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.
151 Comments
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -30/+121The basis of this story is unscientific.
Evolution does NOT go "in reverse" ever. A species that stays the same over a million years still, in effect, has evolved and has been subject to the forces of natural selection all that time. Just because a species doesn't change or get more complex over time doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. According to Darwin and the current theory of evolution, a species can technically get simpler over time. This is still evolution. A species can stay the same. That is still evolution too.
A species called ***** sapiens affecting another species' habitat is every bit a part of natural selection as any other environmental factor.
This article makes it sound like humanity is outside the spectrum of evolutionary forces. This is wrong.
Look, humanity either is nothing but an evolved chimp and is no different than any other life form on the planet, scientifically speaking, or humanity is special because of esoteric or supernatural activity and intent.
If humanity is nothing more than the product of time + chance + chemical collaction then this article is inherently inaccurate.
If humanity is special and was intended to exist on this planet, then we can legitimately look at human activity as inherently different from the forces of natural selection.
Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. - Shivalyn, on 01/05/2009, -1/+33Evolution isn't going 'in reverse'. Just predominant traits that are being selected for by hunters (large rack size) are being cut down. So thus the smaller antler sizes live to reproduce and the larger ones are killed off.
Evolution is still plowing full steam ahead. - OSXpert, on 01/05/2009, -0/+20I admire dogs' evolutionary path: by being cute and friendly towards humans, most of them don't have to deal with much survival of the fittest, and we pick up their ***** for them.
- DrCyclops, on 01/05/2009, -0/+18Compassion for animals is a luxury of modern, western humans, who have managed to entirely divorce themselves from how food gets to their plates.
- coldfire201, on 01/05/2009, -10/+27Wow JimmySpaza. That is was one of the few times I have ever seen an intelligent digg comment. Well done.
- doubledmateo, on 01/05/2009, -1/+17Another article that appeals to readers that don't have a solid grasp of what the theory of Evolution truly is. Evolution doesn't travel in any direction. A single celled organism is often the most capable and successful organism in an ecosystem. It doesn't mean that Evolution has stopped.
- ancientdinko, on 01/05/2009, -1/+16I don't think humans have evolved much compassion for beings other than the ones in their OWN tribe/government/country/mosque/church etc. In fact I think evolution made us this way.
as for the article...
In North America habitat destruction is far more dangerous to animals than hunting is (Yeah it doesn't help that some idiot wants big antlers hanging in his living room)
More and more big game alpha males are rutting themselves to exhaustion and death because of increased environmental pressures and fewer energy rich resources. Alpha males as we know them are (I presume) simply 'dying out' and this is evolution in progress not reverse.
Evolution is survival of the 'fittest' where 'fittest' means 'best adapted to change'. So even the strongest big game animals will succumb to natural selection as their traits become less suited to the world they live in. The so called 'middle of the pack' become the new alpha males because they hopefully have what is takes to survive.
And if survival means by minding their own business on a golf course then so be it...
for the species.
sad.. - Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -0/+14evolution tends to happen in short fast bursts, mainly when there is pressure on a species, when there isn't not much changes, when large percentages of their population is killed for possessing some attribute, that attribute tends to disappear pretty quick.
- spoon088, on 01/05/2009, -3/+15Whatever happens happens. Evolution just happens, it has no will or intent like so many like to make it out. If being inconspicuous increases your chances to live and thus mate, then so be it. If you can pimp on females better than more athletic and powerful creatures, then so be it.
I agree though, humans are a sort of X factor in the whole thing. - Charlie117, on 01/05/2009, -10/+22There is absolutely nothing wrong with legal hunting, in fact, it keeps animal populations from growing out of control to the point where diseases are developed in the species, which would lead to more of the animals' deaths than hunting would. Poaching, however, is a problem, which hunters and non-hunters alike are trying to combat side by side.
- rearlgrant, on 01/04/2009, -2/+14The sooner we realize that, rather than projecting that on some mythical bearded anglo-saxon male in the sky, the sooner we might take responsibility for our behaviors -- rather than saying "oh well, I'm saved, what does it matter."
- Gemfinder, on 01/05/2009, -2/+13The article title is misleading. *Trophy* hunters go after the alpha animals, and trophy hunts cost big $$$$$$$, on the order of five decimal places. How many people do you know that can plunk down $18,000 for a trophy elk hunt every year? Every five years? More than once in their lifetime?
Or $50,000 for a bighorn ram "for the books?" I know sheep hunters that had to take out second mortgages to finance a "sheep slam" (all four North American sheep species).
About one hunter in 8,000 describes themselves as a "trophy hunter." The rest say, "Define 'trophy.' Mine's meat in the freezer." Those are happy with an old dry doe or a young male with spike, raghorn or forkin' horn racks, mainly because they're more plentiful and the meat is better. They just want to tag their 50 pounds of venison and go home.
Game parks? Not applicable, they're professionally managed with wildlife biologists on staff full time. Hell, exotic game parks in Texas are the biggest reason white rhinos, Eld's deer and addax antelope are still around, and that's the long and short of it.
What's really sending our wildlife into a downward evolutionary spiral is black market poaching. Poachers are the reason elephants are devolving tusks, because they just want the money. They don't give a rusty ***** about the meat and leather, they just yank the tusks out and leave the rest to rot. Same with elk; the head gets cut off; bears slaughtered and all they take are the paws and gall bladder; sell it to China — and the rest rots. - joshmoney, on 01/05/2009, -0/+10That probably means that evolution is working perfectly.
- DrCyclops, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9I'm thinking that you should look it up first.
If you did you'd find that biological devolution is a myth.
There is no such thing as "downward" "reversed" or "de-" evolution, because evolution is not progress. - Stevethegreat, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9To be fair WE created them to be cute and friendly. Before the agricultural revolution there was no such animal as "dog" in nature. It is a product of artificial selection tailored to the newly arisen needs of the humanity (due to the agricultural lifestyle), same can be said about farm animals, cats too...
- CalgaryJohn, on 01/05/2009, -1/+10Boo Propaganda!!! Hunt it yourself and grow your own veggies to go with it! Yay for hunting! (responsibly, of course)
- DrCyclops, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Went over my edit time hurrrr...
Trophy hunting is what remains of hunting for food in the age of grocery stores. It's vestigial, and will likely fade away eventually. But keep in mind that humans have been killing other animals for far longer than we've been doing anything else as a species. We don't need to ascribe a moral character to it that doesn't exist just because we've grown squeamish about the seedier side of life as a biological entity. - Barackalypse, on 01/05/2009, -2/+9Its funny, we're doing the same things to humanity through how we stifle innovation and excellence in our schools and how our entitlement programs reward individuals that have failed and exhibit traits we wouldn't actually want to continue.
- TheMachine1, on 01/05/2009, -0/+7Forcing people into a locker is mostly a myth I think but abuse of those that are different is a near universal phenomena.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -0/+7Being a hunter, i have personally witnessed two "wall hanger" white tail deer fighting over a doe during the peak of the rut. While they were busy having their dick measuring contest a forked horn (that's a 4 point to ya'll city slickers) came along and scooped up one of the does they were fighting over. Point being, not only dominant males mate, even nerd deer catch a break every now and again, so there is a more diverse gene pool over a much larger herd population.
- Dimensio, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6"Yes, but we now do everything possible to extend the live-span of persons with genetic diseases and other undesireable traits that would have otherwise ended their life before they could reproduce."
This is simply an alteration of reproductive selection criteria. Humans now exist in an environment where a relatively large range of genetic variance, as compared to other organisms (or even as compared to humans as they existed at various times throughout history), is reproductively successful. This does not mean that humans are no longer affected by natural selection, it means only that intentional human action has significantly altered the results of natural selection. - Dimensio, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6" Anything man-made or caused by man is outside of nature by definition."
Please explain this assertion. How are human actions and causes supernatural? Why would actions resulting from natural entities -- humans, in this case -- themselves be non-natural? - gmeinsch, on 01/05/2009, -5/+11Most hunters aren't picky enough for this to be true. A normal hunter is not going to see a small to medium sized deer and be like "Hey, I think I'm gonna let this one live and hold out for one that is at LEAST 400 pounds..." If you see one, you shoot it.
- Gemfinder, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Out of control?!
If anything, the game wardens who enforce the wildlife laws are grossly underpaid and overworked. Four guys cover Del Norte, Siskyou, Shasta, Lassen and Modoc Counties in California and they pull down $25,000 a year for pulling 18/365 work shifts — sometimes facing heavily-armed, highly-skilled marksmen. - LastDitchHero, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Nicely put, many people who read this article are not from a hunting culture and don't really understand not every hunter is out to kill the biggest thing in the woods.
- Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6evolution only travels forwards, it can however turn around and travel forwards in the way it came, but thats still evolution and progression.
a lack of change is not evolution as the oh so wise jimmyspaza seems to think as evolution is change over time, when there is no change, there is no evolution. - Stevethegreat, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5That's where the artificial selection part comes in. The concept where you select the animals which have the traits closer to your preferences (and dumping the others). Over generations and generation of selecting the MOST slavering of each generation's cubs, you got what you now call a dog. Different levels of different traits created the different races. Not rocket science, really, just enough of time and good ol' human compulsive obsession involved...
- Arcan, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6You're right. The headline is terrible, especially since, apart from the line, "But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.", the article doesn't even seem to be saying that. Hell, even that quote isn't backed up by anything. Nebulous "researchers" are referred to multiple times, but if anyone is mentioned by name, they're talking about how the hunting is just a different factor in evolution.
The article says nothing new, and in pointing out the obvious, still gets it wrong. Bad job, Newsweek. - ostracize, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5I don't think the article was suggesting any of that. It was simply pointing out that the advantages one might expect a species to develop are not really advantages at all anymore (bigger tusks, larger antlers, etc.) And what used to be a disadvantage to the species is now becoming an advantage so it FEELS like it's working in reverse.
- otto989, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7anybody ever seen the movie Idiocracy? it's about a future where people have become so dumb that we start watering our crops with gatorade.
What's great is that, while it may not be THAT bad, humans are essentially suspending biggest part of the law of natural selection, that of "survival of the fittest" through our use of advanced medicine and ample food supplies. im not saying thats bad, but take, for example, a human with miopia (eye problems requiring glasses or contacts). if we didn't have modern technology, chances are that trait would be nonexistent or extremely rare because in a more primal world, humans with sight problems would have an increased likelihood of dying. the same goes for other traits; more than just "the best" of our species will get to reproduce because of the advances we've made since the stone age, meaning that humans in the future as a whole will not be as strong or well adapted to its environment as they should naturally be. i'm not complaining though, im kinda short, need glasses, and not the smartest dude ever. if "survival of the fittest" was still in play 20 years ago, chances are i (and a lot of others) wouldn't have even been born. - Dimensio, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5"Humanity stopped being subject to natural forces when humanity began to wrest control over nature."
This is simply not correct. ***** sapiens are not exempt from natural forces and processes. In fact, there exists no evidence that any forces and processes that affect humans are not natural. - qxrt, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5"I think people dont realize the evolution takes millions of years."
Not necessarily. Evolution can take place relatively quickly if a strong external influence is applied (in this case, hunting as a sport, which has only been taking place for maybe couple hundreds of years). We're not talking about a case of bacteria evolving into fish here. - RadicalEdward, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7Wow. you read my mind. Glad you typed it all out for me.
- Stevethegreat, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7The same can be said for lions, sharks, crocodiles, whales, elephants, before humans' influence becomes so overreaching.... You know, it's not just humans on top of their rerspective niche, there's is also a bunch of other animals who achieved that status and they were still subject to evolution, as we are too, it's only that -this time- the elements that influences us are different, like -let's say- memes...
Evolution never stop, it just *is*, in the same way that gravity *is*. - exspasticcomics, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5cool article- though kind of a 'glass half empty' way of stating it. humans are effecting the course of evolution in some animals.nobody in the animal kingdom is 'reverting back' to their neanderthal selves here. deer antlers are getting smaller & deer are getting smaller because it's turning into an evolutionary trait that prevents you from getting shot by hunters. deer are not reverting back to their prehistoric ancestors. us- over hunting deer may not be good for them- yes--- but it doesn't mean evolution is 'reversing.'
- rabidbob, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4@DrCyclops - I'm not convinced that hunting is limited to trophy hunting and is a fading thing. I know plenty of people who go hunting and eat what they shoot on a regular basis; hell a few days ago I was out hunting and the prey is now in my freezer. Let's face it we're all just a dozen meals away from regressing into a pretty barbaric society, especially in places like the UK where we can only farm enough food to feed 70% of our population.
- DrewPeacock, on 01/05/2009, -2/+6Well... I could say that suggesting the unnecessary killing of non-human animals is "bad" requires that you first arbitrarily cherry-pick a bunch of morals, but then again similar logic can be applied to unnecessarily killing humans, and you'd have me cornered there. It's really just what societies and individuals are and are not comfortable with.
Most of the hunting I and the people I hunt with is ultimately for sport, but we do usually eat what we shoot. Coyotes are the only notable exception, and even then I can argue that we kill coyotes because they're pests-- but in the end, I'll admit, the only reason I do it is because it is genuinely fun.
In spite of this I'm fairly certain that I'm much more empathetic, and sympathetic, than than the vast majority of 18 year old guys. At least towards other humans. And I use Firefox, so I can't be a complete barbarian. - Stevethegreat, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4But the movies are based somewhere and it's not just the movies, the whole nerd culture as described through the digger's comments is inexplicable to me. There are people HERE documenting how harshly they were abused, I mean that's a prison culture (school culture that is); I mean it's like in that in my country too, but in a LOT milder form...
- ZincSaucier, on 01/05/2009, -7/+11actually, that is what evolution is. It can't go in reverse
- heavyd14, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4Although, selective breeding leverages evolution. If evolution was not occurring, our selective breeding would not have an effect.
- SumoSniper, on 01/05/2009, -3/+7On a related note:
Idiocracy. Watch it. Love it. Then weep. - mmeiser, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4Also.... one other major point overlooked by this interesting but inherently flawed article... when species are put under pressure this tends to spur evolution causing changes to happen more rapidly. So contrary to the article hunting is spurring evolution, not reversing it. The issue though still stands... is this the sort of evolution we want... and I think the answer is undoubtedly no. I believe there has been some work in fishing circles of throwing back the biggest or "legacy" fish, but honestly I don't know much about it.
- DrewPeacock, on 01/05/2009, -4/+8Yeah, taking part in one of man's oldest, most important, and most widespread sport, tradition, and method of procuring sustenance sure is stupid!
- Gemfinder, on 01/05/2009, -1/+5Game meat is free range, organic, antibiotic and rBST-negative.
- mwalker05, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4this article makes the error that evolution is synonymous with progress. its not. this is why darwin actually didnt want to call it evolution and instead called it natural selection.
- Pirate45, on 01/05/2009, -4/+7This is true. Varmint hunting especially is a very helpful form of hunting whether it is used to control disease carrying ground squirrel and prairie dog populations or protecting livestock and balancing the predator to prey ratio by hunting coyotes.
- DrCyclops, on 01/05/2009, -2/+5Idiocracy was not a documentary.
Your argument about myopia is ridiculous, because humans went for thousands of years without the benefit of glasses. Somehow the defect just never went away (hint: because evolution does not work how you think that it does), and rather than waiting a hundred thousand years for evolution to get rid of it, we just ground some glass lenses.
Problem solved. - johnnysaucepn, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3Yes, but those original wolves that were using to start the adaptation couldn't have been snarling, slavering monsters.
- Stevethegreat, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3When in school we also had those bully guys but they were like 2 or 3 in every class, NEVER more than than and they would pick kids, but EVERYBODY was against them, they're certainly NOT the popular type like I see what happens with the abusers in popular American movies. Popular guys would be alright and would not pick other guys. I don't know maybe it was my school, there WAS trash talk but was the most you can get, physical violence was only something that only the retarded would do, or sometimes two guys would arrange a fight, but there were no routines...
- johndavidjack, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3^^^^
Yes, just like camping is... -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is