jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (30 posts)

Man's Earliest Ancestor

  1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    "Humankind’s common ancestor with other mammals may have been a roughly rat-size animal that weighed no more than a half a pound, had a long furry tail and lived on insects. "

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7679415.jpg


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/scien … l&_r=0

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can see it.  Looks just like my ex-husband.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ha!

      2. profile image0
        Ghaelachposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Melissa that was naughty, but may be nice for you

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow.   "Man's ancestor"?    roll
      I thought all scientists and doctors had common sense........

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I thought all Christians were kind and temperate in speech and action too.

        Go figure.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's interesting... What's your common sense telling you?

        1. profile image0
          riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Earth is flat, what else?

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        From the OP link...

        "Scientists had been searching for just such a common genealogical link and have found it in a lowly occupant of the fossil record, Protungulatum donnae, that until now has been so obscure that it lacks a colloquial nickname. But as researchers reported Thursday in the journal Science, the animal had several anatomical characteristics for live births that anticipated all placental mammals and led to some 5,400 living species, from shrews to elephants, bats to whales, cats to dogs and, not least, humans."

        Notice, Brenda, how many species had the same common ancestor? 5400! All of them, mammals.

        You see, scientists and doctors cannot deny that humans are mammals... common sense, as you say.

        They also can't deny the evidence of evolution and finds like this one that only serve to support evolution and common ancestors like the 'Protungulatum donnae' ... common sense, as you say.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          All mammals are animals
          From the Christian dogma, humans are not animals.
          Therefore, humans are not mammals.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, then...

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Shhh!  It is demeaning and degrading to be called an animal.  Next thing you know they'll be claim you are a monkey!

              People are not animals
              People are not animals
              People are not animals.  Repeat 10 times for true understanding.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Boobs?  Check.
            Milk?  Check.
            Give birth to live offspring? Check.

            Yes, I am a mammal.  If you don't believe me, I'll squirt you in the eye.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol  Squirt away, Melissa, squirt away.

              Of course, you do understand that you have just proven that only women are animals, that the superior male is far above that lowly designation? big_smile

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ah yes.  That must truly be the case.

                Of course that means that all men who have ever had sex with a women are guilty of zoophilia and are going to burn in hell forever.

                And women are not going to heaven or hell... because animals have no soul.

                So basically:

                Hell: Asses and elbows
                Heaven: A few priests and eniochs.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm guilty and I'm not going to stop.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Me, too.  Maybe they'll let us visit the zoo once a year. smile

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL lol lol lol lol

    3. IzzyM profile image88
      IzzyMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thankyou for this link. I had been trying to find out the name of this mammal, unsuccessfully until now.

    4. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      and in that statement you totally miss the tragic flaw in darwins theory of evolution concerning cross species evolution.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Please explain that flaw? We know you can't, of course, but it would be entertaining to hear your rendition.

        1. psycheskinner profile image79
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't you know, genes respect semantics boundaries? The don't cross the arbitrary line of what we consider a different species.... clever little blighters.

        2. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Read my hub loser

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, breaking two forum guidelines in one line. Well done!

  2. Ericdierker profile image80
    Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago

    And I wonder if those who act like rats will be returned to being a rat.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't we wish? That'd be poetic justice.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Behaviorally rat communities are actually quite peaceful, respect elders and nice to their kids.  We could do worse.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          At least until there are too many crowded into too small a space.  Whereupon they fight, destroy and eat each other.

          We need to re-think the concept of cities and high-rises.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Its better than a slug.

    2. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      no. but they will get a rats reward

 
working