What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
192 Comments
- prompel, on 09/09/2009, -10/+211Overturn? Hardly. Just minor adjustments.
- rchargel, on 09/09/2009, -5/+122There are a lot of problems with this article.
1) Even if ***** erectus did migrate from Africa 800,000 years earlier than previously thought, it would change little to nothing about the current theory of human evolution.
2) If ***** erecturs migrated to Europe 800,000 years earlier than previously thought, it doesn't mean that they migrated back to Africa before "evolving" into ***** sapien. The migration of ***** erectus, just like the later migration of ***** sapien, wasn't so much of a migration, as much as it was a "spreading out." Modern man (***** sapien) was first seen in Africa roughly 180,000 years ago. During the 2 million or so years when ***** erectus was walking around, is it possible that there were many migrations into and out of Africa by different tribes? Sure.
3) The Daily Mail has a nasty habit of over sensationalizing headlines. Take it with a grain of salt. - lhbaker, on 09/09/2009, -0/+106It's pretty scary when a skeleton threatens you. I'd run like hell.
- waydee, on 09/10/2009, -0/+84The Daily Mail shouldn't be allowed a digg button
- Foxprowl, on 09/09/2009, -4/+81I had no idea Atlanta was that close to the Middle East.
- rwerelic, on 09/09/2009, -14/+75Overturn may be correct in this context...considering this discover shook up HUMAN evolutionary theory NOT the theory of evolution. Its tempting to get defensive.
- WordsnCollision, on 09/09/2009, -7/+59Actual headline: "Ancient skeletons discovered in Georgia threaten to overturn the theory of human evolution." Not the submitter's fault, blame Digg's arbitrary 60-character headline limit.
- shdwfx, on 09/10/2009, -2/+47People who think that this overturns the theory of evolution don't seem to have even a basic idea of what evolution is about. Nothing in the article at all is at odds with that theory!
The article is about findings that may or may not indicate that evolution took a slightly different path for mankind that previously thought, that's all. Nowhere does it give any indication that a mechanism other than evolution played a hole in the development of man. - Hetman, on 09/09/2009, -1/+39The dailymail and there hyperbolic headlines. Can anyone say the most sensationalist paper in the UK?
- 80hd, on 09/09/2009, -3/+37Evolution theory is sound.
If it was discovered that the earth used to be two planets that collided. That doesn't mean rethinking physics, just our understanding of history. The rules are still the same, however our knowledge of what happened in the past because of those rules is now different.
Modern physics models>Einstein>Newton>>Aristotle
Modern Evolutionary theory>Darwin>>Biblical accounts - slapo12, on 09/10/2009, -1/+35Buried for stupid headline, article
- holychicken, on 09/10/2009, -1/+34Just like the Theory of Gravity, right?
- kylescousin, on 09/09/2009, -9/+37I don't think the evolution theory can ever be "overturned"...
Yes, it's not perfect yet, but that's just a matter of time... while new information is gathered from fossils, it's only "tweaked" to become the ultimate theory of life. - hydroplane, on 09/09/2009, -3/+30You can still find some of these primatives roaming the public housing sections of the ATL.
- Destrider, on 09/10/2009, -0/+27Not even a minor adjustment, this has nothing to do with evolution, rather this may require a re-factoring of the history of hominid/human global migrations. This is just some moron's attempt to garner some controversy by cobbling a sensationalist headline.
- 4rp4n3t, on 09/10/2009, -2/+25No, blame the ***** Daily Fail for one of its typically inaccurate, sensationalist headlines.
- kingofkolt, on 09/10/2009, -0/+22Their.
- illinest, on 09/10/2009, -1/+22ludicrous.
a slight tweak in the timeline (and hardly surprising in my opinion. I expect more finds like this)
but somehow the theory of evolution is being overturned? - staticfire, on 09/10/2009, -0/+20Buried for daily mail
- jynweythek, on 09/10/2009, -1/+18The title error was probably an innocent mistake, but I just know I'm going to hear from some self righteous wacko about how "OMG they found skeletons in georgia that disprove evolution!"
- Wiink, on 09/10/2009, -3/+19Oh...Georgia the country, not the State. Man, do I feel like more of an American now.
- Syric, on 09/10/2009, -2/+18Ha! Great impression of a creationist! That's exactly the sort of uninformed statement one would make! Oh, hardy har, I laugh at the way they don't understand basic terminology. Oh, you were so convincing. Great show.
- baldbomber, on 09/10/2009, -0/+15All we are saying...is give Chance a piece.
- jmmL, on 09/10/2009, -0/+15"Theory" is pretty much the strongest label science can give to an idea. It's not thrown around lightly within the scientific community. Only mathematics can deal in absolute truth, and even then only for a particular set of axioms.
So the notion of the theory of evolution being "only" a theory is a flawed one. - MelvinSchlubman, on 09/10/2009, -0/+14> All hail Chance!
We're sorry that the reality of chance events is uncomfortable for you. We will file a formal protest on your behalf to see that all chance events are stopped ASAP. - undervalued, on 09/10/2009, -0/+13If you had read the article you would know what the problem is with the title.
- lead2thehead, on 09/10/2009, -0/+13Yeah, except you're using the wrong definition of "theory". When people talk about the theory of evolution (or the theory of gravity), they're referring to the general body of principals regarding that subject. "Evolution Theory" would probably be a more accurate title. You're using the grade school definition, which is "an unproven assumption."
- anthropodeus, on 09/10/2009, -3/+16yes. gravity is still the least understood of the forces. expect some serious revisions this century.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 09/10/2009, -1/+14Wow... worst. headline. ever.
- jmmL, on 09/10/2009, -1/+13Discovery of Georgia skeletons may alter human "out-of-Africa" hypothesis.
- spencerhawkins, on 09/10/2009, -0/+12Idiots. You don't overturn the theory of evolution. If anything you adjust the theory of hominoid evolution, huge difference.
- nategri, on 09/10/2009, -3/+15Bad headline. 'Nuff said.
- Kazbaeden, on 09/10/2009, -1/+13Exactly. Most people don't know what a scientific theory is. It's the most powerful word a scientist has for a framework to understand nature, completely separate from hypothesis. Most people equate the two.
- gcnaddict, on 09/10/2009, -0/+12what?
- OUSooner, on 09/10/2009, -1/+13That's the second news story in a year where I thought Georgia, USA for a second. You can understand how completely shocked I was to think human remains were found there. Now I'm still shocked, but slightly less.
- Yage2006, on 09/10/2009, -0/+11Ya sorry bout that digg is not local to kansas or texas otherwise I am sure more people would support your delusion.
- hazard99, on 09/10/2009, -0/+11But... aren't jokes funny?
- imakecomments, on 09/10/2009, -0/+10Learn what theory means, please.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/ - nategri, on 09/10/2009, -1/+11Go read a Bible.
- nitsuj, on 09/10/2009, -0/+10"So, re the odds of "chance" actually making something, such as DNA are:"
Nobody claims that molecules just bash together until DNA is formed.
"Scientifically that means it's impossible"
Scientifically, it means you are clueless about this subject. - Disgod, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9"The probability of making DNA of any simple organism by chance with all ingredients available is 1/10 with 60 million zeros."
Congrats you've disproved CREATIONISM. Evolution doesn't state that our current genetic code was made by chance or all at once. Evolution is a bottom-up process. IE. Simple to complex. The first forms of life weren't even DNA, but RNA, and they didn't have large genetic codes. The first forms of self-replicating molecules (aka the precursors to life, RNA) were insanely more simple than anything alive today. Only after several billion years of evolution and natural selection does such size and complexity slowly emerge. The only group that claims our genetic code, or any organism's genetic code, came together at one time is creationists. Your numbers disprove the possibility of animals spontaneously forming!!
"Scientifically that means it's impossible"
Actually, scientifically, that means that you're too stupid or ignorant to understand the topic that you're trying to speak on, and that you're just parroting without understanding some numbers you got from some creationist source. Try actually learning about what evolution predicts and says before making idiotic posts like that. - TwineHornet, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9Akchrs needs to take a basic elementary science class to learn what all the terms mean.
- Harabeck, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
"In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena." - thomasoa, on 09/10/2009, -2/+11Unfortunately, the truncation of "overturn human evolution" to "overturn evolution" is very loaded language here in the States.
- Falldog, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9I thought we (the Digg community) had decided to stop digging up Daily Mail articles, for the good of all mankind?
- eir574, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9"Scientifically that means it's impossible"
No, it means it's very unlikely, and that's if we accept your premise that everything had to happen all at once exactly as you think it did. We don't. - inactive, on 09/10/2009, -0/+8why would this derail the theory of evolution?
- Disgod, on 09/11/2009, -0/+8"Once again you're simply stating conclusions."
And once again you misunderstand evolution, and demonstrate that you have no clue about biology or the theory of evolution. Why don't you actually try a source other than AIG or the IC'R'. Maybe talk to an actual biologist, not a creationist.
"Still, somewhere the DNA as it is has to be formed -- all of it. "
No, not at once, and DNA wasn't even the original form of life. RNA was. Over countless generations genes have been added through processes like gene duplication, deletions, insertions, etc. DNA did not need to form all at once, but was a slow accumulation over billions of years. No biologist, other than creationists, claim that all the DNA needed to be there from the beginning. If you think that you're arguing against the theory of evolution by saying that all DNA needed to exist from the start, you need to realize that you're not arguing against evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't ever say anything like that.
"One piece off the make-up and something's wrong such that the creature with the bad DNA can't function."
Once again, evolution is a bottom up process. Things can be added into the genome later, through gene duplication, insertions, deletions, etc, which then become necessary to the organism, but there are previous forms which didn't need those organs/processes/functions to live. Ex. We need our livers, but many species have no livers, don't need livers, and live without them just fine. The absolute necessity of a liver didn't exist until after it had evolved to suit some function. The same is true for all other organs, functions, etc. You are only looking at the MODERN versions, go far enough back in time and what is now absolutely necessary was unnecessary and absent in earlier forms.
"Take the woodpecker for instance -- his operation is made up of interdependent ops that could not work without the others. Completely unlikely to occur at one time, as macro evolution says it has to be."
... Congrats you're using the wonderful claim of irreducible complexity. Sorry, but that argument has been debunked a long time ago, including in US courts of law. Even the creator of the idea Michael Behe can't actually demonstrate anything that is truly irreducibly complex.
And again, the problem you continue to have is that you're only looking at the MODERN version of the wood pecker. The MODERN wood pecker can't have things removed, but evolution actually can, and has been demonstrated to, lead to irreducibly complex functions.
"Intelligent design is like the making of the Boeing plane -- a plane, supervision, and power."
Ummm, no ID is like POOFING AN ENTIRE PLANE INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING. Oh, and you have that whole little issue of where the designer came from... Wouldn't the designer need a designer itself? - inactive, on 09/10/2009, -2/+10I'm going with a buried as inaccurate.
- jynweythek, on 09/10/2009, -0/+8Can anyone say "their?"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 202 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is