What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
85 Comments
- Mr.Gone, on 08/13/2008, -1/+19It's a little known fact that the Mammoth, the Saber Tooth Tiger an the Sloth traveled together. I saw it in the documentary "Ice Age".
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -4/+22Is a good article until the last line: "The dinosaurs got really big, and they died out. Pleistocene mammals grew very big, and they died out. It makes you wonder… where will the human obesity epidemic lead us?" At which point I burst out laughing at the ridiculous point the author is trying to make.
- fluidfoundation, on 08/12/2008, -4/+21Nice Beaver!
- t4stringer, on 08/12/2008, -1/+15Some of those look pretty awesome
- tmurphy77, on 08/13/2008, -3/+16Apparently the scientists who said the Giant Beaver was extinct do not know about my ex-wife.
- MissCellania, on 08/13/2008, -0/+12It was meant not so as a point but as a punchline. I'm not used to doing serious stuff.
- Lochie, on 08/13/2008, -0/+8Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.
- mattballinger, on 08/13/2008, -2/+10Giant beaver = R.O.U.S.
- Jack8274, on 08/13/2008, -2/+10That bear made me ***** my pants then clean it up so it didn't attract bears.
- fluidfoundation, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7Agreed, but what is the kid in a swim suit doing in 10000BC trying to give the bear a bear hug?
- matdevdug, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Jurassic Park VIII: Escape from Giant ***** Bears
40 MPH + Walking on two legs + Claws = Awesome movie. - corryface, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6haha, i read your comment and then looked at your name. excellent!
- Lochie, on 08/13/2008, -2/+6Damn that bird is HUGE.
- abarysh2, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4my question is: what does that giant thing eat?
- corryface, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4why did you feel the need to do that?
- abarysh2, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4...that's not what FSM told me
- nullx42, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4*Badum kish*
- DemonWasp, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4There are no words for how wrong you are.
The only thing I'm seeing in your "evidence" is further support of evolution. View it this way and it should make more sense:
1. Primitive cells (nothing like most modern cells) existed in a sort of primordial soup, filled with various chemicals, but little other life*.
2. Out of those primitive cells grew more advanced cells. These advanced cells can then rely on the primitive ones to be around (because they are). A very basic ecosystem begins to form. More species evolve over time.
3. Tens or hundreds of millions of years later, the rich ecosystems we are used to seeing have evolved. As such, nearly every organism is dependent on having a similar-enough environment in order to survive: those are the conditions it evolved in, so those are the conditions it is acclimated to.
4. Even as a thought experiment, this is more in favour (note: it's not a proof in the slightest) of evolution than it is against it. This supports the idea that all modern creatures have evolved to succeed in a given set of environments (including availability of food, etc), and tend to do poorly in areas they are not acclimated to.
* Also worthy of note: there are still very primitive single-celled creatures (Archaea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea) which can exist in very hostile climates, entirely without any "ecosystem". Many live in incredibly salty pools of water (halophiles), while others live in thermal vents (thermophiles), etc. - 355CJ, on 08/13/2008, -2/+6They all went the way of the giant SUV species, which once roamed freely throughout much of North America.
- nitsuj, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3"The original cell was all by itself; there was no ecosystem to support it."
There may not have been what would now be termed an 'ecosystem', but there certainly was the right kind of environment to support the cell otherwise the cells would die out. The environment was favorable for the cell to survive.
"If the evolutionary theory is correct, all organisms, past and present, should have inherited its ability to live outside the ecosphere."
This is patently false and not the way that evolution works. Gradual change of environment puts selection pressure on organisms ultimately producing surviving offspring that is better adapted to that particular environment. Claiming that an organism should be able to live outside its ecosphere is an absurdity when you consider that the organism is likely to have evolved to be perfectly suited to the ecosphere or environment that it lives in.
It is clear that W. Friedman has a naive understanding of evolution. - ShadowFoxxx, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3People give the Ice Age very little mentioning and acknowledgment - dinosaurs weren't the only giant, scary animals on Earth you know! That teratorn and Irish Elk are massive! And with everything else. My question is why was everything so unbelievably HUGE thousands/millions of years ago? Was it the amount of oxygen in the air?
That beaver is about the size of today's bear and that short-faced bear is about the size of a small van and that teratorn would be the most terrifying thing in the world if it were circling around your head.
And if you think about it, they didn't die out all that long ago - well, compared to dinosaurs, which is about 65 million years - and their counterparts have shrunk down to miniature size! - TheOther1, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5I think that damn thing ***** on my car after I finally washed it the other day.
- bombula, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4There's some good support for the idea that humans hunted all of these large animals to extinction. The demise of these large mammals and birds coincides with the end of the last Ice Age, but also with ***** sapiens' arrival in North America. There were tons of big animals - marsupials, I think - in Australia and throughout Papua New Guinea as well, and they all vanished around 40,000 years ago - long before the most recent Ice Age, but again just a few centuries after humans arrived. There's good info on this stuff in Jared Diamond's books, like Guns, Germs & Steel.
- nitsuj, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3"Ability to survive outside an ecosystem is one of such characteristics. Now, you tell me why this characteristics was not retained by a single species?"
False. Animals evolve to specialise in their ecosystem and environmental niche's. We have tons of evidence that traits that are no longer required are lost - vestigial limbs, loss of eyes for cave dwelling creatures etc. The reason for this is that they no longer play a part in the process of natural selection.
"According to genetics, as it is seen by even the most ardent evolutionists like Dobzhansky, favorable characteristics do not go away, they are passed on to the next generations."
Characteristics are classed as 'favorable' if they help the creature to survive in its *current* environment. You've misread Dobzhansky.
Being able to survive in long-gone environments would hold no survival advantage whatsoever if they weren't *currently* important to the creature and therefore part of natural selection pressure.
"It is clear that you cannot make even the simplest logical deductions."
Your 'logic' is based on a misunderstanding of evolution and in particular, natural selection. - fluidfoundation, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3wood.
- FonzsXe, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3that bird looks like a Cessna!!!
- BillE3, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4Al Gore would have saved them.
- zephyear, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4shut up.
- chadian22, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Dugg you up only because I'm tall.
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Just means tall guys get the chicks :P
- c89a, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2I can see that giant bear getting nailed on the colbert report
- DemonWasp, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2I never said the original cell existed in any sort of ecosystem (though I should have been more clear that the opposite is in fact the case). Allow me to restate my argument more concisely:
I was arguing that while the early single-celled creatures existed without an ecosystem (similar to modern Archaea), modern creatures do not, and cannot. This, however, does not refute evolution.
Instead, it points to the idea that the ecosystems we see in modern times are a byproduct of evolution: as more species evolve, a richer and more complex ecosystem develops (after all, an ecosystem is just "other living things"). Over time, creatures become reliant on their ecosystem maintaining certain standards - so dependent that they cannot live without that ecosystem.
Further note: evolution does not necessarily always increase capabilities; in fact, it frequently subtracts capabilities (there is substantial evidence, for example, that whales evolved from four-legged land mammals). The OP's assertion that "If the evolutionary theory is correct, all organisms, past and present, should have inherited its ability to live outside the ecosphere" is therefore complete garbage.
Thus, we note that the OP's argument is nonsense, and does not provide a refutation of evolutionary theory. - snotrokit, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2really big trees
- scolasanti, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2studies have been done and in a couple thousand years, all humans baby toe will be gone, just becasue of evolution. and it is proven that the human species are getting bigger (Taller). so who knows what we would look like in 3 thousand years, that's if we are still even here.
- ginogrz, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Thanks I just had it stuffed.
- mzh4ng17, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2The ability to survive outside an ecosystem is the single most important characteristic vital to the survival of a species? More important than actually surviving in an ecosystem?
- goffy59, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2QQ
- mcclaytonrolls, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure if i saw a bear running at me on two legs at 40 mph, i would stop doing acid and taking walks through the park.
- Coffeedemon, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Probably a troll...
Anyway there are at least 10 if not more radiometric dating techniques that can be used with the known halflife of materials found in excavations. For things really old they'll use uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating. Carbon-14 dating won't work for super old things (I think this is why the clueless like to discredit the entire process) so thats why other techniques might be used.
Go read a book that actually has citations. - snotrokit, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2http://www.instantrimshot.com
- ConAmoreEFuoco, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2The ability to survive outside an ecosystem is entirely useless to an organism within an ecosystem. That's why natural selection has not selected for that kind of trait. Adaptation occurs in response to the environment present to the organism.
- m0laria, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Oxygen levels rose up to 23% 40 million years ago. They are currently at 21%. Not sure the percentage during the ice age.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/05100 ... - TheInformer, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Humans aren't the center of the universe nor are they the cause of all that is wrong. There's good evidence a comet caused the extinction:
http://www.standardnewswire.com/index.php?module=r ... - patm1987, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I think the current running theory is that we kill everything that competes with us. This would be why smaller mammals/reptiles/birds do so well, they can survive in essentially another biosphere that people can't reach (not counting deforestation and the likes). The other idea that I randomly recall off the top of my head (was probably watching the Discovery Channel or something a month ago) was that during some portions of earth's past there were more forests and the like available which eventually turned into savannah and desert in the modern day.
- TheInformer, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1McDonalds = fall of humankind
- fluidfoundation, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1That's a honey of an ankle bracelet you have there...
- mpweave, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Gandalf knows what it's like.
- bioviral, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Imagine flying on the Teratorn.
- snotrokit, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1ya forgot your /sarcasm tag there TKS.
- TheInformer, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Imagine if Al Gore's remains are the first remains that future scientists find.
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is