, flawed, uncut diamonds. StuRat (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since water is a prerequisite for life, I think it'll always have to be cheap, otherwise people will die out. (Assuming that all other liquids, such as beer and coffee, are more expensive than water, since they contain water+.) It would, of course, also depend on what type of water we are talking about: If we mean clean, safe drinking water, that is very different from stagnant, dirty marsh water. If we define "water" as the former, it could be easy to find circumstances where water is more expensive, if we define "water" as any form of water, regardless of how suitable it is for human consumption, the price of water will be lower. (I'll happily pay more for a bottle of clean, drinkable water, than I'd pay to drink out of a puddle on the street.) Similar to StuRat's point above that heavy water is more expensive.

As some people have hinted: Diamonds are only as valuable as people make them. (In certain contexts, any water could be perceived as more valuable than anything, such as in a lifeboat on the sea or in the desert, where there is a limited amount of fresh water.) Any scenario where diamonds have become less attractive than water could lead to water becoming more expensive than diamonds. If people decide that they don't want diamonds - it could either be a fashion thing (diamonds permanently fall out fashion, just as gold has in Thomas Moore's Utopia), or a protest to object against blood diamonds (or something of the like) - could lead to the supply of diamonds being larger than the demand leading prices to drop. If at the same time, clean drinking water became more scarce, water might become more expensive more expensive... However, so long as society is willing to view diamonds as expensive, both for their use and potentially as an investment object, it seems unlikely that such a drop in value for diamonds would occur in society at large. V85 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "water will always have to be cheap"? Are you talking about some central planning board setting prices? Or do you just mean available? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheap = available. If it cost $1000 an ounce, most people on the planet would die of dehydration. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are people so rich they could give up a cup of gold for each cup of liquid that enters their body and live 75+ years. That's giving up about a year's wages in a developed country for each sip of your life. Though they'd have to magically get rid of their stock without the price going down. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by cheap, I mean readily available. Prices might increase a bit, but it would still have to be available at prices that are 'affordable' for most people. V85 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. We regularly have famines where the market price of good mandates that a large proportion of the labouring population simply cannot afford to eat adequately and dies. We continuously have drinking water priced beyond the effective demand of a large proportion of the labouring population, and an appreciable number of people die of water borne disease. (Not singling the Western market out here, corresponding phenomena infamously happened in the Soviet-style societies.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As was noted elsewhere, cheap water does not always mean cheap, safe, drinking water. A fair amount of the Earth's population must just take their chances. But this is nowhere near as bad as if all water was somehow priced beyond the ability of most people on Earth to buy it. This would be an "extinction level event", since, of course, plants and animals also need water. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still not understanding the context of the price, V85. Water is generally available, and where it is already hard to come by people know and are prepared for this unless the state prevents them from acting in their self interest. Are we talking about some future like The Sunmakers where aliens are holding humans in thrall and overcharging them for everything? Or some future where a passing black hole has sucked away the oceans and water has become scarce? The problem would seem entirely political in the former scenario, and apocalyptic in the second. Or are we just talking about the utility board imposing a new congressionally passed green tax raising the price of drinking water to $20/oz, and outlawing access to rivers, rain, and runoff? My question is, prices aren't primaries, they are the result of prior factors. What prior factors have to be controlled to keep it cheap? μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter what the calamity is ? For whatever highly theoretical reason, most of the world's water disappears or becomes unusable, and the price of the small remaining stock therefore skyrockets. If you want a specific scenario, how about if most of the water is contaminated by something deadly, which we can't remove (or maybe we can, but doing so is extremely expensive). In any case, the same scenario which makes water that expensive would also have to kill off most of the world's population, since they couldn't pay for it. Or, put another way, when you have a scarce resource, only a few can get it, and the decision of who gets it, in capitalism, is dependent on who has the money. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Diamonds do have some intrinsic value, for cutting, abrasive, and optics applications, so, if they fell completely out of fashion, the price would drop much lower, but not to zero (except in lifeboat scenarios and such). StuRat (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And gold also has certain uses, for instance in electronics, unlike what Thomas Moors asserted that it was only valuable because it was 'rare' and 'pretty'. Even if there was no use for diamonds, they would still have a value higher than zero, since some people would be willing to buy them. I've been to many V85 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been to many what? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry. I've been to many places where they've sold polished non-precious stones, such as birth stones, and people seem to be willing to buy that, even though those stones don't have much value beyond looking pretty. V85 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Looking pretty" is a use value which can underlie an exchange value in capitalism. Celebrities "look pretty" for industrial purposes. People satisfy a desire by wearing such objects. I think your construction of value may be deeply faulty given that you're just used your conception of "value" to delegitimise the consumption preferences of billions of human beings because they enjoy consuming pretty things. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, FF, obviously we're pretty much opposite ends of the political scale, but I do have to give you credit for your contributions in this thread. I wonder if you haven't been thumbing through your well-worn copy of The Road to Serfdom.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your understanding of the OP may be deeply faulty. As I understand it, the OP is asking about a scenario or a hypothetical situation in which water would be more expensive than diamonds. In order for this to happen, the value of diamonds has to drop, the price of water has to increase, or both. One way in which this could happen would be if people, in general, decided that diamonds, although they are pretty, just aren't worth the hassle. Is it theoretical? Is it unlikely in the foreseeable future? Yes on both counts. But, that was the best, theoretical, scenario I could come up with. What's yours? V85 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Gold has far more intrinsic value than diamonds, IMHO. If it was cheap enough, all of our wiring would be gold, and almost all metal objects would be either gold plated or gold alloys (but not 100% gold, since that's a bit too soft), to prevent corrosion. And, incidentally, I've found 1000 gold bars, 20 lbs each, free to anyone who wants them, located at StuRat (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why Thomas Moore didn't consider replacing the copper wiring with gold, back when he was writing Utopia.... :-P V85 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Use value and exchange value may be relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Diamonds are cheaper than water. The average price of 1 carat of diamonds is ~$69 whereas bottled water costs around $6000/m³. 101.173.170.146 (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what does a cubic metre of diamond cost? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would that particular unit of measurment be any more relevant? The point with the above is that comparing the relative values of things that don't come as discrete quantities is pretty meaningless. It becomes a lot more meaningful when you can assign discrete values of some importance to human preference though e.g. what's worth more, a satisfied thirst or a satisfied desire to display some bling. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Because comparing one measly carat of diamonds with an entire cubic meter of water (which weighs a tonne, literally) is a meaningless comparison. It's like comparing the cost of one banana with the cost of an entire truckload of potatos and concluding that potatos are more expensive. Duh! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparing one truck load of bananas against a truck load of potatoes is equally meaningless (just as it would be for, say, apples and oranges). They're different things. It's not how much of them are there but how much you would get out of having them. The OP's question esesntially reduces to "what costs more, a $1000 worth of diamonds or $1000 worth of water?" 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You could compare bananas and potatoes, on say, dollar per calorie or dollar per gram of carbohydrate. Similarly, you could compare apples and oranges on those factors, or on ability to provide vitamin C. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How about comparing the amount of each that you'd consume in a year if it were free? —Tamfang (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Then what? I thought the point was to outline conditions in which their relative values are inverted, not strip them of value entirely. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Use water to create something that is a greater store of value per comparable unit than diamonds. For instance—currently the most expensive painting is The Card Players by Paul Cézanne, which sold for $250 million in 2011. Anything can be a work of art. Damien Hirst is reputed to be the "richest living artist". Some of his works might surprise those who are unfamiliar with the value of fine art. It is not inconceivable that a work of art could be made of plain water that could command a high price in the marketplace relative to even that of diamonds. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just water. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Water might be more valuable to the inhabitants of PSR J1719-1438 b. Staecker (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

On the mythic side of things, there's King Midas. Manytexts (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding information from the Federal Register

I have the text of a Community Services Administration regulation published in the Federal Register, but unhelpfully it's just the text, not a copy of the Register. How do I find out the page numbers and the precise date of publication for the Register issue in which it was published? I've already put some of the text into Google without finding it; apparently they've not yet digitized the late 1970s yet. At the top I have some mysterious numbers (not close enough to each other that they're obviously related to each other): 6315-01; CSA Instruction 6143-4; "Title 45 - Public Welfare"; "Part 1061 Emergency Energy Conservation Program, Subpart 1061.70 Energy Crisis Assistance Program". The last one appears to be the numbers given to the regulation in question. It was published at some point in late 1979; they speak of an event on 31 July 1979 in the past tense, and CSA "will accept" written comments through 19 September 1979. 129.79.34.222 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Learn about the annual Federal Register Index at [4]. Most U.S. law libraries will go back way past the 70s. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal citation to your register is 45 CFR 1061 (1979). When you pick up a volume edition of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations 1979 edition) you will look first to find title 45 among the volumes, you will then page through that volume until you come to part 1061. The experience of doing this is similar to what you would do if you looked up "crystal" in a volume edition of a 1979 encyclopedia where the content of the article on crystals changes every year. Part of your problem is that this is a very old regulation that appears to no longer exist. The legal search services of Lexis and Westlaw do not even have this regulation in their databases. You have two options: find an old book edition of the CFR/FR in a law library, or use Heinonline. Heinonline seems to have a digital copy of the CFR and FR going back to 1936 (a total of 8,500 volumes). You might ask a law librarian at a law school to help you do this search as every law school has a subscription to Heinonline. You are looking for a very specific piece of historical information that will take some extensive digging. You don't need a page number for the citation however. A reference to the part, the title and the year is enough and is all that is used by attorneys. Because this is not readily available information, if I was using this in some research I would provide a copy of the text in my end notes as it is doubtful that a court would discover the information itself. It will take some digging for you to find the page number in the federal register[5]. Your regulation is in volume 44, which has 77,498 pages. You will want to look for the Federal Register Index (1979) where you can look up 45 CFR 1061 (1979). This is not the same as the Code of Federal Regulations index. A guide to legal research of the FR and CFR can be found here[6]. Unfortunately, the internet will not provide an easy answer for you. You might consider calling a library rather than physically going down there. If you work in government, they might be more willing to help you. If you are a student, a law library may be more helpful especially if you go through your own librarian. Your citation, when you find it, will look something like 44 Fed. Reg. 40,325 (October 5, 1979), which means volume 44 of the Federal Register page 40,325. A real life example of this from the Bluebook legal citation reference is Federal Acquisition Regulations for National Aeronatics and Space Administration, 55 Fed. Reg. 52,782 (Dec. 21 1990) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. pt 1). Most law libraries do not go past the 1970s as there are about 8,500 volumes of these since we first started the Federal Register. Gx872op (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Most U.S. law libraries have Lexus/Nexus, Westlaw, or similar. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the children of Adam and Eve commit incest?

The way I understand it genesis makes it pretty clear that the world began with two naughty people, Adam and Eve. So isn't every single person in the world today related to each other, and aren't all marriages incestuous? To me, from a Christian perspective, it reads like the whole world as we know it today is the result of inbreeding, which today Christians condemn? --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So from a non-Christian/non-religious point of view, everyone is not related to each other? The thing is, if it goes beyond like first cousins, then being "related" to someone doesn't really mean all that much, and it sure isn't considered inbreeding if distantly related people have kids. 109.97.169.53 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is related to one another, but that doesn't get you out of the population bottleneck issue that you have if you postulate that there were specifically two first humans. Evolutionarily it's easy to account for — there weren't just two homo sapiens to begin with. There was a relatively large population of folks. Even then there were a few major known population bottlenecks where the human breeding population got very small, but nobody said evolution was a story for the squeamish. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The way the religious scholars seem to handle this is by saying that the first people were "genetically pure", meaning, in a modern context, they didn't have any recessive genetic disorders to worry about. Also note that, due to mutations, etc., more distantly related people are less likely to have as many genes in common. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure there isn't any Christian group which promotes incest, so leave the tendentious header at home next time around. 109.97.169.53 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't tendentious its a direct inference of the first few chapters of the first book of the bible. If they believe the bible they believe that we're all inter-related --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two solutions to this that Biblical folks have proclaimed which I have seen:

1. That incest didn't matter back then.

2. It wasn't incest, because God created other people that aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Neither of these are terribly satisfying. Google "Cain's wife" (I'm surprised we don't have an article on this) for lots of endless discussion about how this is supposed to work out. (Who did Cain go off and marry? A sister or a person whose existence is not accounted for in the Genesis story, if read as an exclusive account of all creation and a single-human origins story?)

Even if you solve it for Genesis, though, you still have to deal with two other problems. One is the repopulation of the world after Noah's flood — which leads to all sorts of incestual questions as well (at least with first cousins). The other are the explicit instances of incest which are apparently condoned by the Bible, notably the case of Lot who gets it on with both of his hot daughters and this is generally proclaimed to have been a good thing. (Before anyone wonders if Lot was being abusive, strictly speaking, the daughters raped him, if you trust the Biblical account. But there you go.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In the story, while Genesis is not specific about the matter, incest is the only reasonable way for the population to have grown. In general, Christians and Jews will acknowledge this, point out that the laws and cultural taboos against incest came much later, and move on with their day. As you've noticed, this doesn't work very well with what we know now about science. But if you are reading the Bible from the beginning and trying to make scientific sense of it, this was not the first logical dilemma you encountered, and it will not be the last. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But the question still exists as to where the other people came from that Cain went off to go see and marry. Did Cain marry his sister? Or someone who was separately created? It's an issue if you read this stuff literally. These sorts of things were big questions at various points in time, and to some people, still are. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the Catholic Church, which does not contest the truth of evolution, gives much truck to StuRat's scholars' hypothesis of genetic purity as relevant. I seem to remember reading there were "giants" and other sapient beings on the earth in Genesis. Any easy solution would be that Adam and Eve were the first to have souls, with those who were their descendants with whomever they bred also inheriting souls. Once you introduce one fantastic element you can "reason" however you like. Any contradiction implies every contradiction. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The "genetic" answer that StuRat refers to generally come from hardcore "Creation Scientists" like Answers in Genesis (who make this very argument), who have written entire books on this stuff. As with all Christianity, there are many, many interpretations, though the AiG types have gotten a lot of play because they're more savvy with the Internet and evangelizing than the Catholic Church is.

You can "reason" however you like, but there are consequences to the logic. If the other human beings are from separate creation, then not all are descended from Adam and Eve. If that's the case, things can get theologically rather sticky — see Polygenism. (This was a huge debate in the 19th century, incidentally, and one of the reasons that many anthropologists of the time rejected Darwin — they believed that different human races were different lineages, as described in their interpretation of the Bible, and thus disputed common descent on these grounds. Darwin's Descent of Man, despite its title, is not really devoted to the evolution of the human from the ape, but on the evolution of different races, which was in part to address this question. There's a book on this if you're curious.) If they aren't, then you do start to get into questions about genetics, population size, etc.

Now you and I can pretty easily say, the Biblical account is quite silly from a scientific point of view. I think this myself — I am no believer. But I still find it interesting the ways in which true believers, of which there are many, try to be intellectually honest about this. The AiG crowd is probably the group that has done the most thought-out approach to the question, even if they happen to be an especially loopy (seven literal days of creation, etc.) group. They've done the most to actually try and flesh out the genetics of a literal Biblical world. It doesn't work out, but I admire them trying... --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As an atheist, I tend to vastly prefer the reasoning of Jews and Catholics to that of creationists. I find a God as stupid as theirs an insult to humanity. That being said, I believe there are apocryphal books that speak of the children of Lilith? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Humans (= homo sapiens) do not have to have children with other homo sapiens. There were other homo something (homo neanderthalis, for example) out there. Cain married one of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Citation required" to Cain marrying a Neanderthal. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Scandalous! So Adam and Eve (who are certainly both Homo sapiens) were just civil partners? Does this make all humans bastards? :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those things that, from the outside, seem to put the Bible in a tricky position, because either alternative is 'bad': Adam and Eve's children committed incest, which we consider morally apprehensible, or the Biblical account isn't completely accurate, as God created more people than just Adam and Eve. (I suppose it's worth mentioning that Adam and Eve had more children than Cain and Abel, so we don't just have the problem of Cain propagating the human race by himself (Gen. 4.25, 5.3-4).

When Cain has killed Abel, he is sent out into the world by God, but he is reluctant, as he is afraid that other people will kill him, but God puts a protective mark on him, so that they will know that he is under God's protection, and that he is not to be killed (Gen. 4.13-16). Assuming Cain can marry one of these other people, the issue of incest is resolved, but it yields loads of other questions, such as: Who are these people? Where did they come from - were they also created by God? Were they also in the Garden of Eden, or were they second class citizens who were never allowed in the garden in the first place? If they never were in the garden of Eden, did they still call the animals by the names that Adam gave them (Gen. 2.19)? V85 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is only a significant problem for readers who believe that the text is literally true, and that this "literalism" is the only true reading. Most readers do not hold this, and thus get to enjoy the text in different ways. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And then there's the verse containing "And the sons of God married the daughters of men..." (Gen 6: 1 - 3) Who? What? How? Oh well, guess we have to take it at face value... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two different creation stories. In the first, God creates humankind. No mention of Adam and Eve. In the second story, which begins 2 or 3 lines into Genesis 2, Adam and Eve are created. The assemblers of the Bible spliced these two stories together. Hence the apparent contradiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the blood groups which we share with the apes then there's too many to have had an Adam and Eve bottleneck unless you start saying the same blood groups arose twice from mutations afterwards - which is very very unlikely! I'd be interested in how these Question Evolution people deal with it - perhaps he had the apes have those blood groups as a test of peoples' faith? I find it particularly amazing considering only two of each of those apes was supposed to be in the Ark. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What's so hard about this question? God gave those apes the same blood groups as humans. Problem solved. 92.80.31.46 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't have all those shared blood groups in just two people. You'd really need the contribution of the different type apes as well. I guess that's okay if as said below prohibition about various sexual acts only came after Noah. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If Adam was type A, and Eve type B, their kids could have had any of the four groups... You don't need every group to be expressed in the two people, you just need the "system" to be there 92.80.31.46 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Lilith had descendents (probably with ur-Frazier Crane) with whom Adam and Eve's kids could procreate. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anybody wants (ahem) references, just google for "cain's wife incest" and you'll see lots and lots of "in universe" explanations. Staecker (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism has no problems with this. Prohibition against various sexual acts only comes with the Noahide laws; Noah was in the 10th generation from Adam. The genetic purity of the early generations is demonstrable by the long lives they had, which dramatically decrease... from the generation born after the flood in Noah's times. See Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genesis_numbers. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me, the Judaeo-Christian God created the Judaeo-Christian world, or maybe even the whole actual world, and the Judaeo-Christian Adam and Eve, and the "other people" out there who might have murdered Cain were the creations of other false gods/demons/test tubes, to whom oblique references are in any case made in other bits of the Old Testament (not the test tubes). So Cain was sent out into the world and had it off with someone who had been created by one of these false gods/demons/test tubes, a counterfeit human if you will, but managed to control the upbringing of his kids enough that they believed in his God. And whenever they asked him who it was that had created mummy's ancestors, he told them to shut up and get back to the ploughing. No contradictions with the literal word of the bible so far right? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous as the Biblical account may seem to some of us now in the light of modern biology, this question must occur with every attempt to explain the peopling of the world from one original couple. Not knowing about Neanderthals, how else were the ancient Hebrews going to explain the origins of humanity? You may say that they could have left it unexplained, but that is not really human nature. Children ask questions, someone suggests a story, then the story becomes fixed. There can't be many cultures without an origin myth. And from our article on Cain, it seems that the Cain-Abel story might be an attempt to make sense of the origins of herding and cultivating. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone believes in a God that created the entire universe and everything in it, it's pretty facile for them to believe that the original products of that creation were rather well built... and therefore not prone to genetic difficulties. IIRC, traditional Jewish sources say that no-one in the generations before the flood ever became unwell. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Tree of Life story predates Judaism and is found throughout the Near East. The Golden Apples is a version that comes to us in a roundabout way from the Greeks.

How about the other group named in the Bible that was noted as being interfertile with the children of Adam (does he get a pass for doing his cloned wife?), but were non-human? Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Finger (gesture)

Finger (gesture) (see the obscene gesture here) has been updated and approved at DYK; I was trying to firm-up some of the references to its classical origins; Aristophanes, Diogenes Laertius, and Martial I've found; but am struggling with these factoids (1) "Roman gladiators reportedly used the gesture towards Nero when he sentenced them to die with his thumb"; and (2) "The historian Tacitus wrote that German tribesmen gave the middle finger to Roman soldiers as they advanced during battle" (didn't immediately spot in Germania, Annales are long...); anyone happen to know the chapter and verse for these? thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A search on 'Tacitus German "middle finger" Roman Soldiers' gave many results at google [7], including an attribution to a professor Thomas Conley. You might search for his paper. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; the goodly professor of "classics and communication" asserts this for the BBC and also in his book here published by the University of Chicago Press, and this has of course rebounded to the far corners of the internet; sadly he appears to have felt no need for a reference, just says the Germans were giving the "digitus infamis"; a search on Perseus for this and all its possible inflected forms gives no Tacitus or related; I'm not exactly into message-boards but according to User:EleaticGuest here "I wrote Mr. Conley and he was gracious enough to concede that he actually holds no proof for this, but assumed this from hearsay at his alma mater where this notion seems to have been popular then"; I wonder which is the more reliable source... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! You should be able to search older texts of Tacitus, etc, at google books. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The stuff about the Battle of Agincourt may be referenced but it's rubbish. The gesture in question was the V sign which our article calls "A widespread urban legend" and says "This story can be traced to the 1980s". This article says "However it really came about, we can be pretty sure that it’s bugger all to do with medieval archers." This article states "...in the US this legend is applied to the middle finger alone, American mythchiefmakers clearly being unaware that "giving the bird" is not native to the UK.". I never saw anyone use the one-fingered gesture in London before about 1980, and trust me, the school I went to had a comprehensive vocabulary of vulgar gestures. Whether Tacitus used it or not, it's a purely American and recent import. Finally, from a letter to the editor of The Guardian newspaper; "Resorting to this (one-figer) gesture is simply a further example of American cultural imperialism. We in Britain have the perfectly serviceable two-finger gesture to be used on such occasions." Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Alansplodge. The finger (gesture) was also unknown in Germany before the 1960's, according to the German WP. Perhaps the misconception of professor Thomas Conley results from mixing up in memory Tacitus with Trajan and the finger gesture with the oath gesture of the Germanic prince depicted on Trajan's column [8]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep as in Australia. "Flipping the bird" is American and rare or nonexistent pre-80s. Until then the up-thrusting thumb with elbow bent (sometimes saying "up yours"), and the double digit salute wrist-flicked upwards, was more than enough for many. Aussies call it "giving the finger" (with or without "F*** you") but now, newspaper reporters are using the bird term. Pity. More American expansionism. Manytexts (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, is OJ over there busting heads? Has Cheney waterboarded all you folk? Here I thought you blokes had free will and chose your words yourselves. ("Flipping the bird", BTW, is not an Americanism, but a California thing. No one East of Phoenix uses it. But you guys think what you see on TV is America, of course. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

You have a cast-iron case Medeis, but for some of us, it's a bit sad to see your own culture, however vulgar, ebbing away. However, we've been doing it to the rest of the world for a couple of centuries, so I suppose it's poetic justice. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My mate from Michigan says it all the time. 101.170.213.73 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And how old is he? μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But since the 1950s Australians have been using, or have been learning off other Australians new physical insults from European cultures, such as the thumb between the forefingers, or slapped extended forearms. The unfortunate side effect of such valuable multiculturalism is the uncritical absorption of Americanisms. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncritical at the point of absorption, but after they've had their 4 millionth Big Mac and "fries" or their 3 millionth serve of KFC or watched their 750,000th American comedy show, then they bitch and whinge about American expansionism. Nobody forced them to consume those products. The truth is that Australia is a sponge for cultural influences from all over the world; some are more high profile than others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

God bless you, Jack. 05:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with US culture is that US mass culture is aggressively "dumped" on the market. US High or regional cultures often have to be sought out, with difficulty. For the left the idea that Australians have any capacity to control this economic situation is laughable. For the more democratic right, I'm sure they would point to the state supported monopolies that restrict access to more substantial US imports. For one, why can't I find a Philly cheese steak or Reuben readily in Sydney? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you have access to common cuts of beef like brisket and top round? I'm pretty sure every ingredient necessary to make a rueben or a cheesesteak is availible in any market in Sydney. --Jayron32 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Butchery and delis do differ, corned meat is rarely available shaved and the Coles Woolsworths monopolists are doing their best to crowd out delis that will actually shave meat for you. Also, after seeing Australian cookbooks from the 1970s suggesting what an "authentic" curry or pizza should be like, I've learnt to eat food prepared by people who professionally cook such food. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I wish it were easy (or even feasible) to find mutton in the U.S... Wnt (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be able to find tinned or corned-tinned halal mutton, sold for the halal dietary market (I'm sure they'd mail order in US, or even internationally, but I don't know about US manufactured meat import regulations). Regarding Butchery, I'm told that the only real way to get mutton is to start touting around halal butchers who run actual small butcheries (in Sydney). I can't find mutton on the "whole beast" market, or in the meat sales trade... it might just be mass sold into dog food or fertiliser. Hogget is impossible to find too, unless you look for unusually large and red "lamb". Given that I spend my time debating how to eat US food online, I don't have the time to find a halal butcher who'll do me small bits of mutton. Regarding reubens: my wonderful fiancee discovered a sandwich shop willing to sell things they claimed were reubens. It tasted like I expected, and was delicious, but given that it wasn't an "authentic US cuisine" store, I'm still in doubt about how authentic my experience was. I guess I'll have to simply eat "Australian-US fusion" style reubens :). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point - how do we point out to the good folks at Did You Know? that they're barking up the wrong tree, as most of the statements in this article are demonstrably false? Alansplodge (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The never-ending joy of the Ref Desk, even after 8 years of loitering here, is that a thread about the classical origins of a certain rude finger gesture can somehow became a thread about the best places to buy Reubens in Sydney. Who would have guessed? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)