What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
132 Comments
- CCB0x45, on 07/14/2009, -0/+42You would think so, until you learn this little genre of mathematics called "statistics" where it has been proven statistically that evolution is entirely possible mathematically in the time period it happened, and even possible in shorter time periods.
Thats what happens when you don't always go with your gut instinct about something: you can look at reality, or choose to be an imbecile. - rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -0/+28Evolution is not a random process. Yes, there is an element of randomness, like drawing tiles out of a Scrabble bag. Now, let's say you want to spell "evolution" with Scrabble tiles. Now, you'd say it's incredibly improbable that you're just going randomly draw 10 tiles that happen to spell "evolution." However, evolution gives you an edge. Evolution is basically, you draw a tile. If it's a tile you need, you keep it, and if it's not, you put it back in the bag. If you keep it up, you'll eventually have all the tiles you need to spell "evolution."
- SQLserver, on 07/14/2009, -0/+25the idea that there's a gap around the time of the "Cambrian Explosion" is now dead. We see a slow transition of several fossils over the years that passes right through the Cambrian. It is true that animals arose in the Cambrian explosion, but we see the fossils change slowly and transitionally.
- serif69, on 07/14/2009, -4/+28“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.’ And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
There, solved.
/s <--take note - designerutah, on 07/14/2009, -1/+25Show me God and I'll take him/her/it more seriously. Until you can actually show something though, it's your word against thousands of other religions and millions of other believers... and they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
- Wakkyweed, on 07/14/2009, -0/+22LJU1492, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2009, -0/+22Random proteins running into each other and combining in a primordial soup.
or
Some all powerful, all loving, all knowing being that lives outside of time and space.
Are you sure you are picking the simplest explanation? - rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -1/+23LJU1492, you also seem to be confused. The thing about abiogenesis is that we don't have enough information about it, not that we have evidence that it's impossible. You're not different than those idiots that claim "We don't know how the pyramids were built, so they MUST have been built by aliens!"
- Hetman, on 07/14/2009, -0/+21Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Secondly this site probably has more atheists/agnostic/non-religious people that any other site and it has been that way for a long time. This whole christian conservative thing on digg is what is new.
- rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -1/+22What answers? God said "Abracadabra" and everything suddenly appeared fully formed? That doesn't really answer anything.
- CCB0x45, on 07/14/2009, -0/+21Or of course... allah... or maybe buddha... or possibly zeus.... or maybe the sun god Ra...
I prefer Zeus because I can see and hear his lightning and thunder.... Your puny god doesn't even do that. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -0/+20@LJU1492
You're misquoting Ockham's Razor - it does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.
"God did it" is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. Invoking your invisible sky-daddy does not rule out any alternatives, since an omnipotent being could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.
You're also conveniently ignoring the "all things being equal" part. Evolutionary biology has a preponderance of evidence. Abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence of its own, and research is ongoing. There exists no evidence for your mythological creation. All things are not equal here. - Wakkyweed, on 07/14/2009, -3/+23Yes, lets all take God more seriously. I suggest that you strap explosives onto your body and blow yourself up in the middle of a crowd of "heathens". Show them just how serious you are!
- CCB0x45, on 07/14/2009, -0/+20Yea but thats not true, some humans are smart enough to look at the evidence out there ant put it together. Giving up beforehand and saying everyone is too stupid to understand is a cop out.
- covertbadger, on 07/14/2009, -0/+19@LJU1492
"you can't have life that evolves, if you don't have life to begin with. "
You can't have toasted cheese sandwiches, if you don't have life to toast them. Does that mean that any explanation of making toasted cheese sandwiches has to incorporate a theory on the origin of life? Of course it doesn't. And neither does evolution. Evolution requires life to exist, but it doesn't matter how that life came into existence.
"Remember, all things being equal, the most probable explanination for a situation, is more likely to be the correct explaniantion."
A rule of thumb is not a replacement for science.
"Hmmmm.. tough choose"
Not really. Option 2) is stupidly unlikely, whereas option 1) actually happened. - LittleDas, on 07/14/2009, -0/+19@LJU1492
What research are you talking about? The minimum number of proteins required for life is probably not something that can be determined without recreating the original conditions. The minimum number of proteins required at present is likely much higher than the minimum number of proteins for some kind of proto-cell floating in a soup of organic chemicals. Part of the reason that it is considered extremely unlikely for abiogenesis to occur nowadays is that all the components required to create life are usually scavenged by organisms.
tl;dr
The current environment is likely to be orders of magnitude more inhospitable to the spontaneous generation of life so it is probably not useful to look at what is the base minimum for a cell to survive today. - mikbunn, on 07/14/2009, -0/+18Then whence comes the designer?
- rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -0/+18We're having a grown-up discussion about science. Please go away.
- Paranor01, on 07/14/2009, -1/+19yes it does
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -1/+18If by "all the answers" you mean "no answers whatsoever" you'd be correct.
- rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -0/+17Wouldn't you just love to see one of these morons actually back up their invocation of mathematics with actual math? I love when they bring in things like statistical improbability, which both ignores the basic issue that improbable != impossible, and they never bother to tell you how they got the number in the first place.
- migitalwarfare, on 07/14/2009, -0/+17how can all the answers be there when the bible has countless contradictions throughout, thousands of interpretations, and no proof that any of the extraordinary events claimed to have happened by "god's will" ever actually happened in the first place?
i think it's about time you people started reading the bible for what it is, a guide for how to be a good person that has been translated, edited, and molded by generations of humans to fit their needs at the time, not a documentary of actual events, and certainly not the instructions of an invisible master to be carried out to the letter. - PowderedToasty, on 07/14/2009, -0/+16Yeah lets all just stop trying to learn about reality through science, because it annoys some people and makes them feel uncomfortable.
- Dimensio, on 07/14/2009, -0/+16"Sorry I evolution never happened."
Please substantiate this assertion.
" The mathematical absurdity of how complex even a so called simple cell is, makes life accidentally randomly occurring impossible with out a designer."
I am unaware of any individual who posits that life occurred "randomly". - rocknog, on 07/14/2009, -1/+17Oh boy, evolution combined with the suggestion that carbon dioxide influences the Earth's climate. I'm prepared for a perfect digg *****.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -0/+15@LJU1492
"...and he, is of course, God."
And what objective, empirical evidence did you use to come to that conclusion? - Dimensio, on 07/14/2009, -1/+16Please reference the answers to which you refer.
- LittleDas, on 07/14/2009, -1/+16Dugg for science.
- StaticThunder, on 07/14/2009, -0/+14I take God's conspicuous absence from the observable universe VERY SERIOUSLY. God must want us to conclude something -- like He's Not There.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -0/+14@rocknog
I've seen a few of them bring up some math before, but it was easily refuted when it was demonstrated that their model was based only on pure probability instead of using an accurate model involving chemistry. Statistical thermodynamics for the win. - cmotdibbler, on 07/14/2009, -1/+15Oh oh, looks like someone was busy "handling snakes" or sacrificing goats instead of attending Intro Bio.
- Wakkyweed, on 07/14/2009, -1/+15Goddammit! Enough with the Jesus crap on this site already.
- THETEH, on 07/14/2009, -0/+13You misunderstand the definition of evolution, sirkel28. It's not a theory about the origin of life, it's a theory about how life adapts over time to its surroundings. Darwin observed that on an island where bushes were high off the ground, tortoises had evolved longer necks, whereas on an island where food was available at ground level, their necks weren't long. It's a perfectly reasonable scientific theory based on observation of evidence.
- Mnementh2230, on 07/14/2009, -0/+13If God has always existed, why cannot the universe have always existed?
... actually, because there was no time before the Big Bang, the universe HAS always existed. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+13You may be excused.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2009, -0/+12Thor would destroy zeus.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -1/+13Apparently my previous reply was too subtle for you. If you're unhappy with the content, and find that it threatens your ridiculous theist notions, please feel free to get the ***** off.
- twohoundogs, on 07/14/2009, -0/+11Dugg simply because your the only one that has said anything that has to do with the discussion of the article.
- StaticThunder, on 07/14/2009, -1/+12"Well there's no denying that the bible has proven itself to be right where humans have been wrong time and time again. "
Humans wrote, edited, and assembled the Bible, conveniently getting rid of the parts where they were blatantly wrong, and explaining away the other incredible nonsense with religious jibber-jabber, over the course of two thousand years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint)
"Which explains why some people would have had to turn to alien influences in order to cope with some of the unexplainable evidence within it. IOW. God didn't do it(that's impossible) aliens did! - Oh the irony. :p"
The Bible is a folk tale theory doesn't require aliens or divine entities. - Smilodon, on 07/14/2009, -1/+12"Sorry I evolution never happened"
Your knowledge of grammar is only outshined by your knowledge of biology... and statistics, math in general and all that other nonsense that they teach the kids those days.
You are fortunate indeed, Sir, yes you are! - Hetman, on 07/14/2009, -0/+114 articles about evolution in the last few days. Welcome to digg Slumper. That is about how many biology articles end up on the front page on average. If not more. Since almost the entire field of biology has something to do with evolution, the chances of this trend continuing is going to be very high.
- ricorurik, on 07/14/2009, -0/+10Did you leave off the /s?
(please say yes) - LittleDas, on 07/14/2009, -0/+10No. This is science not faith.
- PowderedToasty, on 07/14/2009, -1/+10Donny you're out of your element!
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -0/+9@LJU1492
Given that there is no valid alternative, yes. Further, you have repeated the lie that genetic information is never created - any time you have a modification to a genome, that is new information. We know it happens, we have observed it happen, and you are a result of it happening due to the collaborative, synergistic efforts of your parents' DNA.
You keep saying there are problems with evolution, but in attempting to point them out you keep showing your own ignorance of the topic. - digitalArtform, on 07/14/2009, -0/+9So what are all those anti-science people doing with things like computers and cell phones and cars? They should they should exorcise all of the Devil's science from their lives.
- funkyloki, on 07/14/2009, -0/+9You are doing it wrong.
- LittleDas, on 07/14/2009, -0/+8Actually judging by the fact that he's not attacking the contents, merely the fact that the scientists are sceptical and cautious, I call Poe's Law.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law - Moralogic, on 07/14/2009, -0/+7These are the idiots that come up with ideas like.
"Oh the moon is getting further away, so Earth couldnt be millions of years old, because the moon would hit Earth."
"The Earth is spinning slower and slower, so Earth coudn't be millions of years old, because it would be spinning to fast."
Once you put math into the conversation, even with their extremely warped numbers, they still look like asses. I had a guy triple the speed the moon is flying away, and claiming it would be touching Earth millions of years ago. I showed him the math, and it wouldnt even be within critical distance (touching our atmosphere, or even twice that distance) billions of years ago.
After that you have the fact that as the moon gets further, the faster it is able to pull away because Earth's gravity can't pull as hard on it. So he really looks like an ass once you figure that in. He accepted that the moon wouldnt be touching Earth, but still denied that the Moon is increasing it's withdraw from Earth. - Dubbleyew, on 07/14/2009, -0/+7I've heard this pathetic creationist argument many times myself. It's their new gem. It is amazing the speed at which such misconstrued science gets diseminated amongst these loons. You're doing a great job, though you may find with someone as arrogantly ignorant as LJU1492 that no amount of evidence will sway him. But thats not the point. There are many who read these comments who don't posses the education to properly see how full of ***** LJU1492 is, so it is important that you and people like you continue to expose his lies.
Keep it up. The evidence is on your side. Few things disgust me more than the bastardization of the work of brilliant scientists.
The funniest part is how someone like LJU1492 desires unequivocal scientific proof of evolution, but does not supply a single piece of evidence to support his alternative. Not one. This will keep going and going, with creationists trying desperately to cling to any percieved weakness in the theory, no matter how trivial, in order to prove their argument. Their entire argument revolves around percieved weaknesses in the theory of evolution, meanwhile, they have nothing of their own. NOTHING. No god did it stamp, nothing at all. It is AMAZING. -
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is