yogaFLAME: I'd know homo erectus anywhere.

Is that homo erectus, or is he just happy to see me?

Strange that not a single skull is wearing a tinfoil hat.

Monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, Cain, Abel, Adam, Eve

Australopithecus bevetsummonious?

Sure, I can identify several different species that existed over a period of time. Where's the part that says they evolved from one to another?

What, no Sahelanthropus tchadensis? No Ardipithecus ramidus?

I am disappoint.


/splayed-out toe ftw

LewDux: Monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, Cain, Abel, Adam, Eve alien, alien, alien, monkey.

Githerax: Sure, I can identify several different species that existed over a period of time. Where's the part that says they evolved from one to another?

I hope that was trolling.

Working backwards: Human, ---, also H. sapiens, H. neanderthalis, ---, H. erectus, Turkana boy (H. egaster, had to look the taxonomy up), bunch of H. habilis, Lucy/Australopithecus afarensis, Chimp.

Flint knives, hand axe, what looks to the the Venus of Willendorf in the center.

/Antho geek
//Anthro professors would be so proud.

KiplingKat872: Working backwards: Human, ---, also H. sapiens, H. neanderthalis, ---, H. erectus, Turkana boy (H. egaster, had to look the taxonomy up), bunch of H. habilis, Lucy/Australopithecus afarensis, Chimp.

Flint knives, hand axe, what looks to the the Venus of Willendorf in the center.

/Antho geek
//Anthro professors would be so proud.

If they really wanted to be cruel, they would have had all the Australopithecenes/Paranthropus skulls the community is quibbling over.

With the fertility statue in the center, it looks like a fap-party through all the generations.

Sure, I'm not on a deadline. I'd LOVE to see Bevets.

/ LOVE

I'm a cashier at Walmart, so speak for yourself there, subby.

If the theory of evolution is correct, that would mean we're still evolving, right? At what point do scientists decide that we're a new species? What has to be different?

You mean nobody brought donuts? Gold Jerry, comedy gold!

Githerax: Sure, I can identify several different species that existed over a period of time. Where's the part that says they evolved from one to another?

Not so loud. Fark houses a hive of rabid Darwinists.

Hamster On A Wheel: If the theory of evolution is correct, that would mean we're still evolving, right? At what point do scientists decide that we're a new species? What has to be different?

When we get geographically separated from other members of homo sapien and after some time our genetics diverge enough that we can no longer reproduce offspring by mating with each other then we are both new species that share a common ancestor of homo sapien. But you already knew that and are probably trolling.

What, no Piltdown Man?

Hamster On A Wheel: If the theory of evolution is correct, that would mean we're still evolving, right? At what point do scientists decide that we're a new species? What has to be different?

"Species" has something of a hard to nail down definition. Especially when we remember that life exists at the microscopic level as well. Is there a definition of species that can truly capture what it means to be a distinct form of life at both the macroscopic and microscopic level?

The usual definition that gets bandied about, and serves as a good rule of thumb (I guess, I'm not a biologist), is the ability to successfully breed with one another. That was along the lines of Ernst Mayr's definition, at least. Of course, then there are the instances where two different forms of life can interbred to create a hybrid, usually (but not always) sterile. Are the horse and the donkey two separate species then, or what?

"If" the theory of evolution is correct is a strange way of putting it. It is the most correct explanation we have available to us, as well as the only scientific explanation and the only one with supporting evidence, and no doubt we will discover details of it that are incorrect as we acquire more knowledge and better refine the only scientific theory to account for the diversity of life. We are still evolving, but what will have to happen for scientists to declare us having evolved into a new species is difficult as hell to answer. Keep in mind that there are such things as "living fossils" - species that remain more-or-less the same in spite of millions of years of evolution (e.g. the horseshoe crab; although admittedly even the rather informal term "living fossil" is a hard-to-define-precisely term, too). It may be that we have evolved to a state where the majority of our evolution will not be grossly physiological or morphological from here on out, since we have the cognitive abilities to radically change our environment to suit our physical forms.

KiplingKat872: Githerax: Sure, I can identify several different species that existed over a period of time. Where's the part that says they evolved from one to another?

I hope that was trolling.


Technically he's right in some sense, since, well, not all of these guys are in your direct linage, more like cousins. Like Chimpanzees, and Neanderthals, and possibly some of the things we have lumped under erectus (depending on if you are a lumper or a splitter).
/he's still prob trolling, regardless...

traylor: With the fertility statue in the center, it looks like a fap-party through all the generations.

The pelvis must be there for fap material as well.

Evolution certainly does exist, but in our case there is something fishy. We have 223 genes which have no evolutionary origin, and there's also the matter of chromosome fusion, something that inexplicably only happened with us, and quite suddenly. Not to mention the infamous missing link, which as far as i can tell is being slowly erased from the public consciousness. I don't think they teach it in schools anymore, and googling it returns bizarre results. We also lack the strength of primates. A little chimp is 4 times stronger than any of us.

Something, or someone, altered us, giving us a little boost on the evolutionary ladder several times. It should have taken much longer to reach this point, and it would be so gradual there would be abundant evidence of each slight change instead of so many dramatic leaps occurring over such relatively short periods.

/i'm not saying aliens
//but aliens
///we'll probably do it too when we start traveling through space
////seems like it would be fun

J. Frank Parnell: traylor: With the fertility statue in the center, it looks like a fap-party through all the generations.

The pelvis must be there for fap material as well.

Evolution certainly does exist, but in our case there is something fishy. We have 223 genes which have no evolutionary origin, and there's also the matter of chromosome fusion, something that inexplicably only happened with us, and quite suddenly. Not to mention the infamous missing link, which as far as i can tell is being slowly erased from the public consciousness. I don't think they teach it in schools anymore, and googling it returns bizarre results. We also lack the strength of primates. A little chimp is 4 times stronger than any of us.

Something, or someone, altered us, giving us a little boost on the evolutionary ladder several times. It should have taken much longer to reach this point, and it would be so gradual there would be abundant evidence of each slight change instead of so many dramatic leaps occurring over such relatively short periods.

/i'm not saying aliens
//but aliens
///we'll probably do it too when we start traveling through space
////seems like it would be fun


I assume you are kidding? I hope you are kidding?

1) Chromosomes fusion is believed to be fairly common, as there are a number of species who vary in a way similar to the chromosome number 2 in chimps and humans.
2) Missing link? Really?
3) Chimps are 8-10x stronger than humans in the upper body alone (not just x4!) and can bite through bone, but this is due to having much denser bones and muscle attachments than us, nothing more. Most other primates have about the strength you would expect for their size.
4)Evolution occurs through many methods, some rapid, some gradual. No remarkable intervention drivel required!
5)

I don't know what's so remarkable about genetic modification. We do it ourselves now.

You'll have to excuse any inaccuracies with numbers, i write this stuff from memory. Didn't really explain why the primate thing is incorrect, but it's not important. After a brief google i did get the 223 chromosomes without an evolutionary origin thing accurate, which i think makes up for it. Would you like to tackle that? Are we now casting aside the evolutionary theory in favor of genes magically appearing in species suddenly, as if by some god? I mean, we can insert new genes in species, and do it quite casually now, but as you claim that's extraordinary and unlikely.

And yes, the missing link. What's so "really?" about that? Did you maybe recently go through the school system? I'd be interested in knowing what they told you, if anything at all, about it.

J. Frank Parnell: And yes, the missing link. What's so "really?" about that? Did you maybe recently go through the school system? I'd be interested in knowing what they told you, if anything at all, about it.

Aliens took Link away for probing. It's still missing

No, but...

It's the Circle of Skulls
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
Till we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the Circle
The Circle of Skulls

J. Frank Parnell: I don't know what's so remarkable about genetic modification. We do it ourselves now.

You'll have to excuse any inaccuracies with numbers, i write this stuff from memory. Didn't really explain why the primate thing is incorrect, but it's not important. After a brief google i did get the 223 chromosomes without an evolutionary origin thing accurate, which i think makes up for it. Would you like to tackle that? Are we now casting aside the evolutionary theory in favor of genes magically appearing in species suddenly, as if by some god? I mean, we can insert new genes in species, and do it quite casually now, but as you claim that's extraordinary and unlikely.

And yes, the missing link. What's so "really?" about that? Did you maybe recently go through the school system? I'd be interested in knowing what they told you, if anything at all, about it.

At one point all of the over 20,000 genes in human DNA were unaccounted for and could not be traced to an evolutionary origin. Since then science has accounted for all but 223. Do you really think it is likely that the remaining 223 will not eventually be accounted for (The current theory suggest they probably were transferred laterally by bacterial or viral infection), or does "aliens/god did it" make more sense?

monkey, man, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, man

wow, i have no idea which one H. farnsworth is.

badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom

J. Frank Parnell: After a brief google i did get the 223 chromosomes without an evolutionary origin thing accurate, which i think makes up for it. Would you like to tackle that? Are we now casting aside the evolutionary theory in favor of genes magically appearing in species suddenly, as if by some god? I mean, we can insert new genes in species, and do it quite casually now, but as you claim that's extraordinary and unlikely.

Horizontal gene transfer.
But I say that with trepidation as I can only find your assertion on websites that assert bible over science. And HGT is the mechanism they appear to refer to, with much incredulity it probably goes without saying.

And yes, the missing link. What's so "really?" about that? Did you maybe recently go through the school system? I'd be interested in knowing what they told you, if anything at all, about it.

Missing link is an antiquated term and not a scientific one.
The correct term would be transitional fossil. Missing link is a creationist canard.

But if you can google 223 unexplained genes you could have googled the above just as if not more easily, but hey I had a few spare minutes before shutting down the office.

Oh yeah, chimps and other primates being so absurdly strong has to do with the way they are built, they do not have special muscles that we do not.

To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

Your mom won't let me put our sex videos online.

SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

You just have to look at the jaws of a Pit-bull compared to the jaws of a Labrador Retriever to debunk this kind of garbage. Less than 1000 years of human intervention has produced two very different jaw strengths in what is essentially the exact same species of animal.

buck1138: SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

You just have to look at the jaws of a Pit-bull compared to the jaws of a Labrador Retriever to debunk this kind of garbage. Less than 1000 years of human intervention has produced two very different jaw strengths in what is essentially the exact same species of animal.

Then you will doubtless have no difficulty at all in producing a video demonstrating this 10x of chimps strength, amirite? So let's see it. Kthnxbai

SevenizGud: buck1138: SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

You just have to look at the jaws of a Pit-bull compared to the jaws of a Labrador Retriever to debunk this kind of garbage. Less than 1000 years of human intervention has produced two very different jaw strengths in what is essentially the exact same species of animal.

Then you will doubtless have no difficulty at all in producing a video demonstrating this 10x of chimps strength, amirite? So let's see it. Kthnxbai

Actually I was agreeing with you while also suggesting the idiocy that strength difference somehow points to wacky things going on. Should have been more clear. At most chimpanzees are twice as strong as humans pound for pound.

selfs: Technically he's right in some sense, since, well, not all of these guys are in your direct linage, more like cousins.

To take that further, it's highly unlikely that any given fossil is in the direct lineage of any living creature.

SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

I don't have a youtube video, but I have the peer reviewed scientific article that produced the 8-10x upper body strength number printed out in a folder on my bookshelf somewhere. I'll post the citation when I get home tonight, and you can read it for yourself.
That, and I have all sorts of anecdotal stories from the facility where I used to intern, including a 75lb chimp half hardheartedly and one handedly tossing over a giant tractor tire that takes 2-3 humans to flip over for cleaning everynight.

selfs: SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

I don't have a youtube video, but I have the peer reviewed scientific article that produced the 8-10x upper body strength number printed out in a folder on my bookshelf somewhere. I'll post the citation when I get home tonight, and you can read it for yourself.
That, and I have all sorts of anecdotal stories from the facility where I used to intern, including a 75lb chimp half hardheartedly and one handedly tossing over a giant tractor tire that takes 2-3 humans to flip over for cleaning everynight.

I'll settle for quantified experimentation where the n > 1

J. Frank Parnell: I don't know what's so remarkable about genetic modification. We do it ourselves now.

You'll have to excuse any inaccuracies with numbers, i write this stuff from memory. Didn't really explain why the primate thing is incorrect, but it's not important. After a brief google i did get the 223 chromosomes without an evolutionary origin thing accurate, which i think makes up for it. Would you like to tackle that? Are we now casting aside the evolutionary theory in favor of genes magically appearing in species suddenly, as if by some god? I mean, we can insert new genes in species, and do it quite casually now, but as you claim that's extraordinary and unlikely.

And yes, the missing link. What's so "really?" about that? Did you maybe recently go through the school system? I'd be interested in knowing what they told you, if anything at all, about it.

I apologize, I might just be misunderstanding something, but I'm sure why you think the primate strength difference is particularly remarkable? I mean, yeah, it's a pretty big difference, but I'm not sure why you think it has some greater implication, can you elaborate on what you are going for with it?

Also I don't think anyone was avocating for casting aside the whole of evolutionary theory. I had actually never heard of the whole 223 number till now, but my good friend google brought up a number of articles on it being horizontal gene transfer from bacteria (as other people have pointed out), though I did find some articles saying that the 223 number is a bit "overenthusiastic", and that some are ones we prob just havn't figured out the proper linage of yet.

The "really?" comment about the missing link is because the whole concept of the missing link stems from the idea that there is some sort of missing organism that would somehow show all intermediate steps between genetic changes, and is no more than creationist diatribe.

Since features can change both gradually and rapidly, you are going to find some cases of gradual change reflected in the fossil record for specific traits. If a change has been caused by something so drastic as a hox gene, you may not find a transition at all, since that could happen in as little as a single generation
Once again, I'm not entirely sure what/where you are arguing from, so I'm not sure what information to give you?

SevenizGud: selfs: SevenizGud: To all you chimps are so strong people (8x-10x, lol). Show me the Youtube video of the chimp who is benching 3,000 pounds, squatting 3,000 pounds, and deadlifting 3,000 pounds.

I don't have a youtube video, but I have the peer reviewed scientific article that produced the 8-10x upper body strength number printed out in a folder on my bookshelf somewhere. I'll post the citation when I get home tonight, and you can read it for yourself.
That, and I have all sorts of anecdotal stories from the facility where I used to intern, including a 75lb chimp half hardheartedly and one handedly tossing over a giant tractor tire that takes 2-3 humans to flip over for cleaning everynight.

I'll settle for quantified experimentation where the n > 1

[i277.photobucket.com image 640x978]

If that's the study I think it is, its from the 40's, and there are much more recent ones. Like I said, I'd be more than happy to post the citation once I have it on hand.

1. Chimpanzee
2. Fark troll
.
.
.
10. Homo sapiens

Pre-Aliens, Alien-Sexing, Alien Hybrid, Drow, Sasquatch, Lemur, Human

What, no picture from "The Sixth Finger"? I am disappointed.

There's no such thing as a "stage" of evolution.

Check that. I take that back. There is such a thing. We just call it a "generation".

LewDux: Monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, Cain, Abel, Adam, Eve

Where are the people from the land of Nod?