The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
New Analysis Suggests Earlier Start for Upright Walking
nytimes.com — As early as six million years ago, apparently close to the beginning of the human lineage, an ancestral species had already developed the transforming ability for upright walking, scientists reported on Thursday.
maheshee11- 372 diggs
- digg it
- bowe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+24And as early as 5,999,973 years later they started moonwalking.
- crweaks23, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4you mean 5 THOUSAND... (- colbert)
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/21/2008, -13/+17Ohh too bad over 60% of this country believes the literal interpretation of a book written by power hungry, misogynistic, racist ignorant men, who believed a wheel barrel was state of the art.
- santaliqueur, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9Since you just created the term, I don't believe 60% of the country even knows what a "wheel barrel" is.
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3Thanks where would we be without a smart ass who has time on his hands to line edit comments in a Digg submission?
- stevealford, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7I accidentally modded you up when I meant to digg santa, so I'm sorry to all of you who have to see that comment. See, moo... you can't call someone else ignorant and then say "wheel barrel" instead of "wheelbarrow" without losing your crediblity. It's not like you can claim it was a typo, so basically you mock others' ignorance and then flaunt your own.
- hcharger, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0 Quite true actually, as I know too well what a wheelbarrow is, but a wheel-barrel, now thats something I haven't viewed yet and not really sure I want too.
- kilofox, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Bravo Steve... Bravo.....
- stevealford, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7I accidentally modded you up when I meant to digg santa, so I'm sorry to all of you who have to see that comment. See, moo... you can't call someone else ignorant and then say "wheel barrel" instead of "wheelbarrow" without losing your crediblity. It's not like you can claim it was a typo, so basically you mock others' ignorance and then flaunt your own.
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3Thanks where would we be without a smart ass who has time on his hands to line edit comments in a Digg submission?
- Acewrap, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2I was wondering who was going to throw the first punch on this one. Looks like the creationists were one minute too late.
- empiric, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Hmm... interesting point, but to have some basis to evaluate relative ignorance I'd really like to hear your guess for the maximum age for human beings for the next ~2500 years and ~10 billion people. I'll even give you the huge starting advantage of worldwide information to research with, via the internet. So far, one of you got it right, to the right number of significant digits.
Not too much to ask for a fair comparison, is it? - diggimator, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Religious people, there's nothing wrong with evolution. Even the Pope believes in it.
- hcharger, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0 Maybe the Pope does believe in evolution, but who's to say the Pope is right huh! He supports Catholicism and that religion has so many discrepancies in its teachings that are so contradictory of the Holy Scriptures, it would make Islam seem like its a religion of peace, lol!
- santaliqueur, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9Since you just created the term, I don't believe 60% of the country even knows what a "wheel barrel" is.
- pepsihabbit, on 03/21/2008, -15/+4upright walking started when god made adam
- cranium, on 03/21/2008, -6/+9I guess God is a knuckle-walker then. Who knew???
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/21/2008, -7/+2lol
- gudnbluts, on 03/21/2008, -8/+1People were walking before they saw it on Mythbusters.
- cubicledrone, on 03/21/2008, -7/+1Cue 3571350138103257315071240812513403 comments about how this proves God didn't plan on UFOs.
- CATSCEO, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4What?
- CATSCEO, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4What?
- ligyron, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2Six million years ago? Well, that beats my record of 22 years ago
- RonnyIsRondo, on 03/21/2008, -10/+2Who cares? I have been walking upright for 21 years thats all that matters to me.
- gudnbluts, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Your legs must be knackered.
- shortstacks, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1buried for lying about your age
- RonnyIsRondo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1You got me! How did you know?
- paperclipsNsoup, on 03/21/2008, -7/+1Thats what I've been telling them all along!!! No one ever listens to the undereducated working stiff that has little access to actual scientific equipment and/or scientific reports that don't show up on the first page of a Google search.
/Sarcasm... Cause some people just can't take a joke.- santaliqueur, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10Jokes are usually funny.
Just sayin.
- santaliqueur, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10Jokes are usually funny.
- kilofox, on 03/21/2008, -3/+9I suggest Digg creates a new section called "Science VS Religion" ........ its getting old that many diggers to the point of Pavlovian Conditioning never miss an opportunity to take a swipe at religion when ever a science article is posted. Cant you people enjoy a science article without injecting a political/religious barb?
- kelly, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3Some better sections should be "science", "theism" and the third should be "science propaganda".
This article would be great for the third category. - Diderotten, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1For many people, science and religion go hand in hand. For the minority of digg users that are religious, I suspect most of them believe an allegorical genesis and not a literal interpretation. I'm an atheist, I just hate it when people generalize these sort of things.
- kelly, on 03/21/2008, -7/+3Some better sections should be "science", "theism" and the third should be "science propaganda".
- chickenbig, on 03/21/2008, -7/+5Six million years ago, huh? And liberals haven't learned how to yet...
- zeiben, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3It's true. Republicans are way ahead on the evolutionary curve. In fact, most have moved beyond walking, and have learned to maneuver their spherical blob bodies through the dunkin donuts drivethrough in giant, protective SUV shells.
- chickenbig, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I don't necessarily disagree with you, but since I am not a Republican, your jibe missed the mark. Interesting how you contrasted "liberal" with "Republican". That is a mistake that liberals make constantly and it lends further proof to their chronic developmental delay.
- zeiben, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3It's true. Republicans are way ahead on the evolutionary curve. In fact, most have moved beyond walking, and have learned to maneuver their spherical blob bodies through the dunkin donuts drivethrough in giant, protective SUV shells.
- novenator, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3For biological anthropologists who keep up on their research, this really isn't new news. Even for people who watch the discovery channel (or others in that genre), the evidence has been there for over a decade that bipedalism has been common for a very long time (likely predates fire, possibly even stone tool use). Still, good article to remind folks where our ancestors ancestors came from.
- samk, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0If I had been around, I would have had us walking upright a lot sooner.
- Pinkertinkle, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Impact on real life: zero.
- Hetman, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1We are seeker of truths. Anything that brings us better understanding of the past has an impact in real life.
- Gazoo2001, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Even if it didn't have an impact on real life, why should it even have to?
Don't you think there can be value in things that don't have a direct impact on your day-to-day life?
- sny1120, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1"walking mechanics that went largely unchanged until the rise of *****"
burried- Gazoo2001, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Besides not making any sense, you couldn't even spell "buried" correctly. Or is spelling "burried" like that a secret code, like toe-tapping in a men's room?
- sny1120, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1If you read the article then it would make sense to you.
It is also common knowledge that a statement in quotation marks suggests that the statement is a QUOTE.
And there is a distinct difference between a typographical error and a misspelled word.
It looks like they let you out of the library a little too early today.- Gazoo2001, on 03/23/2008, -0/+11. I did read the article.
2. I understood the quoted sentence fragment.
3. I understood the sentence fragment to be a quotation.
4. I didn't understand why the article should be buried on the strength of that quotation; it was not obvious to me from the context, and as your comment was one non-word long (not counting quoted content), your reasoning on burying the article was not clear from your explanation.
If you'd care to enlighten us as to your meaning, the internet eagerly awaits.
- Gazoo2001, on 03/23/2008, -0/+11. I did read the article.
- sny1120, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1If you read the article then it would make sense to you.
- Gazoo2001, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Besides not making any sense, you couldn't even spell "buried" correctly. Or is spelling "burried" like that a secret code, like toe-tapping in a men's room?
- hcharger, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0 Anyone who would believe anything that over-zealous educated scientists are saying about evolution would probably believe in the toothfairy and superman among other things as well.
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. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is