news.bbc.co.uk — The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US. The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal. The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates and more distant relatives.
May 19, 2009 View in Crawl 4
covenMay 19, 2009
After all this, you STILL don't understand the concept of a scientific theory. "I HAVE seen, however, people delivered from lung cancer and breast cancer; seen and heard accounts of people being cured from paralysis, blindness, poor eyesight, brought back from the dead, deafness..."Anecdotal evidence is not empirical, objective or observable evidence.
staticfireMay 20, 2009
I lol'ed but I have to digg you down because its just a stupid comment.
falconer66May 20, 2009
You must have nightmares about gravity ending during the night.
wunkstaMay 20, 2009
@"Science does not draw "conclusions" as in final fact. You people are doing that."talking about a total lack of reading comphrension"science is a TOOL...to draw conclusions" who draws the conclusions? the people using science. learn to f**king reading and of course the conclusions arent final facts, no one is trying to say otherwise.and are you suggesting that we go through each experiment and test to validate the theory on our own? please, thats why there is a academic circle of people in that field. i dont have faith that these people are correct, i just dont see a reason to doubt whats being claimed after its been put through the trials of peer review and academic scrutiny. however IF i felt like it, i could very well do the research and tests to draw similar conclusions and see how the claims are supported. all the evidence is there and all the claims have been empirically supported. faith is not, you can not research the claims of the people citing faith. this isnt to say people who have faith is wrong or that science disproves god for whatever reason. if anything it just casts doubt on the peoples claims that god made humans 6000 years ago and evolution is false etc. as these claims have had evidence to the contrary that we can research and use to support our own conclusions. you keep trying to say that people in here are trying to say this latest discovery disproves god, which it doesnt. if they truly believe this then they are ignorant. however, dont try and twist this into an argument about the reliability of science or the knowledge we have gathered using it.
amizyaMay 21, 2009
God is One , yes is Onethis is a great jok ..look there and you'll know : <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/d1liAc">http://digg.com/d1liAc</a>wish them luck to find who kills JFK
crimalucaMay 21, 2009
You called me a dolt, I find that highly offensive. I thought digg enforced rules where people can't say offensive things. I didn't know that they don't care. The sphaggetti monster does not exist to identify people who have a problem with god. You got it wrong. Read my comment. It's used to explore how the concept of disproving something is pointless because even the spaghetti monster can't be disproven.
mjazzguitarMay 22, 2009
That link is insane. You can't tell if they're serious or some huge put on sucking people in who really think like that. "Hipped hopped" music?McHammer?
crimalucaMay 22, 2009
No i'm not. I think you're new here though. What you said violates the terms of agreement as being highly offensive. You could get your ass banned. Why don't you throw more insults at me. Do you think i'm a dumbass or a retard? Please let me know. Anyway open you mind. Everything I say takes away weight from your conclusions that are entirely unscientific. Science is different from philosphy in the fact that it uses quantifiable evidence aka statistics to prove a hypothesis. Your conclusions are even supported with evidence. It is entirely in the domain of philosophy which is just logical intuition. It is utterly clear to me that you aren't a scientist even though you claimed you are. That makes you a liar.
outcast24817May 25, 2009
"The missing link is a construct of the creationism movement, not the scientific community."If Darwin is part of the "scientific community", then you would be wrong."In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record." - <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil</a>^It seems like he believed there would be some (that is, transitional fossils that were milestones of sorts that everyone (even scientists) call "missing links"), but they hadn't found any yet.
kreuzbergjakobJun 1, 2009
All were missed before they were excavated!