news.bbc.co.uk — The popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way is wrong, researchers have told a major US science conference. Instead, they argue, early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts.
Feb 20, 2006 View in Crawl 4
ziffelFeb 20, 2006
Another misleading digg subject line. The article says nothing about humans being at the "bottom of the food chain" (as in, lower than amoeba?? sheesh) - it discusses the evolution of human sociability and co-operation.
maccFeb 20, 2006
"hmmm....where are the bones of evolved dogs...cats....birds....fish...etc .*yawn* how about elephants before they had a trunk....*yawn*... anyway no point in asking people with low common sense."holy s**t.
arcotikFeb 20, 2006
Is this news or something? If we didn't have guns we'd be easy as hell to kill. We're one of the most vulnerable creatures.
baddolphinFeb 20, 2006
During the 1900s, more people were killed by other living creatures than were killed by all wars of all types in all nations combined. Only in the last few decades of the 20th century did we reach a point where we MIGHT be able to argue that we're finally at the top of the food chain. Obviously I'm referring to the Smallpox virus here.
maccFeb 20, 2006
lol zipko
tuxfanFeb 21, 2006
No news, no digg. This is obvious except to fundies that hate science. Some book over rules everything. Sounds like those Islamic fellers in Iraq. Anyways, we all know this.
Closed AccountFeb 21, 2006
We've still got a long way to go. And we're a lot closer to a regression then a progression. If someone cuts the power, I can prove it.
lilparker780Feb 22, 2006
Hello everyone! This is my first post! I think humans have came a long way since evolution. I think we are at the top of the food chain because humans are supeior when it comes to intelligence.
apocdozerFeb 7, 2009
No we are not. And we have never been at the bottom. We might have been prey, but we certainly were not at the bottom.