digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New Theory For Mass Extinctions

sciencedaily.com — A new theory on just what causes Earth's worst mass extinctions may help settle the endless scientific dust-up on the matter.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72 words: Taco Bell
    • sabotank, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2hey now....there is nothing wrong with 4th meal........
    • night141, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3They could have at least made a better name for it, I mean fourthmeal? come on, dinner isnt thirdmeal, lunch isnt secondmeal, and breakfast isnt firstmeal.

      At least "brunch" sounds innovative...
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Dinnfast? Breakner? Mittelnachtessen?
  • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Good example of how fossil records can show trends in evolution/extinction.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -47/+8Thats why Evolution is so unreliable. Every year they change their theory. I've heard of 5 big bang theories, and 3 mass extinction theories. I wonder if school text books get updated every year, because you cant keep on teaching old school theories which have been disapproven 100's of times.

    ...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all. It gets modified too fast. Those kids that learned evolution 30 years ago, today realize it was all a balony, since today's evolution theory is different.
    • Chaser12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23"...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all."

      You're illiterate, why are you in a position to have an opinion on this?
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4I've given you a good argumentive point, why dont you debate me on this? Becareful though, cause I know more than you think
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27"Thats why Evolution is so unreliable."
      Unreliable? No. Return different information about observable facts depending on what information the researcher takes into account? Yes.

      "Every year they change their theory."
      I would hope that "they" change "their" theory (as if there is some shadowy group of scientists controlling the theory of evolution) as often as is necessary.

      "I've heard of 5 big bang theories, and 3 mass extinction theories."
      There are probably dozens, if not thousands more, if not HUNDREDS of thousands of varying theories on these subjects.

      "I wonder if school text books get updated every year, because you cant keep on teaching old school theories which have been disapproven 100's of times."
      Yes, usually a new edition is printed each year.

      "...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all. "
      Correct. We should all just give up and trust in Jesus.

      "Those kids that learned evolution 30 years ago, today realize it was all a balony, since today's evolution theory is different."
      We've also realized that the earth isn't flat, women's menstrual cycles aren't evil (well...), and black people don't have extra tendons in their legs.

      My conclusion?
      stfu.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Who cares what they teach in school. Kids don't pay attention anyway, and the ones that do will know about evolution on their own. I bet more kids in High School would identify "Lucy" as a cigarette and not a fossil of an early human.
    • ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6bgbs - You probably know even less than I think you do. STFU^2
      Blind God-Based *****?
    • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13That's a stupid comment for three reasons.

      1. The article is talking about mass extinction, which while it plays a part in evolution, it certainly isn't the same thing.

      2. Big bang has nothing to do with evolution.

      3. So, just because we haven't perfectly figured out a theory means that instead of teaching it we should either teach a known incorrect theory or ignore the subject altogether? I don't think so.

      By the way, the theory of evolution is not radically changing at all. In many ways it's the same theory that Charles Darwin wrote about. We've discovered specific mechanisms as well as found species' lineages (including our own) that add to the theory. New information is discovered all the time, but the entire theory has never been rewritten.

      That is different than a theory such as Big Bang. Evolution is a biological theory and a lot of information is known about life on Earth. Big Bang is a physics theory and our understanding of physics is less solid. We have a lot of theories and formulas that work very well, but we have also discovered that the universe is a massively complex system and our theories are sometimes not 100% accurate all of the time, or in certain situations. Still, we don't say gravity doesn't exist just because we don't have a fully-developed theory for it. It's simply one of the mysteries of the universe that we don't yet fully understand, just like how we don't throw out Evolution because we haven't fully explained why species diverge.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8You are an idiot! This is definitely one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on Digg and there are many, many stupid comments here.

      Not only is your reasoning for not teaching evolution in schools deeply flawed, the mindset itself is dangerous. Whenever I hear statements like this I start to fear for the future of our society more and more. The fact that some of the people in positions of authority in this country (or anywhere, for that matter) and able to make decisions that affect millions have a similar view of science makes me sick to my stomach.
    • Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12bgbs..... "teached?" you're a retard

      Rather than believe in a constantly refined theory in continual developement and based on impirical scientific data you would choose to beleive in a translation of a translation of a translation of a text written by someone who thought the world was flat. luddite.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -3/+12I say aliens planted us on earth and I'm never going to change my mind, therefore it should be taught in schools.
    • giraldus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7 bgbs:
      > I've given you a good argumentive point,

      No, you haven't.

      > why dont you debate me on this?

      Because there is no point in debating a moronic bigot who believes in magic.

      > Becareful though, cause I know more than you think

      Even if you do know more than I think you do it would still not amount to much.

      Thanks for trying though.


    • lightyear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"By the way, the theory of evolution is not radically changing at all. In many ways it's the same theory that Charles Darwin wrote about."

      @Shakin:

      Actually, it's the complete opposite. Instead of species fighting out to see who will reproduce, it's genes that are fighting to see which will prevail. I just bought Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (still shipping in Amazon), and it's about that. Can't wait to get it.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I couldn't agree with your more.

      Evolution as it stands shares more wishful thinking material than factual data. It's misleading and should take a seat with storybooks at the library. Why these theories are part of children's pre-school education programs is beyond me. Seems to me we could use such precious teaching slots for more useful things.
    • just1moredigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@bgbs

      I think chaser12 was pointing out your grammatical prowess...

      "...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all."

      might be better received as "...and that is why evolution should not be taught in schools." NOT TEACHED!!!

      Whatever mindless babbling point you may have been trying to make was overshadowed by your lack of linguistic skills...

    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm not from the USA so I read about creationism here on digg for the first time.
      Initially, I thought it's joke like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it seems that some of you religious nuts are really that stupid.
      Scientific research backed up by thousands of educated and intelligent people and real life proofs that everybody can see on themselves (e.g., antibiotics that stop working after some time) are unreliable, while a book consisting of texts from unknown sources written for propaganda purposes guides your life ultimately and undoubtedly? pathetic
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Think about it boys and girls. Why should I learn about evolution, when it is so wishy washy? Today they say, that is how it works, and tomorrow they themselves say, no this is how it works. And students learn this like it is an ultimate truth, only to realize later that what they learned is so outdated, is all such a crap, that they only wasted their time.

    I understand when you learn truths in science and math. But when you get into evolution, you get into an area that has no certainty, because no scientists can concretely say, this is how it all began. I think Creation is much more suprerior theory since it doesnt change.
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Creation "theory" changes based on whatever crockpot organization is currently promoting it for its own personal political/economic goals. ie. Answersingenesis.com
    • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Are you going to troll this whole discussion even though the article is about mass extinction, not evolution? You actually sound like Stephen Colbert, taking the side of stupidity and arguing it into absurdity. Except you're not as funny.

      However, I will agree with you and since we are no longer teaching incorrect theories, I think we should stop teaching our kids about gravity. Newton thought he had it right, but Einstein's general theory of relativity changed that. Now we can't reconcile Einstein's theory on a quantum scale because it completely falls apart. Gravity is too wishy washy. Intelligent Falling is a much better theory because it doesn't change.
    • mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3and what makes Creation theory so certain? Faith?
      listen, evolution theories are not being "rewritten" to the extent you claim. If anything, they are being improved upon and clarified. "They" don't simply find a new phenomenon and trash all previous sayings.
      And how can you be so quick to judge evolution anyways? Reading from your texts you seem so uninformed you couldnt possibly be able to construe a meaningful argument because you know only one side. Open your mind a little bit ok? Use some critical thinking!
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Wow, a creationist with a patronizing attitude! Whoda thunk?
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Holy crap! Again? Seriously? The 'theory' of Creation or "Intelligent Design" which is used to make it sound more 'scientific' is not a theory nor is it scientific. Creation doesn't need fine-tuning because it's not based on anything that can be observed and proven, not because it is correct. You want to talk about a "truth" that has a million definitions? Creating is the crowning example! Every religion has its own explanation for "how it all began". WTF is wrong with you people?

      I didn't think you could one-up the ignorance of your first comment, but then you played the ID card. Wow.
    • robystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I suppose we should give up on figuring out that ol' gravity situation? So many theories and no concrete answers yet. What is it called when a species stops trying to change, learn from and adapt to its environment? Yes, you sir, and your kind will eventually be that branch that stops short on that funny looking Darwin tree...so don't worry about all this scientific theory mumbo jumbo the rest of us are debating.
    • lankz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0haha 'intelligent falling'. only on digg
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1"So, just because we haven't perfectly figured out a theory means that instead of teaching it we should either teach a known incorrect theory or ignore the subject altogether? I don't think so."

    Oh that is exactly my point. You shouldnt teach it. Or you can teach in a philosophy class not science. Since their is much debate between Evolution and Creation, they should be disapproved in schools...cause you do know that Creationist do have good theory?

    Students waste their time in Science and come out jerks and dumbos because they were not taught science. They were taught an unsolvable fairytale. If the concentration is put into practical science, then this would have benefited kids in a far better way.
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4I like to go poopy in my pants
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@bgbs
      "They were taught an unsolvable fairytale."

      Dude, you believe that your imaginary friend in the sky is what created the universe. Talk about an "unsolvable fairytale."

      Who's to say that it's one side or the other anyway? The idea of a higher power having control over us and the Theory of Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic Church realizes this. This does not need to be an us vs. them argument.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1So are you saying that because all we have is ID that we have no choice but to add our own tangible reasoning regardless of the amount of proof?

      First off I really digg the theory of evolution. - Not so because I believe it, but because its creative. However... what I don't digg is how people cling to a completely unsubstantiated untestable theory as though it is the salvation to mankind's problems. And please don't patronize me with a 'we can prove evolution in a petri dish story' that is so weak it doesn't even deserve a place in the tallest of tales.

      The fact is we have no facts. Only ideas, and to make matters worst, those ideas are also baseless. When all is said and done, evolution requires just as much of a leap of faith as any other explanation regarding the existence of man. and to this I say... why on earth are we throwing this ideas at young children? are we that arrogant that we need to have the answers even if it makes a mockery of our claimed intelligence? Life would be so much better if people could just step off the high horse and accept that we don't have the answers... heck, life would be so much better if we could just keep honest about it and maintain that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory. But instead we choose to advocate and contort reality as vigorously as those afternoon evangelists claiming to have all the answers by putting out books in schools and educational institutes with asserted themes from cover to cover.

      I'm sorry but thats not science... thats deception.
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Since their is much debate between Evolution and Creation"

      You are gravely mistaken. ID/Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not debated in scientific fields. At best it is a hypothesis that has been discredited and shown as inferior to evolution.

      Evolution has overwhelming evidence to support it.

      ID/Creationism really is mumbo-jumbo with absolutely no scientific basis.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Interestingly enough evolution has taken on many forms over the ages.
      So it is increasingly difficult to determine what evolution actually means on an individual basis, let alone identify it as a standard in a group.

      Secondly accounting for evidence to support a belief in a theory is quite fine, however under the same set of rules we can call on evidence from the ancient scriptures and find equal numbers of evidence to support ID or Creation. In fact... when you take both evolution and creation and put the two side by side in an evaluation, you would be quite disapointed to see how poorly evolution does against the creation mumbo-jumbo.

      It is quite odd also that one would refer to creation as mumbo-jumbo when that very information proved far more accurate than any science long before evolution came around. Similarly we could say that evolution has been revised and reorganized more times than a life time of dirty socks however, the creation account has remained true since it was laid in scrolls well over 2000 years ago.

      Furthermore, I am interesting in knowing how creationism has been discredited?
      I don't say that in a challenging way, this is purely out of curiosity.
    • nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Interestingly enough evolution has taken on many forms over the ages. So it is increasingly difficult to determine what evolution actually means on an individual basis, let alone identify it as a standard in a group."

      Please provide evidence for this claim. The theory of evolution has become more detailed and enrichened. It's fundamental tenets have remained the same - for example, natural selection.

      "In fact... when you take both evolution and creation and put the two side by side in an evaluation, you would be quite disapointed to see how poorly evolution does against the creation mumbo-jumbo."

      That is your personal opinion. ID/Creationism is not falsifiable. It does not actually make any predictions - it resorts to taking cheap shots at evolution while having no scientific substance in and of itself.

      "It is quite odd also that one would refer to creation as mumbo-jumbo when that very information proved far more accurate than any science long before evolution came around."

      The 'information' that the bible provides is not and never has been accurate.

      "... however, the creation account has remained true since it was laid in scrolls well over 2000 years ago."

      It clearly isn't true at all. The universe wasn't created in 6 days. The Earth is not a flat disc. The Earth does not rest on pillars. Your scrolls are packed full of falsehoods and in this day and age you should really know better than to blindly believe what's written from that age of antiquity.

      "Furthermore, I am interesting in knowing how creationism has been discredited?
      I don't say that in a challenging way, this is purely out of curiosity."

      It has been discredited for the reasons I mention above. It is not falsifiable. It makes no predictions. It defers to a magical entity for which there is no evidence either. It does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a weak hypothesis at best that has been well and truly discounted in the field of biology. It explains nothing.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Please provide evidence for this claim. The theory of evolution has become more detailed and enrichened. It's fundamental tenets have remained the same - for example, natural selection"

      If I was to provide you with evidence to this claim, it would consume you for years to come. Are you prepared to sit and compare research data that you are most likely unprepared to face? This would encompass historical evolutionary data ranging from Darwin's day to present? While I have not done so myself. I have spent considerable time researching the theory of evolution since I once believed a strand of such thing many years ago. That was until I actually invested time and research into the origin and details of the evolutionary process only to find it was a chalked full of half truths and artistic recreations of what is hoped to be a past which once existed.

      Ad for natural selection, it would seem that this phenomenon does exist in nature. We have clear evidence of some forms of natural selection in many species all around us, however none of these instances support the crossover or propagation of a different species under the circumstances.

      "That is your personal opinion. ID/Creationism is not falsifiable. It does not actually make any predictions - it resorts to taking cheap shots at evolution while having no scientific substance in and of itself"

      Actually you are completely wrong. Referring to the ancient documents, there are hundreds of predictions and prophesied conditions which are verifiable today. As for cheap shots, I know nothing about that personally, I for one do not discriminate against those who hold there own opinions or beliefs.

      "The 'information' that the bible provides is not and never has been accurate"

      There are several hundreds of reference points, historical accounts and time line instances that have been verified or are verifiable today including the great flood for example.

      "It clearly isn't true at all. The universe wasn't created in 6 days. The Earth is not a flat disc. The Earth does not rest on pillars. Your scrolls are packed full of falsehoods and in this day and age you should really know better than to blindly believe what's written from that age of antiquity"

      No one said the earth was created in six days. This was a bi-product of poorly translated documentation from the original Hebrew texts which clearly denoted an entirely different account for creation. Furthermore, I read nowheres in these texts that the earth was flat, in fact, it was quite the opposite, when the ancient scriptures depicted that the earth was spherical or circular and that it was suspended in the great expanse(heaven or space)

      I find it quite sad that you know absolutely nothing of the Creation account or the documents from which they came from. Especially since we have recently uncovered scrolls which may date well beyond 3000 years. You would think that people who are fascinated with science and archeology would take interest in such ancient writing which claim to hold the answers to life.

      "It has been discredited for the reasons I mention above. It is not falsifiable. It makes no predictions. It defers to a magical entity for which there is no evidence either. It does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a weak hypothesis at best that has been well and truly discounted in the field of biology. It explains nothing"

      Actually Creation is testable in many way. Furthermore in all fairness, the ancient texts called on science long before man ever has, there are so many instances of such things in those texts that it makes one wonder if people have there heads on straight. However... having said this, I will readily admit that regardless of what I know or feel, I for one respect others beliefs and /or feelings of what is acceptable and not. It is quite obvious that there are people who simply aren't suited to accept none tangible beliefs in life and thats all there is to it.
  • Megzilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This reminds me of a really good read of the earth and it's evolution to what we have today. If you're into general sci and whatnot, check out A Brief History of the World. It talks about some similar theories as this story. And for those who don't find this at least relatively interesting, modern science and its' charm will win you over some day.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -27/+1"Rather than believe in a constantly refined theory in continual developement and based on impirical scientific data you would choose to beleive in a translation of a translation of a translation of a text written by someone who thought the world was flat. luddite."
    Actually retard, it is EVOLUTIONISTs who preached world is FLAT. So stop spinning history.
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Yea, remember when Darwin created his theory of evolution in 32 AD. in Athens? Yea, those were good times.
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If your going to talk crap, at least talk crap while using the reply button. Oh, and use the spelling button while you're there.

      Oh, and don't forget to use the close button on your browser.
    • bdrydyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This guy is a troll, I'm sure of it.
  • mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6regardless, he's right! So many religions have so many different views on Creation how can you possibly consider it a stable theory? None of it is even based on anything observable so how do you even attempt to prove or disprove it?
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1What have you been smoking?
      Do you know how many books have been written about Creation Science? What are you talking about that it is not observable? Scientists observe, and come to the conclusion that this could not have happened by evolution. What is it that you dont understand about observation?
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@bgbs

      Can you can show us some peer reviewed journal articles that support Creationism as a legitimate theory? Anyone can write a book, it doesn't mean crap if it isn't generally accepted in the science community.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Do you know how many books have been written about Creation Science?"

      My favorite Creation Science books are the ones where they went thru with a Find/Replace and changed "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design". Totally extended their shelf life.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+0"Holy crap! Again? Seriously? The 'theory' of Creation or "Intelligent Design" which is used to make it sound more 'scientific' is not a theory nor is it scientific."

    How is it unscientific? There is as much evidence for Creation as it is to Evolution. It is not like you can objectively say Creation is all false. There are far more Scientists who support Creation Science than there are those who Support Evolution. I bet you didnt know that, but then again, I dont blame you, I used to be there too when I played in my sand box.
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Any references to back that ridiculous claim up?

      (Preferably ones that didn't come from The Onion)
    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think you put one to many crayons up your nose.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You... you really do believe this crap you're saying, don't you? Well, I'll tell you exactly why it isn't scientific: ID is not based on observable evidence, which is an absolute requirement for something to be scientifically proven.

      Science is important because nothing, and I really mean NOTHING, can be presented as a fact if it can't hold up to scientific reasoning. As in, if it's not readily observable and provable, it's just something someone made up.
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0What have you told me so far to back yourself up? Nothing. You've been blowing smoke and you cant argue about what I said because it is true isnt it?
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Again, dude, show us peer reviewed articles.

      I get the feeling that your statement, "There are far more Scientists who support Creation Science than there are those who Support Evolution," will not hold up so well if you actually do the research instead of spouting off some nonsense that you read in some hack's book.
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0Ok give me some facts to prove me wrong. Go ahead I'll be waiting.
    • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"There are far more Scientists who support Creation Science than there are those who Support Evolution."

      are you pulling these figures out of your ass? there are far more people in the scientific community claiming to be athiests and agnostics than there are in the general public
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Ok give me some facts to prove me wrong. Go ahead I'll be waiting."

      I love this one. Makes me laugh every time.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I love people who 'claim' that science is a given term bound by strict guidelines. Seriously, that really makes me laugh. What... you think there is a law of science and anyone who doesn't act or conduct experiments under those rules is cast out?

      Wake up... science is broad and applies to everything which surrounds us, including what is seen and unseen. Don't be brainwashed by corporate publications and groups who try and bully people into believing there methods. That is nothing more than politics and marketing.

      Creation, Evolution, ID whatever... if you are observing, studying, testing it, then it's scientific.
    • shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Esstee
      Science is strict. Francis Bacon came up with something called the scientific method, for something to be scientific it must follow those guidelines. There is no research that can PROVE ID under the scientific method. It all relies on Faith.
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Ok give me some facts to prove me wrong. Go ahead I'll be waiting"

      I Declare electrons taste like chocolate icecream!, dont believe me, well too bad, it is fact untill disproved
      go on, disprove it, until then its truth (because thats how science works, someone states something as fact and if noone can disprove (even if they also cant prove it) then its fact)
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Now you see thats interesting.

      Because you seem to think that in order to be scientific, that one must conform to standards however this only applies to publishing papers and not science in itself. Your approach is a two fold misconception whereas one tries to categorize ones research in order to classify it for acceptance however this limited outlook on an areas a large as science as a whole is unrealistic and inaccurate. While I don't doubt you can find people to support such outlooks, in the research field you will not be as successful since most researchers are after results, not standard driven scientific methods.

      Interestingly enough, there is no research that proves evolution either. Only speculation and wishful ideas at this time. What is even more interesting is that both theories lend themselves to faith a beleif that something took place based on evidence.
  • smokinjuan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Uggh. When will they learn? There are some extinctions that only count and penny ante crap. The Important one is the extinction of the dinosaurs and the ensuing ice age... and just so you know, THAT was caused by a large planetoid body passing very near the earth's orbit around *A* sun, thereby pulling the earth out into free-space on a trajectory to our current sun. Once arrived, the orbit settled out and here we are today.

    Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong....
  • mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2based on what proof? You?? Cite some evidence or your words mean absolutely nothing. I mean it! if you want to be taken seriously then you need to back yourself up!
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+0Listen, no body has time overhere to back themselves up. When you speak logically than you dont need back ups from a dead scientist whose theories have been long barried.
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"When you speak logically than you dont need back ups from a dead scientist whose theories have been long barried."

      Look, you're referencing a book that's 3000 years old. Let's not talk about what the original source is, because you lose.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2There was an article written number of years ago by a NY Times Columinst. I would have to dig that up
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Columnists have zero credibility.
    • brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For reference, the scientific method, from wiki

      1. Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

      2. Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

      3. Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

      4. Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

      5. Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

      Natural Selection (which is the mechanism of evolution) has passed all 4 steps and is well in step 5. Creation fails on all 5 steps. Creation "scientists" just skip to step 5.

      Go through the list and let us know what you find.
    • whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8excellent post brumbo - already typed this.

      @ bgbs
      Dear god - stop posting. We get it, you don't believe in science because you fail to understand the difference between facts, theories, models and beliefs.

      I know I won't convince bgbs of anything, but I hope any young intelligent people reading this will watch the videos, read the links, and learn how science really works, instead of thinking it's how bgbs says it does.

      Quick overview...
      1. Observe the world - collect facts
      2. Come up with model of how you think it works
      3. based on model, determine how you can test the facts to verify the model
      4. TEST theory to see if you're right
      5. Based on results of test, correct facts and refine theory or model as needed.


      Check out this video refuting and explaining
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8937189243168103522

      Or "the athiests worst nightmare"
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716

      Further Reading...
      http://www.answers.com/Scientific_method
      http://www.answers.com/theory
      http://www.answers.com/intelligent_design

      Please keep in mind Evolution is a Theory. It represents our best understanding of how things work right now. Incremental changes over time with any change that best aids in the reproduction of a creature.

      The ultimate answer ID resorts to is "evolution is how it works, but god made it work like that".

      And don't forget the ulterior motive in all these posts.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

      Of course it's lucky for us ID thinks the new testament is the correct god book. There's also Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Shamanism, Rastafarian and Scientology stories of how the world was created. They are all useless in helping us explain things in the real world.

      Science has no evidence that supports a super being that can bend or break all the rules as she sees fit.

      But for those that read the article - it was very good. It explained how they have a new theory that may fit the facts. If the theory is correct, it would suggest other supporting evidence. If it's falce we can find evidence to disprove it. That is a real theory.

      It's really complicated so god musta done it is not a theory.
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0To whoZatGuy:

      See I can give you bunch of links too that refute your points, but I wont do that because its a waste of time at the moment. The only thing you should know, is there are greate refutable points being made today by Creation Scientists. Those google links dont me anything because there are disapprovals to those claims available by someone else today.

      Your false argument is that Evolution drives scientists to observe facts and theories. You are wrong, because there are many scientists that observe things just because it fascinates them of how brilliantly God created the world. Gods creation, drives them to understand and learn those things. Evolution only cared about proving one thing. God doesnt exist. Creationists care only about one thing, God Exists. And both parties are driven to prove each other wrong. Scientists have different motives, so dont think you know what your talking about.
    • whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bgbs
      > See I can give you bunch of links too that refute your points, but I wont do that because
      > its a waste of time at the moment. The only thing you should know, is there are greate
      > refutable points being made today by Creation Scientists. Those google links dont me
      > anything because there are disapprovals to those claims available by someone else
      > today.

      PLEASE give me some links. Refute any point you choose if you're able. I would consider it a better use of your time then becoming troll of the day on digg.

      > Your false argument is that Evolution drives scientists to observe facts and theories.

      That's only false because it's not my argument. My argument is that scientists observe facts, create models, theories and tests and refine them as needed based on new evidence or the results of those tests. The scientific method is how they go about their work. What drives scientists to do things is a personal issue. Evolution is just one thing a scientist may choose to study for whatever reason they choose.

      > You are wrong, because there are many scientists that observe things just because it
      > fascinates them of how brilliantly God created the world. Gods creation, drives them to
      > understand and learn those things. Evolution only cared about proving one thing. God
      > doesnt exist. Creationists care only about one thing, Evolution doesnt exist. And both
      > parties are driven to prove each other wrong. Scientists have different motives, so dont
      > think you know what your talking about.

      Scientists do get a euphoric feeling at how well things fit together. Their deep understanding of the world lets them see how beautiful it is. Stoners get the same thing when they take a hit - what of it.

      The REASON the world exists can never be explained by science. That's for philosophy client, like creationsim. The REASON scientists choose to be motivated to investigate various topics doesn't make any difference to the results as long as they do their work properly.

      Evolution did *NOT* and does not care about proving god doesn't exist. Nor does chemistry, molecular biology, physics or computer science. God is simply not necessary in science. The world is created and we deal with it. It CANNOT be proven that god does not exist. It's impossible to disprove so it is ignored.

      I do know what I am talking about and I seek our creationist every day to try and understand why they are attacking this one little corner of science while ignoring the rest. Using child like logic or the blindness of faith to explain their position then demanding everyone agree with them.

      Creationists are the ones trying to change science. Science does not care about religion at all. So scientists respond. You're not under attack, you're being asked to defend your statements because that's how science works.

      If you don't have time, or are unable then please be silent.

      -- and if you're just trolling --
      GREAT JOB!
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -19/+0"ID is not based on observable evidence, which is an absolute requirement for something to be scientifically proven."

    Are you saying CREATION is not observable? You do know that there are plenty of scientists who observed creation, including Einstein, Gallileo, Aristotle, Franklin, Newton. Or do you think their observation was mere moonshine?

    • m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I doubt that any of those men actually observed Creation itself, biblical or scientific. At most, they observed the results of that creation. That means they've only observed things that are Created. You don't have a theory of Createdness do you?
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1LOL - Denial is a terrible human trait.

      There are far greater men than he listed who believe in a higher power. If you knew and spoke with them, it would certainly ruin your bubble of society. I have spoken with several researchers at various times of my life, some were plainly put half nuts and others were very modest. But one thing that I noticed amidst all of them is that the majority admitted there were no answers and that anything was possible, however... these things are never printed in books. Instead we continue to read of ideas which exclude all possibility of anything beyond our reach regardless of the tangibility.
  • Z_Man, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I don't really know what to believe anymore.
  • democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hmmm...theory with lots of evidence, seen throughout various cultures and their histories, stands up to all criticism, and accounts for the observed data?

    Sounds like a flood to me.
    • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0Did you just fall from a moon?
      Man you missed out a lot in the world, let me get you updated quickly. Observed Data is when two people observe how house is being built and then make their conclusions. And trust me when it is in the building process their obesrved conclusions differ. Observed Data in science is just that two scientist looking at one thing and both making different conclusions.
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -19/+1"You are an idiot! This is definitely one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on Digg and there are many, many stupid comments here.

    Not only is your reasoning for not teaching evolution in schools deeply flawed, the mindset itself is dangerous. Whenever I hear statements like this I start to fear for the future of our society more and more. The fact that some of the people in positions of authority in this country (or anywhere, for that matter) and able to make decisions that affect millions have a similar view of science makes me sick to my stomach. "
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    I have no idea what you just said. For seventy years Communists in Russian hammered Monkey Evolution into people's heads only to learn that they miserably failed, because at the end of it all it was crap and people later realized that. You can only fool so many people, and you're the product of that foolishness.

    All of you preaching to me that I should prove you this and that. What have any of you proved so far? You've given me your lazy personal attacks, and why should I take you seriously?
    • duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"All of you preaching to me that I should prove you this and that..."

      Who's preaching to who? You came in to a thread about mass extinctions and turned it into one about evolution vs. creationism.
    • brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1There is obviously no convincing you, so why do you want us to keep trying to prove you wrong? Most people here could care less how you think!
    • kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"For seventy years Communists in Russian hammered Monkey Evolution into people's heads"

      they only taught monkey evolution? do you mean the evolutionary history of only the different species of monkeys, or some theory of evolution put forth by monkey scientists, in cute little monkey lab coats, in cute little monkey labs?

      "Not only is your reasoning for not teaching evolution in schools deeply flawed, the mindset itself is dangerous."

      seems a lot safer than the mindset of your special little club being carried into heaven naked by angels, while all the other clubs are sent to eternal damnation
  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd provide an excellent, concise account of what caused said mass extinctions. However, I wasn't around at the time.
    • Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Sounds like a good course - where do I sign up?!?
  • brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This article is *****! They didn't mention that the Flying Spaghetti Monster smote previous species with his noodley appendage due to lack of faith.

    Be warned brothers and sisters! His noodley appendage will judge you when the end times come!
    • whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Brumbo you're an idiot. May the have mercy upon your while you in for !!!!!!

      Look the clearly states that the world was created by in . It has been the same answer for years! Science can't even come up with a single answer that lasts more then a few years without changing it all around again.

      How can you teach me something then change it later on when you discover it's wrong? What good is my education if it doesn't last forever? What the hell is a hectare and liter?

      Besides you're all wrong because said was actually came up with by SCIENTISTS.
    • whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5*sigh* All my disappeared. Again, but not as funny. :(
      ----------------------------
      Brumdo you're an idiot. May the [diety_of_choice] have mercy upon your [representation_of_your_mind] while you [nasty_punishment] in [place_of_punishment] for [duration_of_punishment]!!!!!!

      Look the [religious_text] clearly states that the world was created by [diety_of_choice] in [amount_of_time]. It has been the same answer for [large_integer] years! Science can't even come up with a single answer that lasts more then a few years without changing it all around again.

      How can you teach me something then change it later on when you discover it's wrong? What good is my education if it doesn't last forever? What the hell is a hectare and liter?

      Besides you're all wrong because [random_source] said [ancient_obviously_wrong_theory] was actually came up with by SCIENTISTS.

      Stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
  • theonlybigboss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I have a new theory for mass extinctions, and i want you all to hear me out on this because it is a fairly radical -- and bold theory...Scientologist.
    • brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I respect your faith and since there may be 3, or possibly 4 more people that feel the way you do, Scientology should be taught in schools. Taught next to Evolution, Creationism, FSM, Joe's faith, and the Church of What's Happening Now theory of bubble gum creation.
  • secretivecoward, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Anyone know where I can find Elly?
  • bgbs, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1"How can you teach me something then change it later on when you discover it's wrong? What good is my education if it doesn't last forever? What the hell is a hectare and liter?"

    Thats been my point. But we have geniouses overhere who missed the point that they've been brainwashed in highschool, and they still go beating the drum. I dont know what it takes for some people to learn. How can evolution be true, if some are stock in first grade?
    • whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bgbs
      Wow dude. That was sarcasm. I'll label it better next time.

      You're education won't last forever in a changing world. Learning to drive a horse won't help you drive a car, and sure as hell won't help you type on that there computer.

      In the exact same way I know that a good deal of what I learned 20 years ago is now found out to be wrong. I don't demand the damn world change, I update my facts and move on, or realize I'll never know everything and live with it.

      If doctors still thought like you we'd all be covered in leaches. Evolution has had flaws found in it from time to time - but it's been CORRECTED, not REJECTED. Big difference.
    • shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2bgbs you accuse everyone who has commented of blindly following authority. Here's the deal, we have been presented evidence for both sides, we deem that the evidence for evolution is more conclusive than the evidence for ID. YOU blindly ignore the facts and accept that which you are told by your religious leaders. YOU are the one who is still "beating the drum"
    • bbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2bgbs stop trolling. Digging down each of your comments is tiresome and thankless work. It's hard to believe you are borderline illiterate but still managed to find your way here. You might want to change your act.
  • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Here is my theory on extinction:

    ***** happens.
  • drmistermaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3damn bgbs you are one ugly persistent troll...I think my theory of the universe and people being created by Frylock is better than yours. We can see him and hear him talk, unlike some god.
    The reason for creationism is because when people were sorta dumb and didn't know why stuff happens, they just kinda made it up. ex. When a tribe observes a volcano explode, the local shaman will tell them the gods are angry. Long time ago, people didn't know the origin of man so they sorta guessed some magical being made them.
  • Kethinov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm a pre service science teacher and I've been studying extinction events in detail, as it's one of the things I intend to cover in my classroom. And I find this article a bit sketchy. It is a bit lax on the details, and fails to account for the fact that hard evidence is attributed to very definite causes for each major extinction event.

    The easiest one to solve is the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event in which a very recognizable crater exists on the Yucatan Peninsula, from which a very clear layer of Iridium (byproduct of asteroid impacts) was dispersed into the appropriately aged geologic record.

    The Permian-Triassic extinction event is a bit tougher because of the sheer volume of destruction (the most destructive extinction event in history), but my own research and speaking with my Biology, Geology, Earth Science, and Meteorology professors seems to point to Permian-Triassic event being caused primarily by plate tectonics.

    Keep in mind, the Permian era coincided with the formation of Pangaea. That created an extremely harsh climate for both marine and land animals due to a severe reduction of shallow water coastline and the creation of vast desert in the center of the super continent. In addition, there have been at least two significantly large impact craters I'm aware of attributed to the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Due to the era being so geologically unstable as a result of the super continent and the impacts, volcanism probably became a problem too. This would also conveniently explain away the following Triassic-Jurassic extinction event.

    Extinctions prior to Permian-Triassic can all be be nearly universally attributed to climate change. I don't see any hard evidence that impacts or volcanism played a major role in any of the first big three.

    I don't buy this "Press/Pulse" stuff. Each of the "big five" (or six/seven depending on how you classify things) extinction events all have very unique and concrete causes associated with them. They don't strike me as a cycle of serendipitous catastrophes, but instead random freak major events.

    At first glance, it looks to me like fun with numbers and statistics without much actual basis for their conclusions. The way they play with numbers in this article reminds me of the vague and bias way that political ad campaigns do. :) Perhaps if the article had more substance, I'd be a bit less critical.
  • yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I say dinosoars got dugg.
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm skeptical. I will reserve judgment until I've read the study, but I'm doubtful that the fossil record is complete enough to give statistically valid estimates on as short a timescale as 1 million years when looking at the K/T extinction, and it'd surprise me greatly if it was for earlier extinctions.
    Also, the discussion on the present extinction is premature - it is true that a major extinction event has been rolling for the last 150 000 years or so, and it is due to humans, but small marine organisms haven't been affected (humans kill big things first), so their methodology wont have been comparable.
  • StanleyKoolPrik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Wrong! I may have forgotten a lot of things Ive learned in school, but I do know that any theory concerning the extinction of any living thing that doesnt point a finger at human civilization is false. This all may be scientifically sound and all that, but it certainly cant be accepted unless human beings are singled out as being some unnatural product of evil that effs up the natural balance of the cosmos. This most certainly cannot be the product of modern science. I mean, where's the guilt trip?
  • KungFutse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Chuck Norris Fact:

    There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
  • terrablebyte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Look, we all know the giant brains are the cause for all mass extinctions.

    They won't destroy mankind, because in the year 3002, Fry made them leave for no raisin.

    It's true.
  • jcarrion1976, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1They drowned. Simple, feasible & funny.
  • spacejunky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The other theories were less complicated.
  • unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if you want to bettter understanding of this article, just watch this video
    http://www.hi5.com/friend/video/displayViewVideo.do?videoId=209406&ownerId=98960317
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.