Re: Cave People

1

Something, something, Road to Wigan Pier, something, something, dripping bread.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
2

I don't think I did that right. I'm going back to puns.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
3

Ain't We Got Pun!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:45 AM
horizontal rule
4

[You know where I'm going to go with this, right?]


Posted by: OPINIONATED THE LATE PHIL HARTMAN | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
5

That'd be in the butt, Bob?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:50 AM
horizontal rule
6

Shorter 5: "No".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:50 AM
horizontal rule
7

On the veldt, most people didn't live to my age. Which probably explains why my hips hurt when I don't run and my ankles hurt when I do. Fucking evolution.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:56 AM
horizontal rule
8

7: Hey, my hips hurt when I don't run. I thought it was from baby-having. (And my knee hurts when I run -- also maybe from baby-having! They fuck you up, your fe-tus-es.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:05 AM
horizontal rule
9

I've only had one baby, but it didn't hurt at all.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
10

That interview is good, and seems hard to argue with. I'm curious to see how I"ll be proved wrong about that!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
11

Right now I'm sitting in a chair, right, and I'm staring into a computer screen, and you know, we're definitely not adapted for those things.

I am doing the same thing, and it turns out that I'm very well-adapted to this. I'm trying to imagine what it is about his evolutionary lineage that makes him ill-adapted to it.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:13 AM
horizontal rule
12

Antisemite.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
13

8: Crazy amounts of back and hip pain in my case. Working on core strength and hip rotators helps but I can't seem to maintain any muscle strength while nursing this kid.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
14

This sort of speculation is always either trivial, tautological or wrong.

By his logic, humans evolved to smoke cigarettes. This is trivially true: Fish, for example, didn't evolve to smoke cigarettes. It's also tautological. If we can do something, we evolved to do it. And, of course, it's also just plain-old nonsense.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
15

re: 14

If we can do something, we evolved to do it.

That's not normally how people understand the claim that we 'evolved' to do something.

There's a fairly standard distinction often invoked between selection for particular traits and selection of particular traits. The ability to smoke cigarettes would be a fairly obvious 'selection of' case, rather than 'selection for'.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
16

I don't think it's just trivially true, nor is it a uniform claim about anything we "can" do -- the fact that nicotine is stimulating and addicting is part of our evolutionary inheritance, and so it's not surprising or a moral weakness that people smoke cigarettes; the problem is that the cigarettes are around, advertised, etc. He's not claiming anything about our response to nicotine specifically having provided a reproductive benefit in the past.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
17

And what 15 said.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
18

You can put a nicotine patch on a fish, but I don't know how long it will stay or if the nicotine will go through the scales.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
19

the fact that nicotine is stimulating and addicting is part of our evolutionary inheritance as well as the evolutionary history of the tobacco plant.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
20

True fact!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:32 AM
horizontal rule
21

Maybe evolution wants all but a few of us to die before 50 and by messing with nature we've created the Tea Party.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
22

A fish without a nicotine patch is like a woman without a bicycle.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
23

I'm thinking of getting e-cigarettes to see if I can't lose the weight I gained when I stopped smoking. It's probably not a good idea for a whole variety of reasons, but still.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
24

I'm not saying that we don't have an inheritance that is the result of natural selection. I'd dispute 15 in only a very trivial way: 15 represents the correct way of thinking about evolution. It is Professor Hanscom who speaks for the common - and incorrect - understanding of evolution.

Like Hanscom, everybody knows that we evolved to find fat and sugar delicious. There's certainly a lot of evidence that people prefer it to, say, beans and lemons. Humans wouldn't exist had they not evolved, and therefore they evolved to like sugar and fat, right?

But there's no reason to suppose that people were evolutionarily selected for that preference. You'd be able to make that sort of argument about many types of food, if humans happened to love it the same way. Certainly protein is a pretty key part of human diets. So is vitamin C. If people craved beans and lemons, Hanscom's argument would be equally valid. He's got a one-part test to determine whether something was evolutionarily selected for humans:

-Is it a human trait?

Okay, maybe he's got a second test: Does it fit into some pleasing narrative?

As 15 and 16 point out, that's not a very useful way to think about evolution.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
25

Humans wouldn't exist had they not evolved, and therefore they evolved to like sugar and fat, right?

That's not even the strawman version of his argument.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
26

Lieberman's argument in the interview is that we evolved at set of preferences and abilities suited for one type of environment and now live in very different one so our previously evolved dietary preferences are now counterproductive. It isn't an unassailable hypothesis by any means, but I don't think you read the article.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
27

I take back 10. I am no longer at all curious.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
28

Other than a very very minor quibble that the semi-serious people who promote the paleo diet not only already understand but also fully agree with this guy's critique, I am totally on board with everything this guy says. Evolutionary fitness and aggressive nanny state-ism is pretty much the Halfordismo platform, aside from the palaces, sports cars, all-female bodyguard squad, etc.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
29

but I don't think you read the article

Look, just because his arguments are ridiculous and he called the journalist conducting the interview "Professor" doesn't mean he didn't read it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
30

I don't usually read linked articles either. But I'm trying to commit science this morning.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
31

But it makes sense for people on the veldt ( non sarcastically!) to crave sugar and fat; food was scarce, and sugar and fat are high calorie and therefore valuable for survival. A strong, universal preference for mint flavor, if it existed, could be dismissed as 'evolved for' in only a tautological sense, but where you have a behavior pattern (craving sugar and fat) that both demonstrably really does exist and which reasonably would support survival 'on the veldt', it means something to say that it was very likely selected for.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
32

28: Takeaway: The paleo diet leaves a man too weak to defend himself!


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
33

food was scarce

Where does this assumption come from?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
34

The assumption is that food was scarce often enough for it to have mattered for evolution. That seems a safe enough assumption given the high incidence of famine in recorded human history and the amount of starvation you see in nature.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
35

That is, food doesn't need to have been scarce all the time. Just that there had to have been periods of scarcity.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
36

The times when food was scarce are exactly the times when evolution is kicking into high gear, as lots of people are dying off. When food is plentiful and everything is hunky-dory evolution slacks off becuase even the mal-adapted are able to survive and reproduce.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
37

...even the mal-adapted are able to survive and reproduce.

Laydeez.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
38

I wouldn't think that food scarcity would have been much of a driving force for evolution at the pre-human primate level. We're fucking omnivores, for chrissakes. Maybe it's there to some extent, but it seems like it that would be dwarfed by evolutionary changes driven by danger-avoidance.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
39

I'm looking forward to 50,000 years for now, when people are living their lives in completely different ways than they do now, and their lifestyles still give them aches and pains, and the evolutionary biologists explain it with, "well, when we all lived on the internet . . ."


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
40

Takeaway: The paleo diet leaves a man too weak to defend himself!

Chinese takeaway in particular.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
41

Couldn't being an omnivore suggest that food scarcity was a driving force for evolution? I mean, eating anything is a good adaptation.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
42

[E]ating anything is a good adaptation.

[Stifles cheap, easy punchlines.]


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
43

I wouldn't think that food scarcity would have been much of a driving force for evolution at the pre-human primate level. We're fucking omnivores, for chrissakes.

Omnivore doesn't mean we can eat absolutely anything except in your case.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
44

Are we talking about evolutionary changes within homo sapiens or evolutionary changes that led to homo sapiens?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
45

I have no idea. When were we on the veldt?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
46

Eating everything seems like a poor evolutionary strategy. I mean, what if you succeed?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
47

When were we on the veldt?

"We," or our evolutionary ancestors?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
48

I mean, when was the last time you personally lived on the African savannah.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
49

I've never been there. But I hear the food is great.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
50

which reasonably would support survival

This is the catch. Just-so stories are easy to write. The genetics of traits regulated by a single locus are pretty easy to test, and it's possible to show that some allele is selected for, or for older genotypes, that there's selective pressure identified in Ka/Ks ratios. Complex traits like metabolism and fat storage are regulated by many genes, much harder to quantify selection there.

That said, people have started paying a lot of attention recently to Leptin. Basically every time that I read about it, I both learn something new and get sucked into a web of worthwhile background reading about metabolism.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
51

44: what's the difference?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
52

Lieberman's argument in the interview is that we evolved at set of preferences and abilities suited for one type of environment and now live in very different one so our previously evolved dietary preferences are now counterproductive. It isn't an unassailable hypothesis by any means, but I don't think you read the article.

These arguments are invariably characterized by a lot of assumptions about the "ancestral environment" that serve a narrative. I am not claiming to know why some foods are more popular than others. I've got no narrative on that.

But in the "ancestral environment" we lacked access to calories but had (comparitively) easy access to other essential nutrients? Maybe. I'd like to see his evidence.

You could tell the evolutionary story about any nutrient that was scarce (that is to say, any nutrient). The existence of a modern preference is suggestive, but not dispositive.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
53

But in the "ancestral environment" we lacked access to calories but had (comparitively) easy access to other essential nutrients? Maybe. I'd like to see his evidence.

Another way of putting it would be: If you're eating the kind of thing that you hunt or gather on the savannah, you'll have had enough protein and trace nutrients long before you've had enough calories. Vitamin C is in nearly everything, for example, and you need very little of it per day.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
54

You could tell an evolutionary story about any nutrient that was scarce and in the past generation became so cheap that it was available in basically unlimited quantities to a very large portion of the human population. There just aren't many other candidates for that.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
55

I agreed with Sifu's 10 and temporarily did with his 27. But with the arrival of urple on the scene has re-awakened my curiosity.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
56

53: Gotcha - I've never seen that case made by any method other than assumption - that calories were scarcer than (say) protein in the ancestral diet. (Certainly Vitamin C was an unhelpful choice of counter-example on my part.)

Surely somebody out there has examined this issue. I've never seen it, though.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
57

54: I'm willing to grant the assumption that if a strong preference meets abundance, the natural consequence is large-scale consumption, so it's unnecessary to actually have abundance in order to discuss this effect. All you need is to demonstrate is the craving.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
58

Iron deficient diets are common in early farmers. Iron metabolism varies a lot between individuals. The effects of maternal anemia on development get a fair amount of attention.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
59

57: But the actual discussion is about over-consumption to the point of adverse effects. That's very different.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
60

53, 56: This is the sort of thing that should be really easily to establish -- so easy that I thought it was non-controversially accepted not because it was never examined but because the evidence was abundant and not in controversy. Coming up with a 'market basket' of available foods, weighted by scarcity and difficulty to obtain, in different hunter-gatherer environments isn't hard (it might be hard to do with precision, but I think the results are clear enough to not require provision), and doing a nutritional analysis of what's in those foods is also not that hard. My belief is that that work has been done, and reveals that calories, rather than other micronutrients, are the primary bottleneck in a hunter-gatherer diet.

Now, I'm pontificating online, I don't actually have the research at my fingertips. But this is my strong impression of the current state of knowledge.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
61

59: We're perhaps talking about two different things.

Lieberman sees a linkage:

veldt-->craving-->overconsumption in situations of abundance.

It's the first link that I think is tenuous. I'm willing to assume the second link. I'm not disputing his program, just his insistence on linking it to the veldt.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
62

51: I don't know whether we are talking about the macroevolutionary changes that occurred in very recent evolutionary history leading to the emergence of homo sapiens, or the microevolutionary changes than have occurred within the species homo sapiens over the course of its history. The scale of changes involved, and the factors that led to them, are obviously quite different.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
63

60: I'd love to see that research.

Yet another way of phrasing my question:

When our hunter-gatherer was chasing that dinosaur*, was he after the fat more than the protein?

I mean, hunting is a shitload of work - and it burns quite a lot of calories. I've always assumed** that it was the protein that motivated the hunt. But maybe protein (like Vitamin C) is easy to come by. Bugs, for instance, are plentiful.

*Yes, yes, I know. But you get my point.
**I have no research either.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
64

61.1: Whether it goes back to the veldt or not, I don't know. Obviously, food has been short for periods of human history more recent that the paleolithic. That would take more knowledge that I have. I'm arguing against the idea that his work is self-evidently nonsense and tautological.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
65

Oh wearisome condition of Humanity!
Born under one law, to another bound


Posted by: Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke, de jure 13th Baron Latimer and 5th Baron Willoughby de Broke | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
66

My belief is that that work has been done, and reveals that calories, rather than other micronutrients, are the primary bottleneck in a hunter-gatherer diet.

You think people literally could not find enough to eat?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
67

Deer hunters use salt licks because?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
68

Sometimes, yes. Animals get hungry sometimes, why would people be different? And it's not really a separate issue, evolutionarily, from evading danger -- fleeing predators takes energy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
69

Salt shakers are too easy to spill from the tree stand?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
70

In 1628 at Warwick castle, Greville was stabbed and killed by Ralph Heywood, a servant who felt he had been cheated in his master's will. Having been stabbed, Greville's physicians treated his wounds by filling them with pig fat rather than disinfecting the cuts. The pig fat turn rancid, infected Greville's cuts and he died in agony four weeks after the attack.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
71

69 to 67.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
72

70 to 56.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
73

Animals get hungry sometimes, why would people be different?

Primates?

(My incredulity rests on assuming that by "get hungry", you mean "starve to death". Of course they get hungry.)


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
74

I mean, sure, some primates starve sometimes. Not all are well adapted, if you know what I mean. And everyone has bad luck sometimes. But we're not like deer.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
75

68: Yes, and yes and yes. The incoherent cuntfucks of Outer Cuntfuckistan seem to be demanding some kind of massively over-detdermined demosnstration of the details of evolutionary nutrition in support of Professor Lieberman's anodyne statements (which are really part of a more general lament on short-term evolutionary biases working against long-term issues). Look, we all know there are massive abuses of evolutionary arguments (I think there may be a catchphrase or something) but progressives going full retard on evolution are an even more ridiculous example of smart people acting stupid than when Ted Cruz does it.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
76

I have no concrete idea what I'm talking about, but don't other animals starve sometimes? Droughts, whatever? Why would primates be different?

Also, if you're hungry enough to be at less than peak fitness, that can kill you through vulnerability to predation rather than by actually starving to death.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
77

OK. What other topics do we want to discuss here today. I've got a lot of writing to do for work.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
78

Maybe a nice cup of tea or something and some careful proofreading to catch any stray epithets before you finalize any professional writing?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
79

73: You're incredulous that people starved to death in the past? I know there are arguments that prior to the greater population densities allowed by agriculture people didn't have large-scale famines as often, but that's not the same as saying paleolithic humans weren't often short enough on food for protections against starvation to have been selected for by evolution.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
80

We're not the only animals that gorge themselves on fat and sugar if given the chance.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
81

76: Of course, it's "Feed, Fuck or Fight" all the way down.


Posted by: Malthus | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
82

81: The bumpersticker sold much better after it was revised to "Gas, Grass, or Ass."


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
83

78: Also typos.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
84

I have collected some evidence that the last common ancestor of both me and my dog lived in an environment extremely deficient in baked goods, for instance.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
85

80: Cows crave salt, but they won't eat potato chips. At least they won't if a drunk guy holds out a handful and says, "Here cow."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
86

I am struck by the fact that treatises on pre-historic calories never say what shape the calories had. Perhaps it is the shape of the calories that has evolved--and that it is this internal mismatch of calorie to calorie receptacle(square pegs, etc.), rather than some notional mismatch with the offerings of our external environment, that our atavistic tastes labour against.


Posted by: Colin McGinn | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
87

They fuck you up, your fe-tus-es

Um, no. As I've explained before, it's the other way around. Don't you know what "fuck up" means?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
88

85:Geez, you've got to neg them first. What a hayseed!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
89

87: Had not checked that thread in a couple of years. Gratified to see that it still reels them in from time time.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
90

88: "Cow" isn't a neg?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
91

To a cow?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
92

The point being our recent (as in the last several hundred thousand years) history of starvation or its lack may be irrelevant.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
93

91: It may have been a steer or a heifer.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
94

paleolithic humans weren't often short enough on food for protections against starvation to have been selected for by evolution

Lactose tolerance seems like a good example within modern humans. People who were lactose tolerant weren't necessarily starving to death because of it, but lactose intoleration seems to have been beneficial enough in certain circumstances to have spread relatively broadly among human populations.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
95

Perhaps this cow doubted your intentions.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
96

Um, swap the tolerance and the intolerance in 94.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
97

I can't quite follow your argument, but lactose tolerance would only be an issue post-agriculture, right? Hunter-gatherers wouldn't have access to (non-human) milk to find out whether or not they could tolerate it.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
98

97: Right.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
99

94: I thought that lactose intolerance (post childhood) was the baseline state and the lactose tolerance spread relatively quickly, quickly enough to suggest that food pressure was a selector in human populations.

95: Wasn't me. I just saw it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
100

99 before seeing 96.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
101

99.1 is exactly my point.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
102

101 before seeing 100.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
103

Now I want a pizza.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
104

"Yet another way of phrasing my question: When our hunter-gatherer was chasing that dinosaur*, was he after the fat more than the protein?"

Yes. And the internal organs, and the bone marrow. All the high-calorie bits. To a modern hunter-gatherer, these, not the lean bits of muscle, are the prime cuts.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
105

You catch a dinosaur by putting salt on its tail.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
106

You can starve to death on lean meat, even if you get enough vitamins and micronutrients.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
107

Rabbit starvation!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
108

Rabbits will kill you for the fat of your marrow.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
109

Weren't there Ice Ages back then? That seems like it could have made it hard to find food.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
110

Head. Wall. Bash. Bash. Bash.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
111

107: I had never heard the term. Nice. And via Wikipedia a semi-on topic passage from Darwin:

... Yet the Gaucho in the Pampas, for months together, touches nothing but beef. But they eat, I observe, a very large proportion of fat, which is of a less animalized nature; and they particularly dislike dry meat, such as that of the Agouti. Dr. Richardson, also, has remarked, "that when people have fed for a long time solely upon lean animal food, the desire for fat becomes so insatiable, that they can consume a large quantity of unmixed and even oily fat without nausea:" this appears to me a curious physiological fact. It is, perhaps, from their meat regimen that the Gauchos, like other carnivorous animals, can abstain long from food. I was told that at Tandeel, some troops voluntarily pursued a party of Indians for three days, without eating or drinking.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
112

110: the brain, also, is calorie-rich.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
113

111: Relic of a misspent urban childhood spent reading wilderness survival manuals.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
114

109: You forget. Primates.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
115

109: Exactly my thought. If you fail to catch the mammoth the sabre toothed tiger will eat your sorry ass.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
116

The church was always there to provide charity.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
117

116 -> 114


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
118

114: It's true that as a primate I do forget (unlike elephants), but I'm not sure how that's relevant.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
119

I always confuse rabbit starvation with rabbit fever. Beaver fever is not as fun as it sounds.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
120

80, 84: I was thinking about that, but maybe dogs developed a lot of their tastes only after living around humans? I think I need to see how a wolf responds to bacon before I form an opinion.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
121

114: Ice ages are associated with climate shifts in the whole planet, not just the parts with glaciers and shit.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:17 AM
horizontal rule
122

The point is that primates don't starve. Wussy animals like deer starve, but primates roll with the punches. We know this because urple.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:22 AM
horizontal rule
123

It's quite possible, on the evidence presented, that urple does not in fact require food in order to live. He may just be eating in an attempt to fit in (NOT WORKING).


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
124

urple could punch out a deer no problem.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
125

I have seen a starving deer in my driveway. I could have shot it and eaten it, but it didn't seem worth it to kill an animal with no fat on it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
126

122: Someone who has documented personal experience in expanded definitions of "food" you must remember.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
127

125: Poor thing. Probably hadn't seen a beluga whale in weeks.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
128

I wonder how many people would call 911 if I shot a deer in my driveway.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
129

Probably fewer than if you shot a deer in your pajamas.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
130

"Starving" is a really lame punchline.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
131

My point wasn't that it's impossible for primates to starve. (Obviously.) Just that it's not built into their nature, like lots of other animals. When primates starve, something has gone wrong.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
132

BUT FOR US, IT'S THE NORM? BASTARD.


Posted by: OPINIONATED DEER | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
133

131: It's not abnormal.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
134

133 was supposed to be to 132.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
135

YOU KNOW MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY DEER THAN BY SNAKEBITE EVERY YEAR, RIGHT?


Posted by: OPINIONATED DEER | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
136

I'M JUST SAYING, WATCH YOURSELF. RACIST.


Posted by: OPINIONATED DEER | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
137

And, to follow on to 131, and just to circle back to my original point, since it seems to have been controversial, although I don't think it should be: since primates aren't starving in the ordinary course, food scarcity isn't the primary driver of primate evolution. Avoiding dangers and attracting mates are more important.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
138

135: On the veldt, there were very few automobile accidents.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
139

When primates starve, something has gone wrong.

I wonder if that's always true, or just at the moment. What were the pressures that led early hominids to start incorporating so much meat in their diets that they underwent morphological modification to adapt to it? Non-trivial, I suggest.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
140

137: I have no idea if primates ordinarily starve or not*, but food scarcity could drive evolution without starvation since fertility declines to very low levels well before anybody dies from lack of food and periods of food scarcity that aren't close to fatal will hurt chances of mating later in life by making for incomplete development and general being short.

* But I think they do.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
141

In 140, when I say "starve" and "starvation," I'm using them to mean starving in the sense of dying from lack of food.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
142

Primates starved in a way we can't understand anymore.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
143

140/141: And I'm using "starve" as a proxy for "experience food scarcity".


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
144

143: Then I even more strongly dispute your premise that primates don't ordinarily starve.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
145

Where are you getting "primates don't starve" from? You're taking it as a premise, and I've never heard anything of the kind before. Modern hunter-gatherers certainly experience food-scarcity sometimes.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
146

142: With weary eyes, Urplik surveyed the icy landscape. Since before the time of his forefather's forefathers each year the Big Ice had crept closer. Food and game became harder to find, but Urplik was nothing if not resourceful and knew that there were many paths to food. Suddenly in the distance he spied a familiar shape! An aquarium!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
147

Modern hunter-gatherers certainly experience food-scarcity sometimes.

"Sometimes" seems to be doing a lot of work here.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
148

Deer only starve sometimes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
149

[WILDLIFE DOCUMENTARY VOICE]: "From 144 and 145 it looks like they're engaging. We'll crouch here and hope they don't notice."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
150

Where are you getting "primates don't starve" from?

Space?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
151

On what basis would primate food scarcity arise in the wild?


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
152

Drought, overpopulation, climate shifts, and Jane Goodall's staff getting the munchies.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
153

None of those are relevant to primates.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
154

Drought isn't relevant to primates?!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
155

Wow. I'm glad I'm a primate then.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
156

Not to aquatic primates.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
157

Not unless it's severe.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
158

Not unless it's severe.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
159

157 to 154.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
160

151. Habitat destruction, man made or natural. Let me google that for you.

Orangutans in particular are interesting to study, Vogel said, because they are the only documented species of non-human ape to store fat when food is abundant in the wild and use these fat reserves when preferred fruits become scarce, presumably something done by our early hominin ancestors.

Vogel and her research team, analyzed samples collected over a five-year period to study the effects of protein recycling, which included examining urinary metabolites and nitrogen stable isotopes - compounds and byproducts in Orangutan urine. What they determined is that these primates are able to endure prolonged protein deficits without starving to death by consuming higher protein leaves and inner bark and obtaining energy from their stored body fat and even muscles for an extended period of time when low-protein fruit is unavailable.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
161

Oh, man, I had to turn away from the thread for a bit to provide wise counsel to a puzzled coworker, and the last fifteen comments left me with literal tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
162

I love this thread. I wish Urple hadn't boxed himself into a corner in 153, an uncharacteristically badly played move.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
163

162 gets it completely right. Except the part about loving this thread, I mean.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
164

146 had me smothering guffaws here in my cubicle.


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
165

I'm not lazy, I'm just evolved to eliminate any unnecessary expenditures of energy.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
166

OT: I just saw Fran Liebowitz on the street.

Fran Liebowitz looks older and shorter in person.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
167

Was she smoking?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
168

Loosely on topic, my gym owner/appealing to me nutcase who had been veering increasingly towards some kind of Italian futurist/protofascist position for a while ("Reason will teach you nothing! Strength and movement create will!") has now moved into weird conspiracy theories about how powerful, non-grain eating hunter gatherers built the original pyramids which were where the Bermuda Triangle is now and then taught the Egyptians how to make them, except the Egyptians introduced slavery (?) At least this is what I can figure out from some weird FB posts of his.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
169

OT: I just saw Fran Liebowitz on the street.

Neat! I watched the Martin Scorsese documentary about her, a couple years ago, and was charmed.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
170

Fran Liebowitz looks older and shorter in person.

So did Glenda Jackson the time I literally bumped into her n the street. Perhaps it's a well kept secret that all female celebs are actually little old ladies IRL.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
171

Not sure where the primates don't have food scarcity thing is coming from, but it's a theory (google tells me Richard Wrangham's, specifically) for the differences between chimps and bonobos. He's been saying it for like 20 years now. See here and here.

The answer may lie in the history of the habitats they occupy. Both species of primates live in tropical forests along the Zaire River -- chimps north of the river, bonobos to the south. Their environments seem to be quite similar today. But about 2.5 million years ago, there seems to have been a lengthy drought in southern Zaire that wiped out the preferred food plants of gorillas and sent the primates packing. After the drought ended, the forests returned, but the gorillas did not. Chimpanzees in this environment south of the river had the forest to themselves, and could exploit the fiber foods that had previously been eaten by gorillas -- foods that are still eaten by gorillas to the north. With this additional food to tide them over between fruit trees, they could travel in larger, more stable parties, and form strong social bonds. They became bonobos.

Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
172

Good christ a lot of this thread is annoying. La la la oh well look, butts.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
173

Everybody seems so tense today. What's wrong with inventing a zoological fact and letting people who got their zoology from google rebut it?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
174

Some types of Hyrax have a proportionally larger brain than do humans.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
175

OT: I just saw Fran Liebowitz on the street.

Neat! I watched the Martin Scorsese documentary about her, a couple years ago, and was charmed.

I saw this, and thought "The hell? Why on earth would Scorsese do a documentary about her, of all people?" Then I clicked on the link, and realized I was thinking of Fran Drescher, not Fran Liebowitz.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
176

The Hydrox was actually the original cream-filled sandwich cookie and the Oreo the cheap rip-off.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
177

If the makers of Hydrox cookies hadn't chosen a product name better suited to a disinfectant cleaning spray, they might have a larger share of the cookie market.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
178

168 is awesome.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
179

Lieberman's book is good.

That "Comanche Empire" book that emerson recommended discussed rabbit starvation and how the Comanche need to raid/trade with agricultural people or they would die of it.


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
180

I'm fairly certain that I first heard the time "rabbit starvation" here. Probably not from Emerson. We didn't overlap for long.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
181

Everybody seems so tense today.

I hope you don't mean me; cuz I'm a happy boy! (hubba hubba hubba hubba)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
182

Do the five day drag once more
No one, nothing else that bugs me
More than workin' for the rich man
But hey, I'll change that scene one day.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
183

I meant incoherent cuntfucks really friendly like.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
184

Music more topical for this thread. From before they sold out, man.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
185

Can I bring myself to write even one of these fucking evaluations?

Look out mama there's a white boat coming up the river ... don't look they're here to deliver the mail .... so the power's that be left me here to do the thinking ...


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
186

Don't even try to pretend that you're doing something more productive.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
187

L-E-B-O-W-I-T-Z.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
188

Correcting somebody's spelling on the internet? Don't think so.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
189

185: Can't you just copy and paste? Protip: Be sure to get the right pronouns if you can.


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
190

I want more of 168.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
191

Zie was very conscientious about beginning projects but in some cases zir follow through could have been improved.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
192

You need something to start with for that work ... And I actually take these somewhat seriously* for about half the folks. I've got 2-3 hard ones that I have to think about.

*Because I fight the system from within, man.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
193

190 -- here's the most recent comment, with some mild googleproofing:

these p/yramids went under water at least 13,000 years ago. There are many p/yramids all over the world and under the o/cean. (C/hina actually buries them with forests) The p/yramids of E/gypt were not built 3000 years ago. Everything we were taught in school about t/his is pretty much impossible to do. The humans of that time must of found them perfectly b/uilt and p/robably e/mptied and put their own p/haroahs into them.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
194

193: That sounds like von Däniken.

Also reminds me of those classic lyrics:

The ocean is a desert, with it's life underground,
And a perfect disguise above.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
195

"I believe in evidence not manipulation, for me pyramids likely built by pre-ag civs that could not handle post-ag disease. Not 3000 years old"


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
196

195: Ok, that's definitely a whole new level of crazy.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
197

"W/hat does that h/ave to do with a/nything? All m/edia is c/ompromised"


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
198

193 is good stuff.

Is there any chance this could relate to aquatic apes?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
199

Did these pre-ag humans have some lost technology? Or is it that humans were super-strong before grains weakened us?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
200

The syntax and style of 195 exactly match the way my senior colleague writes.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
201

I love this guy. Is there any chance that he's working up to attaining a paleo-enough state that he will be able to generate his own pyramids?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
202

198.2: Is there any chance this could relate to aquatic apes?

I think it's probably just coincidental that ogged did a post today.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
203

194.last: I always thought it was "the perfectest skies above".


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
204

I mean, what if the real paleo people lived underwater where they built there pyramids? Maybe the right diet is kelp and lobster.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
205

their arg what


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
206

Haven't we established that naturally occurring kelp is a myth, and that it's an industrial product produced by Scotsmen?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
207

Plutocrats from an earlier age; they built underwater cities to the wrath of the civilization they wrecked with their deceptive liberal policies. They constructed pyramids in honor of their escaping.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
208

206: This was not kelp as you or I know it. Kelp occurred naturally, but not in a way we can understand anymore.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
209

OK, 5 of 10 done (did 2 earlier). I'm a zombie. I noted that they all showed insufficient enthusiasm for the underwater pyramid project.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
210

OK, 5 of 10 done (did 2 earlier).

You're being disturbingly productive today. You'll make the rest of us look bad.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
211

And it gets better, I logged back in and did one more. Just the 4 (hard ones) left!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
212

204: aquatic apes invented crossfit. Kipping pull-ups are actually a vestigial swimming motion.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
213

209.mid: I'm a zombie.

Last evaluation I did read: "I like him for the brains he brings to the table."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
214

The aquatic apes perfected the paleo lifestyle, but then made the mistake of interbreeding with the grain loving pig-chimps.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
215

Because they knew that then their children would never go hungry again.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
216

Phew, JP saves 214 from sounding horribly, horribly racist.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
217

214: CFAP!


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 6:21 PM
horizontal rule
218

I feel like I should have some substantive information to contribute to this thread, but I think it kind of works better without any.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
219

Substance is overrated.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
220

Style is great, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 8-13 11:01 PM
horizontal rule
221

Substance would weigh this thread down, so I'll refrain from providing any. I don't understand how anyone can claim aquatic apes built the pyramids when all overwhelming evidence points to aliens. Also, inquiring minds want to know: what sank Atlantis? My vote is early grain domestication produced a race of morbidly obese proto homo sapiens, and their collective girth sank the island. That or their lack of fitness made them lose the war against Neanderthals, who sank Atlantis out of spite.


Posted by: Britta | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
222

Heretic! Everybody knows that anything remotely pyramid shaped was built by the ancient, wise inhabitants of the tunnels beneath the earth (mostly under Tibet). More recently they ancient wise ones have lost interest in pyramids and started building UFOs instead. My guess is that they're Denisovans.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 7:15 AM
horizontal rule
223

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUEjzVQwKo

Nice aquarium images.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
224

From the link at 222:

The cave has been closed since October 25, 1632.

Sounds like a challenge. Or a movie set-up.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
225

222 is great. I particularly like the "concave hollow Earth" idea that we're already living on the inside surface of the planet, and the Sun is in the interior.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
226

Not just the sun, the entire universe. You're a physicist, what mechanism in a concave hollow earth would appear to the unenlightened as dark energy?

Further Hollow Earth gems here.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
227

Sometimes it sucks to miss threads in real time, as I definitely fell for Urple's trolling during my late read through. At several points, I kept shaking my computer and (mentally) shouting "OF COURSE PRIMATES AND EARLY HUMANS STARVE. IT'S CALLED WINTER." (Or, for primates still living in the tropics, DROUGHT, FLOODING, etc.)


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
228

227: NONE OF THOSE ARE RELEVANT TO PRIMATES.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
229

Following links from the one in 222, I learned this about Erich von Däniken:

Von Däniken wrote his first book while working as manager of the Hotel Rosenhügel in Davos, Switzerland. He was convicted of several financial crimes, including fraud, shortly after its publication. The revenue from the sales of his book allowed him to repay his debts and leave the hotel business. Von Däniken wrote his second book, Gods from Outer Space, while in prison.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
230

APB for those in the Bay Area am at El Rio for 10th anniversary party for a nonprofit am on board of and the bands are killing it. $10 bucks! And what the hell else are you going to do?


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
231

229:

Ah, that reminds me. My younger paternal aunt gifted a von Däniken book to my brother because he was interested in physics. Seems like he stayed in the legal fraud business.


Posted by: Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
232

Von Däniken not my brother, that is.


Posted by: Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq. | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
233

I just love that he got his start with shady financial shenanigans in Davos, of all places.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
234

228 made me laugh overly hard. This thread really did get under my skin.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
235

Too bad his theme park didn't work out.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
236

(Von Däniken, not Tiny Hermaphrodite's brother.)


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
237

You're glad TH's brother had a failed park.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
238

I just think Six Flags Over Urea is not a very hygienic concept.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
239

That's a common misconception. Urine is sterile and water sports don't even require a condom.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 11- 9-13 6:40 PM
horizontal rule