speedz99 145 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I mean...I like my girls hairy, but this is a little too much. Oh yeah, and the researchers at Harvard and MIT are probably not just making crap up to further the theory of evolution. Enjoy.http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17...t.ap/index.html Link to post Share on other sites
FOOSE1 0 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I mean...I like my girls hairy, but this is a little too much. Oh yeah, and the researchers at Harvard and MIT are probably not just making crap up to further the theory of evolution. Enjoy.http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17...t.ap/index.html This will be another Creation vs. Evolution argument thread. I'll just say up front I'm not going to argue in this one. However, this one line says it all to me . . .The researchers hypothesize . . . Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The researchers hypothesize . . .Whereas the creationists base their beliefs on concrete scientific fact.Oh wait, they don't. Link to post Share on other sites
mtdesmoines 3 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 quote -- Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, said, "My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely." -- unquoteThere's another egghead whose research would have benefitted from being in the parking lot of Sully's Tap three minutes after close. Link to post Share on other sites
Swift_Psycho 1 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Ugh, I think the title summed it up nicely. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 well if it makes you feel any better, the "humans" from 9 to 5 million years ago are indistinguishable from a chimpanzee to the average person.see Ardipithecus ramidus. even lucy came a couple million years later.maybe the ardi did know the difference between species back then, but to a human observer i think we would hardly have been able to tell. Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Well it would explain a lot about Matt ... and Michael Jackson Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Yeah "human" might be a pretty crude term to use for these things.Makes sense though I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
screech 0 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Hahah. The title is misleading.Human's weren't humans then. It's like saying polar bears and crocidiles used to **** because at some point approximately 3 billion years ago, they're dna went down seperate paths. Well maybe not quite, since we share extremely similar dna with chimps, but you get the idear. Link to post Share on other sites
copernicus 0 Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Hahah. The title is misleading.Human's weren't humans then. It's like saying polar bears and crocidiles used to **** because at some point approximately 3 billion years ago, they're dna went down seperate paths. Well maybe not quite, since we share extremely similar dna with chimps, but you get the idear.You need to reread the article, the title isnt at all misleading. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Ooooook, MODERN humans are different than the likes of these chimp-lovers. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Used to?after it caused this creation, they stopped:also, do realize the sheer coincidence you created on the front page by posting in this thread? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now