What is Digg?242 Comments
- gllopc, on 10/11/2007, -8/+173Because Jenna Jameson looks better without hair.
- suzikitar, on 10/11/2007, -34/+159no, no it couldn't
- Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -24/+134Humans are primates, and the most recent non-human ancestors of humans were primates. Your suggestion has no basis in fact.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -19/+113more enlightened quotes from redstateproud:
On police brutality and the right for citizens to ask for a badge number: "The police have a job to do. Everyone whines about police overstepping their bounds but their job is to maintain public order. Those who interfere should be dealt with accordingly."
On global warming: "Even if "global warming" were a real threat, scientists would discover a solution such as this one. So everybody calm down. Terrorism = real threat. "Global Warming" = imagined threat."
On the president's failed immigration bill: "It's the American People who should feel humiliated. The President is trying to tighten our borders for our protection. This is a no-brainer."
I'm betting he's one of the few people that read "1984" and thought "wow, what a GREAT idea!" - LarianLeQuella, on 10/11/2007, -16/+79Oh boy, here come the religious slackjaws.... Next they will say stupid stuff like "If we evolved from apes, why are there apes?" or some crap like that...
- chicken101, on 10/11/2007, -9/+46"evolution fanboys" better known as scientists. Yeah, who needs 'em! Moron.
- inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -18/+52@redstate
You start showing me fossil plant material from Eden or god's fingernail clippings and I'll give your "belief" some credence. - CaptShmo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Burried as innacurate, i have so much hair i should probably have a tail
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -13/+45Cmon, guys. Like we should really be fooled by evidence.
@scrambled
I think you mean apes. Primates is the general term for us all. - norman619, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35Humans are not hairless. Our bodyhair is only MUCH shorter and finer. It only looks like we have less body hair.
- mojoel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+40Last time I checked homosapiens for the most part had hair. Not like a Wookie, mind you.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -12/+42My butt-crack would have to disagree on this one.
- goodoldharris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31Why do 90% of articles about natural selection make it sound like genes evolve with foresight and purpose? That's not how it works. Instead of "we lost our fur in order to control our body temperature when we adapted to life on the hot Savannah", it should say something like "In the conditions of the hot Savannah, individuals without fur were better able to survive and reproduce than individuals with fur." To make it worse, this article is written not by a journalist but by a scientist. It's no surprise that so many people doubt natural selection when the scientists writing about it describe it in a very misleading way as if it were some sort of magic.
- imants, on 10/11/2007, -3/+30There used to be other species of man. Such as neanderthals, for instance. But they were dominated by our species and wiped out. Look up "hominids" sometime, and you'll read about them.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+35All humans have lost their primate body hair ?
Mark Pagel has obviously never seen the Lebanese woman who lives next door to me
:P - dustblaaze, on 10/11/2007, -7/+31According to my Armenian coworker, this article is BS.
- SimianSamurai, on 10/11/2007, -5/+26@doodlebumm
Maybe 120,000 years ago human tribes warred with and killed them all. Hell, we've practically done that with the Great Ape in the last 500 years, and orangutans, and chimps... - naios, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23it has to do with evolutionary rates of change and the rates of the migration of the human population out of Africa. ***** sapiens as we know them originated somewhere in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Here, because the land area was small, there was little room for major genetic variation. Also, the climate and natural sexual selection brought about a more streamlined direction to the evolution of the species. ie: as more attractive mates arrived on the scene, the less attractive ones never mated/made it past puberty, and thus their genes disappeared from the gene pool entirely. This made it so that about 100,000 years ago, all ***** sapiens looked about the same: dark-skinned and relatively short.
Then they began to migrate. There are a number of theories as to why this happened, I don't remember most of them at this point, but needless to say, within 90,000 years there were humans on every corner of the planet. Here again we see the loss of genetic information that describes the "missing links" between what humans first looked like when they got to Europe, and the Caucasians that live there now. It is important to note that in terms of evolution 90,000 years isn't much of a time span. The first species of human-type apes appeared, ***** habilis, appeared 2 million years ago. to put that into perspective: think about if you leave a fruit out on your porch, untouched. You go back 3 days later, and it'll have ripened a little, so some minor change has occurred. Now go back 2 months later, and that fruit will be very rotten.
That's the difference in time-scale we're talking about. A long time period in a single area, and there will be more time for change to occur and this evolutionary change will erase its own tracks as the *less desired/less effective* genes are slowly replaced by new genes in the species' gene pool.
Now after people began to move across the world, they spread themselves out. This means that whatever genes are most advantageous in different regions are the ones that will be promoted the most. But because the time scale is so incredibly small, there was no chance for any of the races to actually become a distinct species.
This does not mean that evolution did not occur however! Skin color is an obvious example. Another is alcohol processing. Areas like East Asia where water was relatively disease free, brewing never became a central factor as a way to get potable water while living in individual settlements, thus many asians today have a lot of trouble dealing with alcohol. Europeans on the other hand used brewing as a standard way to clean water, and thus in an environment where ale was safer to drink than water, a significantly higher tolerance to alcohol was developed and encoded in the genetic information of Europeans. (don't believe me that there's a gene that controls how well you handle alcohol? think again, its been found in mice. Too bad i'm not motivated enough to look it up.
Other examples include fat storage: some *races* (Inuit Indians for example) are extremely effective at storing fat (they need it as they only get a plentiful food source during the summer and the extra fat helps keep them warm in the winter) while other *races* seem to be less so.
Another note to make is that because of the complexity of the modern brain and its function, there has been little observable evolution in terms of the human brain, meaning that while we can say we're a higher species than a chimp because we can do calculus, there seems to be no difference in mental ability and race. Thus making the whole *classifying* concept a relatively moot point.
There are enormous numbers of differences, but I only listed a few to wet your appetite. - santiago1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23
Chewie, Is that you? - Dquinz63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22Thats funny, my Armenian roommate said the same thing. Weird huh?
- FlagrantDrugUse, on 10/11/2007, -15/+33@ redstateproud
I guess you're going to tell us next that the Earth is only 6000 years old? - scrambled, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22"I think you mean apes. Primates is the general term for us all."
You're right. Not thinking. - IShouldBeWorkin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20*waits for the reply from the creationists* something like 'hair is the physical growth of sin, thats why theres so much of it around the privates of those who engage in premarital sex and why hitler had a moustache"
- Navicerts, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19@FlapJaw
It's no wonder education is going down the tubes when people get laughed at for asking an honest question, kids are such ass holes. Let me clear this up for you.
Example 1: "There are still ape's around, so we couldn't have evolved from apes, so there MUST be a God!"
Example 2: "If we evolved from ape's why are there still apes around today? They didn't evolve? Did we branch off, or are we two different species entirely?"
You see, one of these is an honest, valid question (albeit, uninformed, but thats WHY you go to school). The other is an argument an idiot would make. Learn to recognize the difference and get off your high horse. - feebie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21"Do your grandparents look like monkeys? I DON'T THINK SO!"
That one always makes me cringe. - joshlrogers, on 10/11/2007, -13/+28@redstate
I have been unfortunate enough to run across your posts in many threads and sir I must say............ignorance must be bliss..... - feebes, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19My butt diggs this down as innacurate
- poolboy82, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Tell that to the ever growing patch of hair on the middle of my back. I call it 'The Stranger'. I believe the hair from the crack of my backside is migrating toward the top of my head. Once there, it shall feast upon my full head of hair and carry nutrients back to its 'Homeland' leaving me bald. I'll never have a 'Sweater Vest' of body hair but I bet I have a nice pair of Perma-boxers.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16I don't know about you, but I still see some pretty hairy people.
- ScornForSega, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18The aquatic ape theory is the only one that makes sense.
Case in point: Chimpanzees can't swim but an infant human knows to hold it's breath when it goes underwater.
And hair is not only a horrible aquatic insulator, but it also degrades swimming performance. It only makes sense that the apes that could swim faster and longer would be more prone to thrive on a mostly seafood based diet. - joe122370, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17i do like the occasional banana so maybe I did come from apes?
- joshlrogers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Silly ManicMouse, the bible is read literally only when it furthers their cause and it is read metaphorically only when it furthers their cause and it is completely disregarded when neither reading will further their cause. Case and point 'Love thy neighbor' can't be taken either way to further their cause so it is completely disregarded...
- Calcularius, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12We are not hairless. We have very fine hair all over our bodies. (some even, not so fine)
A gorilla and a human have the same number of hairs per square inch.
from national geographic:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngkids/0504/us.html
"Are We Naked?
Some people call humans "naked apes." That's not entirely accurate, though. An adult human's body is covered with about five million hairs—the same number that an adult gorilla has. However, human hair is generally shorter and thinner than gorilla hair. You may have to look closely to see the hairs on most of your body." - merlingen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12What a coincidence, I asked my self the same question this morning while I was shaving my ears.
- dyreschlock, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11evolution.. we (the collective 'we') evolved past the point of fur because we began wearing clothes to keep us warm.. much like developing tools to accomplish tasks, developing clothes allowed us to venture to parts of the earth colder than normal.
- Tankslap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10If the back hair meets up with the hair on the back of your neck, you will have one seriously rockin' mullet.
- stargatesteve, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13ahh, don't worry. If you ever have problems believing people are related to monkeys, just come back to digg.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10And gravity.
- TheSeraph, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10ever see Ron Jeremy? We haven't lost our body hair.
- ajrizzo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"You look like Robin Williams' knuckles...."
- JonLatane, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12@doodlebumm
The reason that there is no "medium" species between humans and chimps is because of how divergent evolution works. There was a common ancestor that spread to many places. In one place, the more human-like traits of said ancestor were beneficial to survival and reproduction. In another, the chimp-like traits were. Because certain traits made it more likely for different members of the species to reproduce, the occurrance of these traits made reproduction easier.
It's likely that, at some point, moderately cataclysmic changes in each population's environment made it even harder to survive without the human- or chimp-like traits, accelerating and forcing speciation.
The closest thing to this medium species you speak of is the common ancestor. It most likely no longer exists because over millions of years, all of its populations developed to suit their environments better. One species of ape is probably closer to it than any of the others, though. Which, I couldn't tell you. - FlapJaw, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Um, humans are not hairless. You have hair pretty much ALL over your body.
- ElectricSoup, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Sexual selection explained by Mark Pagel of the University of Reading and by a digg.com post.
Mark Pagel:
"Once hairlessness had evolved this way, it may have become subject to sexual selection—being a feature in one sex that appealed to another."
digg.com:
"Because we'd look ugly with hair. Duh. Who'd want to ***** an ape?"
ROTFL - McTendo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15Can't we leave religion out of this? I'm religious and I always wanted to know the science behind why some parts of our body grow hair and why others don't. I'm sure the hell not going to search the bible to see why we have pubic hair, so this is very interesting to me.
edit: oops, saw you typed religious "slackjaws". Nevermind. - user777, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9let's go shave a monkey and see
- selrahc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I think that a shaved head on a girl is rather unattractive. Some hair is good.
- Cyber_Akuma, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11No body hair?
*looks at his arms, legs, and chest*
I guess I still have some evolving to do. - dmbfan2007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I'm pretty dang hairy...friends, roommates have called me Wookie and Sasquatch.
- xstarsprinklesx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Humans aren't the only mammals with very little fur/hair. Look at elephants or dolphins.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Hairless? They obviously never saw Borat's movie.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 237 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is