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.
41 Comments
- ubernoggin, on 06/30/2009, -0/+45Now we use it to move quickly from Web site to Web site.
- costumemaker, on 07/01/2009, -2/+22Not to be picky, but one thing that is a small 'gotcha' for evolutionists (me included) is when there is an argument made like 'animals evolved bigger brains so they could climb/swing on trees'. Creationists see this and wildly misinterpret it. It should be stated more like 'Bigger brains evolved, enabling animals to climb/swing on trees and they were more favored on the evolutionary road'
Again, I know this sounds pretty stupid to some and overly nit picky, but I have had conversations with creationists where, when you say something like 'animals evolved X because Y' they take that as proof that it had to be some intelligent designer that did that. I am always careful to word my statements around them by saying 'animals were able to do Y because there was a genetic mutation X that was favored'
I am probably gonna get dugg down for this. Just making conversation I guess. - serif69, on 07/01/2009, -1/+15Bigness.
So this may explain the size of our brains, but science will never explain people's aversion to thesauri. - Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7While you're correct in your general sentiment, your rephrasing still makes it seem like bigger brains just evolved for the benefit of the monkeys. A better way to phrase it would be: "Due to genetic mutation, certain monkeys were born with larger brains, and this enabled them to better navigate through the trees and increased the likelihood of their survival and subsequent reproduction".
- tehjabba, on 07/01/2009, -3/+1054 million years later and there are still nut sized primate brains, failing to grasp the simplest things.
- XkenX87, on 07/01/2009, -1/+7Our heads used to be the size of a nut. Now I can say my nuts are the size of a head.
- Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4I believe this man is trolling. I hope this man is trolling. Please tell me you're trolling.
If not, you need to understand that just because Bacteria are successful in doing what they do doesn't mean that every species would be successful doing the same thing. For example, you might ask "Why would anybody ever take the time and energy to become a lawyer or physician when they could be as successful as an actor? There are plenty of actors out there who dropped out of high school and now make millions without ever having gone to college or professional school, so why doesn't everybody just do that? The answer is that if everybody were to become actors, then nobody could be an actor anymore because our society would no longer function. The balance of professions that exists within our society is what allows people to do what they do, and for this reason there is no single profession that is simply "the most successful" one.
Likewise, if there were no higher organisms or plant life to fulfill the needs of Bacteria, they too would not be able to exist. Their niche in their ecosystem would no longer be present, and they would rapidly become extinct (or evolve). The advantage in being able to swing from tree to tree faster comes when an ecological niche for an organism that swings from tree to tree opens up. This can be due to environmental changes, climate change, or simply the chance extinction or migration of another species that alters the order of things. Even Creationists can't deny that these forces occur in nature, unless they wish to deny the ice age, the extinction of the Dodo Bird, or the migration of the Grizzly Bear further north. When things like this happen, the ecological order can shift, and it can suddenly become advantageous to swing quickly from tree to tree to avoid that new hawk that has recently migrated into your jungle, or to catch those insects that a recently extinct animal once dominated.
When there are 100 members of a single species and only 10 of them can quickly maneuver through trees, those 10 will likely be the only survivors after a new predator's range shifts to coincide with their own range. After several generations, the only members of the species left will be adept tree jumpers. Replace "quickly maneuver through trees" with any behavior or physical trait and replace the "addition of a new predator" with any environmental force and you now understand how evolution works.
God I hope this guy is trolling. At least he openly admits that he's a douchebag. - holesome, on 07/01/2009, -5/+9You leave Glen Beck out of it.
Or did you mean Joe the Plumber? - costumemaker, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4Actually, I am not digging you down because I am covering my ears.. I am digging you down because we were having a civilized conversation about evolution in this thread and then you came here in a very uncalled for way and starting calling everyone who has an opinion on the subject names.
The scientific observations of evolution show that animals don't evolve to become more successful, they become more successful by having evolved (or mutated) in a way that is beneficial.
Still, digging you down. - primatage, on 06/30/2009, -1/+4samey samey!
- Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -0/+3The problem is that it's can be clumsy and awkward to speak about evolution using the correct terms. Richard Dawkins even uses terms like "the monkeys evolved big brains so they could etc." (rather than "the random mutations that resulted in larger monkey brains helped the monkeys to find fruit so they were more likely to reproduce") in the Selfish Gene, but before doing so he explains that he's simply using these terms for the sake of simplicity.
- cyoder, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2I actually glanced over the title and read it as "Nut-Size May Explain Our Brains' Bigness", but I think only because that's what I really wanted to read. Unfortunately, that particular theory wouldn't speak well for my intelligence.
- bobbi21, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2I don't get how he says no one ever response to him with any evidence when ever thread i've seen dozens of ppl have responded to him with evidence and formulas and links yet he ignores them all... so sad.
- rac1234, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2That must be why squirrels are so damn smart.
- Misterberu, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2"Bigness". I find it ironic when a person misspells a word which is intended to show or elevated levels of intelligence. Kind of like when my friend misspelled genius while he was calling himself one.
- XHashmeerX, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2Or channel to channel.
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -0/+2It was for the sake of alliteration.
- matude, on 07/01/2009, -3/+4It's a good point and indeed such arguments should be made in such manner, but if they are creationists already, will such a thing really change their perspective? I mean is there a point really? An evolutionist will understand either way and a creationist will cover his/her ears and go "lalallalalala" anyway.
/lucky to live in a world where I have never ever yet met a true creationist in real life, even when traveling. - matude, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1One usually hangs lower, creating the illusion.
But sometimes one is indeed bigger, like boobs. - Rain12913, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1I'm sure the reporter isn't doing it justice, but the logic these scientists are using seems flawed to me. It appears that they're using this small-brained fruit-eater to disprove the theory that primates evolved larger brains because of the complexity of locating fruit, and are suggesting instead that the fact that this primate could not leap from tree to tree means that leaping from tree to tree is a better explanation for why primates evolved larger brains.
The problem with this explanation is that you can just as easily switch it around with other examples. Squirrels, Frogs, and a vast number of small primates leap from tree to tree quite proficiently, and yet they have very small brains. If we evolved larger brains for arboreal locomotion as they are suggesting, than why haven't these other animals evolved larger brains as well? They seem to be doing quite a good job with small brains.
Furthermore, we know from the fossil record that primate brain size didn't start to really increase in a significant way until well after we were no longer tree jumpers. If their theory is correct, than we should see a brain size increase long before the Australopithecines, which we do not. - UnFriendlyFire, on 07/01/2009, -3/+4bigness is a perfectly cromulent word.
- jmferris, on 07/01/2009, -1/+2Nut-size? Left or right?
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -1/+2what about my brain-sized nuts?
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1How is this surprising?
What did they guess? It was for doing sudoku in the trees? - inactive, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1A thesaurus can help to embiggen any person's vocabulary knowledge.
- rac1234, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Can you swing them from tree to tree?
- zip000, on 07/01/2009, -1/+2Damn, you're a lucky bastard. I have pretty much lived in the bible belt my entire life. They don't take kindly to your kind (and my kind) 'round here.
- kd1s, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1The real evolutionary motivator is also thought to be predation. Read the book "Man the Hunted". Interesting theories in there that mans early ancestors lived in trees, were partially nocturnal, and were predated upon by birds, cats, etc.
- brownsound00, on 07/01/2009, -1/+2I got in an arguement in a guy on the city bus, when me and my friend were talking about some new thing we saw on digg, and he's like... are you SURE it was evolution? You can't really say it was. Blah blah blah jebus, blah.
That is my only encounter with a creationist.
Thank god. - EtherCJ, on 07/01/2009, -0/+0Many theories. And this one isn't even new.
One that I always liked is that is sexual selection: http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/sexualselection.h ... - WordsnCollision, on 07/01/2009, -4/+4The bigness of America is bigness!
- dandybandit, on 07/01/2009, -3/+3A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
- RealmDown, on 07/01/2009, -4/+3So, we had both heads the same size, the one increased without a corresponding increase in blood volume. That explains a lot.
- skztr, on 07/01/2009, -1/+0dude, they're supposed to be roughly the same size. See a doctor.
- norman619, on 07/01/2009, -3/+1And then again it may not.
- Renian, on 07/01/2009, -3/+1Anyone else think of Supertroopers when they read the description?
"Am I jumpin' around all nimbly bimbly from tree to tree?" - pegothejerk, on 07/01/2009, -4/+2 yeah, you know what time it is. It's bigness time. shake-a-shake-a.
- damnshoes, on 07/01/2009, -4/+1big brain
- nullcodes, on 07/01/2009, -5/+2Must .. refrain .. from .. joke .. about .. politican's ..dad.
- Manworth, on 07/01/2009, -3/+0I dislike thesauri. The first word that comes to mind is usually the most appropriate. If it takes a thesaurus to find another word then you probably don't know how to use that word properly.
Of course, bigness just sounds silly. - inactive, on 07/01/2009, -8/+2Well, I FULLY understand that when a Digger calls himself an "evolutionist", what he really means is "I'm a ***** douchebag", I think there really ought to be some further clarification.
First of all, if anyone here were really interested in science, (as opposed, say, to simply being a prick) they'd acknowledge that there's no real advantage in being able to "swing from tree to tree faster". The most common form of life on Earth is Bacteria. Bacteria are by far the most successful organism, and feels no need whatsoever to "swing faster from tree to tree". All this ***** about animals "evolving" to "be more successful" is a bunch of moron-centric pap spewed out by idiots that don't have even the tiniest interest in actual Science. Want proof? Look at how many people are going to Digg me Down without providing even the tiniest bit of counter-argument. The only thought that will go through their brain is "Being a douchebag, I will automatically Bury anything that isn't instantly recognizable as a smug, pea-brained attack on Religion."
We think of Chimps (and indeed, ourselves) as "higher" animals because we're making a completely HUMAN judgment call on what makes an animal "interesting". From that standpoint, so-called "evolutionists" are even more ignorant, superstitious, and blindly devoted to their own bias regardless of Fact than Young Earth Creationists. The fact is that there's very little reason for anything to "evolve" beyond the very simplest forms of life. Survival actually becomes harder, not easier, the more complex a biological system becomes.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is