What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
69 Comments
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Of course we were the prey. It wasn't until that big black monolith showed up that we evolved into the world dominating hairless apes of today.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>"what *****. i dont think humans ever converted solar energy to chemical energy"
of course we did. we call it agriculture. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you know... i was thinking... is it just for fun that these creationist trolls come and say controversial things to pick fights? ya some for sure. there a guy on another story who was quoting scientists as admitting that a comets life span was 10,000 years. this is just so incredibly uncredable that i wondered where it came from. i have noticed that they reference scientists "say" a lot. how would a scientist say that a comet lasts only 10,000 years so they could reference it. there a few things that come to mind. fabrication. mistake. taking something out of context. its not news to anyone that they do this.
so i'm thinking how would i go about making something seem credible. i realized if you send trolls to cruise the science and tech lanes picking fights... you could almost steer the conversation to anything you want. so the headline on creationidiocy.org
scientist say comets proven life span is 10,000 years.
and they have a google reference to an article on digg- where scientist and technology athiest go and use it for credibility. if there linked article is worded in just the right way it could be said to support an assumption fed them up front.
anyway. i may look into it. - ThisGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge, if not common sense.
We took over the planet because we are smart, and we are smart because we had no other way to take over the planet. - ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another misleading digg subject line. The article says nothing about humans being at the "bottom of the food chain" (as in, lower than amoeba?? sheesh) - it discusses the evolution of human sociability and co-operation.
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's been said above, but I didn't know this was unknown to most people, either. Early hominids had some tools and smarts, but they were severely out-gunned when it came to their senses and their natural weapons. Compared to most predatory animals, we can't see, can't hear, can't smell, can't run and can't fight worth a damn.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea I agree too. The only way we are able to defend ourselves against animals that are at the top of the food chain is with technology. I would say this is kind of cheating. Just my opinion.
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"TRIVIA TIME...how many dinosaurs does it take to make a barrel of crude oil?
question 2....how did the oil get miles below the surface....when today...it seems to float on water and stay on top of land cause it sticks to everything....hmm..."
I don't normally feed the trolls, but this is just too brainless to be believed. First, oil did not come from the decayed bodies of animals. The overwhelming consensus is that it is formed by the decay of plants: which includes terrestrial and aquatic materials, most probably microorganisms in large part.
Second, just as ancient plant and animal fossils are buried under layers and layers of mostly sedimentary rock (that is, rock formed through the laying and compressing of silt in water), that's exactly where we expect and do find oil deposits. Plant material decays, is deposited on ocean and sea beds. over time, the surrounding material becomes rock and voila: oil trapped in rock. How do we know that sedimentary rock is formed that way? Well, lots of ways. For one thing, sedimentary rock is where we find all of our aquatic fossils. But also, many types of sedimentary rock are wholly or partly composed of fossilized microscopic organisms--you can see the shells right in the rock, like limestone.
Of course, all of this information can be easily found both on the internet and at your local library. Before you pose a question you claim has no answer, try actually looking for the answer. It helps. - gluon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The bottom of the food-chain consists of microbes and sea-plants. I believe the article says that predators drove the evolution of man. I think there was some artistic interpolation when this digg title was chosen.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"bottom of the food chain"
what *****. i dont think humans ever converted solar energy to chemical energy - plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I would say this is kind of cheating."
Yeah, being dumb and strong is way better. Look at all of the great works other animals produce. - aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nature assumes nothing more than the body you were born with, and instinct. With only those two things, humans fall to last place on the food chain. If it wasn't for a major stroke of luck in the evolutionary chain, we'd still be last on the food chain.
Ironically, even professional hunters that are armed with guns, still ***** themselves if a tiger or bear charges them. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think people posting stories must be forced to read their article title out loud, preceding it, of course, with with phrase "This just in!"
> This just in! Evolving Humans Were At The BOTTOM Of The Food Chain
that just makes it a little more obvious that it is NOT news. leave it in your blog and if someone wants to read it, they will. - Aooogah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is old, we've known this for at least a decade perhaps more, no digg.
- moracity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a silly, redundant article. I'm not an anthropologist, but it's fairly common knowledge that early man was near the bottom of the food chain. There is even evidence that early hominid species hunted each other, leaving modern man. It's called survival of the fittest.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Say, have we actually found a skeleton in evolutionary transition yet that hasn't been proved to be a fake
>or a hoax?
not sure what you mean hoax... i know of the well know hoaxes but... without going looking it up-i think "lucy" is generally seen as one of quit a few hominids that were very similar which diverged as they moved to new environments-even though genetically i beleive she wasn't a direct ancestor. but that bunch of them were roaming and moving and evoving more quickly because of changing climate and geographic challenges... etc. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i don't think is a new revelation. we should be thankful i think. having to develop the smarts to avoid being eaten because we were under equipped... combined with tools... that we learned to use to be top preditor probably are responsible for us being here today. i think.
- ApocDozer, on 02/07/2009, -0/+1No we are not.
And we have never been at the bottom. We might have been prey, but we certainly were not at the bottom. - Darq1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course we were at the bottom. Almost everything else out there was faster, stronger, and bigger then we are.
- lon3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah all this was before we had nukes!
i'd say create another time scale: AN and BN (after nukes and before nukes) - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"bottom of the food chain? yeah sure we are."
Go back and look at the title: "were." It's a verb form of the word be in the past tense.
"what are they teaching people in college these days? dumbass 101?"
Oh, you know, reading skills, for example. - Inbal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, people, but I didn't know that. Never heared such a theory - which means that most people I know certainly haven't - digged.
- lilparker780, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hello everyone! This is my first post! I think humans have came a long way since evolution. I think we are at the top of the food chain because humans are supeior when it comes to intelligence.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We've still got a long way to go. And we're a lot closer to a regression then a progression. If someone cuts the power, I can prove it.
- Metal_Guru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, really? Hell, I could have told them that... common sense ain't it? You always start at the bottom and work your way up... the way it is still done today.
- TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No news, no digg. This is obvious except to fundies that hate science. Some book over rules everything. Sounds like those Islamic fellers in Iraq. Anyways, we all know this.
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"what *****. i dont think humans ever converted solar energy to chemical energy"
Yeah, it seems like "not at the top" somehow translates to "near the bottom." Hominids were likely in a higher position than current apes. There's a pretty big step from ape to plankton. - metaphysical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And this is news how exactly? Anyone who has taken a biological anthropology course at a CC/University would know this within the first week.
- SkaVanker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can it get like more old news than this
- scottlax82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmmm...gathering vs hunting, will I spend a lot of energy to maybe catch a little food or will I be collecting food, which gets me more energy will for less energy. Good to know that other people outside of Anthropology and Human biology and variation hear about this. Too bad there's more evidence that we've over fished costal areas vs hunting megafauna to extinction, (giant sloths and mastadons). One last point, more likely that modern humans became the dominant subspecies of ***** because of our generalized adaptation to our environment, as compared to Neandertal, who was "possibly too specialized for his environment".
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"And the evolutionists continue their ludicrous theories."
Spontaneous human creation is far more enlightening, I know. - cheese06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1WAYYY too many smartasses on digg. I digg this.
- Cowboy5995, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0TRex vs. Human=pwn
Of course I am not up on my time line of what animals that were around at what times. - grislygus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You mean that our ancestors got eaten? But, how could this be?!
DUR-hey. - Zipko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1--------------
"hmmm....where are the bones of evolved dogs...cats....birds....fish...etc .*yawn* how about elephants before they had a trunk....*yawn*... anyway no point in asking people with low common sense."
holy *****.
-------------
My thoughts exactly. It's hard to tell if this is some kid just saying something contraversial for a laugh, of if he really believes it. Those fanatics say some crazy *****.
Or maybe he's making the point that in the future we should finally have time travel down pretty good. Someone by now would have already come back to our era, probably with a pet who evolved from my adorable golden retriever. The fact that we have yet to find fossils that can be dated to around the year 200,006 is proof that no life exists at that date. Since life is gone by then, I would think the apocolypse was probably some where in the middle. Half way between now and then is 99,000. Everyone mark your calenders, the world is ending in the year 99000.
Actually, this stuff is fun. I think I'm going to take up religion, they have all kinds of cool ideas. - SlashNot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0exactly arcotik.
- xaviel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I learned that in elementary school. NO DIGG.
- Macc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol zipko
- BadDolphin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0During the 1900s, more people were killed by other living creatures than were killed by all wars of all types in all nations combined. Only in the last few decades of the 20th century did we reach a point where we MIGHT be able to argue that we're finally at the top of the food chain. Obviously I'm referring to the Smallpox virus here.
- falseintellect, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0seems pretty obvious to me.. if its human vs bear who would win? we just invented guns and stuff ;)
and how about you're not allowed to not believe evolution unless you endorse another theory. and no ID does not count. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>hmmm....where are the bones of evolved dogs...cats....birds....fish...etc .*yawn* how
>about elephants before they had a trunk....*yawn*... anyway no point in asking people with
>low common sense.
i guess you’re implying that we haven’t found any. let me dispell that for you. we have. :D yikes. - Arcotik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is this news or something? If we didn't have guns we'd be easy as hell to kill. We're one of the most vulnerable creatures.
- SeanCK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apparently "everything else out there" also has a better grasp of basic grammar THAN Darq1.
I love digg, but y'all are stooopid! - pixelwerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As soon as cows and chickens figure out how to use guns, we are so screwed.
- theYevvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We are slow moving sacks of meat, thats not news.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a surprise.
- mianos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah, what a life. A full time job sitting around and discussing the obvious! The only thing that beats that would be a full time slashdot professional poster. "Predators 'drove human evolution' ", no kidding. Maybe I can get my name up there too.with something like "sex 'drove diversity'. No digg for something so already well known and so obviously a part of the overall current theories. Damn I want to get in on this pay me for the obvious scam!
- ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some of the comments here are so incoherent and poorly written, that I can't even figure out which side of the argument they lie on. I've been out of school for quite a while now, do they still make kids attend and stuff? Christ it's getting scary.
- shroom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've only taken one Anthropology class and this is not news in any way shape or form.
- ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"With only those two things, humans fall to last place on the food chain."
Maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't say, a rabbit, or a squirrel be lower? Are you really saying humans are dead last on the food chain? And what is the "major stroke of luck" you're referring to?
"Ironically, even professional hunters that are armed with guns, still ***** themselves if a tiger or bear charges them."
That depends on the gun, I'm betting. And also depends on whether or not said hunter has 1 or 2 buddies in various angles also aimed on the bear. All you're really saying is take away the gun, and the bear can defeat the man. well, duh. -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 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