NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

But without those advancements, we would never have tacos. Therefore, we are better.

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
WE ARE DEVO!

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??
"Nice one we're less stupid than to attack a much stronger creature than ourselves nowadays"

"Nice one we're less stupid than to attack a much stronger creature than ourselves nowadays"

hey now it takes a lot of courage to walk in the gaping jaws of a large cat with very sharp teeth.

hey now it takes a lot of courage to walk in the gaping jaws of a large cat with very sharp teeth.

What is the difference between courage and stupidity really?

What is the difference between courage and stupidity really?

one gets put in heroic books

one gets put in heroic books

True.

hey now it takes a lot of courage to walk in the gaping jaws of a large cat with very sharp teeth.
Yeah 'courage' isn't something worth having when humanity could now just shoot it in the face and wander off.

Yeah 'courage' isn't something worth having when humanity could now just shoot it in the face and wander off.

would you walk up to a lion and shoot it in the face??

would you walk up to a lion and shoot it in the face??

Not really, but I might take it out from a really good distance.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

so what should we be evolving towards?

I personally think that the human race has de evolved
Evolution does not work that way!

a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

But see, now we have them in zoos. We mastered nature, but now we face her uprising.

would you walk up to a lion and shoot it in the face??

From across the street, with a high powered hunting rifle? Yes.

so what should we be evolving towards?

eh i think we just peaked already and we're on the decline i havent gotten far enough to say what the peak is. I came up with this like 20 minutes ago

eh i think we just peaked already and we're on the decline i havent gotten far enough to say what the peak is. I came up with this like 20 minutes ago

We can tell. :D

would you walk up to a lion and shoot it in the face??
No, why would I do that unless it was very obviously in a huff with me and threatening my peoples etc.

one gets put in heroic books
That'd be stupidity. You'd be amazing at how many mythological plots are driven by the complete lack of foresight of all involved.

eh i think we just peaked already and we're on the decline i havent gotten far enough to say what the peak is. I came up with this like 20 minutes ago

Again, evolution does not have a "peak". There's no ultimate goal that evolution is ultimately working towards.

Again, evolution does not have a "peak". There's no ultimate goal that evolution is ultimately working towards.

i'm still interested in what it would be, if there was one, such that we already hit it and have declined

eh i think we just peaked already and we're on the decline i havent gotten far enough to say what the peak is. I came up with this like 20 minutes ago

I lied apparently this name is already taken but the theory seems a bit different like us turning into goblins or something like that

i'm still interested in what it would be, if there was one, such that we already hit it and have declined

It peaked with Teddy Roosevelt, I'd say.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump.
I'm pretty sure the spear-wielding, loin cloth-clad humans jumped at the sound of a lion roaring too.

I'm pretty sure the spear-wielding, loin cloth-clad humans jumped at the sound of a lion roaring too.

And though something like Oh shit I wish i had a hunting rifle to deal with this lion, instead of a crappy spear.

ok new example how many of our ancestors were deathly afraid of things like storms, tight spaces, being fat, and bats/bugs/garden snakes??

And though something like Oh shit I wish i had a hunting rifle to deal with this lion, instead of a crappy spear.

As opposed to Teddy, who would've yelled "Shut the fuck up, bitch" and then proceed to bitchslap it to death with its own severed arm. That he ripped off.

As opposed to Teddy, who would've yelled "Shut the fuck up, bitch" and then proceeded to bitchslap it to death with its own severed arm. That he ripped off.

Teddy Roosevelt: Our only real badass president.

Teddy Roosevelt: Our only real badass president.

Teddy was pretty close to blind by the time he took his hunting trip to Africa. So his guide would hide in the bushes and fire at the same time he did. So that way he though he shot the thing.

Teddy Roosevelt: Our only real badass president.

youre right jackson might be a close second but we've had some pretty badass VP's, take Cheney, he shot a guy

youre right jackson might be a close second but we've had some pretty badass VP's, take Cheney, he shot a guy

Pfft. Here's a list of Jackson's accomplishment's:

1. Threatening a state of the Union, one of the smaller ones, for tryin gto secede. Important? Yes. Badass? No.

2. Fighting a battle after a war had already ended.

3. Forcing a bunch of inferiorily equipped men, women, and children, thousands of miles away from their homeland for incredibly racist purposes. And at gunpoint. Against the Supreme Court. And he didn't do it personally.

Teddy was pretty close to blind by the time he took his hunting trip to Africa. So his guide would hide in the bushes and fire at the same time he did. So that way he though he shot the thing.

Bah. Communist lies.:p

ok new example how many of our ancestors were deathly afraid of things like storms, tight spaces, being fat, and bats/bugs/garden snakes??

Er... no? A healthy respect, mixed with some primal fear, perhaps, but deathly afraid?

As for being fat, in actuality being rather... robust was a sign of good health, fertility, and being well fed. Hence, not feared in the least. For instance, ever hear of the "Venus of Wulendorf"? Quite the fatty, really. There is a notion of the "Mother-Goddess" cult, which although I don't personally ascribe to some of its more... extreme notions, does have veracity to it.

As stated before, evolution is not goal orientated. It simply is the mechanism which always all organisms to adapt to their surrounds. As such, there is no such thing as "de-evolution", as that in turn would be only evolving in a certain line. There are no universally beneficial traits, only those that are more beneficial given an environment.

For instance, our brains. Most would say it is universally a beneficial trait, however they fail to realize that our massive brain comes with a rather hefty price tag attached to it. We need a massive amount of calories ever day just to run the damn thing, whereas less "complex" brains need far fewer calories. This also isn't considering the the massive amounts of energy our body undertakes to make sure the thing doesn't:

A)Damage itself multiple times.
B)Burn up(Almost literally) due to our body temperature.
C)Become completely non-functional for any myriad of reasons that less "complex" brains are not as easily afflicted by.
etc.

So really, what you're talking about is complete nonsense, as it is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution attempts to do.

Pfft. Here's a list of Jackson's accomplishment's:

1. Threatening a state of the Union, one of the smaller ones, for tryin gto secede. Important? Yes. Badass? No.

2. Fighting a battle after a war had already ended.

3. Forcing a bunch of inferiorily equipped men, women, and children, thousands of miles away from their homeland for incredibly racist purposes. And at gunpoint. Against the Supreme Court. And he didn't do it personally.


true i guess theres something to show for forcing two of the fiercest (and at tht time least succesful) pirates in new orleans to help him (while having to bribe them) (and one of them actually didnt do anything) well actually...

true i guess theres something to show for forcing two of the fiercest (and at tht time least succesful) pirates in new orleans to help him (while having to bribe them) (and one of them actually didnt do anything) well actually...

An empty wallet?

Er... no? A healthy respect, mixed with some primal fear, perhaps, but deathly afraid?

As for being fat, in actuality being rather... robust was a sign of good health, fertility, and being well fed. Hence, not feared in the least. For instance, ever hear of the "Venus of Wulendorf"? Quite the fatty, really. There is a notion of the "Mother-Goddess" cult, which although I don't personally ascribe to some of its more... extreme notions, does have veracity to it.

As stated before, evolution is not goal orientated. It simply is the mechanism which always all organisms to adapt to their surrounds. As such, there is no such thing as "de-evolution", as that in turn would be only evolving in a certain line. There are no universally beneficial traits, only those that are more beneficial given an environment.

For instance, our brains. Most would say it is universally a beneficial trait, however they fail to realize that our massive brain comes with a rather hefty price tag attached to it. We need a massive amount of calories ever day just to run the damn thing, whereas less "complex" brains need far fewer calories. This also isn't considering the the massive amounts of energy our body undertakes to make sure the thing doesn't:

A)Damage itself multiple times.
B)Burn up(Almost literally) due to our body temperature.
C)Become completely non-functional for any myriad of reasons that less "complex" brains are not as easily afflicted by.
etc.

So really, what you're talking about is complete nonsense, as it is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution attempts to do.

ok so "evolving badly" im incredibly sorry for voicing my foolish opinions under a bad name and starting a terrible debate

Compare Andrew Jackson:

When the 1828 election rolled around, a lot of people were terrified when they heard Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson was running. If you're wondering how a guy we're calling a bad ass got such a lame nickname, it's because he used to carry a hickory cane around and beat people senseless with it, and if you're wondering why he did that, it's because he was a fucking lunatic.

Former Democratic Senator and Secretary of the Treasurey Albert Gallatin feared a Jackson presidency because of his "habitual disregard of laws and constitutional provisions." Or in other words, the man was a loose canon--17th Century Washigton's answer to Martin Riggs. Sure, he probably didn't have an irate black lieutenant to answer to, or a weary partner who was too old for this shit, but he most certainly had a death wish.

How do we know? Well, despite everyone's best efforts, Jackson was elected to the top office, and when he wasn't busy shaping the Presidency as we know it today, you could find him out back dueling. In case you haven't been to the 18th century lately, this unmanly sounding activity actually involves standing across from an armed man and shooting at him while he in turn shoots at you. The number of duels that Jackson took part in varies depending on what source you consult; some say 13, while others rank the number somewhere in the 100's, both of which are entirely too many times for a reasonable human being to stand in front of someone who is strying to kill them with a loaded gun.

On one occasion, he challenged a man named Charles Dickinson to a duel, (the reason behind it wasn't important, not to us and certainly not to Jackson), and Jackson was even kind enough to give Dickinson the first shot. We're gonna go ahead and repeat that: In a duel with pistols, Jackson politely volunteers to be shot at first. Dickinson happily obliged and shot Jackson, who proceeded to shake it off like it was a bee sting. When Jackson returned the favor, Dickinson was not so lucky, and that's why his face isn't on the twenty. The bullet, by the by, remained in Jackson's body for 19 years because, we assume, Jackson knew that time spent removing the bullets would just fall under the general category of "time not dueling," Jackson's least favorite category.

Greatest Display of Badassedry:
Andrew Jackson was the first president on whom an assassination attempt was made. A man named Richard Lawrence approached Jackson with two pistols both of which, for some reason, misfired. With the possibility of an assassination taken off the table, Jackson proceeded to beat Lawrence near death with his cane until Jackson's aides pulled him off the assassin.

The guns were inspected afterwards and it was discovered that they were in perfect working order, leading some historians to believe that it was an odds-defying "miracle" that Jackson survived, while we're pretty sure that the bullets, like everyone else, were simply scared of Jackson.

Most Badass Quote:
"I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."

That's right. In a life rich with murdering people for little-to-no reason, Jackson's only regret was that he didn't kill quite enough people. People like Calhoun who, it should be noted, was Jackson's vice president.

To President Roosevelt:

Checking Teddy Roosevelt's resume is like reading a How-To guide on ass-kicking manliness. He was a cattle rancher, a deputy sheriff, an explorer, a police commissioner, the assistant Secretary of the Navy, the governor of New York, and a war hero. Out of all of his jobs, hobbies and passions, Roosevelt always had a special spot in his heart for unadulterated violence. In 1898, Roosevelt formed the first U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, known as the Rough Riders. Most people already know of the Rough Riders and their historic charge up San Juan Hill, but few know that, since their horses had to be left behind, the Riders made this charge entirely on foot. You just could not stop this man from violencing the hell out of a San Juan Hill.

And don't think that Roosevelt lost his obsession with violence when he became president, or he might just come back from the dead and murder you, (and how do you kill a Teddy Roosevelt that's already dead!?!). He strolled through the White House with a pistol on his person at all times, though, with his black belt in jujitsu and his history as a champion boxer, it wasn't like he really needed it.

It wasn't just his war record or the fact that he knew several different ways to kill you that made Roosevelt such a badass. It wasn't even the fact that he kept a bear and a lion at the White House as pets, (though that certainly helps). Teddy Roosevelt was a badass of the people. Roosevelt received letters from army cavalrymen complaining about having to ride 25 miles a day for training and, in response, Teddy rode horseback for 100 miles, from sunrise to sunset, at 51 years old, effectively rescinding anyone's right to complain about anything, ever again.

Did we mention he had asthma growing up? He did, and after he beat asthma to death, he ate asthma's raw flesh and ran 100 straight miles off the energy it gave him.

Greatest Display of Badassedry:
While campaigning for a third term, Roosevelt was shot by a madman and, instead of treating the wound, delivered his campaign speech with the bleeding, undressed bullet hole in his chest. On the other end of the spectrum, reasons why certain members of the Cracked Editorial Staff have called out of work over the last year include:

"A cold."
"A stubbed toe."
"It's raining."
"There's a spider near the door."

Most Badass Quote:
This quote actually comes from a fellow politician at the time of Roosevelt's death: "Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight." We have no witty commentary for that. That is just straight up badass.

ok so "evolving badly" im incredibly sorry for voicing my foolish opinions under a bad name and starting a terrible debate

Once again, evolving poorly is a hard thing to justify, until after the fact. The only thing that can really say if an organism evolved "poorly" would be if it went extinct. As we are not extinct yet, nor are we in any danger of being so in the near future, such an argument hasn't any validity, really. However, if we were to go extinct due to evolving "poorly", the irony is we wouldn't know it. We would be dead. Strange, really.

Also, to mark "success" in evolution is merely to pass on your traits to the next generation. If you do that, no matter if you are deaf, blind, or an imbecile, your traits are successful, really. Hence why so-called "bad" traits exist. They always do, as sometimes that one "poor" trait is successful.

Success and failure in evolution are not what most think, really. It has nothing to with being necessarily "better" or "worse" than any other trait.

Pfft. Here's a list of Jackson's accomplishment's:

1. Threatening a state of the Union, one of the smaller ones, for tryin gto secede. Important? Yes. Badass? No.

worth pointing out this was the state that a generation alter had started the civil war. Perhaps if Lincoln had taken a similar approach the whole mess would not have been necessary.

2. Fighting a battle after a war had already ended.

That shifted the tone of treaty negotiations, to a much more favorable Us position.


3. Forcing a bunch of inferiorily equipped men, women, and children, thousands of miles away from their homeland for incredibly racist purposes. And at gunpoint. Against the Supreme Court. And he didn't do it personally.
Technically the SCOTUS ruling was in regards to the laws of the state of Georgia. Jackson BS treaty issue that lead to the trail of tears was not heard by the supreme court. Also technically the trail of tears was carried out by Van Buren.

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
WE ARE DEVO!

I had to scan the thread before I posted that. *bows in respect*

While campaigning for a third term, Roosevelt was shot by a madman and, instead of treating the wound, delivered his campaign speech with the bleeding, undressed bullet hole in his chest.

Granted still very badass however it did hit his speech which saved him from some of the agony, but not all of it, this guy could kick the crap out of chuck norris

Once again, evolving poorly is a hard thing to justify, until after the fact. The only thing that can really say if an organism evolved "poorly" would be if it went extinct. As we are not extinct yet, nor are we in any danger of being so in the near future, such an argument hasn't any validity, really. However, if we were to go extinct due to evolving "poorly", the irony is we wouldn't know it. We would be dead. Strange, really.

Also, to mark "success" in evolution is merely to pass on your traits to the next generation. If you do that, no matter if you are deaf, blind, or an imbecile, your traits are successful, really. Hence why so-called "bad" traits exist. They always do, as sometimes that one "poor" trait is successful.

Success and failure in evolution are not what most think, really. It has nothing to with being necessarily "better" or "worse" than any other trait.


well good sir you have me beaten in your idea what would be a good name for the effects of evolution resulting badly for the traits of the species in question??

I have studied evolution in great detail, paying particular attention to images of this nature:

http://goldendome.org/EvolutionOfMan/EvolutionOfMan.jpg

As you can all see, there can be only one future for humanity. Our spines will continue to bend backwards until we are all permanently trapped in a position known to yoga practitioners as the 'upward bow'. At this point we will need robots to do all of our work for us, as we will all be permanently high from the blood trapped in our brains.

That's my theory, anyway.

But without those advancements, we would never have tacos. Therefore, we are better.

^^This.

*hands you a taco*

^^This.

*hands you a taco*

Tacos and Pies are now outlawed

^^This.

*hands you a taco*

Thank you.

*munch munch*

Thank you.

*munch munch*

Off to jail for you. Hand me that illegal taco.

Off to jail for you. Hand me that illegal taco.

*pies you*

Off to jail for you. Hand me that illegal taco.

I find your lack of yumminess disturbing. *chokes G&D*

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

De-Evolution implies there is an intended ending

Either way we no longer need hunt with our hands? why would we continue the mentality and skill of hunting with a spear when it is useless to 99.9 percent of us

Our intelligence might have improved.

*pies you*

That is illegal. *throws bag of creamy feces at you*

Either way we no longer need hunt with our hands? why would we continue the mentality and skill of hunting with a spear when it is useless to 99.9 percent of us

True. Personally, I have no doubts that were modern inhabitants of the first world raised in a culture that taught, valued, and required the ability to hunt a lion with a spear, they would be perfectly capable of doing so.

And I call into serious question the thought process that possessed anyone to choose, out of all the animals on the African Savannah, to hunt lions out of anything other than absolute necessity. :D

I think that the difference in intelligence between us and the first Homo Sapiens are quite small, however our combined knowledge of the world (which some scientist calls extelligence) has grown a lot and that this is the reason for our civilization. It was just about 10 000 generations since we toke our first steps in Africa, and in evolution that's not a lot.

To be able to form stories and create a language and later on write this down has made us able to share thoughts and ideas like no other (known) species and this is such a great advantage that we have been able to spread tp all places on earth. However, there are still native tribes living by hunting with spears etc. and if you put a child from a "civilized" country there that child would have no trouble to be able to learn to kill a lion with a spear.

That is illegal. *throws bag of creamy feces at you*

Pies are illegal to throw, yet it's perfectly legal to throw bags of creamy feces? What is this, Luxembourg? I know nothing about Luxembourg, but I also know nobody from Luxembourg, so If there is somebody from Luxembourg, I apologize. It was just the first obscure nation to pop into my head.

I should, at this juncture, point out that at this point in history there are still men who fight lions. There are women who fight lions. (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3045&art_id=nw20080807151018275C639939) There are two guys in Vegas who make Tigers do tricks. To argue that our mastery over great cats is somehow diminished, I have to disagree. If I would have to pick a direction for going from 'fearing that they might come and eat your babies in the night' to 'the act that happens between the clown car and the trapeze act' I would have to go with 'up.' If lions were capable of giving their opinions on the subject I imagine they would reply, "You know, we pretty much ruled the place back when you guys were naked grunting nomads. Say the word, we'll go back. I mean Azlan, we have this dipshit throwing toilet paper at us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCfDiPIydZ0) for fucks sake. This sucks."

Second, perhaps we evolved away from the people charging out to fight lions is because a)most of them did not come back to procreate, and b) the people scavenging already fallen meat and herd animals were faring much much better.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

Well, nowadays, we send soldiers in by the millions to brave machine gun fire and chemical weapons. Arguably we're more brave then our ancestors. I'd take the oversized cat over a good firebombing by USAF any day.

What is the difference between courage and stupidity really?They covered that.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/28/serenity2_wideweb__430x287.jpg

Pies are illegal to throw, yet it's perfectly legal to throw bags of creamy feces? What is this, Luxembourg? I know nothing about Luxembourg, but I also know nobody from Luxembourg, so If there is somebody from Luxembourg, I apologize. It was just the first obscure nation to pop into my head.

Nope. Florida.

one gets put in heroic books

One gets dead. Frequently, one gets dead without anyone knowing about it and so does not get put in heroic books.

We haven't devolved. Nor have we, particularly, evolved. We've changed our circumstance, which is a completely different thing. I suspect that, if you took a group of us effete, spoiled moderns down in the middle of the African savannah 6000 years ago, most of them would adapt, maybe not happily and not all of them, but they'd adapt and survive. If you took a group of loincloth wearing, spear bearing mighty hunters of pre-historic times and plunked them down in the middle of even a quiet small town today, they wouldn't stand a chance.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

In those days they were just as terrified as we are of the lion, and they killed it because in those days lions were a major competitor for everything we needed (Meat) and a real threat to their own personal well being, in most places today lions are neither of those.

However I do believe we may have devolved as an easier lifestyle has allowed those who ordinarily would be not fit to survive let alone reproduce live long prosperous lives and have multitudes of children (Octomom ring any bells?).

One gets dead. Frequently, one gets dead without anyone knowing about it and so does not get put in heroic books.

We haven't devolved. Nor have we, particularly, evolved. We've changed our circumstance, which is a completely different thing. I suspect that, if you took a group of us effete, spoiled moderns down in the middle of the African savannah 6000 years ago, most of them would adapt, maybe not happily and not all of them, but they'd adapt and survive. If you took a group of loincloth wearing, spear bearing mighty hunters of pre-historic times and plunked them down in the middle of even a quiet small town today, they wouldn't stand a chance.

To be honest I don't think that if we put someone from 2-300 years ago in todays modern society they would not either stand a chance. So much has happened the last century that they would either get insane or be killed since they wouldn't be able to see the dangers (eg by trying to cross the highway).

However, if you took a baby from 6000 years ago and raised it in todays society they would most likely be like any other human. As I said above our evolution has been in the extelligence where we have been able to store knowledge outside of ourself.

Pies are illegal to throw, yet it's perfectly legal to throw bags of creamy feces? What is this, Luxembourg? I know nothing about Luxembourg, but I also know nobody from Luxembourg, so If there is somebody from Luxembourg, I apologize. It was just the first obscure nation to pop into my head.

*yells THE ARISTOCRATS! and runs away*

As Seangoli pointed out, there's no such thing as de-evolution. There are no 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' forms of a species - there are only those that are more or less adapted to their circumstances. Evolution doesn't make things objectively 'better', it makes them more adapted to whatever situation they're in. If an animal species is put in the desert, it will either adapt and evolve to become better suited to desert life, or it will fail and die - but the former outcome still won't make it any better at surviving in, say, a rain forest.

If humanity is adapting to the changed environment of modern life, this is really only a bad outcome compared to remaining like pre-modern man in the event of a sudden return to pre-modern conditions. So long as this doesn't happen and modern conditions remain, a humanity adapted to modern conditions is better off.

it de-evolves every time it romantacizes the dominance of aggressiveness.

Evolution does not work that way!

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/61fps/2008/11/08-15/morbo.gif
THAT IS MORBO'S LINE!

I personally think that the human race has de evolved
That simply isn't how evolution works.
, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??
Yeah, well, you don't really ever hear about those ancestors who hunted lions and others beasts unsuccessfully, do you now?

I bet that many of our ancestors weren't the ones who tried to kill the beast but rather those who fled to live another day and pass on their genes.

I'd rather jump at a lion's roar in the zoo than have him jump me in the wilderness.

Obviously the OP doesn't understand that, in the days he is fantasising about, lions were like big friendly kittens. Our ancestors would walk up to them with a spear and the lion would roll over to have its tummy rubbed, only to be stabbed at with a pointy stick. Not surprisingly this riled the lions and they eventually evolved into the vicious beasts we know to day.

I should, at this juncture, point out that at this point in history there are still men who fight lions. There are women who fight lions. (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3045&art_id=nw20080807151018275C639939) There are two guys in Vegas who make Tigers do tricks. To argue that our mastery over great cats is somehow diminished, I have to disagree. If I would have to pick a direction for going from 'fearing that they might come and eat your babies in the night' to 'the act that happens between the clown car and the trapeze act' I would have to go with 'up.' If lions were capable of giving their opinions on the subject I imagine they would reply, "You know, we pretty much ruled the place back when you guys were naked grunting nomads. Say the word, we'll go back. I mean Azlan, we have this dipshit throwing toilet paper at us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCfDiPIydZ0) for fucks sake. This sucks."

Second, perhaps we evolved away from the people charging out to fight lions is because a)most of them did not come back to procreate, and b) the people scavenging already fallen meat and herd animals were faring much much better.

Ah! That guy with the toilet paper is a dumbass .. at first I thought it was a comedy sketch of some sort. Now what if the dang thing had taken off an arm or killed him .. would the lion had been be hunted down and shot because of his stupidity? I want to smack that guy upside the head.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

Evolution does not worth that way.

de evolution is mutation. *smug*

:p

Pies are illegal to throw, yet it's perfectly legal to throw bags of creamy feces? What is this, Luxembourg? I know nothing about Luxembourg, but I also know nobody from Luxembourg, so If there is somebody from Luxembourg, I apologize. It was just the first obscure nation to pop into my head.

no it is Shizerland.

Obviously the OP doesn't understand that, in the days he is fantasising about, lions were like big friendly kittens. Our ancestors would walk up to them with a spear and the lion would roll over to have its tummy rubbed, only to be stabbed at with a pointy stick. Not surprisingly this riled the lions and they eventually evolved into the vicious beasts we know to day.

They also tasted much better back then. Much like chicken.

I find it interesting that he thinks we hunted lions when we had spears. We didn't. They hunted us. We hunted herbivores, on the grounds that there are more of them and they don't eat us. We didn't start killing predators until we got bows, and we didn't start making a habit of it until we got guns.

Even then it wasn't so much "hunting" as "systematic extermination of that what was perceived as a threat".

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump. Even though we have gotten smarter and more advanced I think we lost a lot as well. What does NS think??

There's no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution isn't about getting better, it's about adapting to best exploit the available resources.

There's a species of acacia tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia#Symbiosis) that has lost the ability to produce poison like all its relatives. A species of ant, that probably evolved resistance to acacia poison, started infesting these trees. The tree then evolved, the inability to make poison. An acacia tree with ants and no poison is at an advantage compared to an acacia tree with poison and no ants. The ants protect the tree better than poison and the tree is better of spending the energy it would have spent on poison on producing seeds and foliage.

Human beings have not de-evolved from wandering primates any more than the acacia trees de-evolved from poisonous trees into ant-habitats.

We evolved into seed-digesting, milk drinking, alcohol brewing, animal-raising, socially-stratified creatures able to exploit the resources of a lucrative society instead of a bio-diverse one.

Since the world keeps improving (generally), I'd say evolution is mostly upwards not downwards. Sure, there are exceptions (http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/man_tries_to_convert_lions_to_jesus_gets_bitten/), but they usually remove (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-08.html) themselves from the gene pool.

Since the world keeps improving (generally), I'd say evolution is mostly upwards not downwards. Sure, there are exceptions (http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/man_tries_to_convert_lions_to_jesus_gets_bitten/), but they usually remove (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-08.html) themselves from the gene pool.

There is no such thing as "upwards" or "downwards" in relation to evolution. There is only lateral movement. Quite possibly the single most successful thing subject to evolution is nothing more than several strands of RNA in a proteinaceous shell.

I personally think that the human race has de evolved, a lot of our ancestors hunted lions and whatnot with a spear and a loin cloth. Now we look at them in the zoo and when they roar we jump.

What was the average life expectancy of a whatnot hunter anyhow?

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/61fps/2008/11/08-15/morbo.gif
THAT IS MORBO'S LINE!

Yeah, I had a picture but it didn't display, so I axed it.

Since the world keeps improving (generally), I'd say evolution is mostly upwards not downwards. Sure, there are exceptions (http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/man_tries_to_convert_lions_to_jesus_gets_bitten/), but they usually remove (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-08.html) themselves from the gene pool.

No such thing. Evolution is a process. It's about what works best for a particular species at a particular point in time under a particular set of circumstances. It doesn't go up or down.

For instance, certain cave-dwelling fish are completely blind. Is this an improvement overall? Not really. But it works for them since eyes would be useless and would be about as energy efficient as a biological Hummer.

The only way to De evolve is to become a lawyer.

The only way to De evolve is to become a lawyer.

You missed a couple ...

IRS auditor
Drug dealer
Child molester
Scam artist, particularly one who preys on the elderly and vulnerable
Politician
Pseudo-celeb (examples being Paris Hilton, Octo-mom, Dr. Phil)

I probably missed a couple, too.

You missed a couple ...

IRS auditor
Drug dealer
Child molester
Scam artist, particularly one who preys on the elderly and vulnerable
Politician
Pseudo-celeb (examples being Paris Hilton, Octo-mom, Dr. Phil)

I probably missed a couple, too.

Politicians are lumped in with lawyers. The rest are just people who made poor life decisions.