a time wasting blog
Install Theme

theresanotterinthefridge:

cosima-niehaus:

fulloffeels:

assbutt-in-the-garrison:

sixpenceee:

Before I get into it, just know the pictures just serve as visual representations, not actual pictures

Okay so anyway, evidence for this theory is the following:

THE FACT THAT HUMANS ARE SO HAIRLESS: 

Only two kind of habitats give rise to hairless animals, an aquatic one and a one below the ground (a naked mole rat for example)

.The suggestion that humans have become hairless to prevent overheating has been rendered false because hair can act like a defense against the sun.

This is why camels retain their fur even in the hot dessert environment. 

OUR FAT CELLS

We have ten times the number of fat cells as expected in an animal our size. Only two types of animals have large fat cells: hibernating and aquatic ones. 

In hibernating it’s seasonal fat, but in aquatic it’s all year round. It’s unreasonable to think that we evolved this feature in land because large fat pockets would have just slowed us down. 

Primate babies are always born slender, but human babies start to develop fat even before birth. 

WALKING ON TWO LEGS

So we’re the only mammals that have developed bipedalism. This is a surprise, because walking on 2 legs vs. walking on 4 legs is very disadvantageous. It’s slower, unstable, our organs are vulnerable to damage.

One theory is that if our habitat was flooded, we’d have to walk on two legs to keep our heads above the water.

The only animal who has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, the swamp ape, used this method. 

BREATHING

We have conscious control over our breathing. Ever other land animal doesn’t. Mammals like dolphins and seals also conscious control because it tells them how deep they are going to dive and they can estimate how much air they need to inhale.

OTHER DIFFERENCES

Our body is so wasteful of salt and water. Think of tears and our way of sweating. Other land mammals don’t have this. Water mammals do however. 

Okay anyway I hope you learned something. 

Here’s a source and where you can find more information: X

For more interesting posts like this, go here: X

So. Basically. We were FUCKING MERMAIDS. Damn.

I mainly want to believe this is correct so I can be descended from mermaids

Also! we’re pruny. we have a better grip on submerged objects when our fingertips are pruny. ah wow theories,

Okay, as an anthropologist, I have to weigh in here. Let me preface this by saying that this theory evolved in the 1960s, when hominin and proto-hominin fossils were thin on (in?) the ground. We literally did not know where we came from. However, since then, palaeoanthropologists have found countless different species spanning the 3 million years or so since Australopithecus afarensis (of Lucy fame) and even further in the past, all of which have been found considerable distances from the ocean (the only viable location for aquatic apes to evolve because of you know, crocodiles and whatnot). The original theory put forward by Elaine Morgan and others is that at some point in the human evolutionary past, whichever mystery species it was (thought to be some kind of Australopithecus) migrated to the ocean, evolved for a bit then came back inland as Homo habilis. We now know this is not true. Early Homo evolved inland.

But what about all these nifty physiological traits we share with marine animals. Well, these can be explained very simply. 

Humans do not hunt like any other animal on earth. Before projectile weapons, the hunting method chosen by the species that could neither outrun its prey or seriously injure it was literally to chase it until it died of exhaustion. Because of this, since H. habilis first started making tools about 2 mya, humans have evolved:

HAIRLESSNESS: When animals exert themselves, respiration produces heat as a by-product, and for an animal exerting itself over a long time, that heat needs an efficient way of escaping from the body so that it doesn’t stop working. Human sweating is one of the most efficient ways of losing heat, as it more or less turns the entire surface of the skin into a big cooling system. At the same time, the animal does not need to actively participate in the cooling process, as a panting animal would (see breath control below). In addition to this, the efficiency of sweat mean that unlike panting animals, our internal body temperature can afford to be lower, therefore reducing the amount of energy we need to consume. This was good news for the expanding brain size of early hominins, which needed a lot of energy and produced a lot of heat.

Unfortunately, hair inhibits the movement of air and therefore the rate of evaporation, so, in order to become more efficient at heat transference, humans lost most of their hair, keeping it on the head (to block the sun/keep the back of the neck safer from predators), the eyebrows (to deflect sweat and water away from the eyes/to aid in communication), crotch (to stop nasties getting in). The hairs that still exist on the arms and legs actually help protect the skin, as well as channel away excess moisture. AAH advocates often use this ‘channeling’ feature to support their claims, because unlike other mammals, human hair is directed from head to foot rather than back to stomach, but really, that’s just down to gravity; it gets rain off you faster. (On a side note of sweating and water wastage, evolution doesn’t generally select out traits unless they are detrimental to a species’ fitness. Humans can sweat because early hominins could afford to sweat. Also, we are not the only land animals to cool down this way - horses do it too.)

BIPEDALISM: Walking on two legs is not a fast way of moving - my grandmother’s Jack Russell terrier could outrun me on legs that were literally three inches long - but it is an efficient method for an animal that a) covers long distances and b) hunts primarily by sight in an environment featuring tall grass and long distances. However, to say that bipedalism developed so that hominins could walk upright in the event of flooding is ridiculous for four reasons: 1. It is far more efficient to move horizontally than vertically through the water because it creates less of a drag factor. 2. Evolution doesn’t work on principles of what might happen in the future. 3. A species is far more likely to move out of a flooded area than wait a few generations in order to evolve some way of adapting to it. 4. Crocodiles.

BREATHING: Remember how I said that early hominins hunted by exhausting their prey, and also that moving on two legs isn’t a fast way of getting around? If that’s true, then how did humans manage to keep up with animals long enough to wear them out? The answer lies in our ability to control our breathing. In quadrupedal movement, the leg muscles are attached to the ribcage, which means that when the animal is moving, it can only breathe as fast as its legs work. Because hominins were able to circumvent that, they could keep going indefinitely, while the prey basically became more and more oxygen starved, until it had to slow down in order to pant, or collapsed.

A NOTE ONE FAT CELLS: Saying that humans are unique in the amount of fat in their bodies is absurd. All mammals have fat stores - camels store fat in their humps, for example. The distribution of fat throughout the body can vary, as can be seen next time you go to the supermarket and see that pork tends to have a rind of fat whereas beef tends to be marbled with it. What it boils down to is that fat is a way to store energy in times where food is scarce, which is why boar is less fatty than pork - wild animals have a less stable food supply than animals raised for the table. This trend exists in humans and primates as well, with people from hunter-gatherer societies (which are less sedentary than agrarian societies) have a smaller percentage of body fat than people who have never had to do more than go through a checkout.

Anyway, ramble over.

(Source: sixpenceee)

Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. […] Every high school student knows that Isaac Newton discovered gravity, that Charles Darwin discovered evolution, and that Albert Einstein discovered the relativity of time. But when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know.

Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via alliterate)

OH WAIT LEMME TELL YOU ABOUT CECILIA PAYNE.

Cecilia Payne’s mother refused to spend money on her college education, so she won a scholarship to Cambridge.

Cecilia Payne completed her studies, but Cambridge wouldn’t give her a degree because she was a woman, so she said fuck that and moved to the United States to work at Harvard.

Cecilia Payne was the first person ever to earn a Ph.D. in astronomy from Radcliffe College, with what Otto Strauve called “the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy.”

Not only did Cecilia Payne discover what the universe is made of, she also discovered what the sun is made of (Henry Norris Russell, a fellow astronomer, is usually given credit for discovering that the sun’s composition is different from the Earth’s, but he came to his conclusions four years later than Payne—after telling her not to publish).

Cecilia Payne is the reason we know basically anything about variable stars (stars whose brightness as seen from earth fluctuates). Literally every other study on variable stars is based on her work.

Cecilia Payne was the first woman to be promoted to full professor from within Harvard, and is often credited with breaking the glass ceiling for women in the Harvard science department and in astronomy, as well as inspiring entire generations of women to take up science.

Cecilia Payne is awesome and everyone should know her.

(via bansheewhale)

always reblog because you know women

(via alternageek)

(via lumosthemoonlight)

There’s no point to a guy yelling, “Hey sexy baby” at me out of the passenger window of a car as it speeds past. Even if I was into creepy misogynists and wanted to give him my number, I couldn’t. The car didn’t even slow down. But that’s okay, because he wasn’t actually hitting on me. The point wasn’t to proposition me or chat me up. The only point was to remind me, and all women, that our bodies are his to stare at, assess, comment on, even touch. “Hey sexy baby” is the first part of a sentence that finishes, “this is your daily message from the patriarchy, reminding you that your body is public property”.
maarnayeri:

noor3amoor:

If these font sizes don’t speak to the relative value of Palestinian life, I don’t know what does.

In addition to the font size, its also the language surrounding the deaths.
Not only do we know of the two Israelis, but also their occupation (they were soldiers sent to kill) and where they were killed.
Over 300 Palestinians are just referred to as deaths. Anything that was once alive could die. Animals, foliage, etc. They couldn’t even say Palestinians. Even acknowledging the identity of the colonized and allotting them basic humanity is too provocative. No location, no root of cause (because then it’d have to be understood that Israeli aggression is indeed at fault). Just 330 deaths. It all exists in a detached vacuum.
But it does refer back to Hamas. No matter what happens to Palestinians, its implicitly suggested that Hamas is to blame. Everything Israel does is reactionary under the normalization of Zionist brutality. To someone who doesn’t understand the nature of Israeli settler colonialist violence, this could very well be understood as Hamas killing Palestinians. The only mention of Israel is through a victim narrative.

maarnayeri:

noor3amoor:

If these font sizes don’t speak to the relative value of Palestinian life, I don’t know what does.

In addition to the font size, its also the language surrounding the deaths.

Not only do we know of the two Israelis, but also their occupation (they were soldiers sent to kill) and where they were killed.

Over 300 Palestinians are just referred to as deaths. Anything that was once alive could die. Animals, foliage, etc. They couldn’t even say Palestinians. Even acknowledging the identity of the colonized and allotting them basic humanity is too provocative. No location, no root of cause (because then it’d have to be understood that Israeli aggression is indeed at fault). Just 330 deaths. It all exists in a detached vacuum.

But it does refer back to Hamas. No matter what happens to Palestinians, its implicitly suggested that Hamas is to blame. Everything Israel does is reactionary under the normalization of Zionist brutality. To someone who doesn’t understand the nature of Israeli settler colonialist violence, this could very well be understood as Hamas killing Palestinians. The only mention of Israel is through a victim narrative.

(via redphilistine)

lumosthemoonlight:

The Science Museum in London being A+

lumosthemoonlight:

The Science Museum in London being A+

jessehimself:

Somehow the news isn’t the whitewashing, it’s the brown people ‘cyber rioting’.  Being hurt and vocalizing your pain and frustration, does not a riot make.  Keep talking. Start doing.

jessehimself:

Somehow the news isn’t the whitewashing, it’s the brown people ‘cyber rioting’.
Being hurt and vocalizing your pain and frustration, does not a riot make.
Keep talking. Start doing.

(Source: darvinasafo, via drtessarosetorres)

owning-my-truth:

whatwhiteswillneverknow:

32andstillgrowingupnow:

fandomsandfeminism:

whatwhiteswillneverknow:

… with different degrees of struggles that we’re implemented by the pale skin via conquests using weapons such as warfare, religion indoctrination, and oppression. And then after pale skin set systems like this into our society, they go around and say things like “We are all human” and confuse “racism” with “prejudice” so that they can keep the system the same way for many years to come.

Shots fired.

You totally missed the point of this, didn’t you?

That were all human? No. What you missed is that it’s a dismissive phase that a lot of people like to say at times to dismiss arguments like the one you clearly missed.
Some of us can’t afford to live on fantasy island.

owning-my-truth:

whatwhiteswillneverknow:

32andstillgrowingupnow:

fandomsandfeminism:

whatwhiteswillneverknow:

… with different degrees of struggles that we’re implemented by the pale skin via conquests using weapons such as warfare, religion indoctrination, and oppression. And then after pale skin set systems like this into our society, they go around and say things like “We are all human” and confuse “racism” with “prejudice” so that they can keep the system the same way for many years to come.

Shots fired.

You totally missed the point of this, didn’t you?

That were all human? No. What you missed is that it’s a dismissive phase that a lot of people like to say at times to dismiss arguments like the one you clearly missed.

Some of us can’t afford to live on fantasy island.

photo tumblr_lwdk1rY0hB1qjaecro1_500_zps401b9995.jpg

(Source: sincerelynish, via stardust-rain)

bintrushd:

bintrushd:

bintrushd:

bintrushd:

So, there have been mixed reports about this incident in Paris during this pro-Palestine rally on July 13th, 2014 with the synagogues. The one version that is being spread on mainstream medias such as Le Parisien is that pro-Palestine protesters attacked out of the blue two synagogues that day. It is important here to note that mainstream French medias have been instrumentalizing antisemitism for years against French Muslims (particularly of North African descent) and that they often give very biased reports, even outright lies. When you read social medias and eyewitnesses’ accounts, a different picture of the incident appears. 

[Note: I’ll only be speaking of the incident at the synagogue Abravanel, rue de la Roquette. Mainstream medias report two synagogues were attacked, the other one being in rue des Tournelles. Not much is said about it but the two synagogues are very close to each other and thus some reports, such as this one on ajib.fr, imply that the two incidents were a continuation of one another.]

Read More

I figured I’d just reblog to add the updates related to the incident.

The protest that was supposed to happen in Paris on July 19th has officially been declared illegal. In the words of Michèle Sibony, "there are protests throughout the world. And only one country in the world wants to outlaw those protests of support for Gaza and that is France"

The Synagogue’s own Rabbi confirms that the synagogue was never attacked by pro-Palestine protesters, mentions that at no moment, any projectile was thrown at the synagogue [10:55] and that they never were “physically in danger” [11:20]. I guess now you have it straight out of the mouth of the people concerned by what happened. 

(via pax-arabica)

standwithpalestine:

NEW YORK — CNN has removed correspondent Diana Magnay from covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after she tweeted that Israelis who were cheering the bombing of Gaza, and who had allegedly threatened her, were “scum.”
“After being threatened and harassed before and during a liveshot, Diana reacted angrily on Twitter,” a CNN spokeswoman said in a statement to The Huffington Post.
“She deeply regrets the language used, which was aimed directly at those who had been targeting our crew,” the spokeswoman continued. “She certainly meant no offense to anyone beyond that group, and she and CNN apologize for any offense that may have been taken.”
The spokeswoman said Magnay has been assigned to Moscow.
Magnay appeared on CNN Thursday from a hill overlooking the Israel-Gaza border. While she reported, Israelis could be heard near her cheering as missiles were fired at Gaza.
After the liveshot, Magnay tweeted: “Israelis on hill above Sderot cheer as bombs land on #gaza; threaten to ‘destroy our car if I say a word wrong’. Scum.” The tweet was quickly removed, but not before it had been retweeted more than 200 times.
The removal of Magnay comes a day after NBC News pulled Ayman Mohyeldin from Gaza.
NBC’s decision to remove the widely praised Mohyeldin, and unwillingness to explain why, has been met with anger and frustration from journalists inside and outside the network.
A source with knowledge of the decision told The Huffington Post that NBC executives cited security concerns. But at the same time Moyheldin was pulled, NBC assigned chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel to Gaza.
One of Mohyeldin’s tweets and Facebook posts were recently deleted, a move that has fueled speculation that his social media use could have been the cause for his removal. But the source said the reason given internally by network executives was security.

standwithpalestine:

NEW YORK — CNN has removed correspondent Diana Magnay from covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after she tweeted that Israelis who were cheering the bombing of Gaza, and who had allegedly threatened her, were “scum.”

“After being threatened and harassed before and during a liveshot, Diana reacted angrily on Twitter,” a CNN spokeswoman said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

“She deeply regrets the language used, which was aimed directly at those who had been targeting our crew,” the spokeswoman continued. “She certainly meant no offense to anyone beyond that group, and she and CNN apologize for any offense that may have been taken.”

The spokeswoman said Magnay has been assigned to Moscow.

Magnay appeared on CNN Thursday from a hill overlooking the Israel-Gaza border. While she reported, Israelis could be heard near her cheering as missiles were fired at Gaza.

After the liveshot, Magnay tweeted: “Israelis on hill above Sderot cheer as bombs land on #gaza; threaten to ‘destroy our car if I say a word wrong’. Scum.” The tweet was quickly removed, but not before it had been retweeted more than 200 times.

The removal of Magnay comes a day after NBC News pulled Ayman Mohyeldin from Gaza.

NBC’s decision to remove the widely praised Mohyeldin, and unwillingness to explain why, has been met with anger and frustration from journalists inside and outside the network.

A source with knowledge of the decision told The Huffington Post that NBC executives cited security concerns. But at the same time Moyheldin was pulled, NBC assigned chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel to Gaza.

One of Mohyeldin’s tweets and Facebook posts were recently deleted, a move that has fueled speculation that his social media use could have been the cause for his removal. But the source said the reason given internally by network executives was security.

(Source: standwithpalestine, via nowinexile)

A co-worker closed the door to the staff room behind him.
It locked automatically
and I started planning what I could use as a weapon:
smash the glass beside the fridge into his eye.
pick up the fork next to me and sink it into his leg.
claw him across the face if I couldn’t get to anything in time.
As I calculated how hard it would be to shove his body weight off of me,
he finished making his lunch, said, “Sup,” and left,
the door automatically locking behind him.
I expect if I told him I was prepared to stab him with the corner of my staff ID if I had to,
he would say what I’ve heard too often, the one we all know
but are getting wearily suspicious of:
Not all men are like That.

When I was eleven, all the girls in my class got sent to self-defence
because they assumed we’d need it one day.
When I was twelve, there was a prostitute’s body dumped in the river next to my house
because someone thought she was disposable.
When I was thirteen, it happened again and this time the man went to jail
and people stood outside the courtroom and held up signs that he did the right thing.
When I was fourteen, my friend showed up to a sleepover late, chest heaving from sobbing
and from running four blocks after getting chased by a man that followed her off the bus.
When I was fifteen, my mother accused me of being a Man Hater
and I said, “No, but god, would you blame me if I was?”

I got catcalled and then got laughed at when I flipped them off.
they pulled up beside me and I clutched my bag tighter,
my hand going in for my keys and my mind going over how their noses would look
if I smashed them in with my elbow.
“What’s the big deal,” the guy at the steering wheel asked. “We’re just complimenting you. We’re not like That.”

Sorry, but I’m not going to trust you in case I end up on a poster labelled ‘MISSING.’
Even if you seem like the nicest guy, I’ll still have one hand holding my keys
as the only knife I’m allowed, because I don’t know how far you’re going to take it:
if you won’t back off when I tell you I don’t want to date you
if you’ll shout BITCH at me when I don’t respond well to your catcall
if you’ll expect my body as a reward for treating me like a human being
if you’ll try to take what you think you’re owed by being a man
if you’ll turn me into another statistic that people shudder away from.

I have been trained to assume that it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing
or face the consequences.
I don’t know if you’ll nod when I reject you
or pump me full of bullets.

Every single woman I’ve talked to has a story where they haven’t felt safe in their own body
because of what a man said or did.

Not all men are like That, but god, it’s enough.

— 'Welcome to Girlhood: None Of Us Are Safe,' theappleppielifestyle. (via theappleppielifestyle)

(via appropriately-inappropriate)