NationStates Jolt Archive

It does. And you know why? I'll tell you why...

It's because I have to write a paper about the evolution of the fossil hominids.
Without evolution, I wouldn't have to write this paper. Because, frankly, I'd be an amoeba, and amoebas don't write papers. Y'all understand?

Your mom

Yeah.... buuuuuuuuuuuuut

Evolution also invented beer

Maybe that should be the argument of your paper. Just write a paper saying you don't believe in evolution, and as such, you cannot write about fossil hominids' participation in this fallacy.

Maybe that should be the argument of your paper. Just write a paper saying you don't believe in evolution, and as such, you cannot write about fossil hominids' participation in this fallacy.
briiiiiiilliant!

Yeah.... buuuuuuuuuuuuut

Evolution also invented beer
True, true...

briiiiiiilliant!

It would be like 3 sentences long. It wouldn't take you any time at all.

Yeah evolution sucks! i hate having opposable thumbs!!!!!1!!!oneone!1eleven!!!

It would be like 3 sentences long. It wouldn't take you any time at all.
Perhaps this will work.


While I do have utmost respect for the scientific ethic of Darwin, I cannot agree with his theory of evolution due to religious differences. As such, this paper becomes unfeasable, as I cannot write a paper that goes against my conscience. I wish you the best of luck grading everyone else's papers, but I cannot offer an opinion in good conscience.

Perhaps this will work.

Yeah, you should make a real paper too.

Yeah, you should make a real paper too.
well, of course, I am halfway done with the real paper, but I felt like whining for a bit.

While I do have utmost respect for the scientific ethic of Darwin, I cannot agree with his theory of evolution due to religious differences. As such, this paper becomes unfeasable, as I cannot write a paper that goes against my conscience. I wish you the best of luck grading everyone else's papers, but I cannot offer an opinion in good conscience.
Pure gold.... let 'em sweat on that one

Because, frankly, I'd be an amoeba, and amoebas don't write papers. Y'all understand?
Actually, you'd probably be a more primitive form of life than exists, even more so than archaebacteria and cyanobacteria. Amoebae evolved long after the first life emerged.

Once, when we had to do a report on ancient Greece in middle school, I switched the font to that one with greek lettering and claimed I typed it in Greek for extra credit. The teacher was so angry until I pulled out the real report.

well, of course, I am halfway done with the real paper, but I felt like whining for a bit.

Hand in the fake report to him personally after class, and see what he says, then produce the real report.

Fuck your professor up with a switchblade.

Fuck your professor up with a switchblade.
Or that :p

I must tell you, I am personally fascinated by the evolution of hominids (seriously).

Think about it. Ergaster, Erectus and Neanderthalis were all three around just a short time ago. Three different species of obligate bipeds, each minding their own business in different parts of the world.

Then 50,000 years ago Homo Sapiens appears in the timeline, the great Human Diaspora spreads to all corners of the globe, and all three lineages suddenly and mysteriously vanish. Why? How?

Most Anthrapologists believe that competition for resources drove our closest relatives to extinction. But what if that isn't the whole story? What if the reality was much more sinister than that?

Even though there is less genetic diversity in the entire human genome than in one tribe of chimpanzees, people still find all kinds of excuses to segregate each other. Genocide is a characteristic that is unique to our species. We have made it quite clear that we won't hesitate to carry out acts of mass murder against each other.

It is quite possible that our closest relatives were the first victims of our xenocidal tendencies. The near simultaneous extinctions of Ergaster, Erectus and Neanderthalis are way too close together to be mere coincidence. They could very well be the first instances of calculated mass murder in the history of this earth. And should that be so, it throws the 'selfish gene' theory right out the window. Only after eradicating those most closely related to us did we proceed to wipe out the other species of this earth.

I must tell you, I am personally fascinated by the evolution of hominids (seriously).
Well you apparently aren't too fascinated by evolution itself, as I shall address later.

Think about it. Ergaster, Erectus and Neanderthalis were all three around just a short time ago. Three different species of obligate bipeds, each minding their own business in different parts of the world.

Then 50,000 years ago Homo Sapiens appears in the timeline, the great Human Diaspora spreads to all corners of the globe, and all three lineages suddenly and mysteriously vanish. Why? How?
Fair enough, and though palaeoanthropology differs slightly from your description, the main thing is please show Linnaean taxonomy correctly. The genus and species are both to be italicised, or underlined if that's not possible, and the genus is to be capitalised, and the species should be lowercase. Yes, it is ergaster, erectus, neanderthalensis, and sapiens. And you misspelled neanderthalensis.

Most Anthrapologists believe that competition for resources drove our closest relatives to extinction. But what if that isn't the whole story? What if the reality was much more sinister than that?

Even though there is less genetic diversity in the entire human genome than in one tribe of chimpanzees, people still find all kinds of excuses to segregate each other. Genocide is a characteristic that is unique to our species. We have made it quite clear that we won't hesitate to carry out acts of mass murder against each other.

It is quite possible that our closest relatives were the first victims of our xenocidal tendencies. The near simultaneous extinctions of Ergaster, Erectus and Neanderthalis are way too close together to be mere coincidence. They could very well be the first instances of calculated mass murder in the history of this earth. And should that be so, it throws the 'selfish gene' theory right out the window. Only after eradicating those most closely related to us did we proceed to wipe out the other species of this earth.
You see, if you didn't add in that whole throwing out the selfish gene theory, I would not mind your theory too much. You don't even seem to realise that your theory and Dawkins's are not mutually exclusive. And that his is certainly more thought out than yours. I do not believe that humans had the capability for xenocide on your scale until quite recently, but I guess it's possible. It is still much more likely that the other homonids were outcompeted, not murdered. Too large scale of a task, methinks.

Even though there is less genetic diversity in the entire human genome than in one tribe of chimpanzees, people still find all kinds of excuses to segregate each other. Genocide is a characteristic that is unique to our species. We have made it quite clear that we won't hesitate to carry out acts of mass murder against each other.

That’s a fucking lie. Scientists have witnessed monkeys (although it could have been another primate) eradicate another group of monkeys for no reason, even though there were plenty of resources for both groups, the other monkeys posing no threat, etc. I’ll be able to report with the exact species tomorrow, if you like.


It is quite possible that our closest relatives were the first victims of our xenocidal tendencies. The near simultaneous extinctions of Ergaster, Erectus and Neanderthalis are way too close together to be mere coincidence. They could very well be the first instances of calculated mass murder in the history of this earth. And should that be so, it throws the 'selfish gene' theory right out the window. Only after eradicating those most closely related to us did we proceed to wipe out the other species of this earth.

Could you please elaborate upon that? As in, explain why that would disprove the “selfish gene” theory.

Yeah.... buuuuuuuuuuuuut

Evolution also invented beer
just to put a bad atmosphere over this place... beer invented drunk drivers!

Once, when we had to do a report on ancient Greece in middle school, I switched the font to that one with greek lettering and claimed I typed it in Greek for extra credit. The teacher was so angry until I pulled out the real report.

wow, we had an identical middle school experience. how bizarre.

just to put a bad atmosphere over this place... beer invented drunk drivers!
No.... they discovered beer.....




and invented cars

Here is an extreme view on evolution:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/giggle

Any way we invented beer because at the time it was safer to drink than most water. Would you drink from a stream you use to dump dodo, wash cloths, and bath in?