Slashdot Mirror


King Kong Lived?

Agent Provocateur writes "McMaster University recently announced the discovery of the remains of a gigantic ape, measuring over 3 meters tall and weighing up to 600kg, that supposedly co-existed alongside humans." From the article: "Jack Rink, associate professor of geography and earth sciences at McMaster, has determined that Gigantopithecus blackii, the largest primate that ever lived, roamed southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago. This was known as the Pleistocene period, by which time humans had already existed for a million years."

404 comments

  1. Makes me wonder.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Makes me wonder if someone was paid to withhold this information untill King Kong's release or is being paid to release it when it's unconfirmed..

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Makes me wonder.. by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doubtful, besides the fact that this is hardly "giant" (come on, 10-feet tall?), marketers would have to be pretty stupid to assume that this would influence sales any. ... and we ALL know that marketers never do anything dumb.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Biologists now know that this was where pro wrestlers came from. See Nature magazine, Dec 2005, p435 "Prehistoric Smackdown Confirmed by Carbon-Dating".

    3. Re:Makes me wonder.. by holyceefax · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...or is being paid to release it when it's unconfirmed..
      Are you suggesting that the esteemed 'McMaster' university, CA, (or its 'McProfessor' of 'McAnthropology') might be less than reputable? Or that the name Gigantopithecus blackii (="Great big black thing"?) might not have been agreed upon by the wider anthropological community?
    4. Re:Makes me wonder.. by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

      It wasn't withheld though. Everyone's known about Giganticus Blackii for quite some time now.

    5. Re:Makes me wonder.. by shrewd · · Score: 2, Funny

      "marketers would have to be pretty stupid to assume that this would influence sales any. "

      i dont know, remember sales of mars bars went through the roof when we sent that first rover to mars.... i think that it would DEFINATLY influence sales....

    6. Re:Makes me wonder.. by LupeSpywalper · · Score: 1

      There's always been science placement like this. There was a highly publicised ebola outbreak in Africa in the weeks before the premiere of the movie Outbreak. Just prior to the first Jurassic Park movie there was big news about a cluster of "alive" dinosaur eggs found in China. Right after Independence Day and a few months before Men In Black came out there was big news about a meteorite found in Antarctica containing bacteria from Mars. This is nothing new.

    7. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not even sure what this has to do with King Kong. Somehow I seem to remember King Kong being a bit more than 3 meters tall.

    8. Re:Makes me wonder.. by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      I read about Gigantopithecus a few years ago on New Scientist, so this is pretty old news.

      Still quite remarkable that such a creature should exist, though, non the less.

      And when you think about it, this does give much more credence to the idea of the Yeti and the like...

    9. Re:Makes me wonder.. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's a kind of symbiosis. The scientists themselves aren't witholding th einformation, but like the hobbits of new zealand, or the astronomy news before armageddon, the publishers tend to print things that are relevant to whatever the big advertising push is. If the movie weren't coming out, would this story be interesting to as many people? It's just about which news gets pushed when, not about specific things waiting for movies.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can't decide if this is a serious post, or a pr0n joke.

    11. Re:Makes me wonder.. by ekwhite · · Score: 4, Informative

      This guy is big, but hardly gigantic. He appears to be about twice as big as a modern lowland gorilla. For comparison, an average grizzly bear can weigh up to 1500 pounds and top 10 feet tall. The worlds record Kodiak bear was 2500 pounds and 13 feet tall. The worlds record black bear was over 900 pounds.

    12. Re:Makes me wonder.. by baadger · · Score: 1

      Yep, thiiss more Joe size from the film Mighty Joe Young.

    13. Re:Makes me wonder.. by ikkonoishi · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what are you saying?

      That he should be called Duke Kong?

    14. Re:Makes me wonder.. by wpiman · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the homo sapiens have reached weights exceeding the 600 kgs in the article.

    15. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My girlfriend left me for a gigantopithecus blackii :-(

    16. Re:Makes me wonder.. by schnippy · · Score: 1


      Very plausible -- thats the first thing I thought of when I saw this story. NPR did a story on this a few months ago, about how movie marketers are working with scientists to time the release of their stories to coincide with movie releases:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4647581

      For example, they made sure that for each of the three jurassic park movies, there was a major dinosaur discovery in the news a few weeks before.

    17. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      Any confirmation that early attempts to capture specimens led to the first cage match?

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    18. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1

      Withholding from Slashdot is withholding it from the world!

    19. Re:Makes me wonder.. by SenatorOrrinHatch · · Score: 0

      Pfft. 3 meters tall? I'm 2 meters tall and get called a giant all the time. Not so much King Kong as the Jolly Green Giant, which is the mascot of a brand of canned vegetables here in the States. He wears leaves for underwear and has green hair.

      --
      The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
    20. Re:Makes me wonder.. by mstansberry · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say this is a gorilla-marketing ploy on behalf of the studios. More likely, it's a way for a no-name university to cash in on the movie hype.

    21. Re:Makes me wonder.. by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      I think Baron Kong would be more appropriate.

    22. Re:Makes me wonder.. by colmore · · Score: 1

      If we assume that Mario is about 5' 5" (never gotten the impression that the dude, sans mushroom, was too tall) then this ape would actually be about Donkey Kong sized.

      You know, just sayin'

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    23. Re:Makes me wonder.. by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, I did my anthropology degree years ago, and they had taught us about the dude back then.

    24. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Heembo · · Score: 1

      Sure, a 600kb lumbering Kodiac is one thing, but a 600kg combat worthy ape is another thing all together. . Haven't you seen the movies man!?!?!? Dont you KNOW what they can DO TO US?!???!?! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299941/

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    25. Re:Makes me wonder.. by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it should be Baron Von Kong

    26. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Ron+Harwood · · Score: 1

      Dude... that's lame. McMaster is a reputable university.

    27. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      McMaster University was established in 1887. Perhaps you need to do some research before knocking the place.

    28. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not lame. It's funny. Relax a little!

    29. Re:Makes me wonder.. by quisph · · Score: 1
      JEEZUS. You are such a 'tard.

      You and the mods. 'Tards, all.

    30. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the esteemed 'McMaster' university, CA, (or its 'McProfessor' of 'McAnthropology') might be less than reputable? Or that the name Gigantopithecus blackii (="Great big black thing"?) might not have been agreed upon by the wider anthropological community?

      I know you were trying to be funny, but for those who might not get it...

      1) Yes, McMaster is a reputable university

      2) Gigantopithecus Blackii = Black's giant ape (i.e. giant ape discovered by some dude called Black). Why exactly scientific Latin feels the need to use 2 i's when only one is required (genitive singular of the -O declension) is beyond me.

      Thomas-

    31. Re:Makes me wonder.. by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      This guy is big, but hardly gigantic.
      I'd like to see you say that to his face without soiling your underwear.
    32. Re:Makes me wonder.. by ekwhite · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I would soil my pants when coming face to face with a grizzly, too.

    33. Re:Makes me wonder.. by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      A 10 foot ape,
      I don't want to know what kind of bone problems the species had.

      Can you imagine the growing pains?

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    34. Re:Makes me wonder.. by The+Tenth+Time · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine a bowel movement!?! Not that I want to.

    35. Re:Makes me wonder.. by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole...

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  2. What killed the giant apes? by Slur · · Score: 4, Funny


    "Oh no. It wasn't the asteroids. T'was beauty that killed the beast!"

    .

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:What killed the giant apes? by microwave_EE · · Score: 1

      Drat.

      Now you've done it...

      I've got that song stuck in my head. The song from the Disney movie, as sung by Angela Lansbury.

      "Beauty aaannnd thhee beeeast!!!"

      Aaaaaagggghhhh!!!!

      Oh, no...I've just had a tramatizing flashback to a candelabara singing about being a guest...

      Sir, you are despicable

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
    2. Re:What killed the giant apes? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Oh no. It wasn't the asteroids.

      Nope. It was Frieza.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:What killed the giant apes? by Ryan+Monster · · Score: 1

      You can get that song out of your head by singing "See my vest"

      --
      Change your name to Homer Junior! Your friends can call you Hoju
    4. Re:What killed the giant apes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What killed the giant apes?

      Er ... Mario?

    5. Re:What killed the giant apes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was George Bush caused Global Warming that killed the great apes.

      Dam Republicans strike again!

    6. Re:What killed the giant apes? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the asteroids, or the airplanes...it was Jack Casady.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    7. Re:What killed the giant apes? by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

      "Oh no. It wasn't the asteroids. T'was beauty that killed the beast!"

      If they went extinct living near humans, they probably tasted like chicken.

      "What's for dinner Honey?"
      "Gigantopithecus"
      "ugh... again?"

    8. Re:What killed the giant apes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, visit this site. I guarantee you'll be cured.

    9. Re:What killed the giant apes? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      You are an evil person.

      Just so you know.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  3. Birth of a Legend by core+plexus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Are not many legends born of some fact? Look at The Bible, for example, and many creation legends (Raven created the Earth sounds a lot like Genesis). Also, many people believe iceworms are mere legends, but it seems that they may provide some insight

    Bigfoot/Yeti? Sea Monsters?

    1. Re:Birth of a Legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sea monsters = this lil' slugger
      Bigfoot? A specimen, live or dead, will do nicely to silence the skeptics.

    2. Re:Birth of a Legend by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      Raven created the Earth sounds a lot like Genesis

      And lets not forget how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mountains, trees and midgits!

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    3. Re:Birth of a Legend by core+plexus · · Score: 1

      What is/are "midgits"

    4. Re:Birth of a Legend by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A specimen, live or dead, will do nicely to silence the skeptics.

      I'm sure it would - It's amazing what evidence will do to an objective person's views. If only the lack of any evidence would manage people's overactive imaginations a little.

    5. Re:Birth of a Legend by tod_miller · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like smallgits, but bigger. no?

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    6. Re:Birth of a Legend by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      See here and here.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    7. Re:Birth of a Legend by x_terminat_or_3 · · Score: 1

      Excactly!

      Almost every religion on this earth speaks of a flooding so big almost nothing survived - which should collide with the time a giant astroid hit the ocean somewhere around Cuba...

      --
      Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. T. S. Eliot
    8. Re:Birth of a Legend by MadMoses · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is/are "midgits"

      "An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a "midgit" (sic). All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being." - from wikipedia's Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism article.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    9. Re:Birth of a Legend by greenpanda · · Score: 1

      Surely they are somewhere between 'mingets' and 'maxgits'...

      --
      PHP
    10. Re:Birth of a Legend by saforrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost every religion on this earth speaks of a flooding so big almost nothing survived - which should collide with the time a giant astroid hit the ocean somewhere around Cuba...

      Um, you seem to be referring to the K-T extinction, which rendered approximately 50% of all genera extinct and is currently believed to have been caused by a meteorite impact in the Gulf of Mexico near what is now the Yucatan Peninsula.

      The thing is, that was 65 million years ago, at which time we -- and almost all other mammals -- were tiny furry insect-eaters trying our best not to get stepped on. So I hardly think we're going to find long-buried echoes of this event in our oral histories.

    11. Re:Birth of a Legend by mikael · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      But when Shain ground up ice worms and mixed them with an enzyme that lights up in response to ATP, he found the colder the worm, the more light.

      The nightclub bar market has a new product on the drinks menu.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    12. Re:Birth of a Legend by x_terminat_or_3 · · Score: 1

      Right wrong timeline... That's what you get for reading to much Clive Cussler...

      --
      Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. T. S. Eliot
    13. Re:Birth of a Legend by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Raven created the Earth sounds a lot like Genesis

      What era of Genesis. Cause I much prefer their earlier Progressive era with Peter Gabriel on vocals. The Phil Collins stuff is ok, but they got a bit too poppy towards the end.

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    14. Re:Birth of a Legend by utexaspunk · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Birth of a Legend by bombadillo · · Score: 1

      Or the more simple explanation is that most societies depend on a nearby water wource and are thus built dangerously close to water. Take modern day examples such as New Orleans or the Netherlands. New York even lost a resort island called in 1893. Archeologists are finding scores of sunken cities from different time periods all over the world.

      If you are looking for a biblical link you can find the flooding of the black sea. The black sea flooded around 5500BC. This would have flooded the area Noah lived. However, it would have been a couple thousand years before Noah. The date however, does coincide with the Sumarian Epic of Gilgamesh. Many historians believe that Noah's story is actually basded on Gilgamesh. This would not be surprising considering that religions tend to "inherit" items from other religions. Examples, such as Angels that are similar to Roman gods and Greek christian church's which were once used as Greek pagan churhces before the rise of christianity.

    16. Re:Birth of a Legend by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the numerous flood stories (many of them pointing to the same flood date), and the fact that many ancient non-Christian geneologies go back to some spelling of Noah.

    17. Re:Birth of a Legend by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Of course dating techniques involve methodologies that are both conflicting and have not been proven.

      For example, isotopes with longer half-lives will also give you older dates for the very same rock.

      Alpha and beta decay give very different dates. In fact, every fossil ever tested has had measurable amounts of C14 in them.

      Diamonds still have measurable amounts of C14 in them.

      Non-radiometric age determinations give substantially different results as well. For instance, measuring Helium diffusion rates gives a substantially different results than radiometric dating.

      Measuring radiometric dates of events of _known_ dates often leads to very bad dates.

    18. Re:Birth of a Legend by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that was 65 million years ago, at which time we -- and almost all other mammals -- were tiny furry insect-eaters trying our best not to get stepped on. So I hardly think we're going to find long-buried echoes of this event in our oral histories.

      Funny you should mention that, because just the other day I was talking to this rat, and you'll NEVER believe what he told me....

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  4. Obligatory... by m00j · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our, wait they died out! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

    1. Re:Obligatory... by MadMoses · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that you, Anakin?

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    2. Re:Obligatory... by Hellasboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      don't answer that question... it's a trap!

      --

      "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
    3. Re:Obligatory... by chigun · · Score: 1

      Are you there God? It's me, Anakin.

      --
      swanker than you
    4. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is your father.

    5. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ackbar, why are you helping the enemy? We want him to fall into the trap. Dumb squid. Do that again and you'll be breaded and fried and served as an appetizer.

    6. Re:Obligatory... by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* I have a baaaad feeling about this...

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    7. Re:Obligatory... by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      All your Yeti belong to us

      *tag*

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  5. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All sorts of strange creatures existed during the plasticine era. I thought everyone knew that.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Someone beat me to the plasticine joke. Now I can't say "Make your own monster out of the Pleistocene."

    2. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A descendant of this great ape has been recently taped amidst his mating rituals.

    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, I meant:

      A descendant of this great ape has been recently taped amidst his mating rituals.

  6. huh..? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Funny

    So the articles "We found a tooth" with nothing much more to back it up..? WTF, I know King kong is out soon but what the hell Monkey?

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:huh..? by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not much to go on, but...

      "Since then 3 jaw bones and over a thousand teeth have been recovered, not only in apothecary shops but in situ as well" ... "Gigantopithecus blacki was 10 feet tall and weighed 1,200 pounds. ... The way they arrived at this picture was first to estimate the size of the head from the jaw, and then to use a head/body ratio of 1:6.5 in order to determine the body size."

      Interestingly, "Females may have been half the size of the males, since the teeth fall markedly into two distinct size groupings".

      Curiously, clues from the surfaces of two teeth have them living on something akin to figs as well as grasses (probably bamboo).

    2. Re:huh..? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      "The way they arrived at this picture was first to estimate the size of the head from the jaw, and then to use a head/body ratio of 1:6.5 in order to determine the body size."

      So it could just as easily have been a species of normal sized apes with abnormally sized heads, rather than abnormally sized apes with normal sized heads.

    3. Re:huh..? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So it could just as easily have been a species of normal sized apes with abnormally sized heads, rather than abnormally sized apes with normal sized heads.

      Not so easily. First off, large heads will require proportionately broad hips at least, else the species will run into severe difficulties reproducing itself. Second, the proportion of head (or more accurately brain) size to body size is roughly correlated to intelligence - for instance an elephant has a bigger brain than I do, but also a much bigger body. A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:huh..? by Belseth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the teeth were found some time ago. What's new is the dating information. Dogma claimed that they died out 500,000+ years ago. The new evidence brings the date up to 100,000 years ago. This will now become current dogma given this is not likely to be the date they actually died out. So few teeth and bones have been found it's impossible to even guess at an extinction date but until more bones are found it's the new hard ceiling and any more recent teeth found will be held to a high standard of evidence inorder to break through the entrenched dogma. It's amazing to me that an animals entire history is assumed based on a few bones. We know for a fact that T-Rexs died out 65,000,000 years ago. No in fact we don't know that it's simply that the most recent fossils found are 65 mill old. Very few T-Rex skeletons have been found so any dates given are wild guesses. The KT boundry exists based on a large number of fossils but few of them were Rex fossils. They probably did died out during that period there simply are no hard facts to support that and some dinosaurs are bound to have survived the KT barrier for a few million years we simply haven't found the fossils. Given the sparce nature of the record it's possible none of the fossils exist so true dates may never be known. The same situation exists with the ape fossils. The actual extinct probably occured more recently there simply aren't fossils to back it up yet. It's even possible a small number survived until historic times but that's unlikely. If they died out recently it's probable that bones would have been found unless they existed in very remote areas in small numbers. The irony is that if they were isolated the giant ape might have even lost much of it's size. The pygmy effect that happens to island bound animals can happen in isolated pockets in non island areas. There's obviously talk that they still survive and are the source of the Bigfoot legends. Highly unlikely given if they lived until modern times and actually managed to spread their range to North America there would have been bones to find. There hasn't been a single primate bone or fossil found in either Canada or the US. It sounds likely that like Pandas they were locked into a diet of Bamboo so it's probable that a bamboo die off ultimately killed them and probably not man. With a calorie intact like they had major die offs like we have today would have been devastating and probably kept their numbers low. I'm praying on a complete fossil to settle the upright or knuckle walk issue. The skull points to upright but most resist that idea so most recontructions still show knuckle walking. Dogma always supercedes evidence until it's impossible to ignore. Pterosaurs are still considered flying reptiles because of a dispute over leg orientation. Their skeletons were identical to small theropod dinosaurs but dogma still states that they somehow walked splay legged. People are slow to change. Remember that most still think of Europe as a continient inspite of having water on only three sides. The source of that was Victorian arrogance not scientific fact.

    5. Re:huh..? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Alright then, it could have just had really big teeth. Heck, if you applied this method to some people, you'd guess they were nine feet tall.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    6. Re:huh..? by BoldAndBusted · · Score: 1

      Because we are vicious? They picked nits, we picked rocks. And sticks. And a blood-curdling war whoop.

    7. Re:huh..? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny
      A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?
      Maybe they were smart enough to invent nuclear weapons. Then all it would need was them to do it. For the bastards to finally do it.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:huh..? by Winlin · · Score: 1

      No no no....don't even suggest that....I can see the next Slashdot headline now:
      "Giant Bobblehead species found!"
      Soon to be seen on McDonalds cups worldwide.

    9. Re:huh..? by mcvos · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?

      Since when is intelligence necessary to rule the world? Have you ever seen the current US government?

      Aggression is clearly all that really matters.

    10. Re:huh..? by alexo · · Score: 1


      > [...] large heads will require proportionately broad hips at least, else
      > the species will run into severe difficulties reproducing itself.


      Not necessarily.

      Perhaps their heads swelled only after they got their law degrees?

    11. Re:huh..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would explain a few ice ages

    12. Re:huh..? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?
      Because brain size does not correlate to intelligence very well? Structure and complexity are far more important than size. Elephants' brains are three times the size of human brains, yet they're not nearly as intelligent.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    13. Re:huh..? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?"

      Who says the apes still do not run our world? After all, if you look at the half century-plus history of the European Union, the Germans "allowed" the French to believe they controlled all the shots. There might just be a correlation there. Tee hee.

      And no, I am not inviting the readers to assume that one party is an ape and the other human, I just merely implied that maybe apes have allowed us humans to believe we currently rule the planet. Of course, according to Douglas Adams, the mice quite comfortably rule.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    14. Re:huh..? by misleb · · Score: 1

      Note that the parent said "disproportionately large." Not just "large." Intelligence does roughly correlate to the ratio of brain to body size. An elephant's brain may be 3 times bigger than a human's, but its body is far more than 3 times larger than a humans body. An elephant has a lower brain/body ratio.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    15. Re:huh..? by Proney · · Score: 1

      A head as disproportionately large as you suggest would suggest that these apes were very bright - so why do we rule the world?

      We fight dirty, and those heads made for easy targets...

      --
      require "something.clever";
    16. Re:huh..? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      yes, reminds me of the headlines that came out in the '80s of how some scientist in the mid-west had found fossil evidence of "the missing link". They had drawings of how he looked and everything. Very convincing. Of course it was all based on a tooth they guy found in the dirt that was later proven to be less then 100 years old and belonging to a pig. They can do some interesting things with reconstruction based on found evidence, but it no where near as exact a science as they would have you believe on CSI.

    17. Re:huh..? by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      Not so easily. First off, large heads will require proportionately broad hips at least, else the species will run into severe difficulties reproducing itself.

      Only in bipeds. Quadriped hips, and even those of knuckle-walkers like most apes, allow for a wider birth canal. Extreme difficulty passing the head during birth is a pretty uniquely human phenomenon.

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    18. Re:huh..? by Rauser · · Score: 1

      What nobody else here has considered is that since there seems to be a large amount of teeth and bones present for the giant ape, it is possible that DNA could be extracted and compared to contemporary species. That would prove pretty easily whether you are dealing with a chimp with a pituitary disorder or a completely new species.

      Furthermore, since from the article there appears to be a way of determining female teeth from male teeth, perhaps the mitochondrial DNA would be useful in determining when the line split off from other common ancestors.

      Dogma notwithstanding... All of this is speculation on my part, as I am not a geneticist or molecular biologist!

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    19. Re:huh..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it could just as easily have been a species of normal sized apes with abnormally sized heads, rather than abnormally sized apes with normal sized heads.

      There are so many jokes about you and your mom running through my head right now that I don't know what to do.

  7. BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Body-mass index of 66.7. Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater. No wonder they got extinct.

    1. Re:BMI by Eponymous+Powder · · Score: 3, Funny

      My advice? Keep digging - you're sure to find the fossilised Krispy Kreme franchise somewhere nearby... the remains of the ape's SUV is probably still in the parking lot.

    2. Re:BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I resemble that remark! (you insensitive clod)

    3. Re:BMI by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      BMI is calculated by taking your weight and dividing it by your height. This is total bullshit. If someone worked out a lot and gained a lot of muscle mass, they could have a high BMI and still be healthy. Likewise, if someone drank black coffee and smoked all the time, they could have a low BMI and be unhealthy.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    4. Re:BMI by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually it's calculated by dividing your weight by the square of your height.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BMI calculation method by itself is next to worthless in determining actual obesity.

      I'm a bodybuilder who weighs in at 242 @ 6'3" with a 36" waist and my BMI is 30.2.

    6. Re:BMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The BMI is depreceated and is basically useless in determining health risks from obesity.

      If you want to know if you're fat, put a measuring tape around your waist. If it's a big number, you're probably fat.

      (Which most people agree on these days, which is why the waist-to-hip ratio is becoming the preferred method of determining health risks from obesity.)

  8. Oh, the irony... by BrynM · · Score: 4, Funny
    I nearly thought it was suddenly April 1 when I read the fourth paragraph:
    Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.
    Hmmm, the 30's and the word "kong" in there twice? Then again, TFA never mentions King Kong (which Gigantopithecus blackii is about 10 feet too short for), so maybe the association is there for subliminal hype. Those marketers are sooooo clever. Damn marketers.
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:Oh, the irony... by falzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds highly speculative. BTW, Koenig is german for 'king.'

      Did you look around any other sources on the internet to check for other, older references to Koenigswald? Or Gigantopithecus blackii?

    2. Re:Oh, the irony... by MadMoses · · Score: 2, Interesting


              Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.

      Hmmm, the 30's and the word "kong" in there twice?


      Even stranger: "Koenig" is German for King.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    3. Re:Oh, the irony... by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Sounds highly speculative. BTW, Koenig is german for 'king.'
      Did you look around any other sources on the internet to check for other, older references to Koenigswald? Or Gigantopithecus blackii?
      So the name means 'king' and has 'kong' in it? And it's an antient name? See! The marketers have been hyping it for centuries! And we didn't know! That's sooooooo viral marketing to the extreme! I say again good man: DAMN MARKETERS!
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    4. Re:Oh, the irony... by coleblak · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      77 HITS
      Really Long Off Topic Combo
    5. Re:Oh, the irony... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      DAMN MARKETERS!


      And those Damn Dirty Apes too.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    6. Re:Oh, the irony... by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Next, there is going to an article about
      "King Kong playing Ping Pong in Hong Kong with his Ding Dong".

    7. Re:Oh, the irony... by tod_miller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.

      In any complex enough system you can prove almost any relationship if you are willing to ignore various holes in your own logic. Lets welcome the next speaker, a guy who ones watched a low budget documentary on evolution and darwin, here to convince us all that he is right.

      Oh sorry, did I disturb you sense of well being. My bad.

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    8. Re:Oh, the irony... by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      DAMN MARKETERS!

      By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

      "You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

      RIP Bill Hicks.

    9. Re:Oh, the irony... by cakesy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, the kids at my Primary school called, they want their joke back.

    10. Re:Oh, the irony... by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1
      Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.

      w00t!!shift+1!
    11. Re:Oh, the irony... by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      It was only 3 meters tall. You should be looking for the words "Mighty", "Joe", and "Young".

    12. Re:Oh, the irony... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

      John Nash, is that you?

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    13. Re:Oh, the irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a clue for Bill Hicks and George Carlin fans: stating the obvious does not constitute genius, or even brilliance. It constitutes bait.

    14. Re:Oh, the irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's up with these anonymous cowards? Am I right folks!

    15. Re:Oh, the irony... by PitaBred · · Score: 1
      Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.
      w00t!!shift+1!
    16. Re:Oh, the irony... by otomo_1001 · · Score: 1
      Not quite, Königswald (Koenigswald if you cannot reproduce the umlauts) loosely translates to "Kingsforest" (Wald can mean timber or wood too, but that makes less sense)

      Just because the lack of umlauts makes it appear to have kong in it doesn't make it correct. Interesting spelling wise perhaps, but ultimately it is a faulty line of logic.

    17. Re:Oh, the irony... by BrynM · · Score: 1
      Interesting spelling wise perhaps, but ultimately it is a faulty line of logic.
      Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but that's part of what makes it a joke. I think the number of people who have taken this thread seriously has only made it funnier to me. Sick mind, I guess.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    18. Re:Oh, the irony... by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      I think both gentlmen would agree with you. You say it like its a bad thing.

  9. McMaster University also announced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..that Gigantopithecus blackii had a habit of throwing chair-like stones. :)

  10. bunch of bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just in time for that movie thats about to come out?

  11. So we metric system users... by OpenSourced · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... can now speak about the 600 Kg gorilla. Good.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:So we metric system users... by microwave_EE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, but notice that TFA said that the gorilla "weighed" 600Kg.

      Kilogram isn't a measure of weight. It is a measure of mass. You need acceleration to have weight. Weight is force, not mass.
      F = m a

      Might as well talk about how a resistor dissipates 2.3 Amps of power, or say that the speed of light is 3e8 meters. It's gibberish. You gotta keep track of your units.

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
    2. Re:So we metric system users... by roynux · · Score: 0

      Sorry pal, it's 'kg'...
      And what about blackii? Is this some kind of american-latin?

    3. Re:So we metric system users... by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      So how's that PhD in Pedantry coming along?

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    4. Re:So we metric system users... by dascandy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, no. It's kg, with a small k. Also, ks (kilo-second, 1/86.4'th of a day), km (kilometer, 1/1.609344 of a US mile), kHz etc.

    5. Re:So we metric system users... by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      It's gibberish.

      It's quite obviously not gibberish. Any fool can tell what you mean if you describe something as weighing a certain number of kilograms, because they will almost always guess the context correctly.

      It may not be accurate, but it's considerably more accurate than your description of it as gibberish.

    6. Re:So we metric system users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, double it and add 30....

    7. Re:So we metric system users... by microwave_EE · · Score: 1

      " So how's that PhD in Pedantry coming along? "

      Quite nicely, though it's actually only a Master's degree. I have my thesis defence and comprehensive exam on Thursday!

      Oh, wait. Actually that's for a M.S. in E.E., not Pedantry. I guess that Pedantry would qualify as more of a hobby, since my university doesn't have a major in it.

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
  12. Yeah. by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

    a gigantic ape, measuring over 3 meters tall and weighing up to 600kg, that supposedly co-existed alongside humans."

    We still have these today. You can track one down by listening for its unmistakable cry; "Developers! Developers! Developers!"

    1. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also closely resemble late salespersons Except in Nebraska...

    2. Re:Yeah. by S.+Ballmer · · Score: 2, Funny

      yo momma...

    3. Re:Yeah. by linguae · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also watch out for some chair-throwing action whenever it gets mad.

    4. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also watch out for some chair-throwing action whenever it gets mad.

      How about Samsonite luggage or just plain poo?

    5. Re:Yeah. by doubtless · · Score: 1

      come on now, don't make fun of cowboyneal like that.

      --
      geek page at KY speaks
    6. Re:Yeah. by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      In other news, they found a Google f**king buried near the ape's remains.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  13. Re:Gigantic wang. by BrynM · · Score: 5, Funny
    Scientists also estimate this gorilla had a penis larger than the leg of a full grown man.
    Hence the name "Gigantopithecus blackii". It means "penis as large as a black guy" in pig latin or something like that. Or maybe it means "my giant penis will give you a black eye". I bet that's it. It's a warning label. Yep, that's it.
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  14. what do you call a giant ape dead for centuries? by doyoulikegoatseeee · · Score: 1, Funny

    anything you want! its dead and can't hear you!

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is there anyone from Kansas with some *plausible* theories about this monkey?

    1. Re:Theories? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Is there anyone from Kansas with some *plausible* theories about this monkey?

      'There were giants in the earth in those days' - Genesis 6:4

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Theories? by TheZorch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy, during the periods after the demise of the dinosaurs there was an explosion of mamallian life on Earth. Animals just got bigger and bigger.

      There was a species of sloth that lived while humans roamed the Earth that was bigger than an elephant from today. Mamoths, big hairy elephant ancestors, roamed the land and they were twice the size of today elephants. A lot of animals were really huge during these periods. They are called Megafauna. Only two Megafauna from this time exists today; the Blue Whale and the Giant Squid.

      I'm not really all that surprised by the existance of a giant ape. A lot of animals that are small today were really huge 100,000 years ago and earlier.

      This of course leads to the possibility that other Megafauna might have survived like the Blue Whale and Giant Squid did. What is Nessie is a Megafauna, a species of some sort of giant fish or cold-blooded reptile (not a Dinosaur, but there were giant cold-blood reptiles after the Dinosaurs died out also) might be the answer.

      --
      Michael "TheZorch" Haney
      thezorch@gmail.com
      http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
    3. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was talking about humans =p Also to do with TFA, does anyone ever believe the accuracy of carbon dating? o_0

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      and though the article is talking about electron spinning and uranium then I assume they still use the carbon atoms somehow, unless we all have a lot of uranium in us. "Are you dumber than a monkey?" "How big of a monkey?" "That's right.. you're not" (Troy and Moe)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Theories? by apflwr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is there anyone from Kansas with some *plausible* theories about this monkey?

      It couldn't fit on the Ark.

    6. Re:Theories? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      What is Nessie is a Megafauna, a species of some sort of giant fish or cold-blooded reptile

      The Loch Ness monster isn't really a good example. Loch Ness just plain isn't big enough to feed a breeding population of plesiosaurs for all these years.

      If I was going to go off on a cryptozoological expedition, I'd head for the Himalayas and hunt yeti.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Theories? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      and though the article is talking about electron spinning and uranium then I assume they still use the carbon atoms somehow, unless we all have a lot of uranium in us.

      Nope, carbon dating has nothing to do with this. The timescale here is from 100,000 - 1,000,000 years ago. Carbon dating is only good on a timescale of thousands of years; that's great for mysterious Assyrian artefacts, frozen icemen, Egyptian mummies and so forth, and it's not bad for mammoths and sabretooths and things, but not for this. Once something's been dead for a very long time, nearly all the radioactive carbon has decayed and it's no longer a useful clock.

      What's being used here is apparently electron spin resonance dating, of which more here. Not sure what the uranium measurement is, though; AFAIK, the uranium-lead clock is used on a timescale of billions of years, to date the most ancient rocks, though I'm no geologist and there may well be other decay products that give a shorter-term measure.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Theories? by JaMMy_JaM · · Score: 1

      Oh, it could fit, but there was only one...

    9. Re:Theories? by Danuvius · · Score: 1

      > That was talking about humans =p

      WTF?! Did God tell you so?

      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    10. Re:Theories? by Danuvius · · Score: 1

      > What is Nessie is a Megafauna, a species of some sort of giant fish or cold-blooded reptile

      I say fish:
      http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/nessfish.htm
      http://images.google.ca/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=& q=huge+sturgeon&btnG=Search

      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    11. Re:Theories? by archen · · Score: 0, Troll

      Man what edition of the bible do you have? The Hillbilly bible edition?

      "There wer giants in the earth in those days. One was this feller named Gooliath. Then there was this other feller named david. 'Recon he was kinda short. Knee high to a grasshopper compaired to Goliath anyways...."

    12. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      In a way. Since the bible talks of the 'nephilim' or something, eg Goliath's mummy daddy and grandparents etc .. you need to read more >_>

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Theories? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      WTF?! Did God tell you he wrote the bible or had any role in it whatsoever? Oh wait... you only assume that because you've been told it your whole life.
      Regards,
      Steve

    14. Re:Theories? by celticchrys · · Score: 3, Insightful


                See, even the Bible admits that species can go extinct or change. (which some evolution opponents deny) God must get a good chuckle whenever someone starts howling about how evolution didn't happen, acting like they know just what process their god used to start life. Either that, or he is continually disappointed because so many of us refuse to see the clues left lying around for us to learn from, wasting these brains we were given.
                I mean, come on, a day isn't the same length on Mars as here on Earth, and yet some morons still think it must have been literally 7 Earth days in which the universe was made!

    15. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Oh yes of course you're right, I assume that not because I've read the whole bible and thought on it critically myself, and you also assume that it was written without any divine inspiration because you're a genius who knows everything without studying; the fact that you've not read the bible for yourself, and like the idea that you're the most intelligent being ever in the universe must have no influence on your own beliefs... thankyou for showing me the light O Most High Being! My life shall never be the same again. *yawn*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, there could be only one...

    17. Re:Theories? by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

      Um. WWJD doesn't stand for What Would Jack Daniels...

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    18. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      unless you know how to use Daniels as a verb then I presume you're correct o_0 unless you're asking what would jack Daniels, in which case I'm assuming a jack would jack him. If you were trying to be funny, I'm sorry, but you didnt quite seem to get there..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:Theories? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Developers! Developers! Developers!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Theories? by LnxAddct · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You read the bible based on assumptions. You can not prove those assumptions. I am the second coming of god, disprove it... thats right, you can't. And just like Jesus did in the bible, if you test me I'll tell you not to test the lord. So I can make all the claims I want and tell you that you aren't allowed to test them... your only choice is to hope that what your parents have told you your whole life is right. If someone gave me a bible and changed around a few names, I'd think it was another epic poem by Homer. I made no claims about my intellignece, I simply implied that those who believe simply because they are told to believe don't deserve their brain. You cannot read the bible and come to a conclusion about its legitimacy. In order to prove something, it has to be proven using something else, disconnected. I can say all humans are 6 ft. tall, then look at myself and consider that a proof... but I'd be dead wrong. The way religion is set up, you can never prove or disprove its basis. It is like Santa or the Easter Bunny... you can never prove they don't exist, you just assume that based on popular oppinion they don't. Anything that you could say to try and prove that Santa doesn't exist can be refuted, maybe he's tired and taking a break, maybe he delivers presents to everyone except to you while the rest of the world is in on a giant conspiracy to lie to you about it... it could go on forever. People want more to life than there is, they want to be special, they want a purpose. People have the balls to claim that they are designed in the form of God, what kind of self-serving bullshit is that? That claim requires alot of balls. Anyway... considering how often the bible has been translated and edited and modified by various authorities who felt it necessary to make it fit their views, not to mention a few of the languages originally written in no longer exist, I'd read that book with a grain of salt. One example of horrific editorializing by the church is with the book of St. Thomas. It is one of the few books that depicts Jesus in his teens, it would of helped fill in the gap between his childhood and manhood. The church disallowed it because it showed Jesus abusing his powers, which considering Jesus is part human and a teen seems completely natural to me, but the church thought people would use it to justify doing misdeeds because even Jesus got away with at some parts in his life. The bible was put together with the intention of control in mind. The church wants people to fear, because then the church can control. Context is everything, and the bible lacks it. You only see what the church wants you to see.
      Regards,
      Steve

    21. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      "You cannot read the bible and come to a conclusion about its legitimacy. In order to prove something, it has to be proven using something else, disconnected." err, how do you ever expect to prove anything then? If you always need something to prove something else then you either have to go with circular reasoning, or just not prove anything. When it comes down to it you have to have a degree of belief/faith somewhere. You believe that God didnt exist, you just believe that the universe has always existed. Something has to have existed, and I choose to believe God. Not least because the universe is giving way to entropy, losing energy to heat all the time, it does not have an infinite amount of energy and must have started from some finite state.. Also I have already said that I decided MYSELF from reading the whole bible whether to believe it or not. My brother has decided that he doesnt believe it. The fact that my parents believe(d) in the bible doesnt mean that I cant make my own opinion, stop being such a moron. Also whe you talk about the book of St Thomas or something I assume that you're talking about Roman Catholic stuff, I'm not a roman catholic, and I dont believe in the pope or any of that other bullshit that you are talking about, I believe in what I've read from the bible, which by the way is translated from source languages each time, and those source languages still exist, they're called hebrew, aramaic, greek and latin. Stop trying to sound like you know what you talk about when you know nothing - some people devote their lives to learning these languages and translating the bible into other languages etc. There are no 'chinese whisper' type effects introduced if you always translate from the base language. It defies belief how people like you try to tell people that they are stupid for believing in "what they're told" when you have obviously just heard this somewhere and latched onto it without putting any research or thought into it. So hypocritical..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was trying to say nicely that your abrasive manner is not very Christ-like.

    23. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bible recording a species becoming extinct no more confirms or denies the theory of evolution than a person today writing "people didn't live as long back in those days".

      Or maybe we should recognize that since the dodo isn't around anymore, that the theory of evolution MUST be true! Because one species becoming extinct is the proof to the evolution hypothesis.

      You may wish to leave your obvious gripes towards people who don't think the same way as you do out of your points - it makes you look like a spoiled, little bitch.

    24. Re:Theories? by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I didn't realize when I posted that the third word is also a rather crude verb. Again, sorry.

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    25. Re:Theories? by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't a few tangents from the article topic, I'd scream MOD PARENT UP!! But I'll just settle for Steve, LnxAddct, you are the man! Superb and fantastic!

      I'm glad to know someone else has such compelling logical arguments against the insane inanity. (no that's not a double-typo).

      Thank you!

    26. Re:Theories? by Danuvius · · Score: 0, Troll
      WTF?! Did God tell you he wrote the bible or had any role in it whatsoever? Oh wait... you only assume that because you've been told it your whole life. Regards,
      Steve
      Stop your babbling, little boy.

      I suggested that the poster had no way of knowing whether the writer of the cited biblical verse was referring to humans or not. So you are now countering by accusing me of believing that God had a role in the writing of the bible?!

      Go take your meds!
      --
      Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
    27. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd scream "MOD PARENT UP" like all the other lemmings! Somersault makes more good points in his argument.

    28. Re:Theories? by SHP · · Score: 0

      *Anyway... considering how often the bible has been translated and edited and modified by various authorities who felt it necessary to make it fit their views, not to mention a few of the languages originally written in no longer exist, I'd read that book with a grain of salt.*

      Wow! Try Googling for "reliability of the Bible". Try clicking a few links. You may not believe the "religious" claims of the Bible, but the extraordinary historical accuracy, and consistency with ancient versions of the text are not in dispute.

    29. Re:Theories? by Now.Imperfect · · Score: 0

      Yes, I admit we read the bible based on assumptions. But isn't that the only way to read a book? Do you with 100% accuracy what Darwin meant? I don't think so. The fact is, its impossible to read any book without assumptions.

      Second, I can prove you aren't the second coming of God because you obviously lack sufficient knowledge of the bible. You understand way less than you think you do.

      Okay.. umm.. I don't see what equating the Bible with Homer does for your point but I guess I'll throw in a moan to make it sound like you made a good point. *moan*

      Truthfully, you were right, you didn't make any claims about your intelligence, UNTIL you say that someone who "believes because they are told to believe doesn't deserve their brain". I suppose you came to the conlusions you did completely by yourself, no aid from anyone. Way to go hypocrite! +5 Contradiction for you!

      Actually you can prove something without something else, it's called inductive reasoning. I'd point you towards Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don't think you can handle too much truth at once.

      It pisses me off how aethiests scream "but you can't disprove it!!!!" I'm sorry.. but isn't that what makes something true?!?! God's existence has been proven many many many times. But every aetheistic philosophy is based on the assumption there is no God. Can you prove that? No.. I have yet to see someone prove there is no God. Just because there might be evolution does not disprove God. Because the universe may have started witha giant bang does not mean there is no God. And even if time is circular, that does not mean there cannot be God. Yet the very fact that things like justice exist seems to prove there must be a God, and if not a God in the usual sense, some Platonic Idea.

      Of course you can disprove Santa, he was a temporal being, temporal beings die, Santa must have died.

      Pfft, "created in the image of God" only implies the soul. And I don't think you can easily disprove the existence of the soul.

      It is possible to prove the Bible's legitamacy to a reasonable extent. First, The Jews kept the Bible in the highest easteem, it is nearly rediculous how carefully they guarded it. Add to that how much the Bible reveals about them. It makes them look like a horrible race of people at most times. But they always, and still hold it as the inspired word of God. As for the New Testament, it was written by the Catholic Church, and it follows that they would know what parts of it are legitimate. As for translations, they have always been subject to rigorous standards, and each Catholic translation MUST conform directly to either the Latin of the Greek. Other than translation, the Catholic Bible has not been "tinkered" with.

      So the Church is supposed to accept any book to the canon? Thats rediculous! When you write a documentary do you use every source on the subject regardless content, or do you choose the ones that are true? The Bible is merely a collection of books inspired by God, why would it add a book like the Gospel of St. Thomas if it was merely a fantastical story (as the Gospel of St. Thomas is)?

      I don't understand your claim that the Bible is without context, it seems to be in perfect context to me.

      What I find amazing, is how people can be so cynical and have the audacity to believe in al lthese consppiracies. it's rediculous! They like to point and laugh at you for believing in a God, then they turn around with their posse and start whispering about how the world is out to get them! Talk about self-serving! Like the whole world is out to trick you.

      I'm a Roman Catholic, I've read Protestant stuff. Personally, I've found the Catholic church to be far more open and allowing than any other Christian church out there. It isn't the Catholic church that is saying Evolution is bunk, it is the Protestants, and the die-hard literalists. The Catholic Church does not claim to be an authority on science, it merely says that God made th

    30. Re:Theories? by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      'There were giants in the earth in those days' - Genesis 6:4

      And they were 5'6" thereby towering over man.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    31. Re:Theories? by misleb · · Score: 1
      Actually you can prove something without something else, it's called inductive reasoning. I'd point you towards Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, but I don't think you can handle too much truth at once.

      And I'd point you to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

      It pisses me off how aethiests scream "but you can't disprove it!!!!" I'm sorry.. but isn't that what makes something true?!?!

      Actually, no. If you define something in such a way that it isn't, in theory, falsifiable, the fact that it hasn't been falsified is meaningless. For instance, you can't disprove the claim that there are unicorns somewhere in the universe because there is no way to check every part of the universe for unicorns. When you are checking one part of the universe, the alleged unicorns could just travel to a part that you already checked.

      God's existence has been proven many many many times.

      It has? By whom? Please note that logical proofs don't count. Logic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, as any mathematician will tell you. All the supposed "proofs" I've read for God (including St. Thomas Aquinas) are based on some assumption that I simply don't agree with. A logical conclusion, no matter how valid, is only as good as the assumptions and axioms it is based on. Take the "Prime Mover" proof for example. It assumes that the universe had a beginning. While it may seem like a reasonable assumption, we don't really know if the universe even had a beginning, per se.

      -matthew -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    32. Re:Theories? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "'There were giants in the earth in those days' - Genesis 6:4"

      And the sons of God married the daughters of man...and somewhere in the world Eric von Daniken is getting excited...

      So, who is the ape out of that equation? And why would a celestial entity mate with a damn-dirty-ape?

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    33. Re:Theories? by BreadMan · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: Catholic grade school? Happened to me too.

      >> The way religion is set up, you can never prove or disprove its basis.

      You'll never find 100% proof of anything, save for the most trivial things in life. The message of Christ: being respectful, faithful, honorable, truthful, modest and humble make living a lot easier, even if you don't belive in the Messanger.

    34. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and I dont believe in the pope or any of that other bullshit that you are talking about

      Do you expect anyone to respect your own religious beliefs when you say things like this?

      What makes the happenstance that your family practices Christianity--thus you were exposed to it and chose to believe it--superior to anyone else's similar experience with other religions?

    35. Re:Theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can prove you aren't the second coming of God because you obviously lack sufficient knowledge of the bible.

      The Bible? I think your proof is a little watery.

    36. Re:Theories? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      First, the Nephilim (translated here, "giants") were human. See Numbers 13:33.
      There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.
      The parenthetical remark is part of the Scripture.

      Second, we creationists do not deny that species change or become extinct. We simply observe that a species cannot change beyond what the reshuffling of its genetic material allows. So, a species may in fact evolve into another species, by modern criteria of differentiating organisms to the umpteenth degree. (I'm not disagreeing with the practice; I'm just comparing "species" to the Bible's use of the word "kind," which is a general layman's term that is not necessarily equivalent to "species," depending on the context.) But an organism is pretty much limited to its own kind. A canine cannot evolve into a horse. A bass will never become a crocodile. Such transformations would require the addition of genetic material, but the mutation of life forms results from its subtraction, thus undermining the whole of evolutionism.
    37. Re:Theories? by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      All the supposed "proofs" I've read for God (including St. Thomas Aquinas) are based on some assumption that I simply don't agree with. A logical conclusion, no matter how valid, is only as good as the assumptions and axioms it is based on.
      I agree 100% it's just like that other crackpot theory that starts with the axiom that life on earth began with abiogenesis and that the universe has existed, well for however long they need to fit the current theory.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    38. Re:Theories? by misleb · · Score: 1
      I agree 100% it's just like that other crackpot theory that starts with the axiom that life on earth began with abiogenesis

      If you are referring to the theory of evolution, then you are wrong. It does not assume abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory stands regardless of how life started.

      That said, even the Bible suggests abiogenesis (Adam created from dust/mud).

      and that the universe has existed, well for however long they need to fit the current theory.

      Theories on how long the universe has existed are completely independent of evolutionary theory. Geology (not biology) tells us that that the Earth has been around for more than 4 billion years. Astronomy suggests that the universe has been around for about 14 billion. Neither figure has anything to do with biology or the theory of evolution.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    39. Re:Theories? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      I dont believe in the pope
      I've seen a photo of my uncle with the Pope so I'm sure he exists. Hmmm...it was actually the previous Pope so maybe the current one doesn't exist. And the photo could have been faked. OK, you're right, I have no proof the Pope exists.
      There are no 'chinese whisper' type effects introduced if you always translate from the base language.
      You are simply defining things for your own convenience. Someone who reads Hebrew or Koine Greek will say that you get a 'chinese whisper' effect the moment you translate. I guess you read neither of these languages so you say the effect doesn't happen with one translation. I suppose a convert who only knows the Bible through a translation of a translation will claim it takes three translations to cause a 'chinese whisper' effect.
    40. Re:Theories? by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I believe that in the relatively near past life was created at a beginning state. Life has evolved since and is still evolving today, or perhaps it is better to say life is adapting. I see evolution as a tool with which God gave life the ability to survive and adapt. I do how ever have obvious problems with abiogenesis. I do not find it necessary that life started either as it is now or as bits of RNA in a pool of primordial ooze, to believe that evolution is happening around us. This neither negates or proves biblical creation. The idea of abiogenesis is the portion of the argument where I am afraid "evolutionist" will lose me. Next, the biblical story of Adam involves a God who breaths life into his creation and therefore life is not created from nothing but from the very breath of God (Genesis 2:7) life begat life. Third there are those who would say geology and astronomy tell a much different story, one of a young earth which has experienced a world wide flood. This is where the axiom with which one looks upon the evidence comes into play, that is the point I was making. Also, I realize that Geology, Astronomy, and Evolutionary Theory are independent of one another. However, in order to believe that life was created by chance and that random evolution has brought us this far you must have an earth of an extremely old age (I guess not in the scheme of things if you fall in to this category however). And for those who say where did God come from, I find this a pointless argument. God exist in a realm unmeasurable by us, or at-least our current level of understanding and technology.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    41. Re:Theories? by dcam · · Score: 1

      The message of Christ: being respectful, faithful, honorable, truthful, modest and humble make living a lot easier, even if you don't belive in the Messanger.

      I don't think that this is entirely true. I think this is the message of Christ that people find easier to believe and accept.

      16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
      Link

      --
      meh
    42. Re:Theories? by misleb · · Score: 1
      Actually, I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. I believe that in the relatively near past life was created at a beginning state. Life has evolved since and is still evolving today, or perhaps it is better to say life is adapting. I see evolution as a tool with which God gave life the ability to survive and adapt. I do how ever have obvious problems with abiogenesis. I do not find it necessary that life started either as it is now or as bits of RNA in a pool of primordial ooze, to believe that evolution is happening around us. This neither negates or proves biblical creation. The idea of abiogenesis is the portion of the argument where I am afraid "evolutionist" will lose me. Next, the biblical story of Adam involves a God who breaths life into his creation and therefore life is not created from nothing but from the very breath of God (Genesis 2:7)

      The text is: "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Dust -> Man sounds a lot like abiogenesis to me. Although taking it literally clearly doesn't make much sense.

      Third there are those who would say geology and astronomy tell a much different story, one of a young earth which has experienced a world wide flood.

      Well, they would be quite wrong. Aside from the practical problems of a global flood (where all the water came from and where did it go) there is simply no evidence for such an event. Very little of geology makes sense if crammed into a 6000 year time frame. Unless you want to asssert that God created Earth so that it looked older than it really is. If you start going down that road, then it is difficult to trust any physical evidence.

      This is where the axiom with which one looks upon the evidence comes into play,

      Axiom of science: Follow wherever the evidence leads.
      Axiom of Creationism: Bible trumps evidence. If the evidence doesn't fit the the Biblical interpretation du jour, discard it.

      Also, I realize that Geology, Astronomy, and Evolutionary Theory are independent of one another. However, in order to believe that life was created by chance and that random evolution has brought us this far you must have an earth of an extremely old age

      Which both geology and astronomy confirm. So what is the problem? Also, please keep in mind that evolution does NOT address how life was started. You may also want to consider dropping the loaded terms "chance" and "random." Those are terms that are used to create strawman arguments against evolution. Evolution is not random.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    43. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      duh.. a chinese whisper effect happens when you pass a message one multiple times, I would say that the type of thing you mention happens with all translations, but I was talking specifically about translating from one language, to another language, to another language, etc, which would pretty quickly make the bible very abstract or devoid of comprehensible meaning; if you translate from the base language each time, you dont introduce this type of effect - apart from the odd ambiguity every so often where the translator leaves a footnote like "or 'blah blah blah'", usually only a grammatical ambiguity, and I think that's mostly for the old testament also, which I'm guessing is harder to translate since the original language is even older than greek and latin.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    44. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      lol.. sounds like you are easily swayed by arguments that appear logical until you actually think about them. Try thinking for yourself for once, and not just relying on "someone else".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:Theories? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      a chinese whisper effect happens when you pass a message one multiple times
      Precisely, you define your terms for your convenience. Any translation is problematic - even translating from nearly identical seeming languages like American English to British English can be fraught with difficulties. But you've decided to call 2+ translations the "chinese whisper effect" to make it seem like a single translation is unproblematic.

      My favorite biblical translation problem is Isaiah 45:7. It seems plainly obvious to me from the context that this is a response to Zoroastrian type beliefs where it is held that separate deities were responsible for good and evil and so it is fine to read "I create...evil". I studied Hebrew for many years and to me 'rah' has always meant 'bad' or 'evil'. Yet others find completely different ways to interpret the word 'rah'. The implications of these different translations is enormous - it makes a difference between a god who does only good and a god who performs acts of evil. There's clearly no need for multiple translations to lead us to what may be complete garbage - just one will do.

      Even with the most fundamental words there is difficulty. Is the third word of Genesis 1:1 plural or not? It looks like a Hebrew plural but I don't know of any popular translation of the Bible that makes it plural. Even if it's considered as a symbolic plural, like the royal "we", the connotation is lost in the English.

      Translations of the Bible are poor imitations of the real thing and your talk of 'the odd ambiguity' shows how unfamiliar you must be with the original text.

    46. Re:Theories? by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's quite obvious taking the bible as a whole though, that God (in the bible) is not capable of 'sin', and that he detests it and cannot even have it in his presence. Anyway I do see your point about translation, but clearly it is better to translate the bible into a language that 'common' people can read, since most people will never learn hebrew/greek/whatever (some people would struggle enough just with english, hehe). Also I think that keeping it down to translation from the base language is going to minimise any chinese whisper effects, and even if there are some passages that are hard to translate, the main message of the bible still stands. And yes I am rather unfamiliar with the original text considering I'm not a hebrew scholar, but I know fine well that I dont need to understand in detail the original text, or even understand more obscure passages in the bible to be a Christian. I'd be quite interested in learning hebrew at some point in my life, if I ever decided I had the time, though I'd learn latin first I think, as it is generally more useful for other things as well as studying the bible. Also with things like the plural, I'd have no objection to God being referred to in plural or singular - and I think a bit of ambiguity there would actually be a good way to refer to God, since I believe in the trinity *shrug* I have no problem understanding american english, and if americans have a problem the other way round then I'd say that was a cultural thing, eg americans have quite a strong culture and dont tend to spend much time learning about other ones. It's easier for those in the UK since a lot of stuff on our TVs and cinema screens is american.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  17. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by Ribert · · Score: 0

    Indeed, the right numbers are: 1,200 pounds, 10 feet and 2.6 Million Fortnight

  18. King Kong in Hong Kong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But why did King Kong go to Hong Kong?

    1. Re:King Kong in Hong Kong? by kiddailey · · Score: 1

      To play with his ding dong?

      To find his friend Wing Wong?

      To do a little sing song?

  19. News from the dig by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Apparantly they found a pocket protector and a "SysAdmins" day celebration card buried along side the remains.

    --
    Task Mangler
  20. King Kong Lived? No, King Kong Lives! by AndrewStephens · · Score: 1

    You can find out more (including how Kong got his artifical heart and found love while on the run from the army) in the excellent documentary, King Kong Lives. Its a mystery to me how this fine movie missed out on the Best Factual Presentation Oscar in 1986.

    --
    sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
  21. I see 'em all the time... by ChePibe · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see apes like that all the time here on campus. But we don't have a fancy name for them - here they're called, "offensive linemen."

    1. Re:I see 'em all the time... by tloh · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see apes like that all the time here on campus. But we don't have a fancy name for them - here they're called, "offensive linemen."

      What could possibly be so offensive about these gentle bamboo-eating herbivore giants?

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    2. Re:I see 'em all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's talking about how offensive college football players can be...

    3. Re:I see 'em all the time... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:I see 'em all the time... by tloh · · Score: 1

      jeez... some folks just have no sense of humor.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  22. PromoPower! by jlraptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone else hope this turns out to be some gimmick to boost interest in the King King movie?

    What the hell are we gonna do with ten thousand angel ashtrays?

    1. Re:PromoPower! by Rugby7s · · Score: 1

      Definitely , I reminds of of all the dinasaur discoveries that made the news for "Jursassic Park".

    2. Re:PromoPower! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Anyone else hope this turns out to be some gimmick to boost interest in the King King movie? "

      No, actually I really hope it isn't because frankly I'm sick of the new trend of pimping science to promote whatever new movie Hollywood is pushing. As someone in advertising, I have a REALLY stinking suspicion that this was in fact for the movie. The reason PR firms are turning to these sorts of releases is that since they are scientific in nature, they do not set off press release alarms in your head like would typically happen. Instead, they hope to reinforce your interest in the topic right around release time.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  23. Turns out it wasn't an ape, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a relative of Star Jones.

  24. I knew it by Fengpost · · Score: 1

    I knew it, the bigfoots are real!

    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
    1. Re:I knew it by dasher68 · · Score: 1

      In the words of 1980's comic Eddie Murphy "I knew she was a bigfoots Gus! And your kids are bigfoots too. We went fishing and they didn't need a hook, line or pole, Gus. They both stuck their faces in the water and came up with fish in their mouths, looked at each other and said 'Goonie-goohoo', What the !$#@ is 'Goonie-goohoo'"?

  25. Whoa by aurifex · · Score: 0

    That's one big ass ape. Sheesh.

  26. um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i think the article was carefully worded to imply that new evidence was found. the only actual evidence mentioned in the whole article was the teeth people began finding in 1935. what was the new evidence? more teeth? so, i'm assuming all they did was carbon dated those teeth, "calculated" some dates, and photoshopped a gorilla sketch into this giant ape thing. pretty slick of this guy (and his school) to take credit for doing so little.

    1. Re:um... by kaotique · · Score: 0

      McMaster's administration is in fact VERY good with PR and getting a good spin on their news.

      I wish they took care of us students a bit better.

  27. Body Mass Index by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 3, Informative

    With a BMI of 600/(3^2) = 66.6 he was one big fat ape (the healthy limit for a human is 25). I guess these creatures were intelligent enough to invent fast food and maple syrup pancakes.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Body Mass Index by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to a site with a drawing of the ape, and he looks just like you guessed, a big fat barrel of a gorilla.

      http://www.physorg.com/news7950.html

    2. Re:Body Mass Index by doubtless · · Score: 1

      BMI is a very flawed way of measuring a person's physical health and only works on a small group of people who aren't very tall nor short, and aren't very muscular. Body fat percentage would give a better hint.

      --
      geek page at KY speaks
    3. Re:Body Mass Index by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      BMI is a very flawed way of measuring a person's physical health and only works on a small group of people who aren't very tall nor short, and aren't very muscular.
      I suspect that not walking upright distorts the figure too.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Body Mass Index by somersault · · Score: 1

      er... also the primate is a gorrila and not a human..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  28. Raise the bar a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is old news from 2004, and published then. Why all the rush now?;

    Morwood, J.J., Soejono, R.P., Roberts, R.G., Sutikna, T., Turney, C.S.M., Westaway, K.E., Rink, W.J., Zhao, J.-x., van den Bergh, G.D., Rokus Awe Due, Hobbs, D.R., Moore, M.W., Bird, M.I. and Fifield, L.K. (2004) Archaeology and age of new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia. Nature 431, 1087-1091

  29. Not "recently discovered" by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to the crack Slashdot editorial team: "McMaster University recently announced the discovery of the remains of a gigantic ape".

    In fact, TFA says "Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935". (70 years ago, recent on the geological scale, perhaps.) The article is about a new dating method that determined that the ape "roamed southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago", the same period humans were developing, and thus the possibility of interaction, or that we wiped them out.

    1. Re:Not "recently discovered" by lordDallan · · Score: 1

      McMaster University did, in fact, recently announce the discovery of the remains of a gigantic ape. Not "the first" or "the only" giant ape, just of "a". While the summary might have benefited from a sentence clarifying that this wasn't the first discovery of Gigantopithecus blackii, and that the exciting part of the discovery was that is showed that these "giant apes" lived at the same time as modern humans, there is nothing inherently false or deceptive in the opening line of the article summary.

      Our beloved Slashdot editors do make errors from time to time, but this is not one of them.

    2. Re:Not "recently discovered" by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      McMaster University did, in fact, recently announce the discovery of the remains of a gigantic ape. Not "the first" or "the only" giant ape, just of "a".

      Really? I missed that. Maybe you could quote where they say that. I read only the announcement of a new dating of remains, no mention of remains discovered "recently".

    3. Re:Not "recently discovered" by lordDallan · · Score: 1

      Upon re-reading TFA I realize that you are right, I am wrong, and I just have to deal with that.

  30. Guangxi, birtplace of modern man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Guangxi province in southern China, where the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated.


    Really? On what basis? I've only seen references to Africa for this.
  31. Plasticine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pleistocene period"? Is that the same era that Wallace & Gromit lived?

  32. More like Bigfoot... by hidispenser · · Score: 1

    ...than King Kong. But still. Cool.

  33. Oh geez! by thej1nx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    First any remains of a dwarf are automatically dubbed "hobbit" by the media and now a giant ape remains are dubbed "King Kong"

    What is the fetish of present-day media with dubbing scientific discoveries and news with hollywood inspired names ????

    What is up next ?
    "antique car found in a warehouse!" - "WE FOUND HERBIE!!!! "
    "Giant crocodile remains found"- "GODZILLA LIVES! IT IS TRUE!!! REMAINS BEING SENT TO TOKYO!!!"
    "150 years old skeleton of a cowboy discovered" - "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAN WITH NO NAME!!!"
    "broken phone instrument found lying around the crime area" - "E.T. FINALLY PHONED HOME!!!"

    Sheesh!!!

    1. Re:Oh geez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>"Giant crocodile remains found"- "GODZILLA LIVES! IT IS TRUE!!! REMAINS BEING SENT TO TOKYO!!!"

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4424734.stm

    2. Re:Oh geez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Giant crocodile remains found"- "GODZILLA LIVES! IT IS TRUE!!! REMAINS BEING SENT TO TOKYO!!!"

      I'm sorry, Dr. Evil, but that has already happened.

    3. Re:Oh geez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh newsround? i win for being slightly more upmarket.

    4. Re:Oh geez! by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 1

      "hobbit" ...

      What is the fetish of present-day media with dubbing scientific discoveries and news with hollywood inspired names ?"

      Yeah, damn that well-known Hollywood figure JRR Tolkien, the bounder!

    5. Re:Oh geez! by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      Erm... no.

      The book has been around for ages ... but this current fetish for caling everyone vertically-challanged a hobbit surfaced only after the movie :p

    6. Re:Oh geez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can scratch that one about Godzilla cuz that happend a few days ago.

    7. Re:Oh geez! by damsa · · Score: 1

      People have been using movie terms for a long time. After snow white, little persons were called dwarves, when Wizard of Oz came out, they were called munchkins, after Wonka movie, Ooompa Loompas. I'm sure in a few years, some other term will become popular with the masses.

    8. Re:Oh geez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, stop ripping off the Weekly World News. I read all those stories while I was reading about Bat Boy, thanks.

    9. Re:Oh geez! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      "Giant crocodile remains found"- "GODZILLA LIVES! IT IS TRUE!!! REMAINS BEING SENT TO TOKYO!!!"

      If that happened, it would be a dupe.

      But really, they should just stick with Hobbits and Kong. Peter Jackson is driving paleontology like no other right now.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    10. Re:Oh geez! by Hello+Kitty · · Score: 2, Funny

      PJ's paleo-synchronous track record is starting to worry me -- at this rate someone's gonna dig up that evil skeleton dude from The Frighteners. (checks IMDB) Aw FSCK! His next film's The Lovely Bones! (runs away)

  34. This is very old news by batmanmiles · · Score: 5, Funny

    The hell is this doing on Slashdot? It's in my freaking anthro textbook, fer chrissakes. My textbook.

    1. Re:This is very old news by sharkey · · Score: 1

      If you think you're irritated now, just wait until Taco posts this story tomorrow.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  35. 1200 lb apes... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1, Funny

    Back in my day, here in Texas, we called them Nose Guards...

    Oh, that's right I was a Nose Guard.

    Spock the, if I just had more speed I could have gone pro, Baptist....

    --
    "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  36. This Just In by vodkamattvt · · Score: 0

    I guess he is running out of grant money. But he made a mistake, he should have waited until he knew how well the movie was going to do!

  37. Re:Gigantic wang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80% Funny
    20% Informative


    What have 20% of the moderators been smoking?

  38. yeah right... by b4stard · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... next you're gonna tell me godzilla lived. Like there ever were a bunch of giant lizard roaming the earth. That's just silly.

    1. Re:yeah right... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      ... next you're gonna tell me godzilla lived. Like there ever were a bunch of giant lizard roaming the earth. That's just silly.

      Gojira isn't a dinosaur. Superficially he looks quite similar to a T. rex, but he's a lot bigger, and has radioactive fire breath. No evidence has ever been found to support nuclear combustible respiration in any fossilised saurian.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:yeah right... by umrgregg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah? Well, yoiu haven't met the old guy living next to me have you?

      --
      NMG
  39. From one era to the next... by tod_miller · · Score: 0

    Pleistocene era? Then I guess the very early King Kong movies were called the plasticine era....

    ok ok ok. Almost not worth it.

    please type the word in this image: shined
    random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  40. Re:Gigantic wang. by BrynM · · Score: 1
    What have 20% of the moderators been smoking?
    You got me. Somehow this one got moderated insightful and people posted replies that took me seriously. I mean c'mon, I was just watching the Daily Show and Colbert before I posted. I was in a silly mood. Maybe it's all-jokes-must-be-taken-seriously night and they didn't tell us. Wacky, aint it?
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  41. To good to pass up... by improbable · · Score: 1

    Shadow of the Colossus, indeed!

  42. Other obligatory.. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    They have to name it the'Kwyjibo'

  43. Yeah yeah yeah by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    My Phonetic typos/spelling errors are shocking. (ones/once)

    Sew what who our you two judge me.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  44. Not much to go on? by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 1
    So it could just as easily have been a species of normal sized apes with abnormally sized heads, rather than abnormally sized apes with normal sized heads.

    No, a ratio of 1:6.5 is pretty extreme already, based on the assumption that their head had to be unusually big to chew up all that bamboo. Considering that (as it later turned out) they also ate other stuff, they might have been even bigger than the guess.

    But "ten times as big as a man" would mean 50 feet tall, right? Or at least 30? (They didn't say which man.) So there's still a long way to go to get to King Kong. Or, maybe "ten times" refers to weight; then you get ~1800 lbs, and it still came up short, but not so far short. Anyhow that way he wouldn't have been too big to plug Fay Wray, given a little patience.

  45. Extinct? by owlnation · · Score: 1

    Evidence suggests that, rather than completely die out, an enclave of these apes survived and is thriving... gainfully employed as the RIAA legal team.

    1. Re:Extinct? by wintermute740 · · Score: 1
      Evidence suggests that, rather than completely die out, an enclave of these apes survived and is thriving... gainfully employed as the RIAA legal team.


      However, one escaped and is working for Microsoft.
  46. it's all a hoax, and I have proof! by dominux · · Score: 2, Funny

    Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.

  47. some more info ... by gerddie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Resently, i heard a talk of Russell Ciochon about the Giganto. He was also addressing the possibility that humans and Giganto might have co-occoured in the area. He said that he now thinks that the teeth subjected to early humans might actually belong to some other, smaller ape.

  48. sounds more like by lavaboy · · Score: 1
    --
    Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
  49. King Pong by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    While it's perfectly possible, there is very little evidence to go on - a few teeth and jaw bones. Without a find of much more than this, I'd suggest this is case not proven/wishful thinking and would not be surprised if the fossils turned out to belong to a giant panda or perhaps even a sheep. The article does not inspire confidence with stuff like "This was known as the Pleistocene period, by which time humans had already existed for a million years." For "humans" perhaps one should say "the forerunners of modern man" since my understanding is that homo sapiens did not show up until 900,000 years or so later. In addition, given its diet and the huge quantities required to sustain 600 kg of body mass, I should imagine the alleged creature probably farted itself to death.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  50. Well Duuuuuh! by kiddailey · · Score: 1

    Where'd you think Peter Jackson got the star for his next film?

  51. Not a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    King Kong isn't a myth. He lives in our hearts.

  52. 100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by nietsch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you take a look at this map, it suggests that modern man entered asia only about 70-60,000 years ago. So this ceartue may not have lived alongside early humans.
    Human history isn't that old really, wikipedia pegs the start of H.Sapiens at 200,000 years ago, and most of that time has been spent in Africa.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you take a look at this map, it suggests that modern man entered asia only about 70-60,000 years ago. So this ceartue may not have lived alongside early humans.

      It may not have lived alongside H. sapiens, but it definitely would have encountered H. erectus, which certainly constitutes 'early human', don't you think?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by nietsch · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is debatable (but a silly debate). If you consider Neanderthals as early humans too (they decended from H erectus just like H. sapiens) then yes H.erectus is a early human too. It's all depending on where you draw the line. If you stretch it really far, you could even argue that the first proto-mammals were early humans too. Personally(as a laymen) I draw the line at H. Sapiens. Before that is humanoid, but not human.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    3. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the presence of a monster ape may explain why the Neanderthals never moved into S.E. Asia yet were prepared to live in Siberia. Many people don't realize Neanderthals had larger brains than humans so they were probably as intelligent as us.

    4. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wikipedia pegs the start of H.Sapiens at 200,000 years ago

      "Wikipedia pegs?!?!?" Wikipedia could be a kid in his pajamas sugared up on Fruit Loops and jujubes watching a Mummies Alive! marathon and logged on from his Mom's computer.

      Wikipedia! You cite it like it means something. C'mon...

    5. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by nietsch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True, wikipedia is a source that you can never trust 100% for the reasons you cite. That is why I mentioned I got the info from wikipedia. It was just the first source google came up with that answered my question. I do not know about the other sites that google offered, so this is a good as any. Better the evil you know...

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    6. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      That is debatable (but a silly debate). If you consider Neanderthals as early humans too (they decended from H erectus just like H. sapiens) then yes H.erectus is a early human too. It's all depending on where you draw the line. If you stretch it really far, you could even argue that the first proto-mammals were early humans too. Personally(as a laymen) I draw the line at H. Sapiens. Before that is humanoid, but not human.

      Wouldn't anything in the Homo genus count as human?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    7. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course a kid in his pajamas eating Fruit Loops would have come up with a map like that.

    8. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Definately anything in the Homo genus and maybe anything in the Family Hominindae. There is debate about whether Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Regardless, there is evidence that Cro-magnon man, Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals interbred. This puts them at least as close as Horses and Donkeys or Lions and Tigers.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    9. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Funny

      I draw the line at the Mullett.

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    10. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by saforrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Wikipedia pegs?!?!?" Wikipedia could be a kid in his pajamas sugared up on Fruit Loops and jujubes watching a Mummies Alive! marathon and logged on from his Mom's computer.

      I don't understand how people, on Slashdot of all places, can't get past the anyone-can-edit-so-it's-all-crap argument about Wikipedia.

      It's true that at any given time the content of any given Wikipedia page could be "omigod justin timberlake RULEZ", but you will notice that such changes last, usually, about 3-4 minutes. Discerning when this has and has not happened is what the "revision history" and "talk" pages are for.

      Yes, there's nothing to stop stupid crap from being added, but I have yet to find a case where said crap does not reveal itself with a bit of effort. If I'm looking up information about human evolution, and find an article written by a kid in his pajamas, well, that will quickly become obvious to me from the writing. Similarly, if the article was not written by said kid, but said kid comes along and randomly changes "1,000,000 years ago" to "100,000 years ago" with no convincing argument in the edit summary, it will generally be noticed and reverted.

      No, you can't make unequivocal statements about the content, and information of a highly technical nature is hit and miss. But the degree of coverage more than makes up for this. And in most cases, by combining the article content with judicious use of edit history, talk page discussions, and general critical judgment, I've found Wikipedia to be good enough as an information resource that it's usually the first place I look on the Internet.

    11. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Similarly, if the article was not written by said kid, but said kid comes along and randomly changes "1,000,000 years ago" to "100,000 years ago" with no convincing argument in the edit summary, it will generally be noticed and reverted."

      it's that "generally" that bothers me...

    12. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heathen. If you had been to church recently you would know that Homos aren't human.

    13. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. I say human race and the world is just under 6000 years old.

    14. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to "never"?

      He only said "Generally" because he was being nice. A change like that would be noticed and reverted. Don't assume that academic professionals catch all the mistakes either, take a look at the Errata for the Encyclopedia Britannica for example.

      If someone says John Doee's name is spelled John Doe, and claims it was a typo, that might not be caught, because it DOES look like a typo.

    15. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by duckpoopy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wikipedia is just like a peer-reviewed journal where, by 'peer', I mean anybody who has access to the internet.

      --
      word.
    16. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by saforrest · · Score: 1

      it's that "generally" that bothers me...

      Fair enough. The thing is, you're always free to read the edit history yourself.

      So the only danger is when someone introduces a change and it somehow survives long enough to have been buried several pages back in the edit history.

      However, lots of entries in the edit history correspond to a lot of attention paid to the article, and attention paid means wrong information is reverted.

      In my experience this phenomenon only occurs when the information changed was so highly technical or specific that none of the intermediate readers recognized it as wrong or felt comfortable with changing it. As a rule this combination -- an article with highly technical content but a huge edit history -- is quite rare.

    17. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If Homo Neandertalis were around today would you grant them Civil Liberties/Human Rights or treat them like apes?

      By some accounts they had larger brains than we do.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I've got to disagree, Wikipedia has some serious flaws in the information you get.

      It's true that at any given time the content of any given Wikipedia page could be "omigod justin timberlake RULEZ", but you will notice that such changes last, usually, about 3-4 minutes.

      Only you've targeted the least important problem with article content. The real misleading stuff is information that appears on its face to be true, but turns out not to be. One minor example that I ran into:

      The entry on Aldous Huxley states: "His mother Julia died in 1908, when Aldous was only fourteen, and his sister Roberta died of an unrelated incident in the same month." Only problem is, Huxley never had a sister named Roberta, and certainly didn't have a sister who died then. I'm not sure where the author came up with this.

      I've seen a few other entries like this, where the information presented seems reasonable, but turned out to be completely fictitious. How exactly would you suggest we catch these mistakes, since they're often added after the article's initial creation? As long as wikipedia allows perpetual re-editing the information will always be suspect.

    19. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to find a case where said crap does not reveal itself with a bit of effort.

      Sure, if you are looking for it, you might find it with "a bit of effort". But merely citing it as a source doesn't uncover any mistakes.

      I once cited Wikipedia as a source. Turns out it was utterly wrong. "Version 4.0" was in Wikipedia. That was incorrect. It should have read "Version 5.0". When I found out (a week after it was too late), I went back and fixed it. Somebody immediately changed it back. In this particular case, the crap didn't reveal itself, and if I hadn't been watching, it would have come back even after it had been fixed.

      No, you can't make unequivocal statements about the content, and information of a highly technical nature is hit and miss. But the degree of coverage more than makes up for this.

      By that logic, a fictional encyclopaedia is better than a factual one, so long as it's larger. Doesn't fly. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to convey facts. When it conveys incorrect information, its whole purpose is undermined. No amount of coverage can make up for that.

    20. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sodomy's been legalized and they're allowed in the military, so why not?

      Homo power!

    21. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Only problem is, Huxley never had a sister named Roberta, and certainly didn't have a sister who died then. I'm not sure where the author came up with this.

      First, there the question of how certain you can be that such a person never existed: babies who die within weeks or days of birth are often omitted from official histories.

      However, I am inclined to agree with you that this information is probably false. It was introduced in this change here in October 2004 by an anonymous editor who provided no subject line. It's been left unchanged since, and even more egregiously, was propagated by some well-meaning translator into the Italian and Spanish versions, and probably others.

      But, I would still stick to my claims. As I said, you can never make a completely unequivocal claim that what you got from Wikipedia is true: it's probabalistic, not deterministic. The idea is not to prove truth, but to argue that falsehood is rare.

      The only time when misinformation is left unchanged for extended periods of time (by which I mean "several pages of edit history") is when it was so highly technical or specific that none of the intermediate reader/editors recognized it as wrong or felt comfortable with changing it.

      In my experience, this has been rare so far. Of course, I can't fully trust my senses here -- this is something like dark matter in physics; by definition, it's what we don't notice -- so I may have passed by a lot of misinformation that I didn't see. My hypothesis that this sort of abuse is rare is based partly on the relative infrequency of false information when reading specific information I ''do'' know about, and partly on the guess that trolls just don't get much pleasure out of this sort of prank, because they don't get to see any evidence of people believing their lies.

      As Wikipedia grows, the "reward" for successful trolling will grow too, so this sort of abuse will become more widespread. However, I suspect that Wikipedia is capable of evolving the right sort of trust weightings to combat it, which I why I don't feel this sort of abuse is a critical flaw.

    22. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Yes, they had larger brains.

      It's a funny quirk of anthropology that in all other cases, Homo Sapiens larger brain mass is used to explain its dominance over other animals. When comparing Homo Sapiens with Neandertals they say that our brains work more "efficiently".

      o_O

    23. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I've heard that too and don't understand it either. There are few who doubt we're smarter than elephants and whales, so it isn't size that matters - I've always been taught it's surface area/convolution.

      I find it easier to believe Neantertals were smarter than us and died out from a germ (for instance) to which we had immunity than there's this sudden unexplained quirk in our evolution (aka monolith theory). But maybe you can infer these things from skull shape or something else I don't understand (IANAA).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Elephants probably have a better memory than you do.

      Whales can probably out think you in that and other ways we may not understand yet.

      Humans do appear to think differently than our immediate ancestors, as is shown by the sudden blooming of art, e.g. cave paintings, and burial rituals. We think that means we are more intelligent, Neandertals probably thought we were just crazy.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    25. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Generally, the larger the animal, the larger the brain. Elephants have brains much larger than people do. Are elephants much more intelligent? Or do you have to take a brain/body ratio, and then apply square-cube relations to really even things out?

    26. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you are looking for it, you might find it with "a bit of effort". But merely citing it as a source doesn't uncover any mistakes.

      Then don't just cite it as a source. I didn't say that this level of confidence was easy to get: reading the edit history is a pain in the ass! I just said that when I use it, taking advantage of all its resources, this use does not often lead me astray.

      As for the other point, I wrote:

      No, you can't make unequivocal statements about the content, and information of a highly technical nature is hit and miss. But the degree of coverage more than makes up for this.

      To that you wrote:

      By that logic, a fictional encyclopaedia is better than a factual one, so long as it's larger. Doesn't fly. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to convey facts. When it conveys incorrect information, its whole purpose is undermined. No amount of coverage can make up for that.

      Ah, but you can make unequivocal claims about a fictional encyclopaedia: you can say it's fictional.

      With Wikipedia you don't know, but the whole point, and the only reason I use it, is because by inspecting the page content, edit history, and talk pages, I can achieve a certain threshold of confidence about the accuracy of the information. I might still be wrong, but that's not usually the case.

      I'm not suggesting one ought to generally use Wikipedia for everything. If I'm looking up Unicode characters, I'll look at the code charts on unicode.org; this is possible because a better resource exists. However, that's not always the case.

      Finding truth in Wikipedia is a probabalistic algorithm. It's not going to be correct always. To be useful, it is only necessary that its falsehoods are rare.

    27. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That is why I mentioned I got the info from wikipedia. It was just the first source google came up with that answered my question.

      This is starting to piss me off about Wikipedia. If I want Wikipedia I know where to find it. I don't need every bloody Wikipedia mirror of some article turning up at the top of Google searches and moving what I am really looking for onto page 2, 3, or worse. Wikipedia are basically spamming the search engines now.

    28. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      GPP: would you grant [Neanderthals] Civil Liberties/Human Rights or treat them like apes?
      PP: Yes, they had larger brains.

      Do you mean yes to the first part? Or another way: Which one was yes, go ahead and destroy Russia ... or number 2?

      The real queston might be: "Would Neanderthals give Civil Liberties/Neanderthal Rights to Homo Sap's?"

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    29. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are you getting these dates of up to 200,000 years ago? Everyone knows the earth is only 6000 years old. Next thing you will say the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. If you are going to tell stories at least make the effort to make them believable.

    30. Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... so then why didn't you title your post "...humans may not have walked in asia" ?

      Just curious.

  53. Post-Cranial Anatomy by herwin · · Score: 0

    I'd love to know something about the post-cranial anatomy. This is a big Sivapithecus, a ground-dwelling relative of the orang-utan. Sivapithecus seems to have had a generalised way of moving on the ground, neither bipedal nor knuckle-walking. I'd like to see what the increased mass caused G to evolve.

  54. Big Ape by Edman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "gigantopithecus blackii" is a long known species, and scientist already proposed the fact pre-sapiens humanoid species did often have contact. I don't know why this old "news" is dug out again. some kind of "getting-people-to-the-cinema"-publicity for the new King Kong movie by Peter Jackson? by the way, the old one (from the seventies)was great...

  55. 3 metres? Eh? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    I feel short changed to the tune of about 57m.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  56. All your blondes by slashmojo · · Score: 2, Funny

    All your blondes are belong to Kong!

  57. Why is this news? by illtron · · Score: 1

    Honestly, why is this news? There's absolutely nothing new here. This would be like posting a story like "Jobs, Wozniak found computer company" and acting like it's breaking news.

    I think I read this at least four years ago: The Bigfoot-Giganto Hypothesis.

    --
    Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
  58. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    Why the incesant need to convert english to metric

    You are aware that England uses the metric system over the imperial one now arn't you?

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  59. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by cbv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe, just maybe, because the majority of people in the world do use metric?

  60. No big deal by Crouty · · Score: 1
    I was even engaged with her.

    She was not that hot, though.

    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
  61. King Kong? Not really... by racecarj · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is really more on the Mighty Joe Young size scale.

  62. Re:Gigantic wang. by JemVai777 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What have 20% of the moderators been smoking?

    The aforementioned giant penis?

    --
    "The problem with our economy is that our budget is balanced by people who aren't" - A.E.N.
  63. it's amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. what you can make with 12 dog carcases, a roll of sticky-back-plastic and ball of bailing twine.

    The CGI in the (conveniently timed) move release will be more genuine.

  64. Impossible! by drcagn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is impossible! My math teacher in high school told me that this is impossible because the ratio of mass to surface area is too great, preventing the animal from dissipating heat or providing for the body, therefore dying out. Elephants have a low mass to surface area ratio in their trunks, so they're okay, but king kong doesn't have a trunk. Yeah, I'm just sputtering something I vaguely remember from high school...

    --
    Scorta futuere amo!
    1. Re:Impossible! by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      That's why whales don't exist, either, right?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Impossible! by foQ · · Score: 1

      Water is a MUCH better heat conductor (and thus coolant), so sea mammmals can have a higher mass:SA ratio than land mammals.

  65. Old News.. by GearheadX · · Score: 1

    I heard about this find years ago.

    Heck, it's been on the Discovery Channel at least once or twice.

  66. No it is uranium dating by aepervius · · Score: 1

    As far as I remmember Carbon DAting can only go so far (20000-70000 years?). beyond that you need longer lived radio isotope. One of them was Uranium in small quantity and/or thorium and subelement down to lead : they have all different half lives (there might be other method with other radio element , used with thermoluminescence). Other form of dating might involve looking at DNA and its change (rate of change being constant?) I am not too sure.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  67. This is old by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

    Gigantopithecus is by no means new. In fact, it's so not new, it's in my Anthropology text. That makes it a minimum of 1-2 years ago, and I'm sure it's been known of longer than that.

    --
    hi
  68. More like another ape, methinks by Morky · · Score: 1
  69. Re:Gigantic wang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    >> 80% Funny
    >> 20% Informative
    >
    > What have 20% of the moderators been smoking?

    The moderators have a sense of humor. I often read the moderation status after I read the post, and seeing a joke get modded as Informative or Insightful is enough to make me crack up again. Now if only I could metamod as Funny. :)

    Oh yeah, and also some people say this is a way to give karma to the comedians, since Funny apparently doesn't give you any karma credit.

  70. They didn't find any fossils. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gigantopithecus has been (as the article states) studied since the 30's. Reading the summary, I thought somebody had found some new fossils. Seems to me they did not even "find a tooth", the article is actually about estimating the age of an existing fossil.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  71. I know that guy! by Rude-Boy · · Score: 1

    I had Dr. Rink as a prof for one of my undergrad courses, I remember him discussing electron spin resonance. Interesting stuff.

    Yes, I have nothing else to contribute.

  72. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

    Besides ... saying something weighs aproximately 1,322.77357 lbs doesn't sound like much of an aproximation, does it?

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  73. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Englishman doesn't.

    And most still use miles for car journeys, pints for drinks, stones for body weight and inches for collar size.

  74. Re:Gigantic wang. by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    I think that's unlikely. Modern-day gorillas actually have very small penises (about 1 to 2 inches when erect); other apes (like chimpanzees) have bigger ones, but they're still not as big as human penises, especially not relative to the animals' body size.

    Of course, there's no data for this particular species, but I don't see an a priori reason why they should be different from pretty much all the primates we know in this regard.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  75. Geico commercial by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Oh, At first I thought this might be another Geico commercial.

  76. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    Being an Englishman myself, I know where it is & is not used, it's now almost exclusively taught in schools; the imperial system is dying out here, out of those that you listed already, stones for body weight is questionable, and pints is only for beer and milk, for most other drinks it's litres.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  77. Incredible skills by serveron · · Score: 2, Funny

    so scientist are capable of buying a molar at a pharmacy, combine it with a few jawbones and then complete the whole puzzle? It ate bamboo, it had hair and they draw you a picture of what it looked like. CSI Miami is nothing compared to this.

  78. Huh? When did that change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to what I learned (addmitedly long, long ago in a distant galaxy...), 10^i prefixes are:

    - uppercase, if i>0;
    - lowercase, for i0;
    - non-existent, for i=0.

    Such is the difference between Deca- (10 times) and deci- (0.1 times).

    So, 1 Dm == 10 meters.

    And 1 dm == 0.1m == 10 x 0.01m == 10 centimeters.

    Explanation made simple specially for you, foot-in-the-mouth system users.

    1. Re:Huh? When did that change? by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Deca is not D; it's "da". Hardly ever used in common communications anyway, as it's simpler just to say 10 of something. An SI prefix is upper case if it's >10^3,

      And "Kg" looks waaaay weird.

      --
      Lalala
    2. Re:Huh? When did that change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also have to take into account letters already taken by other units. "Kg" would mean "kelvin-gram", which you could use to describe the result of multiplying temperature and mass.

    3. Re:Huh? When did that change? by dascandy · · Score: 1

      >Explanation made simple specially for you, foot-in-the-mouth system users.

      Proper use would be "especially".

  79. Real reason they died out by summerofsweat · · Score: 1

    Palaeontologists Big tooth -> big animal
    Reality Big tooth -> normal size animal that can only eat soup
    Thank you Eddie Izzard.

  80. Re:Oh geez! Remains of 'Godzilla' croc found-BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  81. More evidence by Knx · · Score: 1

    Here is another document which provides definitive proof of the existence of giant apes.

    --
    The problem with Slashdot memes is that YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
  82. The Great Flood by Odd+John · · Score: 0

    The universal myth of a great flood refers to the end of the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago. Huge glaciers that covered half the northern hemisphere all melted relatively swiftly. Maybe in as little as a few decades. Meltwater made sea levels rise 100 meters to create the coastlines we see today. All of the early human cities, were built close to water, rivers or seashore. So every early human city was flooded and buried under silt. All the farmland gone too. The survivors had to start over from scratch. Hence the universality of the story of the great flood. This may also account for the legends of great cities lost under the flood.

    Think what would happen to human civilization today if sea levels quickly rose 100 meters. Almost all the cities would be wiped out. Many who survived the flood would die from starvation or disease. Great bodies of knowledge would be lost.

  83. No photos of teeth of jawbones? by objekt · · Score: 1

    They would add more than a shred of credibility to this story.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  84. Big foot by kentuckydude · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a plausible source for the big foot legend.

  85. Too Small for King Kong by Ranger · · Score: 1

    The less misleading headline should be Mighty Joe Young lived? Get your scale right.

    Besides the original Mighty Joe Young was a much better movie than the original King Kong.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  86. Does ONE set of remains define a species? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Seems like every time a new bone is found, a new species is announced. But then I wonder, what of our OWN giants? We have the occasional human with growth abnormalities resulting in freakishly huge people. 100,000 years from now, will the 'science creatures' of the day assume there was at least two species of humans living side-by-side? What other absurdities will they hypothesize with the little evidence they have?

    I'm *not* a troll. I'm just trying to bring to light alternative ways of seeing things. So you know where I am coming from, I'm atheist and I think religion is just practiced mythology. I think the theory of evolution is plausible and that the forces of natural selection are demonstrable.

    So, if they were presenting a "momma fossil, a daddy fossil and a baby fossil" that would be a different story... but so far, there's just the one. Why couldn't it be a singular anomaly?

    1. Re:Does ONE set of remains define a species? by bmalia · · Score: 1

      I had the same thought.

      --
      There's no place like ~/
  87. Not King Kong ... Bigfoot! by SABME · · Score: 1

    And he's still alive and well in North America

  88. Peter Jackson's King Kong by zhenga · · Score: 1

    Based on a true Story

    And some other obligatory Futurama opening titles:

    Filmed On Location
    AS SEEN ON TV
    IN COLOR
    COMING SOON TO AN ILLEGAL DVD

  89. Re:Gigantic wang. by geobeck · · Score: 1

    That's why they disappeared; as they kept getting bigger, they couldn't catch up to the female Gigantopithici, who understandably ran away from them in fear. Except for the few masochistic types who kept the species alive, known as Gigantopussici.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  90. a million years? by Lord51N15T3R · · Score: 0
    This was known as the Pleistocene period, by which time humans had already existed for a million years.

    Homo sapiens haven't existed for millions of years.

    The existence of these large apes have been known for quite some time.

    Slashdot science coverage is getting on par with the 5 o'clock news.

  91. No, no NO! by mtec · · Score: 1

    It was just some Ape - I saw in a Bar - in Hong Kong!

    the scientist heard to say after the interview was published.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  92. Flawed analysis by Phleg · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the analysis of these remains is flawed. All reasonable-minded Slashdotters know the Earth has only been around for fourteen years.

    --
    No comment.
  93. Didn't Make the Ark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the frick did Noah have against this poor soul. Didn't make the Ark cut, ergo, doesn't exist today...

  94. Kong? Joe... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    King Kong lived? Nope. Mighty Joe Young? Yep.

  95. Singular by bmalia · · Score: 1

    So they found the remains of a giant ape. singular. One giant ape != new species. There are giant and dwarf humans, and they arn't a new species

    --
    There's no place like ~/
  96. Co-existence by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    ...that supposedly co-existed alongside humans

    And dinosaurs?

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  97. What the? by Back+Slider+1969 · · Score: 0

    Gigantopithecus blackii? Those are some rascist anthropologists.

  98. Hmm.. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet on whether or not this guy studied these apes to prove another theory that sasquatch is for real?

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  99. Couch potatoes by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Body-mass index of 66.7. Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater. No wonder they got extinct.

    So that means that couch potatoes DO descend from the apes?
    TAKE THAT, Intelligent Design!

  100. I'm offended! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Blackii?!?

    I find that racist.

    The correct term would be Africanii-Americanii!

    Savages.

  101. Crappy Posting by infernalC · · Score: 1

    Nobody recently discovered any remains. RTFA. This Slashdot post is BS. Period.

  102. Gigantopithecus Blackii will give you a black eye by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Gigantopithecus Blackii, the largest primate that ever lived was not very friendly. He got his scientific name from his favourite method of punishing annoying Cro-Magnons and irritating Homo-Erectii.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  103. Livecd by johansalk · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who, after reading the mandrake bit, read this title above as "King Kong Livecd"?

  104. No, it's Willima Shatner by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    KAAAHHNNN!!!

  105. Artist's conception by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

    Of what this creature would do to modern man: Unsafe Camp!

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  106. You can't make this shit up. Wait, people do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the "dragon bones" for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy.

    LOFL. Righty-O. From a molar. Found in a Pharmacy. Typical anthro shit. Some people will believe anything!

  107. Evidence of Interbreeding? by the+phantom · · Score: 1

    What evidence? Most of the mtDNA evidence that I have seen places H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis in seperate species. The morphological evidence is more in favor of the same species argument, but the DNA is difficult to account for. What are you citing?

    1. Re:Evidence of Interbreeding? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      There are some hybrid sapiens/neanderthalensis fossils that have been found. Besides, if all the pairings were Male Neanderthal and Female Sapiens, then there would be no mitochondrial DNA evidence. I know some of the cross cat species hybrids only work if the male is of species A and the female is of species B. Male B and Female A will not concieve naturally. Apparently there are behavorial and biochemical problems.

      How this could work: Neanderthals have no chin and are more robust. It would be a fair supposition that Neanderthals have similiar facial hair growth to Sapiens. A beard would hide a lack of chin so female Sapiens would be attracted to male muscualr Neaderthals, yet female, chinless, muscular Neanderthals would be ugly to male Sapiens.

      Heck, maybe that is what happened to Neanderthals, we killed them off when they stole our women. :)

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    2. Re:Evidence of Interbreeding? by EvilSuggestions · · Score: 1

      Except for extremely rare occurances, mtDNA in animals does not undergo recombination, and usually only 1 parent contributes mitochondria to a child (almost always the mother). So, in a cross between a neanderthal father and a modern human mother, only the modern human mtDNA will appear in the child. The nuclear DNA however, will be a combination of both parents, but studies with it have been much more challenging. Long story short, mtDNA, while good for other phylogentic studies, is simply not the right tool for finding evidence of hybridization.

      As you stated, the morphological evidence hints that hybrids were possible. Most notable is the skeleton of a child found in Portugal in 1998 that looks like a mixture of neanderthal and modern human traits. See the Wikipedia article for more info: Abrigo do Lagar Velho. Until there's better evidence from nuclear DNA studies, the fossil evidence is the best we've got to go on.

      --
      "There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science
  108. Remains? by kaoshin · · Score: 1

    "For nearly 80 years, Gigantopithecus blackii has intrigued scientists, who have pieced together a description using nothing more than a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones." I'm pretty sure the scientists know their stuff, but with only a pair of old dirty choppers to go on, I'll go out on a limb and say that this is all an educated guess. As far as not finding the rest of the body or other skeletons, I wonder if other animals or humans didn't eat the entire remains and grind up the bones or if the humans they supposedly coexisted with didn't just domesticate them and buried their remains when they died?

  109. Depends... by the+phantom · · Score: 1

    It kind of depends on how you define human. When I talk about humans, I generally mean anatomically modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens. If I am refering to one or more of the ancestor species, I will generally specify the species, or refer to "human ancestors." However, the press release is hardly academic, and may be refering to Homo erectus, which would have existed in the area at the time that this primate was wandering around.

  110. Re:Gigantic wang. by joelito_pr · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they used one of those Penis enlargement products they advertise on pr0n sites Oh wait they hadn't been invented yet :P

  111. Re:You can't make this shit up. Wait, people do! by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked and dismayed. Scientists making shit up? You've got to be kidding. I've been looking all over for Dark Matter like a chump! What's next, they're going to make shit up and graph it? Oh yeah they've done that bit too.

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  112. Megafauna by jd · · Score: 1
    Blackii has been in the list of megafauna for a long time, along with a wide range of other fascinating beasties. I do strongly recommend that Slashdotters look through the finds that have been made. They are truly fascinating.


    It is vitally important to add that virtually nothing has been found of G. Blackii - bits of jaw, teeth, etc. No complete skeleton is known to exist, we don't even have a complete skull. All estimates on size are based on ratios that are known to (roughly) hold true for all primates and so presumably held true for G. Blackii. We do not know this to be the case and I would personally prefer researchers to be looking for more finds than looking for more publicity. Otherwise, when something of real importance is discovered, nobody is going to take it seriously. Why should they, when so much hype has been stirred up over the dating of a bunch of teeth?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  113. Monkey by jd · · Score: 1

    They've found Monkey? Any idea if Pigsy or Sandy were nearby? Oh, and there should also be a pink cloud. There's gotta be a pink cloud.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  114. Obligatory Monty Python reference by andrewagill · · Score: 1

    100,000 years humans did not walk in asia

    And did those teeth, in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green.

  115. Only anthropology could.. by WalterODimm · · Score: 1

    Find a handful of Yao-Ming's great-grandfathers teeth and create a new species out of it. Try that with any other scientific discipline, and you'd be crucified. Ask Pons and Fleichmann, the two chemists who deduced that they had discovered cold fusion when they found that they could create excess heat in a beaker filled with water at room temperature in 88 or 89. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/scien ce/050399sci-cold-fusion.html But seems from those teeth they were able to determine that it did not walk upright, that it had long apelike arms, black fur, feet with opposing thumbs, short spindly legs... etc, etc. None of which can be assumed without finding at least the base of the skull fully in tact. *sigh* Disgusting what passes as "science" these days. This article requires as much of a leap of faith as the Kansas school board.

  116. Wait a minute.... by RedStarFire · · Score: 1

    ...so, are they trying to say that King Kong walked with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden!?!

  117. Wrong Movie? by old_fortran · · Score: 1

    Those pictures look more like "Mighty Joe Young" to me. Also makes me feel better about that movie as being more likely than "King Kong" (at least both original versions). I always liked "Joe" better, myself.

    Kong was always impossibly large; and he would have to be in order to fight his "rubber suit" counterpart in the later "Godzilla vs. King Kong", but that didn't make him real to me. OTOH, Mighty Joe Young seems more like an actual possibility - given the existence of larger versions of many animals as recently as 10,000 BC. (Think larger bison, tigers, etc.) Could one be found deep in some jungle somewhere that coexisted with humans? Not today, perhaps, given the reduced habitat - but ~60,000 years ago, when humans first migrated to Asia... Yes, it does makes me wonder.

    And of course, as someone else implied in an earlier post, finding one in today's jungle would be about as likely as finding a "Bigfoot" skeleton; so both would appear to be just mythic expressions of some primordial fear of predators larger than ourselves. Kong at least is so big that something larger than standard rifles were needed to take him down from the Empire State Building. Even so, a 10 ft. giant ape still makes more sense to me as a myth than a 100 ft. one.

    Anyone else think that remaking "King Kong" **yet again** seems as necessary as a remake of "Attack of the 50 ft. Woman" would be? Still, given that we've been treated to Godzilla in modern NYC, and Hollywood is is full "retread" mode, so this movie may have been unavoidable. At least it's not yet another old TV show on the big screen.

    "That's right - Bit my S.M.A.!"
    Old_Fortran

  118. the monkey king. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like where the chinese legend of the monkey king (and his bar) might have originated from...

  119. Sounds a lot like Yeti... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    > before the species died out 100,000 years ago

    Yeah, or maybe it died out somewhat more recently than that, but there are no fossils from the last while, because by then the critter was starting to get rare. One can readily imagine that such a thing might be the source of some legends.

    OTOH, maybe it was never a separate species in the first place, just an unusually large specimen. It's hard to know now.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  120. Re:Body Mass Index 66.6 = one DeciBeast? by ankhank · · Score: 1

    So, there's another one ten times as large out there, according to the Bible's logic?

  121. And it can't be a giant human because...? by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

    What exactly was found and where's the pictures?

    http://www.mcmaster.ca/ua/opr/nms/newsreleases/200 5/rink.html says: "For nearly 80 years, Gigantopithecus blackii has intrigued scientists, who have pieced together a description using nothing more than a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones."

    Sounds conclusive to me. Can't wait to see the detailed picture of the creature.

  122. kid in his pajamas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you did not get a chance to create a map like that when you were a kid in your pajama sugared up on Fruit Loops and jujubes watching a Mummies Alive! marathon, eh?

    Piss off, you 'insightful' troll.

  123. US Navy Cirumference Method: Body Fat Percentage by rjthomas61 · · Score: 1
    --
    Take off, every Hoser
  124. FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human history isn't that old really...

    That's right, because 5000 years ago God created the earth complete with skeletons of giant apes.

  125. This proves evolution is wrong. by saxmanb · · Score: 0

    See! Evolution is wrong because humans lived alongside primates!

  126. 10 feet tall

    1200+ lbs.

    And some MMORPG makers would think that this thing, with a human brain and a sword, would have a tough time defeating a rat.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  127. Re:Why the incesant need to convert english to met by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    Only cooks, mechanics, loggers, carpenters and sysadmins use anything but metric. The scientific community uses metric. Unless your building a space probe, then you use both.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  128. Americans are heavier by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1
  129. Microsoft's CEO by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's CEO has a uid of 931150? Damn chair-throwing n00bs, always buying up our small businesses...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  130. Hate to burst the bubble by jd · · Score: 1

    But in my book going extinct falls in the cateory of "having difficulty reproducing". Given that we have vastly more evidence of hobbit-like humanoids yet still aren't sure if they existed as a species or an illness, it seems we're inferring a lot from three jaws and the tooth fairy's collection. Oh, and we only rule the world because early humans found the cheat codes.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  131. Re:Yes indeed by game+kid · · Score: 1

    See above...sort of.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  132. This made me really nervous... by SlashAmpersand · · Score: 1

    When I read this I had to jump in the car and take a drive. I hit 90 on the way to the graveyard. I breathed a sigh of relief when I got there. You see, I was afraid they'd dug up my mother-in-law...

  133. Re:BMI QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm a bodybuilder who weighs in at 242 @ 6'3" with a 36" waist and my BMI is 30.2.

    Not saying your "FAT", but a 36" waist isn't anything to crow about. That would seem to indicate you have a spare tire around those parts. You need to work less on building up and more on leaning out. There's no way your waist should be above a 33 unless you have some weird mutation.

  134. Erm, I think this one needs explaining... by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Pleistocene....plasticine
    Plasticine .... early stop frame animation techniques.... King Kong....

    Really. If they had bigger budgets...

    please type the word in this image: budgets
    random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  135. Us? Intelligent? Well, some of us... by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    There's some question regarding the intelligence of neanderthals insofar as the brain-to-body ratio. Neanderthals were much bigger-boned and the shape of the bones indicates they were a lot more muscular, so their larger brains were counterbalanced by everything else being bigger on them.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  136. Re:BMI QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know...I wasn't saying that I was shredded, only that I'm very far from "obese". I don't have a gut but I do have love handles - a sad byproduct of the bulking process as I'm sure you probably know. :) I do, however, plan to lean out come spring.

    Again, I wasn't rattling off my numbers to try to brag...only to prove that the BMI formula used by itself can be bogus in certain situations (like mine).

    Adam

  137. OT:Re:Obligatory Monty Python reference by nietsch · · Score: 1

    yup, I made a horrible typo there. A whole word fell through the cracks of my proofreading. Anyway I am happy with the karma anyhow. Can you get more than 'excellent'?
    Time for some Hot Choclate. (no preview today)

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  138. Gigantopithecus blackii???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /me Cowers in the corner and waits for the GNAA crew to appear.

  139. 100,000 years ago, there was less psychosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Art is an interesting type of psychosis.

          It is usually a compulsion that tends to become obsessive - for the 'artist'.

          It is usually reiteratively structuralized, reductionist, formalized, ...

          And involves a system of mistaking the reference for the object, reducing the and transferring perception of the latter to the former. And attaching oneself to it.

          Artists remind me of caged or shackled animals, shifting their weight from side to side in whatever desperation it is they suffer.

          Crazy is probably very close to the point.

          Now, what can make a whole population consistently that crazy ? And still allow it to overrun everything, as we seem to have done ?

  140. But which of them will be the King Dong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the biggest dong? It is known that a Kodiak finding a naked woman in the forest would eat her flesh, while an ape would fuck her bloody.

  141. Re:yeah right... pr'haps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are'nt T-Rex fossils ususally accompanied by higher background radiation counts, that being a hint in trying to find them ?

    Seems I saw something of the sort on some Discovery show or something.

  142. Stupid Motherfucker. Don't follow that URL ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Shockwave flash presentation of badgers squatting their anus on black dildos wasn't entertaining, neither to the baby I hold in my hands while I was frantically trying to close that window.

    If you want to get that BEAUTY AND THE BEAST thing out of your ears, just look for some Disney Porn and play the Korn industrial metal rock song GET THIS PARTY STARTED.

  143. Confusion & moderators supporting Landover Bap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You read the bible based on assumptions. You can not prove those assumptions.

    Those assumptions can be reproved. Just get some evidence, yet none can be proved or disproved without evidence. Without evidence, there is no controversey. The Bible exists because there is a controversey that was never settled; mineral rights, liberty, happiness, justice, et al. Who gets what, for how long, or why? There is some land that I can't claim because some dead man and his wife are in a casquette, and a bunch of deranged people keep bringing flowers to the same spot -- preventing me from perfecting my Squatter's Rights on that said grassy knoll. I swear, I'll shit on the tombstone.

    I am the second coming of god, disprove it... thats right, you can't.

    Wherer are you coming from? I can't remember either, but here I Am.

    And just like Jesus did in the bible, if you test me I'll tell you not to test the lord. So I can make all the claims I want and tell you that you aren't allowed to test them... your only choice is to hope that what your parents have told you your whole life is right.

    Jesus wouldn't show his authority to do good deeds because the Pharisees wouldn't show their authority to do bad deeds; confessions are an admition of guilt, and bearing witness against ones-self admits multiple personality disorder. I can't show you my authority to walk into a market to buy food other than the soles of my feet wherever they stand, and at the moment I appear to be authorized to post from a Slashdot person "NRAdude."

    If someone gave me a bible and changed around a few names, I'd think it was another epic poem by Homer.

    I think if you change a few words around in poems of Homer that he begins sounding like Jesus.

    I made no claims about my intellignece, I simply implied that those who believe simply because they are told to believe don't deserve their brain.

    Your intelligence is self-evident. You are claiming neither to be a Stupid Design or an Intelligent Design. If you've been taught to have faith without works, then you have en empty bottle. Don't you get annoyed when people fill the dumpster with so much bottled air, when it could be made compact for more matter to be stored?

    You cannot read the bible and come to a conclusion about its legitimacy.

    In my life of being of sound mind, I read it cover-to-cover in five-month intervals. I looked for some code, found it, and know the meaning this collection of books has been intended and the knowledge it surrenders to competent people that approach it as humble students. It means to me absolutely 3====>.

    In order to prove something, it has to be proven using something else, disconnected. I can say all humans are 6 ft. tall, then look at myself and consider that a proof... but I'd be dead wrong. The way religion is set up, you can never prove or disprove its basis. It is like Santa or the Easter Bunny... you can never prove they don't exist, you just assume that based on popular oppinion they don't. Anything that you could say to try and prove that Santa doesn't exist can be refuted, maybe he's tired and taking a break, maybe he delivers presents to everyone except to you while the rest of the world is in on a giant conspiracy to lie to you about it... it could go on forever.

    Think of religion as wit calling forth the masses to assemble for some political purpose. re-Legionaire is an ongoing effort to the unproven end of time.

    People want more to life than there is, they want to be special, they want a purpose. People have the balls to claim that they are designed in the form of God, what kind of self-serving bullshit is that? That claim requires alot

  144. Re:yeah right... pr'haps by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 1

    perhaps you saw that particular Discovery show sometime in 1998... brought to you by Taco Bell.

    --
    for a minute there, i lost myself...
  145. Thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for correcting me. It seems I'll be learning something even to the day that I die... 8-/

    Since I was wrong, I apologize to the parent poster who was right in the first place and to everyone for not having researched the answer thoroughly before posting.

  146. Re: hardly giant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Today's average height male is 69.2 inches. Shaq is 85 inches (22.8% taller than the mean); andre the giant was 88 inches. The tallest man that ever lived was 107.1 inches (54.8% taller than the mean).
    This thing was "only" 11 inches taller than the tallest man (3m = 118.1 inches). Take 118.1/107.1 and that's only 10.3% taller. Proportionally that's about the same as between a 5'2" woman (* average is 63.8) and 5'9" man, or between a 5'9" kicker and a 6'5" quarterback (e.g. Vince Young or Matt Leinart), or between a 6'5" quarterback and Shaq.
    References:
    young: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/pla yers/18950/ leinart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/pla yers/18512/
    o'neal: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?stat sId=847 says:
    Shaquille O'Neal. Born: March 6, 1972. Newark, NJ. Height: 7-1. Weight: 325 lbs.

    http://www.wwe.com/superstars/halloffame/andretheg iant/profile/ says:
    Standing 7'4" and weighing between 475 and 540 pounds over the course of his career, he truly earned his nickname of "The Eighth Wonder of the World".

    http://www.altonweb.com/history/wadlow/ says:
    Robert Pershing Wadlow was born, educated and buried in Alton, Illinois. His height of 8' 11.1" qualifies him as the tallest person in history, as recorded in the Guinness Book of Records. At the time of his death he weighed 490 pounds.
  147. Bullshit Article Summary by jamrock · · Score: 1

    "McMaster University recently announced the discovery of the remains of a gigantic ape, measuring over 3 meters tall and weighing up to 600kg, that supposedly co-existed alongside humans."

    McMaster University did no such thing. They did not announce the discovery of Gigantopithecus blackii, which was described in 1935, 70 years ago. They announced that they had narrowed the time frame of its existence, which coincides with that of humans.

    Title of TFA: "Giant ape lived alongside humans" [Emphasis mine]

    In fact, many Bigfoot enthusiasts over the years have floated the theory that Sasquatch, Yeti et al are relic populations of G. blackii. I implore the editors to not accept such deliberately sensationalist ass-dribblings. Kinda lowers the intellectual tone around this fine upstanding fount of unbiased, objective knowledge. [/sarcasm] "Agent Provocateur" indeed.
  148. Re:Confusion & moderators supporting Landover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, I want some of whatever it is you're on!

  149. Re:You can't make this shit up. Wait, people do! by cahalsall · · Score: 1

    I've know one of these apes for a long time. His name is Joe Miller. I think he was one of Samuel Clemmen's body guard on the "Not for Hire".

  150. He lived? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought he died.