Halp Deep Thoughts: Which species had a more profound effect on human evolution

She's half beagle and half Jack Russell. She has an underbite which sometimes gives her snaggle teeth on the bottom, and a white stripe down the center of her head which naturally grows into a long mohawk. She doesn't bite ankles and she doesn't pee on the carpet. Thank god. Our good friends have a cairn terrier which pees everywhere, all the time. Especially near the windows when he sees other dogs outside. What a godd*mn nightmare.

tumblr_miht8jIvtI1qmisv2o2_r2_500.gif
 
Last edited:
She's half beagle and half Jack Russell. She has an underbite which sometimes gives her snaggle teeth on the bottom, and a white stripe down the center of her head which naturally grows into a long mohawk. She doesn't bite ankles and she doesn't pee on the carpet. Thank god. Our good friends have a cairn terrier which pees everywhere, all the time. Especially near the windows when he sees other dogs outside. What a godd*mn nightmare.

tumblr_miht8jIvtI1qmisv2o2_r2_500.gif

http://www.biggulpshuh.com/
 
Love the scene with Harland Williams as the motorcycle cop. Harland is hysterical in everything. Great standup too.
 
You're not to compare the species, but the effects they have had on us!

I know, and I've been struggling with this, too, because without either it's likely we would not be where we are today; do you look at which came first, without which the other might not have been possible? Because that's not really an accurate assessment. So then, which one affected more lives? Well, that's a tough one, too. And you can't look at gross number of lives affected, because populations have varied over the years, and while the actual population # might be lower in one instance, it may account for a larger percentage of the population.

tl;dr: too many variables and not enough specific criteria to assess to reach an outcome I'd feel comfortable supporting
tl;dr-tl;dr: shit's hard, ionno mang.
 
I know, and I've been struggling with this, too, because without either it's likely we would not be where we are today; do you look at which came first, without which the other might not have been possible? Because that's not really an accurate assessment. So then, which one affected more lives? Well, that's a tough one, too. And you can't look at gross number of lives affected, because populations have varied over the years, and while the actual population # might be lower in one instance, it may account for a larger percentage of the population.

tl;dr: too many variables and not enough specific criteria to assess to reach an outcome I'd feel comfortable supporting
tl;dr-tl;dr: shit's hard, ionno mang.

I'd like to think that beer helped a greater percentage of people.
 
I'd like to think that beer helped a greater percentage of people.

But could we have gotten to that stage without the help of dogs in our earlier days?
Do you count the percentage of people harmed by alcohol against the total of those helped?

edit: i'm not casting my vote either way, just things that I've thought about
 
But could we have gotten to that stage without the help of dogs in our earlier days?
Do you count the percentage of people harmed by alcohol against the total of those helped?

edit: i'm not casting my vote either way, just things that I've thought about

Yes, I think we were successful hunters without dogs. They just added to it. :iono:
 
Yes, I think we were successful hunters without dogs. They just added to it. :iono:

You should also consider the use of the term "evolution;" if we are talking about what led to us being homo sapiens sapiens as we are today vs. homo sapiens (also called archaic homo sapiens," or using the term "evolution" more loosely/unscientifically to mean how we have progressed as a species.
 
You could actually blame brewing on the creation of classes. It created land ownership. Brewing created stratification.