digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at en.wikipedia.org

This Man Who Worked At The Bronx Zoo ... As An Exhibit!

en.wikipedia.org — The exhibit was intended to promote the theory that humans evolved from primates, as well as eugenics, and scientific racism. At the age of 32, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth, performed a final tribal dance, and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DariusMonsef, on 05/06/2008, -15/+96Poor guy lived hard and died young, but change one number and I hope that is how I go out... "At the age of 82, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth, performed a final tribal dance, and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol."
    • Jayeugene, on 05/06/2008, -82/+3no... 32
      • CapnDeviance, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4Bravo.
      • Chassit, on 05/06/2008, -0/+20Hey man, you should re read the post...
        • Jayeugene, on 05/06/2008, -11/+3ahh, i see. I completely overlooked that. *slap forehead ascii*
      • DyceFreak, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1leave it to some mindless jackass to denounce hope.
      • jer2eydevil88, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6DariusMonsef said "but change one number" which can be interpreted as him meaning that he changed the 3 in 32 to an 8 and came up with 82.... Then he quoted the article with his changed number.
    • mmdieterich, on 05/06/2008, -74/+1he was 32
      • bodegit, on 05/06/2008, -2/+52this was a test in reading comprehension. and you failed.
    • Jpotts12, on 05/06/2008, -2/+49He said "change one number"
    • Nobi-Wan, on 05/06/2008, -9/+74What do you know? The Christians of the day were more forward-thinking than the scientists.

      "Our race, we think, is depressed enough, without exhibiting one of us with the apes," said clergyman James H. Gordon; "We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls."
      • IglooBurner, on 05/06/2008, -15/+26Scientists will almost always put scientific progress ahead of individual human life.
        • suttercain, on 05/06/2008, -3/+16Agreed. Sadly though Politicians will almost always put political progress ahead of individual human life.
        • Envark, on 05/06/2008, -7/+7Can you please provide some evidence to back up that blanket statement?
        • TheAkolyte, on 05/06/2008, -4/+9 I suggest next time you're fatally ill, you not visit a hospital. You wouldn't want one of those bastard scientists operating on you, doing god knows what in the name of science.
          • IglooBurner, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Oh really nice of you to jump to conclusion and assume i despise science. I simply made a statement on scientists and their will to contribute for the greater good of humanity, sometimes at the cost of individual lives.
          • DuneChild, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Besides, he said scientists, not doctors. Doctors "practice" medicine. Scientists do research and studies. Doctors implement said research and help conduct the studies. Unless you go to a research hospital (only recommended if you have something rare or incurable), you will most likely see a doctor, not a scientist. This, of course, is not to say that doctors are not people of science, just that the methods differ.
        • Risingashes, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Sadly though religion has caused the slaughter of millions of apparent infidels.
          The starvation and exploitation of countless generations in the name of predetermination.
          And ingrained superiority complex that persists to this day.
          At least science has some positive byproducts that wouldn't exist regardless.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -7/+19You can check the religion of most great scientists throughout history. Most were either Jews or Christians.
        • Misanthrope, on 05/06/2008, -18/+4Really? Which ones?
          • cdahlkvist, on 05/06/2008, -7/+34Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
            Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
            Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
            Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
            Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
            Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
            Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
            William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
            William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
            Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
            Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
            Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
            Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
            Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
            Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
            Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
            Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
            Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
            John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
            Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
            Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
            George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
            Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
            Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
            Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
            Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
            Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Catholic
            Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
            Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
            Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
            Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
            Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
            René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
            Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
            and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist
            Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
            James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
            Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
            Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
            William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
            John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
            Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
            Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran
            Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
            Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
            the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
            Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
            Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
            Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
            Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican
            Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic
          • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -2/+23pwned
          • ICSU, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2Jewish is a nationality not just religion. Einstein was not religious to start with.
            But either way, they had to forget the "god did it" nonsense if they wanted to invent or discover something.
          • IglooBurner, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Einstein believed in God, in fact he believe that science and religion should co-exist and the notion that science and religion are two separate thing is simply the wrong way of approaching science.
            "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Einstein might not believe in the Jewish Christian or Muslim God, however he does believe in a Creator.
        • jaredcat, on 05/06/2008, -1/+18Certainly true within the past 500 years anyway... but I think that has more to do with Western culture regaining and exploring its early greco-roman roots in logic and philosophy. 2000 years ago most of the great scientists throughout history were sacrificing goats to Zeus and dancing around in the moonlight with Dionysus . (:
        • dcmjzero, on 05/06/2008, -2/+12don't forget that during the middle ages the Muslim cultures retained and advanced scientific knowledge from the Greeks and Romans. it wasn't until the Renaissance that that changed.
        • IglooBurner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12It doesn't matter if they're religious or atheist, nor does it matter if he's a Nazi/ Communist/ Socialist... etc or what not, if a scientist is brilliant, he's contribution will make a positive impact on the overall scientific community, thats the beauty of science.
          • IglooBurner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1*edit* or her contribution...
          • Nobi-Wan, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3...except if he's a racist and puts a Pygmy in a cage next to the orangutan exhibit. All in the name of science, huh?
          • Thefascist, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I don't know, I found the exhibit to be quite refreshing.
        • spambutcher, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Sure - but how many of those who identify as christian would actually answer yes to the question "Do you accept Jesus as your lord and savior?"

          Einstein may have been Jewish and believed in some kind of higher-power - but he also said "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."

          I suspect this is representative of a lot of "religious" scientists - especially more recent ones.
        • MCMLXXXII, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6You have a relatively short term memory. Christian scientists only emerged during the renaissance. Prior to that you had these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scient ...
        • Tyrghast, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@ MCM
          thanks, I was about to say "WTF MIDDLE AGES BRO"
      • gravityboard, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5It's not that they were more forward thinking, Christians just had more to lose from people learning that humans evolved from primates.
      • Navicerts, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Not really, the Christan church just remains the same - no matter what. Every once in awhile they are bound to get it right. ~1900 they were bitching about educating the public on evolution, 2008 they are still playing the same cords.
        • Nobi-Wan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Christians are nothing if not consistent.
      • inhaler, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Nice quote mine, but you forgot the second half: "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be permitted."

        Sounds like his intentions were less concerned with the wellbeing of Oto, and more so with the preservation of Christianity from conflicting or new ideas. So basically, no more forward thinking then our Creationist friends and Ben Stein.
    • XombieRobot, on 05/06/2008, -11/+3Tay Zonday?
    • jd33, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Thank God he chipped off the caps of his teeth, I was beginning to think his death ritual was a little strange.
    • samoan27, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3All I know is if I were black and living at that time I think I don't think I'd want to move to the South in a town called Lynchburg.
    • PosedMagnet, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Why would you wanna go out like that?

      You realize if you shoot yourself in the heart, you don't exactly die RIGHT AWAY. That will probably be the MOST painful thing you'd ever feel.
      • m0tbaillie, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I'm sure there are far, far more painful things to feel than being shot in the heart. There are torture methods and acts of mutilation designed specifically to inflict the most amount of pain possible while keeping the victim conscious that you can't even imagine.
        • Vapor17, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4while this may be true, Magnet's post says it'd be the most painful thing *you'd* ever feel, and since the large majority of people haven't been tortured, shooting one's self through the heart may be the most painful thing they experience
        • CA55IDY, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0You sound like uv done that kinda thing b4!
      • poopdigger, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1in my humble opinion, shooting yourself in the heart is pretty badass
      • clarionhaze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Having prepared for his death in ritual and so being so depressed, Ota's state of mind was probably beyond feeling the pain of his death over the joy of relief.
    • TomJohn, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4And your epitaph will read, "Here Lies the Thief who Stole my Pistol."
  • decepticrat, on 05/06/2008, -28/+21It had to have been very difficult at that time to posit the idea of evolution from apes so openly. We see things change so quickly these days that it's often very easy to forget how quickly conclusions of evil or godlessness were drawn at the inception of new scientific theories in our recent past. I doubt the idea of eugenics was regarded much differently. I had absolutely no idea that his exhibition ever took place, and its really sad to hear of his suicide. It makes you wonder if his life made a difference in the world, or if it was just suffrage for no good end.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+37Suffering. I don't know if his vote would have made a difference.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2gotta love early 20th century humor.
    • empiric, on 05/06/2008, -6/+0"It had to have been very difficult at that time to posit the idea of evolution from apes so openly."

      True, but some pretty big names got away with it very early, like, 1800 years before Darwin.

      "When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images that came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"

      Great quote from... somebody.
      • aaabatteries, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3It's from the book of Thomas--a gnostic work that isn't very well-referenced or authentic to any degree.
        • empiric, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Oh, sure it is. But anyway, that's a theological debate. It's status relative to the canonical gospels theologically helps none with addressing the timeframes for an atheist. Whether it was written well before Darwinism, by many centuries, is a question of simple time and simple fact.

          Call my mentioning it an "encirclement" strategy. Naturally, there's be an inescapable one provided, by Design.
          • empiric, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0By the way, the answer to whether it was is unquestionably "Yes".

            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

            I know the average Digger would Digg down the clearest basic facts, that they know are clear facts as they down-mod, if the post appeared in any way theistic though. So, go ahead. For the record, of course.
          • aaabatteries, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The earliest reference to it is from 233 A.D. That is too late after Christ's death to have it be included as part of the NT. Not to say that there isn't any truth in it--I haven't read it personally other than small sections so I couldn't tell you.

            And, "for the record", I am a Christian. I consider myself to be a theistic evolutionist in that I believe God set things in motion. Then again, I wasn't around a couple hundred million years ago. We have evidence producing a compelling argument for "so and so" theories but I do not think mankind will ever really know everything about our origins.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -13/+4It was a racist act which put forth the idea that people with dark skin were less evolved, less worthy and more animal than human. I'm not surprised at how many people have never heard of this. I wonder how many also don't know the first title of Darwin's book was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This shows the bigotry at the heart of evolution.
      • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+31" I wonder how many also don't know the first title of Darwin's book was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This shows the bigotry at the heart of evolution."

        "Races", within the context of the title of Darwin's groundbreaking book, referred to subsets within animal species in general. It did not refer to human races. An actual reading of the book makes this evident; Darwin does not discuss human races to any real extent within the book at all.
        • compcarp, on 05/06/2008, -7/+0Since Darwin and today's evolutionists believe man to be just another 'animal' - "races" does in fact encompass races of the human animal.
          "Darwin does not discuss human races to any real extent within the book at all." Emphasis on the "to any real extent". As I say, since humans are considered just another animal - the entire book also refers to man.
          If you believe in Evolution, at least have the courage of your beliefs - and admit man is just another animal in your textbooks.
          • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10"Since Darwin and today's evolutionists believe man to be just another 'animal' - "races" does in fact encompass races of the human animal."

            Humans are animals by biological classification. Any extra traits beyond those of any other animal species that humans may possess is a property seperate from biology. While "race" does address human species, Darwin also used it in references to varieties of cabbage. Claiming that the title of the book is itself an indication of human racism inherent in the theory, without even addressing the content of the book, is irrational and dishonest.


            "Emphasis on the "to any real extent". As I say, since humans are considered just another animal - the entire book also refers to man."

            The book addresses the emergence of biodiversity in general. This does not support the previous poster's thesis.


            "If you believe in Evolution, at least have the courage of your beliefs - and admit man is just another animal in your textbooks."

            I have not denied that homo sapiens sapiens is, by biological classification, animal. This was established in biology before Charles Darwin was born, and it does not support the previous poster's thesis.
      • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11*groan*

        Try reading a book before you denounce it. In fact, you can for free here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemI ...

        You misunderstand what Darwin meant by "race." He meant species, not human breeds. Eugenics was a pseudoscience that latched onto evolutionary ideas but didn't follow through logically. There was and is no scientific basis to believe that Africans are somehow "less evolved" than any other race. Evolution was used by people who were already racists to feel like their ideas were supported by science, or did you forget that slavery and racism existed long before the days of Darwin?
        The white American Christians used the Bible to justify their slavery of blacks, and their extermination of Native Americans. Does that show the "bigotry" at the heart of Christianity?
        Blaming Darwin for racism is like blaming Newton for terrorism.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Ah this old hat. Evolution is not racist, in fact it actually REFUTES racism by showing that we humans are all one species.
        Go read more here:
        http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
        http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
        • Cerebron, on 05/06/2008, -4/+0However, some traits are superior, and that cannot be denied. Sometimes white moths survive longer, and sometimes the black ones, am I right? Evolution is, at it's heart, extremely good support for racism.

          From your links: "George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,

          The poor little fellow who went to the south
          Got lost in the forests dank;
          His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
          And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
          And his mind became a blank. "

          That is evolution at work, no? This 'Creationist' has no problem with evolution.

          "# The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery. " You can have slavery apart from racism, for example, the blacks in Africa sold other blacks, etc. Straw man.

          "The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. " That actually refutes your entire point. 'Favoured races' are contained within one species, so racism remains ok.
          • rspeed, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Do you really have that much trouble seeing the difference between natural and artificial selection? Just because some whackos decided to use evolution as an excuse for racism doesn't make evolution racist. There have been countless Christians who have used the Bible to justify even worse deeds, but you wouldn't call the Bible racist, would you? The fallacy of eugenics has long been exposed and abandoned, just as modern Christians have abandoned the Bible's endorsement of racial superiority.

            SO GIVE IT UP ALREADY!
          • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8"However, some traits are superior, and that cannot be denied. Sometimes white moths survive longer, and sometimes the black ones, am I right? Evolution is, at it's heart, extremely good support for racism."

            Your conclusion is contradicted by your second statement. You have already noted that "sometimes" white moths survive, and that "sometimes" black moths survive. This is because whether or not one particular trait is "superior" to another is relative based upon environmental conditions. As such, it is irrational to suggest that the theory of evolution can be used to conclude that a physical characteristic is "superior" to another in any absolute sense, which means that it is impossible to determine that one subgroup of a species that possesses a certain physical characteristic is, in any absolute sense, "superior" to another. As such, evolution cannot be used to justify racism.
          • Phyraxus, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5White people are white so they can make vitamin D. Black people are black so they don't get skin cancer. Both evolved to suit their environment, one is not "superior" than the other. To plainly state this, is NOT racism.
    • bratterscain, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well, we're on digg reading about it almost a century later. I think we learned something about humanity. I think everyone's life has purpose.
    • fireseedstudios, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Your comment is very open minded and relevant. Im surprised to see you have fewer diggs than someone with a humorous quip. It really is amazing how quickly some accepted truths change so quickly, while other ideological concepts linger from generation to generation.
    • isatiger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffrage
      suffrage
      noun
      1: a short intercessory prayer usually in a series
      2: a vote given in deciding a controverted question or electing a person for an office or trust
      3: the right of voting : franchise; also : the exercise of such right
  • ritubpant, on 05/06/2008, -8/+17wow is all i can say
    • defska42, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Normally I would bury a comment like this; but really, "wow" is all I've got also. I mean, I guess that I am not entirely surprised, given the prevalent racism of the time, but it still was a shocker of a read.
    • Gorgamel, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Then don't bother commenting.
  • kensavage, on 05/06/2008, -25/+15is that an ipod he's wearing in that picture?
  • mountainsurfer, on 05/06/2008, -43/+25Most people still don't understand evolution, even if they think they do. My wife argued with me the other day about it, stating that evolution was a direct response to the environment. I said no, it is actually just a series of accidents that 'got it right' and were therefore allowed to continue - to put it simply. It's hard to believe that, after all this time, discussions like this still go on among two college educated people.
    • bradhart2, on 05/06/2008, -4/+17The other detail most people get wrong is they feel evolution is about genetic improvement of the species rather than becoming genetically more efficient.
    • homercles337, on 05/06/2008, -13/+27Actually, youre wrong too. There is nothing "accidental" about evolution. Its hard to believe you claim to understand evolution, but you really dont. You should look up the word "selection" since it has nothing to do with "accident."
      • Kypt, on 05/06/2008, -3/+19The accidents occur, then selection takes its pick and that accident becomes the new standard. Selection by itself is useless, first i needs to "select" these accidents for it to do any good.
        • defska42, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11Kypt FTW...nature needs something to "select". Genetic mutations are, by definition, accidental (but not necessarily random as kingmanic points out below). Those mutations that are best for the environment are "selected;" namely, those mutations that help them acquire food, avoid predators, or reproduce in their given environment.
          • bysin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1To claim it was an accident is to claim we're all accidentally genetically different. All organisms in the same species have a slightly different genetic makeup. Since we're all different, you might be better at certain things then I am. If I were to die because I'm not as good as you at, lets say rock climbing, then thats called evolution by natural selection.
        • UberNick, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13There's no accident about the mutations that occur. Various mechanisms of DNA have altering frequencies of mutation which are very, very finely tuned to change frequently enough to allow gradual adaptation without destroying the species. This is most apparent, and most differentiated, in rates of virus mutations.
          • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Where did the DNA code come from? It's a highly complex code which makes up all life.
          • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10"Where did the DNA code come from?"

            Are you referring to DNA structures in general, or are you inquiring about the ultimate origin of DNA?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3IF it weren't for accidents there wouldn't be separate races.

            His point is correct, it's not controlled and there is no outside intervention.

            Mating requires geographical proximity and the very random physical attributes one has.

            Who knows how many species and races of anything completely disappeared by accident or prolonged isolation.

            While the processes of evolution are very well defined and systematic, the occurence of evolution is purely accidental.

            If I had not been at that bar, at that time, wearing those clothes, with that particular level of alcohol in me, I would've never met my wife and would not have the kids I have today, maybe I would have kids, but not these.

            It's the same for everything.
          • gnomead, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Darwinian evolution is the NON-random natural selection of random mutations. To think that it is a series of accidents is missing the point spectacularly.
      • kenrayd, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1marvelous point
        • MattB123, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Uh, not really. The accident was the genetic mutation that started the trait. If the trait is beneficial or at least not detrimental, natural selection will let that organism reproduce, passing the trait along. (over simplified, but this is the basic premise)
      • aladrin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+17You're right, it -IS- amazing that you don't understand evolution and yet are so quick to be snide that others don't. She's right in that evolution has an 'environmental' aspect, and you're right that evolution has an 'accidental' aspect. Without both aspects, it doesn't work at all!

        To make it clearer for you: Accidents happen (genetic mutations) that the environment helps reinforce or kill out. If the accident is one that makes the organism more likely to survive, it has a better chance of staying in the gene pool.
      • ogloom, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I disagree. Evolution occurs due to ACCIDENTAL mutations of DNA during reproduction. If these ACCIDENTAL MUTATONS are favourable and the species is under selection pressure, the organisms best suited to survive will be able to reproduce (the ones with the favourable mutations) and pass on their new genetic code
      • topace3000, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Uh actually it is accidental.. or I guess incidental, mutations that lead to selection and evolution....
    • ZenMojo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4It's both. Environment alters us on a genotypical level but natural selection takes place in parallel.
    • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -5/+12You two are splitting hairs. Genetic mutations are not truly random, they happen at a set rate in set places for molecular reasons. Although the factors are so numerous and complicated that many will say it's near random it's not exactly random. Selection is also constantly at work at all stages of the mutation as many are detrimental or fatal. Most are neutral. So it's a complex but not truly random process that creates mutations and a completely non random process that selects which ones go on.

      In a way you are right as mutations are accidents but accidents aren't random and some are more common then others btu your wife is right in that the environment selects which ones go on.
      • xptoast, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Randomization is only a human concept in that nothing can be random for then it would not happen in response to the physics making the responses happening such as they are.

        I nitpick to show the illogical thought patterns of arguing most of the things that scientists do as such it all proves to be fairly worthless in the end for there is no possible way to find the beginning for the beginning states there is a finite point in time where things began...time however is a side effect of matter thus creating a problem in the concept of matter existing at the beginning and being created by something. It is akin to asking what the answer to x-1 is. Yes there is an answer but it is another variable that feeds the x-1 paradox with a never ending set of questions leading to the fact that math and science have a point at which they become unneeded. This is shown in such cases as the rounding errors imminent in pi.

        Have a great day:)
        • joshzweig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1So when if I randomly pick a number, that number isn't really random? I have no free will, then.
          • xptoast, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It seems random. For instance a computer can generate a random number....but there is a program setup to use a logical method to create such a random number. So no it is not really random random. It is just not predictable to your mind or anyones mind as you cannot nail it down very easily. However it is mathematical and always done in a processed manner. It is all perception my friend. So no it is not random...it just appears to be random. It all depends on how you wish to look at it. If your definition of random is that a normal human being cannot logically figure out the pattern quickly or over a small amount of time then it is random, then yes it is random. But truthfully nothing is random. You do have free will. Choosing does not mean you have no free will as in using your own set of logic still applies to you using your own free will.
    • lordmetroid, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3The result of evolution is dependent on the environment.
    • cornercorner, on 05/06/2008, -5/+7Sorry but the evolution you're referring to, "accidents", plays only a small role in the actual evolution of organisms. Most evolution occurs through natural selection, whereby the pressures of the environment choose for favorable traits to increase reproductive success in the animal. Evolution is not a very hard concept to understand but it IS important to get all the details right, which is why freshmen college bio courses will hammer this into you relentlessly.
      • shortyjacobs, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Environments can't "choose".
        Random traits are accidentally produced....most don't go anywhere, because the new mutated creature is no better suited for the environment than the old one was.....every once in a while, the accidental random trait gives the animal a better chance of survival, and that one reproduces, therefore spreading the new trait. So the accidental mutation that leads to the new trait is very frickin important.
        • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Genetic drift also spread neutral or only slightly negative traits.
        • cornercorner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't mean "choose" as in the environment cognitively decides which traits it likes in an animal. I meant the pressures of the environment result in the most favorable traits being passed on, favorable being those that increase the animals reproductive fitness.
          Did you really think I meant "choose" in the first way?
          Yes I know that random traits are accidentally produced, but as I said in my first post and as clarified by kingmanic, mutations result in a very small percentage of actual evolutionary traits.
    • mrhuggy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There sure are a lot of experts in this field on digg whom don't seem to agree with one another - personally, I have little clue about evolution. What I don't understand is why people think they know all about it when clearly they are not the experts or the scientists in the field of study. Most have probably never fully (or even partially) read the theories of evolution, much less understand them. I know I haven't - but it may soon be on my 'to-do' list.
      • cornercorner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Evolution is not a very hard concept, but it is important to get all the details right - which is why so many people who have cursory knowledge of it, through high school such, believe they are experts. I think the main point in this particular discussion is a disagreement over genetic drift and natural selection. X-Men is a great comic and movie series, but not all evolution occurs through mutations. A quick example is giraffes - taller giraffes were more reproductively fit because they could reach the leaves. As the generations went on, the taller giraffes would be more successful at reproducing, thus passing down their "tall" genes. No mutation necessary for this kind of evolution, just the three tenets of natural selection: 1) variation 2) heritability and 3) differential reproductive success
      • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11st year biology pretty much covers all of the modern theory in about a week (2-3 seminars). It's not that complex and the lack of insight into it is more due to your lack of interests then the complexity of the idea.
        • mrhuggy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1So I guess a lot of people on digg are not interested in the idea eh?
    • elamr, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2science is goes wrong the second it steps out of it role of "How" and attempts to step into philosophy's role of "why". There is not proof one way or another that everything is an accident. It more rational "assume" everything is an accident then to proclaim it on the moutain like a religion would do. If your going to be scientific be scientific. Atheism is a belief system of non-belief..
      • kingmanic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Science does not seek why, this is true BUT science is a philosophical stance of reducing the unprovable premises to as few as possible. In this regards Atheism requires the least unprovable premises thus is the natural stance most people in science take. It is not a religion but a stance on a metaphysical question. Q: 'Is there be a God' A: 'No'
    • GianDoe, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1what's the new meme this week for fail? let's say it's epic for example...
  • zohaibusman, on 05/06/2008, -29/+10The African Pigmy, "Ota Benga."
    Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches.
    Weight, 103 pounds. Brought from the Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Central Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Exhibited each afternoon during September.
  • maxyRO, on 05/06/2008, -23/+5I thought that was Tarzan with a tan
    • Narcism, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4now cheetah is velveeta
      • fatrandy13, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7why are there no casino's in africa?

        too many cheetahs
      • hydroplane, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Scooby Doo can doo-doo, but Jimmy Carter is smarter!
  • smurfz, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8wow, thats crazy
  • jquipp, on 05/06/2008, -17/+7holy crap ... we've come a long way. That is unreal.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -6/+2Have we come a long way? How many still believe that people with dark skin are "not as evolved?" Sadly, too many still believe the myth of race has to do with intelligence or human worth.
    • twiztedambience, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1If we've come so far why don't they have the guy's name in the exhibit with the mask? Bad PR?
    • dentalpirate, on 05/06/2008, -6/+2now white folks capitalize on black folks as athletes and musicians - holding as many as we can in lower class brackets, 'celebrating' them for a month in february wherein cable networks profit from advertisers re-running specials on frederick douglass. Long way indeed...
      • Navicerts, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1That's how you see it eh? Interesting.
      • Nobi-Wan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Wow!! I didn't know that there weren't any white musicians and athletes that aren't being capitalized on! And thanks for pointing out that there aren't any white people in lower-class brackets, either!
        Please, dentalpirate, edumacate me some more.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3yea, Soulja Boy Tell 'Em proves evidence of how far we have in fact come
      • bratterscain, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2You mean people slouching around, hooting and hollering like monkeys, grabbing their crotches, and that they apparently can't read the correct size on the tag of their pants? I don't think they've came very far in some aspects.
        • dentalpirate, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3you just proved some of my point *****
          • bratterscain, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1What point? You know very well I'm poking fun at rappers. I'd do the same for certain white people, as well. If you're going to whine about someone pointing out the faults of certain people, gtfo of digg. Go cry to your mommy.
          • jseres, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Apparently you can't read much like the very people you make fun of. The first commented MaxPayne submitted was obviously sarcasm.
          • bratterscain, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1So I can't read like the people I'm insulting? That was more a joke rather than insulting. I didn't insult them and say they can't read like you did. Why the ***** do I even try anymore? I can't make this stuff up folks. People like jseres just wind up making fun of themselves.
  • PatrickA, on 05/06/2008, -11/+6Weird stuff.
  • chris1234, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2this guy should be in hollywood
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1He actually got off lucky compared to the other humans who were killed and beheaded for evolutionary "research." Scientists would pay for humans to be hunted down and killed, then their heads removed for "study."
      • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Do you have a reference for such events?
        • Nobi-Wan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Nazi Germany
          • rspeed, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That was evolutionary research? Funny, I thought it was human physiology research / just plain insane doctors.
          • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Please explain how your response addresses my inquiry.
          • Nobi-Wan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding? Nazi researchers and scientists hunted down, imprisoned, and experimented on thousands and thousands of so-called "degenerates" of society in order to find out more about the differences in the human races. When Germany hosted the Olympics Hitler wanted only "pure" Aryan athletes competing for his country. They got their asses kicked.

            The Nazi's were the worst offenders of "evolutionary research" and tried to justify their actions by saying that certain races were below others.
  • scoetrain, on 05/06/2008, -2/+24Make sure you read the New York Times source article at the bottom of the page.
  • rtknox00, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13and I thought I had a crazy job.
  • dentalpirate, on 05/06/2008, -7/+36i'm going to name my next band "otto bingo"
    • rgaino, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8So I'm not the only one who looks for band names everywhere (and never really uses them).
      Can I play the bass?
      • Artifishalfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7How about people who look for band names everywhere and aren't even able to play an instrument?
        4 out of 5 highschoolers fall into this category.
        • dentalpirate, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3well that was unnecessary cynicism.
          ..and yes, 'gaino.. you can play bass.
          artfishalfish can collect emails at our shows and categorize everyone
  • orlyfactor, on 05/06/2008, -0/+82Nothing like Wikipedia to help eat up an afternoon's worth of work!
    • lolben, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Nothing like DIGG to help eat up an afternoon's worth of work!
    • canUdi9it, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2At least you can call it "research".
  • tomtom13, on 05/06/2008, -40/+7Ummm...who cares? This was a LONG time ago. Really. We all know we were racist bigots back then give it a rest.
    • whatsupimphil, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9I thought Lincoln ended the slave trade with the emancipation proclamation and civil war in the 1860's. Reading about this boy negotiated from a tribal slave trader and brought here makes me wonder how long it really went on.
      • semeticstallion, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves -- it was a marketing ploy to the rest of the world to make the south look bad, thereby cutting off their trade with European countries and pretty much guaranteed the win for the North since they couldn't get the supplies they needed to continue.
      • shortyjacobs, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Apparently the tribal slave traders in AFRICA didn't feel inclined to listen to Lincoln...Plus the civil rights movement, which was like the Emancipation Proclamation 2.0, didn't happen til the 60's.
      • dcmjzero, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2i would avoid the use of "boy" describing him. it can be seen as a racist term when applied to black people. plus, he was ~20 when taken from Africa, making him a man.
      • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Lincoln didn't believe in slavery, but he didn't believe that blacks were equal to whites, either.
        • Scrappy1850, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2citation needed
          • dcmjzero, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3only a knowledge of history is needed. it was the prevailing attitude of the time. even those against slavery where for sending them back to africa. read up on the history of liberia.
          • brstilson, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Very well:

            "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

            "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing
            about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black
            races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
            jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
            with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
            difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
            forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
            And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
            must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
            man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
            I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is
            to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
            Abraham Lincoln
            Source: September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
            at Charleston, Illinois

            So, (1) He didn't give a rat's ass about slavery. He would have kept it in place if it would have saved the union, and (2) he believed the white race should occupy a superior position in politics and society. Abraham Lincoln is hardly the "liberator" he is made out to be.
    • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3Folks who dredge stuff like this up with the hope that it will reflect poorly on people or issues of today are mostly hypocrites who claim to stand for progress but spend most of their time pretending nothing has changed between now and whatever point in history they feel like pulling out of their butt.
      • Navicerts, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2It should be written into law to never discuss such things. Also, make sure there is nothing in the history books about it as well. Feel better?
        • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1As long as people like you read it as history instead of PORN to orally masturbate to, I don't really care.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/06/2008, -5/+19Yeah! Who cares about history????

      Its because of morons like you that we as a society fail to learn from our mistakes.
      • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2Gold star for you. Approval-seeking on the internet is such hard work. Your comment makes so much sense considering all of the African pygmies we have in zoos today. Nope. Nothing ever gets better. People today are just as bad as people 100 years ago. Everyone is an asshole EXCEPT YOU.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4You claim I commented for a virtual pat on my back? How about considering that racism hasn't been abolish in the 100+ years since this happened? We have put men into space, fought two world wars, a cold war, and built a little something called global telecommunications but yet we still define ourselves by the color of our skin. We can do better!

          I am an asshole? Yeah probably. :-D
    • Scrappy1850, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4if you dont read history then you are going to repeat it, stupid.
      • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Yay. First I'm a moron and now I'm stupid. Good counter-arguments all around. TWO GOLD STARS FOR YOU.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Why give it a rest? There is still so much money to be leached from affirmative action! It sure is convenient playing the race card to get into jobs and good schools.
      • MsGo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2...Talk about left field.
        What does affirmative action have to do with this, especially considering the biggest beneficiaries are white women?
        • tomtom13, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Actually the biggest beneficiaries are black lesbian muslims from India. Who were raped as young girls.
  • endustry, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3Hervé Villechaize went out like that only instead of the ritual, he went out to see The Fugitive, came home and then shot himself. Life's a b*tch.
  • kenrayd, on 05/06/2008, -14/+8That's about as scientific as Harry Potter.
  • Asvetic, on 05/06/2008, -10/+25Scientific Racism, is that like the extra leg muscle black men have that allow them to run faster and jump higher?
    • BryanTravers, on 05/06/2008, -5/+25No, Scientific Racism was an effort in the late 19th and early 20th century to scientifically prove the white race as being superior. The shapes of skulls was an example of how they "proved" white people were smarter and better.
      • Asvetic, on 05/06/2008, -13/+2Yeah, but black people have extra muscles, right?
        • ramunenke, on 05/06/2008, -3/+13no we are not going to give you an excuse for why you were out performed by some black kid
        • mrhuggy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So I was lied to as a child? Dang the system...
      • magneticdozer, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1hahahaha what!?
    • kakwakas, on 05/06/2008, -11/+22No, that's just good slave breeding.
      • Navicerts, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2You will get dugg down for that, but it's true. Although maybe you could have avoided the word "good" - it's very subjective.
    • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -6/+11Scientific racism is a misnomer like Christian Science (the no doctors allowed people) or Creation Science. None of these could be more unscientific.
      • FraserBilly, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2Christian Science a misnomer?? Christianity is largely to thank for the Scientific Revolution.
        The natural world was, of course, created by god and by understanding the beautiful and harmonious order that underlined it you could bring yourself closer to God. Many of the greatest scientists in history were Christians.

        And you could easily get less scientific than scientific racism. I t was called scientific because they actually searched for evidence and clues to explain the undeniable differences between races. Sounds like science to me.

        • Dimensio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5"Christian Science a misnomer?? "

          I believe that you have completely understood the term that brstilson employed. brstilson was referring specifically to members of the Church of Christ, Scientist, whose members shun medical treatment. Please view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_scientist for information regarding this specific sect.


          "The natural world was, of course, created by god and by understanding the beautiful and harmonious order that underlined it you could bring yourself closer to God."

          Please justify this assertion.
          • FraserBilly, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"Please justify this assertion."
            I was speaking in terms of how Christians approached science. The natural world was, to them, a wonderful mystery created by god, and by understanding its divine order you are in effect bringing yourself closer to the divine itself.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3"Christianity is largely to thank for the Scientific Revolution."
          Please explain exactly what part of that supernatural belief system is responsible for naturalistic discoveries, and how.
          That many scientists in the past were Christians is irrelevant - many were also male, does this mean we should start drawing sexist conclusions?
          • FraserBilly, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"That many scientists in the past were Christians is irrelevant - many were also male, does this mean we should start drawing sexist conclusions?"
            I hardly think that is irrelevant. If you are asserting that Christianity has had a negative effect on science, yet most of the scientists who gave birth to modern science as we know it were Christians it seems like an issue worth exploring, no? The fact is Christianity was stimulative to scientific endeavors.
          • Mnementh2230, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1If it was stimulative to scientific endeavors in the past (which I doubt), it is inhibitive to them these days - at least where they clash. Instead of accepting that "hey, evolution DOES happen, and we can reproduce it in the lab" (BTW: This is a FACT - look up nylon eating bacteria), christianity has come up with the idiocy that is Intelligent Design. Instead of allowing stem cell research using stem cells from aborted fetuses, christianity went and made it more difficult to harvest stem cells - the fetuses are STILL being aborted, but now the stem cells are wasted.

            ... those are the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head, but there are surely more.
        • alkajazz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4"Christianity is largely to thank for the Scientific Revolution. " Yes thank you for locking up Galileo
          • FraserBilly, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1His "locking up" was a house arrest, where he was free to continue his research. Sure, Christianity has at times tried to suppress scientific activity that opposed Christian teaching, but it has also been very provocative of scientific activity.

            Dont forget, even the teachings of Aristotle became a dogma, and took nearly 2000 years and a renaissance to turn that around. So just be careful when you claim "science" is the solution to everything..
  • thrash822, on 05/06/2008, -39/+8Nig-A-Lig
  • footodors, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11he'd have been fun to hang out with
    • ligyron, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I don't have enough sandwiches and root beer to be his friend
  • beankitty, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4hahaha this is absolutely opposed to christianity!! o noesssss
    • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6This is absolutely opposed by anyone with a little bit of humanity in them. Besides the fact that they treated him less than human. It has absolutly nothing to do with evolution.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -8/+3How does it NOT have to do with evolution? Darwin's theory was that dark skinned people were less evolved than lighter skinned people. His view was that white people were higher up the evolutionary ladder. His book was called: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This is the very foundation of evolution, and one reason I cannot accept it as truth.
        • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9"Darwin's theory was that dark skinned people were less evolved than lighter skinned people."

          Please explain the meaning of "less evolved" within the context of the theory of evolution. Please show that "dark skinned people" being "less evolved" than "lighter skinned people" is a logical conclusion from Darwin's explanation of the process by which extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry.


          "His book was called: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This is the very foundation of evolution, and one reason I cannot accept it as truth."

          As I have already pointed out that "Races", within the title of Darwin's groundbreaking book, referred to variations within animal species in general, and not to human races which were not addressed to any extent within the book, I do not understand why you continue to attempt to make the false implication. Additionally, you are appealing to consequence, a logical fallacy.
        • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Would you care to provide any evidence of this? Here, why don't you read Darwin's works for free online here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/ and then we can have a serious discussion about it, mmmkay?
        • Phyraxus, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3White people are white so they can make vitamin D. Black people are black so they don't get skin cancer. Both evolved to suit their environment, one is not "superior" than the other. To plainly state this, is NOT racism.
      • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6darwin does not equal evolution. Darwin did not have the understanding evolution that we have today. And you sir are talking about social darwinism which is a philosophy of life but has nothing to do with biological evolution. When we look at astronemy we do not look at it through the eyes of hubbel. We look at it through modern day astronomy. Just as we do with evolution. Darwin was the basis but we have a way better understanding of it today than he ever had.
      • cobrawu, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8If you had read the book you would see that Darwin was talking about different "races" of animal species, NOT humans. Pull your head out of your ass. I can't stand it when people refuse to believe what is right in front of their face. I bet you think the earth is only 6,000 years old. Praise the Lord.
        • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8"If you had read the book you would see that Darwin was talking about different "races" of animal species, NOT humans. "

          Actually, upon another examination of the book, I have determined that this is not correct. I myself have made the same error. Darwin was not making references to variations within animals. Darwin was making references to variation amongst life in general. While he referes to "races" of different animal species, he also, at times, makes reference to "races" of plant species. In fact, he first uses the word "race" in references to varieties of cabbage.
        • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8And as I pointed out we have come a long way from darwin. We have a far greater understanding of evolution. I would not use newtons theory of universal gravity, when Einstiens theory of reletavity makes more sense.
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1Why is it that someone who criticizes evolution is immediately deemed as a wacko fundamentalist? How far up your ass is that head of yours shoved?
          • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8"Why is it that someone who criticizes evolution is immediately deemed as a wacko fundamentalist?"

            Perhaps it is a conclusion derived from the general observation that the discredited and easily debunked arguments employed by the individual are most frequently made by "wacko fundamentalists".
          • mGARANDEUR1, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1So there is absolutely no reputable scientist on the face of this planet that might question the theory? Is that what you are telling me? Since when was it not acceptable to question science? I would really like to know that. I learned that science should always be questioned.
          • Dimensio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7"So there is absolutely no reputable scientist on the face of this planet that might question the theory? Is that what you are telling me? "

            No, that is not what I am "telling you". There is no possible logical or rational interpretation of my statement that would allow for such a conclusion.
          • eir574, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5mGARANDEUR1,

            Questioning science is fine, and it's encouraged. I've worked in labs for 14 years, and despite many protestations by creationists to the contrary, we're always looking for someone to overturn an existing theory. But, the mere act of questioning isn't sufficient, at least not in a scientific sense. It's one thing to ask whether evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's another thing entirely to assert that it does without actually having any understanding of thermodynamics, and then to tell people who disagree with you that their minds are closed and that they're trying to silence you.
          • mGARANDEUR1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Well it's funny that you mention that because just about everyone on this thread who disagrees with evolutionary theory is immediate buried.
  • whatsupimphil, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8From the New York Times source at the bottom:

    “Few expressed audible objection to the sight of a human being in a cage with monkeys as companions,” The New York Times wrote the next day.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/nyregion/thecity ...
    • jaredcat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I think it certainly would attract more visitors. I'd start going to the zoo more often if they still had human exhibits.
      • banshee9x, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3yeah me too, especially if they were all in the nude (females only though)
        • diggimator, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Apparently some of the exhibitions had nudity:

          "The 1900 World's Fair presented the famous diorama living in Madagascar, while the Colonial Exhibitions in Marseilles (1906 and 1922) and in Paris (1907 and 1931) also displayed human beings in cages, often nude or semi-nude.[3] The 1931 exhibition in Paris was so successful that 34 million people attended it in six months, while a smaller counter-exhibition entitled The Truth on the Colonies, organized by the Communist Party, attracted very few visitors—in the first room, it recalled Albert Londres and André Gide's critics of forced labour in the colonies. Nomadic Senegalese Villages were also presented."
          --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
          So it was Communism to the rescue back then. But yeah, human exhibits may be interesting if it was presented with no racial undertones.
    • limedcoconut, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Now, that's fair and balanced.
  • ethanpack, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Interesting find. Quite unbelievable!
  • Larlei, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2lets all be exhibits.
  • Shadowgamers, on 05/06/2008, -10/+3'The exhibit was intended to promote the theory that humans evolved from primates, as well as eugenics, and scientific racism'
    If it were a white dude I bet nobody would have thought it to be racist :V
    • johnn11238, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6If it were a "white dude", nobody would have put him in the monkey house.
      • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0I was going to make this statement almost word for word but you beat me to it.
      • MsGo, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1I don't know...The Bush family looks very monkey-like.

    • Rain12913, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4You are an idiot. This man was specifically put on exhibit because of his race. An African was specifically selected for this experiment because the prevailing opinion at the time was that Africans were evolutionarily closer to apes than Europeans were. For this reason, a "white dude" would not have been put in this situation because the white society viewed themselves as being more distinct from apes than Blacks were. Again, you are an idiot.
  • JezusGhoti, on 05/06/2008, -1/+39The sad part is that there are still some people who consider pygmies to somehow be sub-human. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy ) both sides in the Congolese Civil war hunt and eat pygmies. Sketchy.
    • Navicerts, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Holy *****, and that was 1998 and 2003 :(
    • skyshock1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4That's disgusting.
      • leazarus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

        (sorry)
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Haha, like the Congolese have a right to consider another group of Africans sub-human! Am I right or am I right?
    • DeathJux, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Holy *****, they thought Pygmy flesh could give them magic powers?? That's ***** crazy.
  • reuscel, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11Is today "Let's crush everyone's faith in humanity day" on digg? With this and the Egyptian slave girl forced to live in a garage story, I'm ready to crawl up into bed and never come out again.
  • zenithmbr, on 05/06/2008, -17/+5see, there is a problem with guns in the black community
    • Artifishalfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2See, racist humor still isn't funny.
  • Phatlip012, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Theres a professor at the University of Delaware that teaches "scientific racism" in her lectures. Unfortunately, the school can't get rid of her due to her having tenure. :(
  • phenolholic, on 05/06/2008, -14/+4this is a modern-day Neanderthal. we need to stop thinking they're the same species as the rest of us. i hate this political correct mentality.
    • kakwakas, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14You do realize that the Neanderthal was an entirely different species than us, right?
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9Bigot. This man was a human pure and simple. What was done to him was inexcusable, and that's not PC, that's humanity.
    • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Well according to Rev Wright black people think with the right side of their brains and are unable to learn from books or sit still in class.

      "Blacks, by contrast, cannot sit still in class or learn from quiet study, and they have difficulty learning from "objects" — books, for example — but instead learn from "subjects," such as rap lyrics on the radio."
      -Rev Wright at the NAACP speech a week ago.
      • MsGo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Jesus, what does Rev. Wright have to do with this??
        Billy Graham was an anti-semite who advised several presidents, but you don't see people getting all up in arms about him.
        Bigots exist. They all suck.
    • brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You realize Neanderthals were white, right?
      • Artifishalfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5I imagine under different circumstances the Neanderthals would have been black. They'd still be Neanderthals.
        As long as someone is a homo Sapiens they are human. Plain and damn simple.
        And this 'exhibit' was a Homo Sapiens. End of story. He was a human. No PC B.S. about it.
        • MsGo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You mean the circumstance of necessity, right?
          Hot weather, and the sun and all that...
  • empiric, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Let "A" be a human hominid precursor
    Let "B" be a modern-day human
    Let "C" be a transhuman genetically engineered by a capable intelligence

    No, wait... let "B" be...
  • NattyB, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9disgusting
  • hilo4321, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10im seriously sick to my stomach
    • ninja458, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5me too. I hate the flu :(
    • exomni, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7You have heard about America during the years 1618-1865, right?

      There is nothing new under the sun.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1This was in the name of science and beliefs like this are still in textbooks today. That's the difference.
        • Dimensio, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Please cite a contemporary textbook that espouses such concepts.
      • HenvY, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What about the LHC?
        • exomni, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Well, everything that occurs in the LHC occurs naturally on far grander scales inside the sun. So I guess that's not technically "under the sun", if we're going to be anal.
      • talonstriker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah but this is somehow different. Slavery was like pick the cotton or I beat the ***** out of you and sell you off. This is somehow different, in that the guy is tossed out into the real world where he has to fend for himself while the world doesn't recognize him as a human. And "Ota Benga was caught between two worlds" really struck a chord in me.
    • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Sick to your stomach? You really need to seek help, you're way too sensitive.
      • exomni, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'm just thinking if you're not desensitized enough to handle this, either you're completely oblivious and have been living under a rock all your life, or you'd have killed yourself by now.
  • chubbybubba, on 05/06/2008, -2/+36As soon as they mentioned relocating to "Lynchburg, Virginia", I knew it would all end in tragedy.
    • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Lynchburg is rignt next to Blacksburg, and Christiansburg is in the middle.
      • mrhuggy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If Lynchburg is next to Blackburg and Christianburg is in the middle, then how is Lynchburg next to Blackburg? That sounds like a self-refuting statement to me.
        • Artifishalfish, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What's sad is that those are all real cities.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Lynchburg was named for John Lynch, long before lynching was a term commonly referring to murder. Quite a few famous people were born, or lived in Lynchburg including an astronaut and a few actors.
  • exomni, on 05/06/2008, -15/+4I'm sorry, you guys didn't know about Ota Benga until someone submitted the Wikipedia article to Digg?

    I don't know what is more sickening: the inhumane treatment of Pygmies, or the complete lack of education in Diggers.
    • lundeja, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Yes, we're quite uneducated on digg...

      /rolls eyes
    • shortyjacobs, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8Look at me, I'm all smart and *****.

      I must have missed Ota Benga 101 during all my time in college.
    • santiago1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6 Oh yeah, like we've ALL had the exact same experiences in life that you have and know the exact same things as you do, elitist prick!
      Buried for the self-centered egotism.
    • JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Nope, they didnt teach me about the lil ***** at Brandeis.
    • HenvY, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Seriously, I LMAO at exomni's comment.
    • Jashobeam5, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1I've heard this story quite a bit, but not surprised others have not. People are not taught such stories since they show Darwin's bigotry.
      • Valmorian, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Darwin was no more bigotted than many at the time he lived, and indeed what quite a bit LESS racist than most at the time.
        • MsGo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1And you know this, how?
          • Dimensio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4 This is rather evident from Darwin's own writings. Charles Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, and he wrote of his opposition to eugenics and the practice that would eventually be called "Social Darwinism".
    • gryphon50, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I read a book on it once but outside of that book I've barely heard reference to it. It's pretty obscure, I don't know why it doesn't get more press.
    • NOFXY, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3obvious troll is obvious
    • rgaino, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Exomni, tell us about the Quilombo dos Palmares please.
      • shortyjacobs, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Palmares, or Quilombo dos Palmares, was a collaboration of around ten quilombos (or mocambos) that grew from 1605 onwards in colonial Brazil, during the Portuguese rule.

        Quilombos were settlements mainly of runaway and free-born African slaves. The Quilombos came into existence when Africans began arriving in Brazil. They appeared in the mid 1530s, only to significantly grow following this time period due to the significant demand for slaves in the Americas.

        The modern tradition has been to call it the Quilombo of Palmares. No contemporary document calls it a quilombo, instead the term mocambo is used. Palmares was home to not only escaped black slaves, but also to mulattos, caboclos, Indians and poor whites, especially Portuguese soldiers trying to escape forced military service.

        It is important to note that in Palmares captured slaves remained in bondage, but runaways became free citizens. By the 1690's Palmares had around 20,000 inhabitants. These inhabitants were ruled by a government modeled after Central African norms. This government was confederate in nature, and was led by an elected chief who allocated landholdings, appointed officials (usually family members), and resided in a type of fortification called Macoco. Six Portuguese expeditions tried to conquer Palmares between 1680 and 1686, but failed. Finally, by 1678, the governor of the captaincy of Pernambuco, Pedro Almeida, organized an army, under the leadership of the Bandeirantes Domingos Jorge Velho and Bernardo Vieira de Melo, defeated a palmarista force putting an end to the republic in 1694.

        Palmares was the general name given by the Portuguese in Pernambuco and Alagoas to the interior districts behind the settlements on the coast, especially the mountain ranges, because there were many palm trees there. As early as 1602, Portuguese settlers complained to the government that their slaves were running away into this inaccessible region and building mocambos, or small communities. However, the Portuguese were unable to dislodge these communities which were probably small and scattered and so expeditions continued frequently into the interior.

        During this time the vast majority of the slaves who were being brought to Pernambuco were from Angola, perhaps as many as 90%, and therefore it is no surprise that tradition, reported as early as 1671 related that its first founders were Angolan. This large number was primarily because the Portuguese used the colony of Angola as a major slave raiding base, and there was a close relationship between the holders of the contract of Angola, the governors of Angola and the governors of Pernambuco.

        In 1630 the Dutch West India Company sent a fleet to conquer Pernambuco, in the context of the Dutch-Portuguese War, during the period of the Iberian Union. Although they captured and held the city of Olinda, they were unable (and generally unwilling) to conquer the rest of the province. As a result there was a constant low intensity war between Dutch and Portuguese settlers. During this time thousands of slaves escaped and went to the Palmares. Although initially the Dutch considered making an alliance with Palmares against the Portuguese, peace agreements put them in the position of supporting the sugar plantation economy of Pernambuco. Consequently, the Dutch leader John Maurice of Nassau decided to send expeditions against Palmares. These expeditions also collected intelligence about them, and it is from these accounts that we learn about the organization of Palmares in their time. By the 1640, many of the mocambos had consolidated into larger entities ruled by "kings". Dutch descriptions by Kaspar Barlei (Casparis Barleus) (1647) and Johan Nieuhoff (published 1682) spoke of two larger consolidated entities, "Great Palmares" and "Little Palmares". In each of these units there was a large central town that was fortified and held 5-6,000 people, and the surrounding hills and valleys were filled with many more mocambos of 50 to 100 people. A description of the visit of Johan Blaer to one of the larger mocambos in 1645 (which had been abandoned) revealed that there were 220 buildings in the community, a church, four smithies, and a council house. Churches were common in Palmares partly because Angolans were frequently Christians, either from the Portuguese colony or from the Kingdom of Kongo, which was a Christian country at that time. Others had been converted to Christianity while slaves. According to the Dutch, they used a local person who knew something of the church as a priest, though they did not think he practiced the religion in its usual form.

        After 1654 the Dutch were expelled, and the Portuguese began organizing expeditions against the mocambos of Palmares. In the post-Iberian Union period (after 1640), the kingdoms of Palmares grew and became even more consolidated. Two descriptions, one an anonymous account called "Relação das guerras de Palmares" (1678) (Account of the war of Palmares), the other written by Manuel Injosa (1677), describe a large consolidated entity with 9 major settlements and many smaller ones. Slightly later accounts tell us that the kingdom was named "Angola Janga" which according to the Portuguese meant "Little Angola," although this is not a direct translation from a Kimbundu term as one might expect. The two texts agree that it was ruled by a king, which the "Relação das Guerra" named "Ganga Zumba" and that members of his family ruled other settlements, suggesting an incipient royal family. He also had officials and judges as well as a more or less standing army.

        Angola Janga was legendary for its size and power. An independent, self-sustaining republic, Palmares was vast and at its height hosted a population of over 30,000 free men, women and children.

        Although the "Guerra de Palmares" consistently calls the king Ganga Zumba, and translates his name as "Great Lord" other documents, including a letter addressed to the king written in 1678 refer to him as "Ganazumba" (which is consistent with a Kimbundu term ngana meaning "lord"). One other official, Gana Zona also had this element in his name.

        After a particularly devastating attack by the captain Fernão Carrilho in 1676-7, Gana Zumba sent a letter to the Governor of Pernambuco asking for a peace. The governor responded by agreeing to pardon Gana Zumba and all his followers, on condition that they move to a position closer to the Portuguese settlements and return all slaves that had not been born in Palmares. Although Gana Zumba agreed to the terms, one of his more powerful leaders, Zumbi refused to accept the terms. According to a deposition made in 1692 by a Portuguese priest, Zumbi was born in Palmares in 1655, but was captured by Portuguese forces in a raid while still an infant. He was raised by the priest, and taught to read and write Portuguese and Latin. At age 15, however, Zumbi ran away and returned to Palmares. There he quickly won a reputation for military skill and bravery and was promoted to the leader of a large mocambo.

        In a short time, Zumbi had organized a rebellion against Gana Zumba, who was styled as his uncle, and poisoned him. Which is not totally proven, many believe he poisoned himself to put a warning that the Portuguese could not be trusted. Since he was sick of fighting but knew the repercussions of signing the deal with the Portuguese and knew this would not be the end of a long fight. By 1679 the Portuguese were again sending military expeditions against Zumbi. Meanwhile, the sugar planters reneged on the agreement and re-enslaved many of Gana Zumba's followers who had moved to the position closer to the coast.

        From 1680 to 1694, the Portuguese and Zumbi, now the new king of Angola Janga, waged an almost constant war of greater or lesser violence. The Portuguese government finally brought in the famed Portuguese military commanders Domingos Jorge Velho and Bernardo Vieira de Melo, who had made their reputation fighting Native American peoples in São Paulo and then in the São Francisco valley. The final assault against Palmares occurred in 1694. Cerca do Macaco, the main settlement, fell; and Zumbi was wounded. He eluded the Portuguese, but was betrayed, finally captured, and beheaded in 1695.

        Zumbi's brother continued resistance, but Palmares was ultimately destroyed, and Velho and his followers were given land grants in the territory of Angola Janga, which they occupied as a means of keeping the kingdom from being reconstituted. Palmares had been destroyed by a large army of Indians under the command of white and caboclo (white/Indian mixed-bloods) captains-of-war.

        Although the kingdom was destroyed the Palmares region continued to host many smaller runaway settlements, and so the Portuguese still had the problems they had before, but there was no longer the centralized state in the mountains.

        Sheesh, that was easy. You guys didn't know?
      • exomni, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Villages in Brazil made up of mostly runaway African slaves, led by an escaped slave Ganga Zumba. There happens to be a good Brazillian film titled Ganga Zumba that I'd recommend.

        Though I certainly wouldn't expect people to be familiar with them like I would expect Americans to be familiar with Ota Benga.
  • banderwocky, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5That's a really sad story.
  • veriix, on 05/06/2008, -5/+11I fear my company is doing this to me, last month my company put my height under my name on the outside of my cubical wall, yesterday they put my diet under that. I'm going with it for now in hopes that eventually they'll try to get me to breed.
  • shitforbrains, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11I wonder what his caps were made of and how they were made. Oh and to the idiot that said Pygmies are modern day Neanderthals, you do know that pygmies are the same species that you are, assuming you're not a chimp with a stolen laptop, don't you?
  • hollowex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10This was also done at the 1904 World's Fair. It was to display the conquered peoples of the Empire of the United States.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase_Ex ...

    To further illustrate the indignities heaped upon the Philippine people following their eventual loss to the Americans, the United States made the Philippine campaign the centrepoint of the 1904 World's Fair held that year in St. Louis, MI [sic]. In what was enthusiastically termed a "parade of evolutionary progress," visitors could inspect the "primitives" that represented the counterbalance to "Civilisation" justifying Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden". Pygmies from New Guinea and Africa, who were later displayed in the Primate section of the Bronx Zoo, were paraded next to American Indians such as Apache warrior Geronimo, who sold his autograph. But the main draw was the Philippine exhibit complete with full size replicas of Indigenous living quarters erected to exhibit the inherent backwardness of the Philippine people. The purpose was to highlight both the "civilising" influence of American rule and the economic potential of the island chains' natural resources on the heels of the Philippine-America War. It was, reportedly, the largest specific Aboriginal exhibit displayed in the exposition. As one pleased visitor commented, the human zoo exhibit displayed "the race narrative of odd peoples who mark time while the world advances, and of savages made, by American methods, into civilized workers."
    • JSchroeder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4I was going to post the same comment. I can't believe someone beat me to it! Wow! I'll see if I can find my source article. I remember it was from Cosmopolitan and it featured all the goings-on "on the Pike," the entertainment leg of the World's Fair in St. Louis. I remember that it was insanely disturbing. Not just the bits about hunter-gatherers out on display like some sort of freak show. Much more to be ashamed about.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There's a legend in St. Louis about the the Philippine people that were brought over: at night, it was said that they would venture south of Forest Park and hunt dogs to eat. And so, to this day, the area south of Forest Park on the southwest corner is called "Dogtown" (great place to live, btw!)
      More than likely, it was named after the Irish miners who lived there who owned a lot of dogs.
  • RedSaber, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1" On March 20, 1916, at the age of 32, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth, performed a final tribal dance, and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol. "

    Wow, this is so... dramatic.

  • AppleGeorge, on 05/06/2008, -14/+6So... he was emo and killed himself?
  • Lith25, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in one of those African tribes. Despite my obvious ignorance about how things work in those settings, I imagine it would be a simpler life. That's not to say I don't enjoy the privileges and luxuries of living in a technologically advanced society, just part of me wonders what it would be like. I can imagine breaking this man out from his home and trying to force him to live among us would of been extremely hard on him.
    • Hetman, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Just watch going tribal on discovery channel. It sucks being in a tribal society. And seems pretty painful also.
      • jamdogg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2There are thousands of different tribes out there with vastly diverse ways of life. So you've researched all of them have you?
        • ComradeGoby, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Doesn't matter. Technology is the most important thing in the modern world, no need to stay in the past.

        • sat0shi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4@ComradeGoby:

          That's a very ignorant post there. This great "technology" that you tout so heavily is what forces us to work 40+ hours a week every week to maintain the large societies we've built upon that technology. As you may or may not know, the larger and more complex a society becomes, the harder the people that make up that society have to work in order to sustain it. These African tribes, and tribes in general, usually only have to "work" 15-20 hours a week in order to sustain themselves, due to the fact that they are completely self-sustained. Living life in a tribe doesn't suck, the person in the tribe would feel equal amounts of suck if he/she was forced to work in a cubicle all day from 9-5 in America or any other industrialized nation. It's all relative to your environment and how you are used to living.