What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- mrsmyth, on 11/09/2008, -1/+14Good morning Ma'm, we're here from the Marine Census Department and would like to ask you a few questions about your self and your family if we may. I see you are from the phylum Actinia paumotensis. Is your husband of the same class of Zoophytes? Also the number of spawn and their names, and the number of years you have inhabited these waters.
- LucasVB, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5I've read that with John Cleese's voice, for some reason, and it was a lot more funny than I expected.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Almost anything is funny with John Cleese's voice. I can Imagine him funny reading out an eulogy at a funeral...
- LucasVB, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5I've read that with John Cleese's voice, for some reason, and it was a lot more funny than I expected.
- kenrayd, on 11/10/2008, -8/+4...and none of them showed any sign of having evolved from any other species.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Moron, did you even read the article?
"Research findings from the census to be revealed at the conference also include evidence of the evolutionary origins of a large proportion of the world's deep-sea octopus species."
But then what do you care? You work in "kinds" and "sorts" that you can't clearly define - intentionally so, because it lets you change the goalposts whenever you want. - kenrayd, on 11/11/2008, -2/+1Look yourself in the mirror to see a moron because you believe the stuff. They said an octopus was the ancestor of other ones. If other types evolved from that one, then it should have been extinct since descendants evolved because they adapted better than their "common ancestor." Your loco peers are moving the goalposts for their dream of evolution for which there are no transitional forms; that's what I mean by signs of evolution but what would you know for so much knowledge, only foolishness is the fruit.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2First, learn to use the reply buttons.
"...other types..."
What definition of "type" are you using this time? Please be specific.
"...then it should have been extinct since descendants evolved because they adapted better than their 'common ancestor.'"
The branching off of one group does not necessarily mean that the ancestor group goes away - if the ancestor group is already well adapted to its current environment, then there's no reason the group should have gone extinct.
"...no transitional forms..."
What, you mean like archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, any of the day-by-day fossils of the foraminiferans, or any of the fossils listed here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ...
"...that's what I mean by signs of evolution..."
And as usual, you don't know what the ***** you're talking about - but then what else should we expect from a scientific illiterate?
"...only foolishness is the fruit."
When you admit, as you have done, that you don't have a good grounding in the sciences, I would think that attempting to speak to them would be the height of both foolishness and arrogance. - kenrayd, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1"The branching off of one group does not necessarily mean that the ancestor group goes away - if the ancestor group is already well adapted to its current environment..."
Then there's no pressure to evolve into other forms. Or maybe what is considered the ancestor is actually a mutation of one of the others, but with the guessing game of you "scientists", you don't really know anyway and you don't know if archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, foraminiferans were a species transistion or they were made that way or had the built-in ability to vary. It's still a guess from the natural side as to whether the organisms did it on their own or they were made that way.
Another "scientist" titled another article on digg, "Evolution learns from the past to adapt to new environments"
...which well summarizes the stark contradictory delusion of atheistic evolution. You all give a brain to something that's not supposed to exist. - ApokalypseNow, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2"Then there's no pressure to evolve into other forms."
Pressures are minimized for that population in that area, yes. However, should some of that population end up inhabiting a different niche, then that group will be subject to different pressures and, as such, will evolve different traits or die. This is called genetic drift.
"...but with the guessing game of you 'scientists', you don't really know anyway..."
Genetic analysis and genome mapping can determine such things - as usual, you don't know what the ***** you're talking about.
"...you don't know if archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, foraminiferans were a species transistion[sic] or they were made that way or had the built-in ability to vary."
All life has the "ability to vary" after a fashion - it is called imperfect replication. This is one of the principal means by which new features are introduced into populations, and it is supported by the changes noted in the successive layers of the fossil record. This ability to vary itself is the means by which new species occur.
"You all give a brain to something that's not supposed to exist."
The sensationalist headlines used by non-scientists who misunderstand the findings have no bearing on science - just as the constant misunderstandings of science by scientific illiterates like yourself have no bearing on science. - kenrayd, on 11/18/2008, -4/+1Rather evolutionists do a lot of posing to know something, using a myriad of imaginative scenarios, but the final outcome is they don't have the foggiest idea of how to prove any of it. If so, we would be talking about the laws of evolution and nobody dares do that.
Genetic analysis only shows that they know how to analyze genes. It has nothing to do with knowing how anything originated. - ApokalypseNow, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5"...they don't have the foggiest idea of how to prove any of it."
The only branch of science in which there exists "proof" is mathematics - all others are evidence based. Once again you fail to understand the scientific method.
"If so, we would be talking about the laws of evolution..."
False. You once again fundamentally misunderstand the meanings of the word "theory" in a scientific context, and its connotations. A Scientific Theory (such as the Theory of Evolution) is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. You cannot "prove" a Theory and have it become a law - that is not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to *explain* them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws - theory would be as high on the scale as it gets.
"Genetic analysis only shows that they know how to analyze genes. It has nothing to do with knowing how anything originated."
Incorrect again, as usual. Please stop trying to speak to things about which you know nothing. When we have multiple related species, we can, through analysis, see the differences on a genetic level and determine how varying features came to be. For example, with nylon-eating Flavobacterium, we can easily see that the change that allowed the bacteria to metabolize nylon was due to a gene-duplication event, followed by a frame shift mutation. When we are speaking specifically of fossil species, then no, we generally cannot do genetic analysis on them, but the fossil record itself shows us that these species only existed during a certain time frame, and were preceded and succeeded by certain groups that were both morphologically and cladistically similar, so logically there is a high likelihood of one group giving rise to the next, which itself gave rise to the next, etc. - Mnementh2230, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4As an addendum to Apok's rant on Theory vs. Law, we only have a Law of Gravity. We know what happens, but we can't say why it happens (that is, we don't know what gives matter the mass upon which gravity works). In the Theory of Evolution, we know what happens, and we can also explain why. Therefore, we know more about Evolution than we do about Gravity, the various Laws of Physics, and the multitude of other Laws within science.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Addendum to Mnementh's addendum:
Additionially, classical Newtonian laws of gravitation fall apart with 3-body systems and under certain very large or very small scales. However, if we use the Theory of Special Relativity to explain gravitation as a function of the curvature of spacetime, we actually get a better, more complete descriptive model than what the classical "Laws" provide that covers those (and many other) cases.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/11/2008, -0/+2First, learn to use the reply buttons.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Moron, did you even read the article?
- JekJob, on 11/10/2008, -0/+5That's awesome. The ocean is nuts.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1Sweet zombie Jesus!
- whoaeric, on 11/10/2008, -1/+9I read Marine as in the soldier.
you know, USMC..
yeah- kajoob, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Don't ever call a Marine a soldier. For your own safety.
- MattyDienhoff, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Whyzat?
Do they consider themselves to be sailors?
- MattyDienhoff, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Whyzat?
- davidkeithjones, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Too much Halo.
- kajoob, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Don't ever call a Marine a soldier. For your own safety.
- replaysMike, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2What do they go door to door?
"Hello sir, I'm sorry to bother you today, but have you seen any odd species in the neighbourhood in the last 48 months?"- FatLoser, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Hello, I'm sorry to bother you today, sir, but you have copied the first comment.
- ragez, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1we've gone to the moon and back yet we still don't know what's in our oceans. amazing
- Gemfinder, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Arguably, the moon's surface area is less complicated and smaller than the Earth's sea-bed surface area.
- okyourturn, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4that little octopus is so ***** cute
- frieddonuts, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4The giant bacteria thing is really amazing- several centimeters long? The world of microbiology is really incredible.
- filldeviant, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1Wow, I thought it was talking about the military at first.
...Damn Bush Administration... - tpmidd, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Makes me think of Sea Quest DSV. That show ruled.
- ileftfark, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3200 more? Aren't they supposed to be the few and the proud?
- KublaiKhan, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Two hundred new marine species? I didn't know the war in the Middle East was going so poorly that we needed to open our ranks to non-human animals.
ba-dum tssh! - triblinator, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3I didn't know that the Marines do censuses!
- jiazu, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1i've seen that octopus before: http://tinyurl.com/5ro8h2
- phreak79, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2It must be the devils own job to keep track of the number of species, be it being discovered or going extinct. Nature is so amazingly complex I can't help but think it's beyond us.
- guyro, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Is this faster than we're finding species we've wiped out?
- Gemfinder, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1The search for Cloverfield continues...
- leazarus, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Happy Birthday, Marines!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is