12 Replies to “Who'da Thunkit? [Dan Collins]”

1. Bill D. Cat says:

   September 9, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   “Black plague selectively killed mostly ugly people.”

   Good thing for them beer was widely available .

2. Bill D. Cat says:

   September 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

   To your first point ; call it visage change , and sell offsets ….. or beer .

3. cranky-d says:

   September 9, 2007 at 5:47 pm

   Black plague selectively killed mostly ugly people.

   For all we know that may be correct. Their sample is really too small to be useful, and only taking samples from plague victims isn’t very good science.

4. JD says:

   September 9, 2007 at 6:06 pm

   RACIST!!!

   LOOKS-IST!!!

5. McGehee says:

   September 9, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   Their sample is really too small to be useful

   Define “useful.”

   I’m sure they’re just trying to show that low-foreheaded people like Chimpy McHitlerburton really are cavemen!

6. Yitzchak Goodman says:

   September 9, 2007 at 6:47 pm

   This seems to support the image of what future people look like according to all the cheesy science fiction films: giant foreheads, tiny features, etc.

7. Ardsgaine says:

   September 10, 2007 at 9:51 am

   “The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm – that’s in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot.”

   He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.

   So then… we’re not devo?

8. cranky-d says:

   September 10, 2007 at 10:01 am

   Define “useful.”

   Statistically significant. Plus they drew their sample from a biased set.

   This seems to support the image of what future people look like according to all the cheesy science fiction films: giant foreheads, tiny features, etc.

   “Man, did you see the forehead on that chick? She has it going ON!.”

9. McGehee says:

   September 10, 2007 at 10:15 am

   He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.

   Six hundred and fifty years? It probably took longer than that for somebody to figure out that rubbing two sticks together, and fire, weren’t necessarily a coincidence.

10. McGehee says:

    September 10, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Comment by cranky-d on 9/10 @ 10:01 am #

    Sure, if you’re talking “real” science. But “real” science is passe. Nowadays you start with your conclusion and amass your data to prove yourself right.

    Psssh. Where have you been?

11. otcconan says:

    September 10, 2007 at 11:26 am

    Get ready for the evilutionists to jump on this as “evidence” for their crackpot theory.

    Personally, I think the increase in cranial space will eventually be proven to originate somewhere around 1776 or so.

12. otcconan says:

    September 10, 2007 at 11:27 am

    “Man, did you see the forehead on that chick? She has it going ON!.”

    Christina Ricci: Proof that highly evolved chicks are HOT.

Comments are closed.