What is Digg?161 Comments
- syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25pity nobody (that i know of) has a tail developed enough to grasp a beer.
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24If you're eating your lunch atm, do not click the link. I could have done without the naked hairy guy.
- victorycig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Haha, digg should add that option to the buried list: "Duplicate; Spam; Lame; Not a Tail."
- neckfire, on 10/10/2007, -12/+27Obviously they are from the devil. god, you evolutionist's are so ignorant.
/sarcasm - dr0psy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16you've made this very clear to all of us, thank you.
- WRXFiles, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Yep, it'd be cool if there were a god that did this - love to meet him and learn more about the process...
But it doesn't make sense, does it? He have to be even more complex than the process he was creating, which just raises the question of where he came from.
The burden of proof remains with the theists. If you would like us to believe in your gods, you are going to have to come up with something resembling evidence.... - IHaveIssues, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Why did Jesus give them tails?
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13***** happens. Odds are odds specifically for those reasons. The fact that DNA is so perfect isn't proof that someone designed it - it just lends credence to the fact that life is very precious in our universe.
Consider - there are 10^1021 stars in the universe. (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer ... Yet, out of all of them, only 1 star has a planet that's capable of hosting life? (Fermi's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox). We are unique. And, I would rather believe the source of 'us' is a random process, given the alternative theories proposed by Judeo/Islamic/Christian tradition. Who needs a vengeful and hypocritical deity to kick it all off?
Can you give a source on that 10^9000 figure btw? - Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13This isn't completely true. Some of the tails do have bone structure and can be controlled (similar to a dogs tail).
- TinMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Hell, I don't believe in creation and I agree with brokencrystal. Are you saying that children born both male and female prove we were once asexual?
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12These tails aren't evolving from scratch. We all have residual tailbones (The three fused bones at the ends of our spine), which are left over from our days in the trees. Since becoming larger and more bipedal, we lost the benefit of having the tail, so we gradually lost it. This is the same reason we don't have fur, but still have body hair. Many of the genetic basis for it still linger on in the gene pool, so every once it a while someone has the right combination for a mal-formed tail. There is still no environmental benefit to having it, so it doesn't re-evolve again. Evolution isn't as cut-and-dry as creationists make it out to be.
- RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Prolly the longest thing dangling from a Japanese.
- HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Furrie porn.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -21/+27That is because they are not really tails. They are not even lined up with the spine in most cases and have no bone structure or muscle. These are not tails, but growths. This has nothing to do with evolution. In order for this to be related to evolution, first, they would have to be real tails, second, they would have to be entered back into the gene pool somehow, and since humans do not have tails, this is simply not possible.
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6We WERE once asexual.
/We as in what we evolved from, not humans. - thespace2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Jesus has a sense of humor
- JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Here's a simple prediction of evolution.
Humans will occasionally be born with tails.
Humans will never be born with wings.
Your "weird ass mutation" theory fails.
Evolution passes. - Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7People seem to think evolution is somehow intelligent and it chooses useful characteristics. It's not, every now and again you'll get someone with a mutation with a tail. It's possible these people won't mate and so it doesn't get passed on.
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Theory is more or less the highest level, there's not much difference between a theory and a law. You're thinking of theory in the common sense, in other words, a guess or hypothesis. When a scientist uses the word theory it's not quite the same. Consider for example kinetic molecular theory or the theory of gravity. No one doubts those, do they?
Read the third paragraph here for a better explanation than I can give. :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory - kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't blame him because you're an idiot. We came from mammals with tails. Birds came from feathered dinosaurs which evolved separately from the first mammals... The genetic code for wings would NEVER be in our DNA whereas the genetic code for a tail may be still there but deactivated.
- mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because in most First World countries, the infant would either be operated on or treated, or the pregnancy would have been terminated had a defect been found.
- CerMakAlot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5backwards penis disorder?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ummm....Those look like pictures you would find in the National Inquirer. Either that or it looks like they re going to the bathroom.
- carbonetc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Now even the evolutionists don't know what "theory" means?
- Four20, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I saw a Japanese video of a dude with a tail(from digg of course). . .about 10 inches. . .that is some freaky stuff
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Although, after looking around a little, it's more likely that this isn't a case of DNA becoming active but rather a birth defect called spina bifida.
- vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dormant genes (we have LOTS of them BTW) reactivated by a mutation.
- honeymustardn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think so, Brain, but how are we going to make pencils that taste like bacon? Or maybe we should make bacon that tastes like pencils. Narf.
- Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Does this mean the people with the mermaid disease with fused legs and feet are proof of evolution from fish? What about babies with 2 heads or 1 eye or 3 eyes? I am believer in micro and macro evolution but birth defects I don't think are proof of it. A lot can happen during cell division and with stem cells getting confused or going crazy.
- Disillusion, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You obviously know nothing about evolution besides the anti-Darwin propaganda your church fed you. Go pick up a science book, or do some research on the internet. It's really really sad that you're so strongly against something you don't understand. Despite what you think about atheists, we completely understand your point of view. Your point of view just happens to be riddled with logical fallacies.
- RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
- mediaploy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The whole Japanese picture-in-picture thing is quite fascinating.
- ShootTheCore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I really didn't want to see the hairy picture...
- hartley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't care what the article says, I am not the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel.
- Calann, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5President Bush strikes me as being very ape-like. You know that whenever he is giving a press conference and a reporter asks him a tough question, Bush's first reaction is to want to crap in his hand and fling the feces at the reporter. You can see it in his eyes.
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just out of curiosity, how do you know that out of all those stars ours is the only one with life? I mean, we can hardly see other planets at this point, we usually only know they're there because of unusual wobble in the star's orbit. We can't even see the surfaces of the few we know about.
Out of the billions of planets and the billions of years the universe has existed, I can't imagine that you can say for certainty that we're alone (or if we are, that there wasn't any other life in the past or will be in the future) - mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wiping would be a bitch.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"The genetic code for wings would NEVER be in our DNA "
Unless one of his ancestors ***** a chicken. - Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Religion is not a theory. A theory is not a 'guess' or a 'hypothesis'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity. - Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, they're based on observations and experimentations and can be used to predict future phenomena.
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hence Fermi's Paradox: "Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as probes, spacecraft, or radio transmissions has not been found."
You're partially right, there could be many lifeforms/civilizations that are 100-10000 years behind us technologically. (Scarily enough, that would mean that WE are the most technologically advanced species in the universe!) Maybe we'll start picking up radio transmissions from them in the next 200-300 years.
But, it would seem that there has never been a lifeform other than us that has harnessed the EM spectrum. The universe should be awash in escaped radio signals. It wouldn't be a matter of "What star to we point at to try and pick up ETs signal?", but rather "Where do we point the damn telescopes so we don't have to listen to these alien soap operas?!?".
As far as we know, we're all alone. The lack of contrary evidence would suggest that intelligent life is a one-off, making it the most valuable thing in existence. Which is why creationism/religion really gets my goat - it makes everything we (as a species and as an individual) do count for nothing. This reality is just a playground - a build up to Act 2 that doesn't start until after you die. B.S. - snuffulupagus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sadly I'm going to have to agree with the creationists on this one: "Occasionally a human baby is born with a tail-like appendage and this is said to be evidence that our ancestors had tails. Actually, such rare congenital deformities are usually a type of fatty tumour having no relationship to the tail of a monkey" People have all sorts of weird growths.
- Lafftermath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The monkey's made me laugh a little.
- Lafftermath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Get out of my comment.
- Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Evolution isn't random! It is the exact opposite of random. You start with a solution to a problem (ie. an individual reasonably well-adapted to it's environment) and apply a random perturbation, either to the individual or to the environment, and see if the solution is any better. If the solution is poorer, it doesn't propagate; if it is at least as good or better, it does. It's not random -- it's guess and test! And it's definitely not 50/50 as you seem to suggest by calling it random. But better than 50/50 does not imply an intelligence is running it. And it works on inanimate systems too, with a bit of human help. Check out the invention machine if you're curious: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/0e13af26862ba ...
And finally, lay off the abiogenesis argument. Anyone will concede that we don't know how life started on Earth. That has nothing to do with how it's been adapting ever since. - carbonetc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No.
Skeptics find leaps in logic destructive to the process of knowledge gathering. Assuming a deity skips many many important links in the chain. You think you're being told you're wrong, but you're really being told (by intellectually honest skeptics anyway) to back up. Even if existence was virtually impossible statistically, a deity is NOT the next logical step. There's still a long way to go before that becomes the simplest explanation.
If the evidence eventually leads up to a deity then there's no problem believing in a deity. If a deity is what we discover, great. If a totally material, soulless existence is what we discover, great. If we're all inside an immense simulation, great. If we're the nightly dream of a unicorn or a dragon, great. This is what a genuine pursuit and love of truth is... not caring what the truth turns out to be, as long as its true. That's the essense of skepticism.
Someone who is ok with assuming the conclusion and working backwards is someone who is hostile to truth. - Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course not. Get it right. You are the retarded offspring of five *apes* having butt sex with a fish-squirrel.
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What are the odds that a civilization more advanced than us hasn't destroyed itself? We've come close many times.
- Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is a hairy dude
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is the evolutionary equivalent to uncommenting some code it seems. Evolution threw in those // and through accident, when the file was copied those characters were dropped.
(of course it's a feature, not a bug) -
Show 51 - 100 of 142 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