scoobdog

Is porn Melania hotter than the actual Melania?

Brain shrinkage is de-evolution. Humans aren't particularly big creatures to begin with, so the likelihood they would shrink to the size of, say a rat, is practically impossible in an evolutionary sense. Same goes for becoming much larger; that would involve not just building a bigger structure but building a significantly larger brain. It's not bragging to suggest that humans are unique animals; we rely more heavily on our tool creating abilities than any other species by far. It's a feature that allows us to have an outsized ability to manipulate and adapt to our environment without altering our physiological traits. Humans are the only animals that can adapt to every single environment on the planet in some form exclusively because we have an ability to create assistant devices to enable that adaption. At the same time, in a physiological sense, animals of any species of any order evolve specifically in order to survive either in a home environment that becomes inhospitable to their old trait set or in an expanded range because of population density. Our tool making ability makes the need to physically evolve immaterial: either we build an apparatus to adapt ourselves to a new and inhospitable environment or we go extinct. You can facepalm all you want, but your premise is fundamentally preposterous.

Was that like the entirety of the post?

You're the strongest, Poof. Even when you feel like you're the weakest, you're making the world a better place.

It's science fiction. Pretty sure Dixon wasn't advocating for de-evolution of humans into lower order creatures.

Pretty sure this analogy doesn't say what you think it says.

The instructor is never allowed in the car. I assume the test proctor would, though.

Think about it for a minute: what conditions would have to exist for humans to lose one of their core instinctual abilities? This isn't just a skill that we learned, it's a trait, an ability to problem solve, we use in just about everything we do, including in basic functions like sustenance and finding shelter.

I think the last sewing machine my mom bought was.... $3k, I think. Those fuckers are like miniature computers, and that one one was capable of quilting. The average unit is still in the $70-$200 range, which makes more sense as an actual practical device.

No. Whether or not humans stop socializing, they can't unlearn the ability to make the tools they use.

Someone get this woman a cheap stripper, stat.

My condoloences as well. Not to be insensitive, but now would be a great time to get a shelter pup so you have someone to get you though the grieving process.

That's still arbitrary. It might distinguish a higher order animal from a lower order one, but it has little relevance in the social interaction between animals of the same species.

Were you already out of Cali by then?

I'm not an expert, but I think early electric machines are fairly common on the antique market, so $50 sounds about right depending on the condition. You'll have to see the serial number to know if its a rare model or a specialty machine (like ones used for leather) which might be worth more. As to restoring it, that's a fairly specialized thing in of itself, so it would have to be really rare to be worth the time and effort to get it running again.

This isn't 1965. Strippers are too expensive nowadays.

So, i'm curious.... If you decide to renew your vows, do you also get a do over on the bachelor party?

That's what I need.

Get back to entertaining me.

Wow, helps beat you to the cutting edge. Also, Jensen Karp is a fucking clown.

It's actually not that rare. Cats on all levels have shown whole or partial ability to be social hunters. Too often, they're compared to canines who socially hunt in a different way, giving the impression they're loners.

Actually, the "pack animal" concept is nonexistent. The term is a somewhat hackneyed reference to "cooperative hunting" or "social predators," with elements of the since debunked "alpha" structure observed in wolf packs. In reality, social predation is, as the name suggests, an attempt by humans to apply a group structure that is fairly unique to primates to higher order mammals (and some fish). Yes, most animals don't have societies in the sense that humans or orangutans might have because they don't have the higher order skills that necessitate task specialization, like toolmaking or animal husbandry, but some aspects social living, like hierarchy and cooperative problem solving, are intrinsic to all animals. In that sense, cooperative hunters are social animals like humans because the human concept of "society" is the most appropriate framework useful to classifying that trait.

Welp... Ghosty flipped the trap card.

So... you're already there.

You're better off participating in studies now, while they can see your brain actually functioning.