Pic Of The Day!!!


I’m sure we’ve all seen this or a variant of this, but, it bears repeating.

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Pic Of The Day!!!

  1. leftinflagstaff says:

    Neither quality or quantity for that guy. Yeah, let’s be like him.

    • suyts says:

      I’m told, on FB, that it’s because modern medicine kills us early is why that diet didn’t work then, or can’t work now, or genetically altered foods …. or some such something. It’s hard to follow.

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    Dead by age 35.

    It’s a misleading statistic. The average lifespan may have been 35. Many deaths were in early childhood. If you got out of childhood, and you weren’t done in by a war, disease, or an accident, then you might live well beyond 60. The average lifespan of two people–one dying at age 2 and one dying at age 68–is 35. Neither person died at age 35. The greatest improvement to average human lifespan was ending the majority of childhood deaths.


  3. Question. What would the average life span be today if all the ABORTED were added in?

    • DirkH says:

      That reminds me of the secret of the big Cuban life expectancy.
      They don’t count infants that die within 72 hours.
      As most infant deaths occur within that period, they fixed a major kink in the statistics this way.
      To this day leftists the world over praise the great socialist healthcare of Cuba.
      As usual they don’t know anything about what they’re talking.

      • gator69 says:

        Last time I checked into worldwide infant mortatlity statistics, I found that some countries do not count infant mortalities until the child nis at least one year old.

  4. Lars P. says:

    Lol, this one fits with the pic 🙂
    “Gone are the days that Neanderthals were viewed as little more than subhuman brutes and grossly inferior to our own species. Numerous studies over the last decade confirm that their intelligence was at least equal to that of early Homo sapiens”


    • gator69 says:

      I have Neanderthal genes, and I am very proud of my pale ancestors, as well as my genetics. The mixing of species was a boon to humanity.

      • DirkH says:

        Humans share 98.5 % of their genes with chimpanzees. And 40% with Bananas.
        Yet, only some of us have a percent or so of Neanderthal genes.

        • gator69 says:

          Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.


          Studies have suggested that the farther north your roots go in Europe, the more likely you will have something closer to 4% of your DNA being Neanderthal. My roots are in the Scottish Highlands and likely came from farther north before that.

        • DirkH says:

          So I’m 10 times as related to a banana as I am to a Neanderthal.
          Still befuddles me. I thought, with all the similarities…

        • Latitude says:

          My other half is Basque…

        • gator69 says:

          Other half of what? And what is the other other half of your other what? 😉

        • Lars P. says:

          “Studies have suggested that the farther north your roots go in Europe, the more likely you will have something closer to 4% of your DNA being Neanderthal”

          There is something wrong in that, as Dirk says.
          It can be only in the way that the respective percentage is pure Neanderthal not common.
          We mast have more common genes with a Neanderthal then with a chimpanzee.
          If you think it through (add the percentage) we must be 100 % (or more 😉 ) Neanderthal, lol.

          Btw, one cannot inbreed with a species with only 4% common genes…

        • gator69 says:

          It is not about what they have in common, it is the difference between Homo Sapien and Neanderthal.

        • gator69 says:

          And as in addition, the latest research indicates that species can only interbreed for a certain amount of time after splitting off from a common ancestor. It escapes me, but I believe the number is around 200,000 years.

        • DirkH says:

          I always bring that up in Neanderthal discussions. It’s fun to watch the reactions.

        • Lars P. says:

          gator69 says:
          August 29, 2015 at 2:37 pm
          It is not about what they have in common, it is the difference between Homo Sapien and Neanderthal.
          I do not think we have the complete Neanderthal genome actually. And what would be the difference? It is not clear to me…

          gator69 says:
          August 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm
          And as in addition….
          Which means we are very close actually…

        • gator69 says:

          Lars P. commented

          I do not think we have the complete Neanderthal genome actually. And what would be the difference? It is not clear to me…

          Bethesda, Md., Thurs., May 6, 2010 – Researchers have produced the first whole genome sequence of the 3 billion letters in the Neanderthal genome, and the initial analysis suggests that up to 2 percent of the DNA in the genome of present-day humans outside of Africa originated in Neanderthals or in Neanderthals’ ancestors.


          There has been much more recent research than this that gives us a complete genome map. And yes they are very similar, the differences are small but huge, and there for anyone to see.

        • Lars P. says:

          DirkH says:
          August 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm
          I always bring that up in Neanderthal discussions. It’s fun to watch the reactions.
          Yep, it’s a good point.

        • Lars P. says:

          gator69 says: August 29, 2015 at 4:20 pm …

          Many thanks for the link and info gator69!

          Reading through it:
          “the initial analysis suggests that up to 2 percent of the DNA in the genome of present-day humans outside of Africa originated in Neanderthals or in Neanderthals’ ancestors”

          So humans outside Africa do not have only 2% common with Neanderthals, but 2 % common only with Neanderthal – excluding what is common with others 😉 which is a different story.

          Then there seems to be a contradiction:
          Homo neanderthalensis, diverged from the primate line that led to present-day humans, or Homo sapiens, some 400,000 years ago
          That makes them the most recent, extinct relative of modern humans, as both Neanderthals and humans share a common ancestor from about 800,000 years ago.

          Now 400k or 800k?

          BTW: Chimpanzees diverged from the same primate line some 5 million to 7 million years ago and we have according to some studies 98.5% common according to some other 95%

          If Neanderthal diverged later, that should potentially be closer to us then chimpanzee.
          And actually this comes down the line in the link:

          “An analysis of the genetic variation showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to present-day human DNA, and 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee DNA. Present-day human DNA is also 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee.
          As Dirk says, we are closer to them then to cucumbers or bananas… much closer.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, there are contradictions. One being that the “first humans” migrated out of Africa 1.8 million years ago, or 60,000 years ago, depending on your definitions and your sources. To me it is obvious that multiple migrations occurred, and populations became separated, and in time unique. The latest studies show that there was more mixing of blood the farther south you travel out of Europe, and that Northern Europeans have the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA. Those Africans that never left the contininent and never mixed with those that did, have zero Neanderthal DNA.

    • suyts says:

      Let’s try this on …. “Neanderthals” are/were actually human. The genetic differences are no more than the genetic differences between an east Asian and a subtropic African.

      If anyone thinks about it logically, and recalls their own observations, we know it has to be this way. Different species, regardless of how close their genome sequence is, can’t replicate beyond one generation. Horses and donkeys, anyone? Sure, they can breed, and you’ll get a mule or a hinny. But, mules and hinny’s don’t reproduce. (there are exceptions through artificial means) Tigers don’t mate with panthers, but, dogs do mate with dogs, regardless of their breed. House cats mate with house cats, regardless of their breed.

      “Neanderthals” were not “humanoid”, they were human. It’s a distinction without a difference.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Yes, our species has several ‘breeds’ today, we just call it Race. It certainly could have had them back then too.

        • suyts says:

          I get irked when people play “percentage” of genomes. It doesn’t mean what people think it means. I’m 99% genetically the same as my brothers. We’re not 100% because we don’t look identical. I’m about 94% genetically the same as some cousins. Apparently, Neanderthals are more closely related to me than my relation, but, not of the same species. ………… Who honestly believes such tripe?

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Yes. And the dog analogy is right on. Chihuahua and St. Bernard- same species. Yet more different visually than modern Human and Neanderthal.

        • gator69 says:

          This should help clear things up a bit…


          Help! I cannot seem to grasp why siblings are said to be 50% alike genetically when humans are said to be, say, 85% the same genetically as mice.
          -A curious adult from Ohio

          You have asked a very interesting question. It’s easy to see why this sort of thing is confusing — it doesn’t look like it makes any sense! The first thing we need to do is separate the apples from the oranges so that we are comparing the same fruit so to speak.

          When scientists say a mouse is 85% the same as we are, they mean that biochemically, we are that alike. Using this measure, siblings are actually 99.95% the same. The 50% refers more to the amount of DNA we get from mom and the amount we get from dad.

          So we are more similar to our relatives than we are to a mouse. Let’s explore in a bit more detail what the 99.95% and the 50% numbers mean.

          For those of you not familiar with DNA, DNA is the alphabet that makes up the instructions for making you. DNA is a long string of four types of molecules known as bases. Bases are a type of molecule or biochemical.

          These four types of bases are referred to commonly as A, C, T, and G. Some of you may have seen the movie GATTACA. The title of the movie is a play on the bases that make up DNA.

          How do a bunch of letters make instructions? The same way they do when we write out instructions. The string of letters forms a code that our cells can read.

          A single instruction is called a gene. A gene can have a string of DNA as small as the 24 base one found in the round worm C. elegans to a gene as large as the one in humans that is 104,000 bases long. The gene has the instructions for making a single protein.

          Here is an example of a gene: “GACTTAGAGGTTACCTTACA- TAAGAGCCCTTTGGGACCTT.” Just a bunch of letters attached to each other in a specific order. Of course each letter is actually one molecule attached to another molecule.

          When scientists say we are 85% the same as a mouse, they are referring to the string of letters in a gene. This simply means that on average, if you compare a typical gene from mice to the equivalent gene in a human, 85% of their bases will be the same. Or if the gene was 1000 bases long, 150 bases would be different and 850 would be the same as the other. In other words we are 85% biochemically identical to a mouse.

          How biochemically identical are we to our fellow humans? The DNA sequence in your genes is on average 99.9% identical to ANY other human being. Meaning, if you have a gene that is 1000 bases long, on average there will be only 1 base that is different between you.

          Now, this is to any human. How similar are you to your parents? Or to your brothers or sisters? This is where the 99.95% comes in.

          Your parents are 99.9% the same. You probably know that you receive half of your DNA or genes from each parent. So this means that you are 100% identical to each parent for each set of genes that you get from them. (Click here to learn why this isn’t strictly true.)

          Because your parents are 99.9% the same, any DNA you get from them is 99.9% the same too. So really, when we are looking at how similar you are to your parents, we only need to look at the 0.1% difference.

          Now, this sounds kind of weird, but stay with me. Your genes are an average of your mom and dad’s genes. So wouldn’t we just average 100% and still get 100%?

          No because even though you are 100% identical to either set of genes from your parents, your parents are only 99.9% identical to each other. This means you must average the 100% with 99.9% which gives you 100 + 99.9%/2 =99.95%.

          You are 99.95% biochemically identical to either of your parents at least in terms of DNA sequences. It takes awhile to wrap your mind around this one unless you naturally like to play with numbers for fun. So that’s looking at our biochemical identity by looking strictly at genes as a series of letters.

          You may be thinking that must mean that my brother or sister is also biochemically 99.95% identical to my parents. So why aren’t my siblings and I 100% biochemically identical and therefore genetically identical? Because you don’t necessarily inherit the same 0.05% difference.

          And this gets us to the next part of your question. In that 0.05% difference between you and your sibling is the 50% relatedness people are talking about. Huh?

          The 50% refers collectively how much “genetic material” you get from each parent. You get 50% of your genes from your mom and 50% of your genes from your dad.

          Essentially you have two copies of each gene — one copy from your mom and one copy from your dad. Here is the strange part, the copy that you get from your mom may or not be the same copy that your sibling gets from your mom.

          Remember each of your parents has two copies of most of their genes too. When the egg or sperm that made you got made, only one copy of each gene was put in.

          The copy that gets put in is chosen randomly through a process called meiosis. What this means is that you have a 50% chance of getting one of their two copies.

          That probability doesn’t seem impressive until you consider that you have around 25,000 genes. Throw in a 50% chance of getting one copy versus your sibling getting another copy and that makes meiosis a serious gene scrambler.

          So, because of this scrambling you and your siblings are 50% genetically identical and are not 100% biochemically identical.

          You and your siblings are closer to 99.95% biochemically identical. Of course, since we have 6 billion bases, a 0.05% difference still translates to 3 million differences! Now explaining how people are so different and yet be 99.95% “identical” is another topic and we are just starting to understand this phenomenon.


      • gator69 says:

        Over the past 15 years, Svante Pí¤í¤bo, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, and his colleagues have uncovered an entirely new source of evidence about the nature of Neanderthals: their DNA. Starting with those fossils from the Neander Valley, they extracted bits of genetic material that had survived tens of thousands of years. Eventually, they were able to assemble the fragments into the entire Neanderthal genome.

        It’s clearly different from the genome of any human alive today, sprinkled with many distinctive mutations. These mutations accumulated in a clock-like way, and by tallying them up, Pí¤í¤bo and his colleagues estimate that Neanderthals and humans share a common ancestor that lived 800,000 years ago. It’s possible that the ancestors of Neanderthals expanded out of Africa then, while our own ancestors stayed behind.

        That’s a long time—long enough to reasonably ask if humans and Neanderthals are indeed two separate species. Old species split into new ones when some of their members get isolated from the rest. If a river cuts the range of a species of frog in two, for example, the frogs on one side of the river may only be able to mate with one another. Each population will evolve along its own path. If they are isolated long enough, they will have trouble interbreeding. They may even be unable to interbreed at all.

        From these facts of evolution, the biologist Ernst Mayr developed what came to be known as the Biological Species Concept in the 1940s—namely, a species is made up of members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. Experiments on living animals have shown that barriers to this interbreeding can arise in tens of thousands, or even just thousands, of years.

        Once the Neanderthal lineage left Africa 800,000 years ago, did humans and Neanderthals have enough time to become unable to interbreed? Pí¤í¤bo’s research provides an answer: no.

        Europeans and Asians carry with them a small portion of DNA inherited from Neanderthals—while Africans do not. The best explanation for our mixed genomes is that after humans expanded out of Africa, they encountered Neanderthals and interbred. Comparing the different Neanderthal-derived genes in different people, Pí¤í¤bo and his colleagues estimate that this encounter occurred around 40,000 years ago. The tiny amount of Neanderthal DNA has been interpreted by some scientists as evidence that Neanderthals rarely mated with humans—perhaps just once, in fact. But as scientists sequence more genomes from more human populations, they’re exploring the possibility that our ancestors mated with Neanderthals several different times.


        So far, this is the best explanation as to why we have “races”. My Neanderthal ancestors were markedly different from Sub-Saharan Africans, and after hundreds of thousands of years, I am markedly different from African Americans. We can dance the PC dance until we are dizzy, but the truth is as plain as the nose on my face.

        • Lars P. says:

          Hey gator, the link you posted previously says Neanderthals and humans share 99.7% same genes:
          How much different are current humans from each other?

          ” It’s possible that the ancestors of Neanderthals expanded out of Africa then, while our own ancestors stayed behind.”

          One point that is frequently overseen is the fact that sea level varied greatly. Our historians look at the current world map and imagine how humans migrated over the narrow bridge in Sinai between Africa & Eurasia, forgetting that during glaciations sea level was much lower.
          Here the CO2 record showing the glaciations – which should be about in line with sea level :):

          Recently people discovered in the straight of Sicily a 10 k years megalith deep under water.
          Looking at the water level then (it was already during the Holocene)

          So, I trust that Africa and Europe were very much in walking distance directly, most of the time with small batches of water at the level of Sicily or Gibraltar and 90% of our history at the time lies under water.

      • kim2ooo says:

        I get a bunch of Neanderthals in my living room…especially around Super Bowl time. 🙂

  5. DirkH says:

    That guy in the picture probably ate meat of a quality you would kill for.
    The introduction of agriculture REDUCED life expectancy at first, due to the malnutrition.

  6. cdquarles says:

    Ugh, it is worse than that. The air wasn’t clean, the water wasn’t pure and neither the diet nor the exercise made a difference.

    These links may be of some interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase, is the wiki entry given for the telomerase enzyme. I recall some work done in the 1980s and 90s by some pathology labs (some of this work made Science Mag back then) on the function of the telomere and the telomerase enzyme in maintaining cell division fidelity. In the 1980s, I recall some pathologists saying that human cell doublings in culture media were limited to 50 doublings. Some others speculated that this is the reason why humans do not live longer than 120 years. Then I thought of the Word. Pre-flood, human lifespans were 7 to 9 centuries. Post flood, it rapidly shortened to one century. A consequence of sin, sayeth the Word.

    The other link is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645988/, and it is related to the cell culture limit of 50 doublings, that I recall and in my opinion.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Perhaps it is dihydrogen monoxide?

    Read through this collection to see several alarming things that obviously dangerous chemical does:

    The Week in Pictures: Groundhog Day Edition

    And after that consider how deadly hydroxylic acid is. Many people die because of it every year.

  8. Lars P. says:

    More lunatics here: a man ran away with a married woman from a higher caste, so his two sisters are to be gang raped and paraded naked.


  9. kim2ooo says:


    ‘I find it the height of irony that a party which espouses small government, would want to unleash a massive law enforcement effort, including perhaps, national guard and others, to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their work places, round them up, put them in, I don’t know, buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border.’ Hillary

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214707/Hillary-accused-Holocaust-slur-against-Republicans-claiming-want-round-illegal-immigrants-buses-boxcars.html#ixzz3kHY2V500

    • kim2ooo says:

      Shhhh … really, I had not forgotten what Willie did… I was hoping you low informed would not remember.

    • kim2ooo says:


      “Bill Clinton and the rest of his liberal cronies wanted the boy turned over to the federal authorities and shipped back to Cuba. When Elian’s relatives refused to comply, that paragon of justice, Attorney General Janet Reno, sent a squad of officers dressed for combat — helmets, body armor, black BDUs — carrying fully automatic weapons to grab the child away from his unarmed kin.

      The sight of this on television should have outraged every American, not just conservatives. Had only the Clinton Administration been so zealous with the millions of illegal aliens within the US.

      • DirkH says:

        It is terrible what lying psychopath POS’s we have in the West as the ruling class. I include the German ones in that since they have opened the floodgates for Islamisation (3/4 of illegal immigrants, 800,000+ this year, are Muslims).

  10. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Back to the Pic of the Day, specifically the free range diet bit…

    I came across this interesting article in the UK Telegraph just now, about our old friend George Monbiot, who has been at ground zero of CAGW hysteria for ages.

    Just what is it about romantic (male) foodies and roadkill?

    George Monbiot butchers and eats a squirrel on Newsnight

    “Sceptical” proved too mild a term for the public reaction last week (“Vile!” “Disgusting!”) when George Monbiot, the columnist, eco-activist and advocate of re‑wilding, was invited to butcher and cook a squirrel on Newsnight. Why he chose to dismember Nutkin’s little carcass with an unfeasibly large axe when a modest kitchen knife would have been perfectly adequate for the job is anyone’s guess

    So there you go, your picture Suyts is of re-wilding proponents. George would be right at home.

    And the first picture in the Tele article is pure gold.

  11. Lars P. says:

    Dawn’s Motel Six photo – but still from June at some distance, there should come a better resolution one soon:

    • Lars P. says:

      Ceres of course – forgot to mention.
      Here the text accompanying it:
      “This image, taken by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft, shows the bright spots of Occator crater on Ceres from an altitude of 2,700 miles (4,400 kilometers). The image, with a resolution of 1,400 feet (410 meters) per pixel, was taken on June 25, 2015. “

  12. DirkH says:

    Guardian bemoans fate of poor Khat growers after UK banned import.
    Wants more blacks with psychosis.

    • DirkH says:

      One commenter agrees
      ” smallbeer Erdogan Krimvitz
      There is a big international trade in coca leaves. coca-cola buy them for example.
      It is refined cocaine that is illegal.”

      Guardian readers, you gotta love’em.

  13. Lars P. says:

    Meanwhile things seem to be changed in Syria somehow onobserved by the media:
    “Russia has begun its military intervention in Syria, deploying an aerial contingent to a permanent Syrian base, in order to launch attacks against ISIS and Islamist rebels; US stays silent.
    Russian fighter pilots are expected to begin arriving in Syria in the coming days, and will fly their Russian air force fighter jets and attack helicopters against ISIS and rebel-aligned targets within the failing state.

    It seems the days of the IS are numbered…

  14. leftinflagstaff says:

    ‘It seems the days of the IS are numbered…’

    Maybe. If the Russians learned anything from Afghanistsan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s