Slashdot Mirror
Well I'll Be A Monkey's Uncle
killproc writes "A new report suggests that interbreeding between humans and chimpanzees happened a lot more recently than was previously thought. The report, published in the most recent issue of the journal Nature, estimates that final break between the human and chimpanzee species did not come until 6.3 million years ago at the earliest, and probably less than 5.4 million years ago."
Chimps give great head, no beers necessary.
I don't know, ask Laura Bush!
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Nooo!
But ya fook one goat...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Now when to tell someone to "go fuck a monkey", I know they really can!
This is amazingly simple and no one seems to get it.
7 &cid=15358250
Either you say that humans evolved culture for a reason and then I retort "why did no one else on the planet in all of history do the same?"
Most people however respond that ants didn't evolve culture because there is no reason to. Then I retort, "then why did we?"
Clearly there is an unanswered question no one wants to answer. Because I question what is commonly accepted I've been called an idiot here, but isn't the point of science to hypothesis and question?
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18608
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
It's just random?
That's a cop-out to a serious question and I'm calling bull-shit.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
"This is the critical point that creationists who blather on about "macroevolution vs. microevolution" (a distinction without a difference) and "nobody has ever observed a speciation event" (just not true) willfully miss. Species lines are imposed by observers after the fact; they are not inherent in the nature of living organisms."
Actually, there is a huge distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution has, obviously, been observed and validated. What speciation event has been observed or proven? Now the neo-Darwinists are grasping at straws by spewing out a provocative idea that has no basis in truth, but is being formulated from a faulty presupposition. One thing overlooked in these articles is that since Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is not human, they must concoct another harebrained hypothesis to explain their faulty evolutionary points of view. This isn't a blow to Creationists, it is a blow to Evolution, because, yet again, they've been proven wrong on a supposed human ancestor though, in fairness, many evolutionists had already had sharp disagreements and debunked the Toumai fossil after the grandiose announcement that a human ancestor had been found. However, the follow-up studies that prove that Toumai wasn't human don't get the fanfare that the initial announcement gets. Such is the neo-Darwinian circus. I'm sure Toumai, even though debunked, will be in text books for the next 100 years as a prime example of a human ancestor any way.