Apokryltaros wrote: but, if I had a 2-dollar bill everytime I heard someone say, "Oh, religion is going to be rendered useless," I'd have enough bling-bling to get myself a home theater system so posh and decadent so as to set even Figarou's fur on end. Why have fifty channels on one screen when I could have fifty screens for one channel?
fifty screens for one channel?
How about one giant screen for one channel.
fifty screens, feh!!
Fifty screens and nothing good is on
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. - Thomas Jefferson
Apokryltaros wrote:Or I could have fifty screens for fifty channels.
I want just one screen and the ability to switch between 500+ channels.
werewolf 1- "Dude, check out my new satellite TV!! It has over 500 channels!!"
werewolf 2- "500? Thats a lot of channels. But I bet some channels are not worth having."
werewolf 1-"This channel is worth having." *flips to the werewolf channel*
werewolf 2 "Cool!! A channel dedicated for us!!!
newscaster on TV- "We interupt this program for an important message. A werewolf has been spotted terrorizing a local neighborhood. It seems to be tossing rubber duckies at everyone!!
Figarou wrote:
werewolf 1- "Dude, check out my new satellite TV!! It has over 500 channels!!"
werewolf 2- "500? Thats a lot of channels. But I bet some channels are not worth having."
werewolf 1-"This channel is worth having." *flips to the werewolf channel*
werewolf 2 "Cool!! A channel dedicated for us!!!
Hmm... A werewolf channel. I'd watch that (Bringing the total # of channels I watch up to 3.)
newscaster on TV- "We interupt this program for an important message. A werewolf has been spotted terrorizing a local neighborhood. It seems to be tossing rubber duckies at everyone!!
werewolf1 and 2- "FIGAROU!!!"
You know, a news report like that wouldn't suprise me at all.
I don't suffer from lycanthropy, I enjoy every minute of it!
According to this article a cat has a lot in common with human DNA, even more then a mouse (and thats weird, considering that a mouse is said to be a very early ancestor of the apes). When I asked a friend about this, he told me that cat DNA matches up with human DNA for 98.6% (!!!), thats more then some apes! Is this true?!
It would explain those weird cat-human manga crossbreeds you see scattered around there days.
Scott Gardener wrote:
I'd be afraid to shift if I were to lose control. If I just looked fuggly, I'd simply be annoyed every full moon.
Actually, humans and other apes' genomes are 99% similiar, while bats and elephant shrews, our closest non-primate relatives, are about 98% similiar.
Cats' genomes are about 96% similiar.
Rodents are more closely related to rabbits and true shrews than they are to humans.
Cats are used exensively in the study of genetic diseases because we share at least 60 different kinds of genetic diseases with them, and they're larger than mice, cheaper and less dangerous than chimpanzees or rhesus macaques, and are more plentiful and easier to raise than either bats or elephant shrews.
"I was all of history's great acting robots: Acting Unit 0.8, Thespo-mat, David Duchovny!"
-Calculon
Apokryltaros wrote:Actually, humans and other apes' genomes are 99% similiar, while bats and elephant shrews, our closest non-primate relatives, are about 98% similiar.
Cats' genomes are about 96% similiar.
Rodents are more closely related to rabbits and true shrews than they are to humans.
Cats are used exensively in the study of genetic diseases because we share at least 60 different kinds of genetic diseases with them, and they're larger than mice, cheaper and less dangerous than chimpanzees or rhesus macaques, and are more plentiful and easier to raise than either bats or elephant shrews.
Yeah, but since humans are not apes that doesn't really say much. And unfortunately there is no 'other apes' that have 99% similair genomes. The orang-otang is the only ape that has 99% of similair human genomes. The gorilla shares 97% of the human genome, so its weird to see non-primates like cats outrange these apes (except the orang-otang). And I don't think scientists 'study' animals just because they are smaller and easyier to take raise and take care off, that sounds really silly... I mean, then how do scientists study elephants?
Scientist: "Hmm, I say Bill, this elephant looks rather grumpy today... Lets just not study elephants and take a mice instead"
Scott Gardener wrote:
I'd be afraid to shift if I were to lose control. If I just looked fuggly, I'd simply be annoyed every full moon.
That makes us primates, not apes. And primates are a big selection of mammals. If we were apes, that would mean that we could possibly interbreed, and that we directly evolved from a chimp/gorilla/orang-otang, and none of that is true.
But if you like to think that you are a ape, then I don't mind.
Scott Gardener wrote:
I'd be afraid to shift if I were to lose control. If I just looked fuggly, I'd simply be annoyed every full moon.
Apes are a kind of primate, they happen to be all of the members of the Family Hominidae, along with humans. Scientifically speaking, your opinion doesn't matter at all, unless/until you come up with scientific evidence that explains why humans are not apes and are unrelated to apes, even though we happen to be anatomically and genetically identical to apes. Please learn some basic biology before you jump to conclusions. Just because we happen to be in the same family as apes doesn't mean we are capable of interbreeding with apes. Contrary to what you think, two or more species can be related to each other without being able to hybridize together.
"I was all of history's great acting robots: Acting Unit 0.8, Thespo-mat, David Duchovny!"
-Calculon
No, you really do need to learn more about biology if you think you're qualified to make statements like that. I'm not backstabbing you, I'm trying telling you that your facts are all wrong.
The ability to interbreed is not the sole criterion of relatedness, and is not even considered when you move beyond the level of species. The main criteria of relatedness are anatomical features, and similiarity of genetic information.
If the ability to interbreed is how we determine relatedness, then how do you propose we found out that crocodiles and birds are related?
One of the reasons why apes and humans can't interbreed with each other because each species of ape has a different number of chromosome pairs.
By your logic, gorillas aren't apes, either, because they can't interbreed with chimpanzees.
And how on Earth does me telling you that your facts are wrong constitute me betraying you?
"I was all of history's great acting robots: Acting Unit 0.8, Thespo-mat, David Duchovny!"
-Calculon
Morkulv wrote:Actually, it does matter. If you and I are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO close related to apes, then why can't it be possible? Because we are not apes, simple.
This is a cat:
This is also a cat:
Please try to keep in mind, however, that the two can't interbreed, even though they're related!
I don't suffer from lycanthropy, I enjoy every minute of it!
