digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall today!
Check out the Digg Townhall live from the Digg stage at the DNC at 1:30PST/4:30EST

Top Ten Things Science Can't Explain

unlikelyscience.com — From female orgasms to cold fusion these are the top ten things that science just can't explain.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jmkiii, on 05/28/2008, -57/+17711. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
    • cmccool, on 05/28/2008, -46/+512. President Bush's stupidity.
      • romistrub, on 05/28/2008, -15/+36A) You're not funny.
        B) We know he's stupid, for a president, but he's probably a lot smarter than most people give him credit for.
        C) I still ***** hate him, and now I hate you, too. I'm just a pretty hate machine, bitch.
      • DharmaTurtle, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Buried for inserting politics into a scientific article.
    • slkuhn, on 05/28/2008, -1/+65As much wood as a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
    • doctorfungi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+167According to a Wall Street Journal article, New York State wildlife expert Richard Thomas found that a woodchuck could chuck around 35 cubic feet of dirt in the course of digging a burrow. Thomas reasoned that if a woodchuck could chuck wood, he would chuck an amount equal to 700 pounds.

      Some say it depends on three factors:

      The woodchuck's desire to chuck said wood.
      The woodchuck's need to chuck the aforementioned wood.
      The woodchuck's ability to chuck the wood.
      • karel747, on 05/28/2008, -0/+43Another success for the scientific community.

        Science: Seeking answers to all of life's mysteries.
        • tian2992, on 05/28/2008, -0/+36Science: It works Bitches.

          There you go, I fixed it for you!
      • thecheatah, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2Shut you up!
    • andythefan, on 05/28/2008, -12/+7chuck norris.
    • iDiggIt42, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4013. What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
      • karel747, on 05/28/2008, -3/+37That depends. European or African swallow?
        • iDiggIt42, on 05/28/2008, -2/+13It could be an African swallow, maybe, but not a European swallow.
        • karel747, on 05/28/2008, -1/+29But then, the African swallow is non-migratory.
      • LtXenodite, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7What is the circumference of a moose?
        • Abaddon1125, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6The circumference of a moose is Michael Palin with his face in a pie times Douglas Adams squared.
        • farkingvarmint, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3A Møøse once bit my sister...
    • Apokalyps2547, on 05/28/2008, -8/+2A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he would chuck is his dentures were any good.
    • SpikedGoat, on 05/28/2008, -5/+0A wood chuck could chuck any amount of wood if a wood chuck could chuck wood.
    • Silencer7, on 05/28/2008, -0/+53"How many boards would the Mongols hoard
      if the Mongol hordes got bored?"

      ::pauses::
      ::crumples paper::
    • gllopc, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3A woodchuck could cut a cord of conifer, if a cord of conifer could be cut.

      Now, onto female orgasms!!
    • dubbaj, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1242
    • tmoney578, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could Chuck Norris?
    • coolmuffin121, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1it wold upchuck most of it.
  • MikeMigs, on 05/28/2008, -2/+126supercollider goes on this summer and we may come closer to the answer to #1
    • nreynolds, on 05/28/2008, -7/+60supercollider? I just met her!
    • santaliqueur, on 05/28/2008, -18/+13Supercollider? I just met her.


      And then they built a supercollider.
      • santaliqueur, on 05/28/2008, -8/+3Who is digging me down, it's Futurama for Christ's sake!. Jesus *****.
        • Whaines, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7I am. But I'm digging nreynolds up! Funny how that works, eh?
    • pattyman5000, on 05/28/2008, -2/+25Or we all die in a black hole. Either way, it should be awesome!
    • olithebumm, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8I think you'll find it's called a Large Hadron Collider
    • DeadFox1, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1Supercollider? I (JUST) met her!
  • DiggLive, on 05/28/2008, -23/+17512) Lost
  • steger, on 05/28/2008, -9/+300women
    • Checkerd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+11Tell me about it...
    • cutekelvins, on 05/28/2008, -0/+11Nor God neither science can explain women. Only women can explain women. But again she doesnt explain it.

      Going by the theory fittest one survives. Are those men dead who understood women.

      • synyster, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2i like the idea of fittest women survives :), this world will so much better if that's true
        • apio, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2why?

          you'd have no personal gain

          by the time you are 70 every girl form 17 to 26 will look hot to you anyway
    • mstrebe, on 05/28/2008, -2/+26Science has already explained the female orgasm. Women are significantly more likely to become pregnant during female orgasm because the uterus essentially suctions the sperm from the vaginal canal. A recent Danish study actually showed the effect happening CT scans.
      In societies (and species) where a female normally has more than one partner in a day, the female orgasm creates a biological mechanism for the female to control mate selection: The male to whom the female is most attracted to is most likely to father her child, amongst the set of males with whom she has sex.
      It's only a mystery in monogamous societies where the idea of women having multiple partners is heretical.
      • mooseofshadows, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4wait. so we gave women orgasms while they were in a CT machine?

        now that's just strange.
    • MrFisty, on 05/28/2008, -0/+12You think women are bad, try a red-head woman. That's whole new depths of unexplainable, irrational behaviour.

      PS. Honey, I'll be sleeping on the couch tonight.
      • Sk8SkaNJ, on 05/28/2008, -0/+9your wife reads digg?
        • lemur, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8That's certainly an unexplainable (and possibly irrational) behaviour.
    • known, on 05/28/2008, -7/+4Women are the most valuable creation of God.
    • thanakar, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Woman was the first loudspeaker made from spare parts.
    • marky7186, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1true, very true
  • sgiffy, on 05/28/2008, -25/+622Top Ten Things Science Can't Explain Yet.

    There, I fixed it for you.
    • tehbored, on 05/28/2008, -4/+153Actually I think you have to replace "can't" with "hasn't," otherwise it seems grammatically awkward.
      • 333cale, on 05/28/2008, -0/+73And therefore you have to replace "explain" with "explained" otherwise the tense is out of context.
      • db0255, on 05/28/2008, -1/+30what just happened...
        • Disease, on 05/28/2008, -1/+46Something science can't explain.
        • tian2992, on 05/28/2008, -0/+36Something Science Can't Explain Yet.

          There, I fixed it for you.
        • Whaines, on 05/28/2008, -0/+26Something Science Hasn't Explained Yet.

          There, I fixed it even more.
        • Goblin, on 05/28/2008, -0/+21Something science hasn't yet explained.

          There, I fixed your scansion
        • jun2san, on 05/28/2008, -1/+10Wow, that was epic.
        • soulkitchen, on 05/28/2008, -0/+16*Smokes cigarette*
          That was incredible
        • Monkeydew06, on 05/28/2008, -3/+5M-M-M-MASTER COMBO 4X
        • Pritchard, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3Something science has yet to explain.

          "Hasn't yet explained"? You serious? That's a great way to get someone talk nasally.
        • ricerfuel, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3"That's a great way to get someone talk nasally."

          "great way to get someone 'to' talk nasally."
    • THEMACGOD, on 05/28/2008, -29/+29I was gonna say that it should be called:
      "Top Ten Things a Religious Person Cites as Evidence for a God."

      But you, in spirit, beat me.
      • bencefeher, on 05/28/2008, -3/+9Coming from the worst of all the gods (and not surprisingly the weakest), THEMACGOD.
        • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5wait themacgod... Steve is that you?
      • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -6/+1So, is this an insult against people that believe in a God, or an insult against people who use really bad logic?
        • vuke69, on 05/28/2008, -1/+15Yes
        • Shots, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10Whats the diff?
        • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0some people that used logic very well (e.g. Pascal, Newton, Descartes) also believed in a God.
      • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -18/+15you guys are such kids... again, now repeat after me.. science and religion can coexist.
        • badenglishihave, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10Wow... you just resolved every religious Digg debate ever.
        • trevorh, on 05/28/2008, -1/+23Then tell religion to stop taking our funding and blocking our research!
        • Fartag, on 05/28/2008, -7/+13Science relies on evidence to find truth, while religion relies on human proclamations of the truth without evidence. They oppose each other at the very core! Any coexistence is temporary, and active opposition has _always_ (eventually) favored science.

          If people embrace reason and science, and push hard to solve every problem, fix every misunderstanding, and discover every undiscovered thing, then humankind will bring about their own salvation without begging any ancient and fictional messiah. Religions offer us fairy tales - short term psychological security blankets, at a nearly unfathomable cost.
        • lemur, on 05/28/2008, -5/+8Fartag, I don't really think that science and religion fundamentally opposed to each other, even though it is popular to believe that.

          I think that in one respect, religion represents the earliest manifestations of science. For example, historians can notice that religion existed before a formal realization of the scientific process. Both stemmed from man's desire to gain knowledge, and religious thought, like science, has always dealt with gaining understanding through observation.

          One distinction you may notice today is that science preoccupies itself almost exclusively with the material world, which is one tiny facet of the human experience. Religion tends to deal with more esoteric subjects such as the internal nature of experience itself and other aspects of life that science simply doesn't relate to. In this aspect, religion and philosophy are pretty much the same.

          Of course, there is more to religion than just that, but hopefully I've been able to show in some small way the relationship that religion has with science.
        • ICSU, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Only if you are uneducated or ignorant.
          Soul and miracles are scientific claims. If they are not (don't exist), religion is pointless.
        • Monkeydew06, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1@farfag
          You're obviously mistaking Religion for Faith...

          Faith is opposed to science. RELIGION and science can coexist.
      • jimmy17, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7The female orgasm is evidence for god?
        Well he does work in mysterious ways...
    • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -8/+2I don't think that "yet" is completely accurate either, as the use of "yet" assumes that science will definitely explain these things. Perhaps the scientific method will fall out of vogue before scientists can find explanations for these things, or perhaps humans don't have the mental capacity to understand these things.
      • oxyco, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Or perhaps we haven't found an explanation for it yet. Numerous are the possibilities.
      • init100, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4"Perhaps the scientific method will fall out of vogue"

        Ha, like anything could replace it. What do you suggest, the religious method? :P
        • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1You seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy here. There are more methods of explaining things than just "science" and "religion". Furthermore, just because you and I can't think of a better method than science to create knowledge doesn't me one doesn't exist.
    • Dbeneath, on 05/28/2008, -13/+7im high right now and i still know it's supposed to be "top ten things science hasn't yet explained."
      i mean im really high right now.
      • DephexTwin, on 05/28/2008, -0/+14We're all very impressed by how high you are.
    • roamzero, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5This makes me wonder really. Will science eventually reach a point of severe diminishing returns? There might come a time in human progression where we hit a scientific wall, constrained by a variety of possible factors including facing a potential limitation on what scientific tools can tell us because they exist as a part of the universe we are trying to study. The human race may never even be able to leave the solar system or a number of other goals due to such circumstances.
      • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -4/+7we already have a scientific wall. Many people don't think about this and immediately assume we know everything about the basics we know -- WRONG! We have FIVE senses (some claim they have a 6th), our current scientific discoveries are based on our measurement abilities based on our five senses. Beyond that anything else could exist -- what some call the "unseen". It doesn't matter if we see it or not, it could exist or it could not exist.
        Basic textbooks are constantly being rewritten, especially in fields like genetics or some fields in physics.
        • orenshk, on 05/28/2008, -3/+10"we already have a scientific wall"

          Followed by

          "Basic textbooks are constantly being rewritten, especially in fields like genetics or some fields in physics."

          Contradiction. Q.E.D
        • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Okay I admit I wasn't that clear. By wall I mean we have limits to what we can perceive from our surrounding. These limits change as we discover new technologies, new instruments to quantitatively measure certain things we couldn't measure before. This leads to changes, such as those in textbooks. HOWEVER, that being said, we will still have the limits of our 5 senses -- or what is physically observable by our human species.
        • bratterscain, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4but with things we can't see, if the universe really is a logical unit, such as an on-going calculation being carried out, then the factors which we can't actually see, we can really see with logical deduction. and if the universe, at it's very core, isn't logical, then how can anything we see, say, or think really be anything that we consider even near truth.

          excuse the errors. i'm having keyboard issues atm.
        • quill, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5We've already gone FAR beyond what we can detect with our five senses. Consider the neutrino, for example. It was predicted to exist because there was a hole in our math. It took decades before a neutrino detector could actually be built and confirm its existence -- but we still don't ever *see* the neutrino. We can only "look at it" indirectly, due to its interaction with other matter.

          And that's really the gist of it: If it exists in any way that matters, then it must interact with other things, and can therefore be "observed" eventually. The Dark Matter problem isn't proof that science has limits...the fact that we believe Dark Matter to exist is proof that science can detect things that are outside of our five senses!
        • localzuk, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Also, we don't actually have only 5 senses. We have at least 11 (including our introceptive senses).
        • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0I believe that there are several shortcomings in science the don't allow it to explain everything and that these flaws lead to both a "scientific wall" and rewritten text books. The primary shortcoming of science is that it requires humans to do the work of discovery and explaining. We all know that humans as individuals are flawed and that humanity as a whole is flawed. We all have bias, we all use logic poorly at times and therefore we not only create flawed hypotheses, we also create flawed experiments to test these flawed hypotheses. The limitation of science (or really any discipline) are the limitations of humanity.

          The scientific method is not satisfied with things like introspection, logical deduction. These processes are a part of the process of generating hypotheses. Using the scientific method requires us to build empirical evidence to support or reject hypotheses. Futher, the scientific method was developed (is developing) as way to work around errors in introspection and logical deduction.

          The discussion on this board about science is generally lacking humility. Humility is, to me, a hallmark of a good scientist. Without humility you don't learn from others and you don't refine your knowledge.
      • orenshk, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4J.B.S Haldane is quoted to say:
        "Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"

        And he goes on to make a reasonable argument to support this assertion. This however does not contradict the scientific endeavor.
      • darkstar949, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I guess it depends primarily on what scientific field you are examining, some areas of science haven't seen much movement whereas others are changing on a daily basis. In all likely hood it is doubtful that there will ever be an all encompassing scientific "wall" but it is quite likely that certain fields will eventually hit a wall in how far they can go before either merging with a different field or becoming obsolete.
        • MCMLXXXII, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Even if there is a wall in theoretical sciences, there will always be the applied sciences. We can always strive for efficiency and strive for making more efficient machines. This technological evolution will always keep the sciences moving forward. We all know how the sun works, but can we create one in our backyard for our daily energy needs? Knowing how things work is one thing but actually doing it is another.
    • truelier, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6Umm I dont know if we will ever hit a scientific wall because with every new question that is answered it looks like it raises several new questions and goes on and on... man we are some curious species!!
    • richbradshaw, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Top Ten things that have not, as yet, been suitably explained using the scientific method when applied in context using a fair and unbiased method to ensure reliability and accuracy.
    • BizarroDiggtard, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1I have faith we will explain it one day
    • tsol26, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Any non-trivial mathematical system based on a finite set of rules will be either incomplete or inconsistent. We will have a hard time creating a theory of everything until someone proves Godel wrong. At best methodological naturalists will have to plug "randomness" into the "gaps" of science.
    • exomni, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Another reason this article sucks:

      Saying "top ten things science can't explain" implies that there is something defficient in science. That it can't explain everything. That we need something more than science to understand these things.

      This simply isn't true. All these examples COULD be given explanations in due time, and most of them have been given explanations by science. And those that haven't, not only COULD be, but COULDN'T be by anything BUT science.

      The only way for us to explain yawning, for example, is by scientific inquiry. So the very opposite of what this article claims is true: these are 10 things that ONLY SCIENCE could explain.
      • dboone74, on 05/28/2008, -2/+0The scientific method was only formalized few hundred years ago. Are you saying that humans weren't able to explain things before this? This position is ethnocentric.
        • exomni, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1"Formalizing" something implies that it existed in a so-called "informal" manner before it was "formalized." You are shot down by your own argument.
    • Adelie, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately this list isn't even all that clever. It might as well have had "11. Scientists can't figure out if Pluto is a planet". The real title should have been "10 random things in nature that not 100% of people agree upon why it works the way it does, or appears like it should". or better "Slow news day, reporter just starts writing about things they don't get". It is this kind of crap that is killing science education in the US, and making people stupid. Buried for trolling / inaccurate.
  • pyro12, on 05/28/2008, -7/+102Good article, bad title. Science will be able to explain most, maybe even all of those things eventually; the answers are out there they just haven't been found yet. Frankly I'm glad there's so many mysteries left to explore, world would be a pretty boring place without them!
    • SampleX, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4Ha ha ha. The only idea more ridiculous than 'something supernatural has happened' is 'it's all totally regular, unexceptional and one day we'll be able to explain it - just as soon as we figure it out'
      They're both 'religious' world views and both are rooted in the hopefulness of being able to take sound security in a position of faith. The latter attempts to drag 'scientific rationalism' into the realm of religion in order to bestow massive faith and anticipation in eventuality based solely on the assumption that the ultimate truth must inevitably conform to the preconceived philosophical notions which were deemed to be desireable before ever people got educated about matters in question...

      In fact, such a view is to scientific rationalism, as suicide is to pro-life philosophy. What you're saying is that science must and will inevitably prove and demonstrate your preconceived notions formulated out of a wholly philosophical position. I thought we were supposed to expect more scientific honesty and realism with 'rationalism.' Then again, this is the same 'science' that took the assertions that a third rate naturalist and failed theologian with no valid or valuable scientific qualifications made about the genetic nature of biology before he'd even had even a sophomoric understanding of how genetic science works, and without ever having had a look at the genetic nature of a single one of the creatures on which he based his postulations and theories. Kind of like building a doctrine of cosmic structure and composition devised by a blind man who has never looked through a telescope and has no factual data upon which to work.

      It's a classic really... 'we don't know now, and haven't been able to find out for thousands of years, but I'm sure we're just around the corner from the final discovery...' You 'rationalists' have no idea about how irrational your views actually are... You seem to think that the further along with science we get, the further along with technology we get, the closer we get to massive, significant revelations of previously inexplicable truth. You don't realise that with increasing complexity, and never-ending searches for fundamental truths, we do not actually get closer to ultimate revelation, but actually get further away from it. Its like treasure hunting - you're no closer to finding the giant cache that you hope might be there when you've narrowed your search down to the last thirty square feet of a five mile beach than you were when you started - all you've done is prove that 99.5% of the efforts you've made to find it have been fruitless, and the last chance is so small by proportion that either the scale of the discovery will be tiny by comparison, or that really there's great question over whether something so profound would be so lacking in abundant evidence for its existence or presence that sifting for a needle in a haystack has brought you down to the last fistful of straw, and you're still looking, and still no closer to finding 'possibility.' We are on the thin end of the wedge of revelationary discovery, and though our technology might seem great, our advances are actually merely technologically-dependent tip-toe reaches while standing on the shoulders of giants, and have become self-serving not in genuine discovery and revelation, but in convenience and the facilitation of further self-serving exercises in gnostic expansion. The invention of the motor car, the ability to hybridise human and animal embryo's, the internet, are hardly even 'blips' in the chronology of geniune organic scientific discovery and understanding, and more like side-shows which facilitate the artificial lifesupport of an indulgent species which is over populated, externally dependent, unsustainable, or more so, facilitates the entertainment and amusement of that species, even in respect of keeping it academically occupied with endless reams of over-rated trivia.
      • sleepysteve, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7That's gotta be the biggest Wall-O-Text bomb I have ever seen on Digg.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3If your point is people shouldn't expect Science to discover new 'truths' on their schedule (as in understanding certain ideas might take another thousand years or more), you're right. We shouldn't expect Science to come through for us at the last second.

        Given the tone of your argument, however, I don't think that is your focus. Religious view? It's called optimism. Science intends to explain the world--that is its focus. It may take a million years, but with each new discovery it intends to understand the world around us. It is optimistic to say that we will uncover The Truth (see: theory of everything).
        • thall, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I think his focus was more on the ironic arrogance of the OP's assertion that, not only does science have the potential to uncover and explain every possible truth out there, but that there is 100% confidence that science absolutely will uncover and explain every possible truth out there, given time to do so.

          It has nothing to do with humanity aiming in that direction, *trying* to use science to explain it all, reaching for the stars as they say....but to go as far as saying, in a matter-of-fact tone, that science *will* inevitably solve all mysteries given enough time is itself an unscientific claim. Science requires evidence, where's the evidence that confidently shows that science will explain everything? Such an overreaching claim is irrational, and when someone promoting rational science as the key to the universe arrogantly throws such irrational claims around as fact, the hypocrisy discredits the very thing they're trying to promote.
        • pyro12, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I like how people seem to assume that because I'm confidant most or MAYBE all of the items on this list will be explained I must automatically assume everything is easily explainable by science. Way to jump to conclusions.
        • SampleX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"Science intends to explain the world--that is its focus. It may take a million years, but with each new discovery it intends to understand the world around us. It is optimistic to say that we will uncover The Truth (see: theory of everything)."

          'Science', strictly speaking, in the context in which it is commonly used, could be summed up as 'everything there is to know.' In this sense, then, 'science' is. 'Science' has no intention, it has no journey, it has no process and no progression to make, no conclusions to draw. Science 'is', it already 'is', it always 'has been.' What we're talking about is humanity realising and recognising what 'science' already asserts as absolute.
          When you talk about this 'journey' to uncover the discoveries which lead us to truth, you could be forgiven for thinking that science is formed as our discoveries are made.

          This is not the case. 'Discovery' is merely the revelation to human understanding of what already is. The problem with this 'journey of discovery' is that men are making it, and taking their philosophies with them. Man is convinced that science can only, and will only reveal 'evolutionary origins' and 'Big Bang'... Even excluding religious creationism entirely, it would be massively, massively arrogant to assume that science would ever 'stop' as it were at such a flawed, caveat-packed, inexplicable, illogical set of notions as are required by 'evolutionary thinking' and 'Big Bang' philosophy.

          Yet man has hardcoded these ideas into his notion of 'science' in such a way that no other possibilities or conclusions could ever be drawn because they're not being searched for. This is the reason why creationists can take a different philosophy entirely, and use the same objective evidence as science throws up, to reveal a different (and more scientifically compatible) conclusion - because the evidence in itself has no 'philosophy', only grades of compatibility with observable scientific 'revelation.' And this is why there is nothing in the account of creation or indeed of a global flood which is incompatible with objective scientific data, only incompatible with popular interpretation of objective scientific data, or methodology which depends upon human accuracy or neutrality in attributing cause or origin.

          The fact remains that man, in general, is not open to making scientific discoveries which, for example, might prove that Jesus was right, or that the Noahic Flood took place... Therefore we can conclude that man is not openly objective, and in fact only wants to discover what he's already concluded he is happy to 'discover', which in turn makes him infinitely capable of inventing his own science to satisfy his philosophy.
          Under this premise, our 'understanding of the world around us' will inevitably include ideas with which we are comfortable, and exclude ideas with which we are uncomfortable. It is therefore not 'scientific', only selectively 'scientific.'

          And it is indeed 'optimistic' to say that we will discover the truth. But equally it is arrogant to say that some of us have not already discovered the truth, especially in the light of compelling evidence in support of that position and the dearth of contradictory evidence, the inability of the 'rationalist' to convincingly disprove those claims, the supporting evidences, and the possibilities without having to resort to philosophical arguments and assertions and 'consensus' or 'popular' ideas. The evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has not been convincingly or reasonably disproven, nor valid grounds for dismissal of the evidence given, and therefore it remains a strong possibility that Jesus did, indeed, have the answers according to his claims.

          Equally, the account of the Noahic Flood have been dismissed and ridiculed, anything and everything BUT disproven, which makes the disregard of the account entirely philosophical, and not scientific and material, since the global flood (and the account of catastrophe in whichthe flood account is contained) is absolutely scientifically compatible, and arguably in evidence. The Bible in itself makes a compelling book of history, prophecy, biography and more, which is often recklessly dismissed by antagonists and skeptics without cause, is argued as being 'false' without ever being able to demonstrate which parts are false, is claimed to be inaccurate, without ever being able to demonstrate which parts are inaccurate, all philosophically, not factually, without a single good reason for total dismissal being presented, save for the philosophical clashes with a rival conclusion. It would seem remiss of those claiming to be 'scientists' to argue and assert as if these intellectual problems have already been overcome, to dismiss these matters as being untrue, when they cannot demonstrate the validity of their interpretation of the 'truth' any more than, or indeed, by the means of demonstrating the invalidity of the Biblical presentation of 'truth.'

          Thus we go on, optimistic that the truth might one day be found, but utterly convinced that it has not been found already. That is, by nature, as arrogant a position as the assertion that we WILL ever uncover the truth. As scientists frequently state, all we can do is make best guesses based on the evidence. Sadly there is great evidence which make certain 'guesses' far safer than any 'guesses' made under the pseudo-scientific process, but those of certain philosophical persuasion refuse to even acknowledge such evidence because they are so determined to deny the conclusion that it leads to. Those who are scientific, and DO acknowledge that evidence, and use it to lead their conclusions, are ridiculed as being unqualified, stupid, mentally ill, delusional, and the like.
    • Stupidumb, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The title is fine. It's in the present tense.
      But what do I know, my user name is StupiDUURRRRRR
    • exomni, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Actually many of the things listed (female orgasms for example), have had explanations given by scientists.

      The funny thing about this terrible title is this: all those things they listed could ONLY be explained by science. There is no other tool we could possibly use to explain yawning, for example.
    • Adelie, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1How is it that "science" has become such a loaded term? There are competing theories on all these things, and not everyone agrees, among other things.
    • SampleX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"The funny thing about this terrible title is this: all those things they listed could ONLY be explained by science. There is no other tool we could possibly use to explain yawning, for example."

      I detect that you're asserting that because these things appear to conform to 'science', that therefore they all preclude the possibility of intelligent design?
      That's the silliest notion I've heard. If there is an intelligent designer, then science observes the mechanisms that the designer employed in the formation of life on this planet. The yawn would be scientific, whether God created life or not. It might not be explicable, but it would be scientific. The term 'science' or 'scientific' has become synonymous with the philosophical postulation of 'origins' theory or 'naturalism over supernaturalism' or, primarily, 'atheism.' This is an unnatural, dishonest and wholly propagandic position. 'Science' has no comment to make whatsoever on the existence of God, or God's intervention in the design (or otherwise) of biological life. If God exists, science observes that - to prove or disprove it is irrelevent, scientifically speaking, as is conformity to patterns and processes, because an 'exception' can become 'scientific' too. Science is essentially (or should be) the objective observance of factual truths in the context of the whole. The existence of 'God' is not incompatible with science, and would indeed, by nature, be utterly compatible with 'science', indeed be as much 'responsible' for what we call 'science' as much as he is by nature a part of 'science' Himself.
      The problem here is one of perspective. Our 'take' on science is from within a fixed set of dimensions in which linear time rules all. Our interpretation of 'science' is not 'objective' but 'subjective' in which human existence, experience and understanding is the cypher by which all science is 'grasped' or 'understood', and the limits we apply to 'science' are human-centric.
      In 'science' the first law of 'science' could well be 'God is.' But man has invented a philosophy that God is not, so therefore man requires that the first law of science, the underpinning of all discovery before or after that philosophical decision, is that 'God is not' or that 'if it cannot be explained in a manner in which man feels comfortable, it cannot be correct.'
      So yes, the yawn is only scientifically explicable, strictly speaking. As is the female orgasm, and the Loch Ness Monster. So is creation. And 'six days and a seventh day of rest.' Whatever is true, is scientifically explicable. That it is scientifically explicable does not preclude that God was behind all of it. The idea that we are fully understanding of science or at least 'mostly there' is utterly ridiculous. Objective science acknowledges that it is entirely possible, and likely, that under a new paradigm of scientific premise, the resurrection of the dead is entirely possible in the right circumstances. But man refuses to accept that possibility, and instead deals in a currency of myopic assertion founded on philosophical wranglings. The last thing that a true scientist should EVER say is that anything is not possible, and the last thing that a true scientist should ever do is start to form philosophies using such problematic concepts as 'likelihood' based on 'probability.' Science should be nothing more, nor less than the objective observation and study of possibilities found to be tangibly realised, making no assertions beyond their own objective existence and inter-relationality. Science does not, and cannot, conclude the unseen, assert the philosophical, nor preclude any possibility which cannot in itself be materially precluded and ruled out of 'possibility' on the basis of observational and demonstrable material proof.
  • BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/28/2008, -8/+44813. The commercial appeal of Nickelback.
    • m1th, on 05/28/2008, -1/+36I disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
    • callinthelaw69, on 05/28/2008, -3/+4/musical appeal
    • romistrub, on 05/28/2008, -3/+26How is that unexplainable? People that don't really "listen" to music - they just use it as background noise - love Nickelback. Make sense? I think it's appealing to unconscious listening because it's simple.

      That being said, I ***** hate Nickelback.
    • GreatOne08, on 05/28/2008, -7/+1LOL! That was great
    • djobin6, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1For the answer, see steger's comment a couple above yours...
    • timesheetsrule, on 05/28/2008, -0/+11That's already been explained. Sorry....

      http://www.viruscomix.com/page398.html
    • mudlite, on 05/28/2008, -1/+8I don't mind if this gets buried or not, but you sir have won my very own comment of the day award. Seriously, ***** Nickelback.
      • SampleX, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Do you want your nickel back, sir? Oh please, God, no.....
    • Frayed_Knot, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Oh, they suck all right.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=466EKohjFUo
      or, if you can't stand to look at the video, here's an mp3:
      http://www.riserock.com/xmas/nickelbacksucks.mp3
      (also the youtube clip is mono, while the mp3 is stereo, one track on the right, the other on the left.)
    • LogicBomB, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I can tell you why they get so much air time in Canada. The CTRC requires 25% (more?) of Canadian music to be played on the radio and because they basically sound like generic middle-of-the-pack rock they are first pick.

      I don't really care for them at all but the voices are okay, the instruments are okay, and the lyrics are okay. There's nothing they do horribly but just nothing they do that stands out either...
    • justice7, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2I like Nickleback enough to listen to their stuff occasionally. They aren't THAT bad, considering what else is out there. However also, considering what else is out there.. there's a lot of great stuff that doesn't get any airplay.
    • Iwantawii, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Friends don't let friends listen to Nickelback.
    • marky7186, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1hahaha, thank you for that.. it made my day
    • VegaObscura3, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I really hate people who jump on the "Nickelback sucks" bandwagon. I'll be the first to agree, 4/5 of their songs suck ass, but they have 2 or 3 that are great. Ever heard "How You Remind Me"? Try listening to it without the Nickelback sucks mentality. Put down the Nirvana and AC DC and try deciding for yourself what's good, instead of just accepting whatever the internet community tells you.
      • justice7, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Exactly -- i dont agree with the song choice as much.. however "Leader of Men" is a damn good tune. Nickelback was great when they only had two CD's and nobody knew who they were.

        "I'm not a trendy *****! do what I want, do what I feel like."
  • tehbored, on 05/28/2008, -13/+77I always thought the muscle contractions in a female orgasm helped move the sperm to the egg by tilting the uterus.
    • pyrotix, on 05/28/2008, -0/+19Why is this dugg down? It's true, simultaneous orgasm does improve chances of fertilization
      • saucedmike, on 05/28/2008, -0/+11Thus making it more likely that if the woman gets pregnant that the man actually cares about her.

        At least I believe that is the theory.
        • tehbored, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Well pregnancy = reproduction = passing on your genes. Natural selection favors it.
      • daengbo, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1I thought it was just explained by a combination of emotion and clitoral/g-spot stimulation. It never seemed that it was inexplicable. More difficult to achieve in some circumstances than in others, but never inexplicable.
      • santaliqueur, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10I only listen to Dr. Drew. And Adam Carolla.
    • desertDenizen, on 05/28/2008, -0/+25I've heard this too, lots of times. And a couple of other hypotheses, like promoting emotional pair-bonding with her partner, and causing the female to be exhausted to stay in a reclined position, etc. This article is weak.
    • Shots, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4dugg. Thats what I was taught too.
    • mysticjim, on 05/28/2008, -0/+18how about that female orgasm is the incentive to have sex and perpetuate the race?
      • SampleX, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2The whole point of this biiiiiig question mark is this:
        It's easy, but lazy, to say retrospectively that 'we can see these effects of a female orgasm, thus it is logical that the female orgasm exists in order to facilitate these effects.'
        There is no basis on which to claim that evolution would take place from one type of animal to another (no basis at ALL to claim that, PERIOD, actually) on such a profound and unique characteristic, in order to form pleasure-centric responses in order to facilitate something which had been occurring naturally in other species for, supposedly, billions of years. In evolutionary terms the fact that humanity is the last animal on the ladder, and biological life has survived and more importantly reproduced prolifically, for 'millions' of years (if you believe that crap) precludes the notion that the female orgasm is evolutions way of making sure that human breeding takes place, and can take place or will take place and so on... It is incomprehensible that 'natural selection' would require a sudden profound 'change' in the conventioned of procreation, and even more incomprehensible that after 'millions' of years of proven track record of procreative function, 'nature' would suddenly need to evolve a whole mechanism for pleasure-centric 'sexuality.' It would beg the question, 'how did the gene code know that a significant adaption and some extra nerves and some extra synaptic coding and brain chemical responses would make sex so much fun that animals which had had no problem mating previously would WANT to mate.' Genetic information is digital information - it doesn't know, comprehend, or deal in a currency of 'desire' or 'pleasure' or 'emotional responses' or the like - it is ones and zeros... it does, or it doesn't. It is, or it isn't. It will, or it won't. And the very idea that 'evolution' genetically conspired the female orgasm as a 'survival' enabler opens up more problems than it answers - not least that when you switch from an instinct based procreative mechanism which hard codes the validity of familial relationships, or monogamy, or stable social orders, why would 'natural selection' switch over to something so emotionally dependent, so 'sensation' centric, which would promote the precarious situation where female 'satisfaction' started ruling the breeding programme, with no bearing on which male animals are the fittest for the task (or female animals for that matter) but rather which animals can make you squirm better, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on genetic or biological advantage, and suddenly the presentation of a 'variable' based on subjective experience in order to dictate something so fundamental as procreative survivalism tips the mechanism from 'stability' to 'instability', from 'predictability' to 'unpredictability', and even paves the way for women to say 'men just don't give me an orgasm, so I'm turning to other women and some less-than-organic twelve inch rubber appendages...

        Scientifically it doesn't make sense.

        That's why its a mystery.

        It's as enigmatic as saying 'evolution caused a ship to be formed from a floating lump of wood... then, because nature saw that the ship had a fragile hull which could be damaged and cause an instability in the buoyancy of the ship, natural selection replaced the wood of the hull with twenty inch thick steel plate in order to ensure that the wood didn't get damaged and form an instability to buoyancy, but the steel plate caused an instability to buoyancy, and without every component of the ship being redesigned to accommodate the INTELLIGENT adaption, the ship sank without trace because evolution missed a step in trying to fix what wasn't broke....'

        You're simply taking the foregone conclusion that evolution or 'naturalistic science' CAN account for everything entirely rationally, and that therefore it is safe to weave the conclusion backward into the understanding of the problem in order to say 'yeah... evolution did it, or science did it.' Which when you think about it is just as arbitrary as saying 'God did it' or 'a Giant Panda with a real-life barbie doll fixation did it just for kicks.'

        The manner of human procreation appears to be inextricably linked to what would seem to be foreknowledge or foreordination of psychological nuances between male and female, emotional connection, experience, closeness and yes, indeed, pleasure, and all those things together seem to be linked entirely enigmatically when it comes to evolutionary 'rationalism' to the survivability of the human race, which would appear to present evidence for intelligent design and the utter uniqueness of the design for 'humanity', by means of common design features and basic foundational patterns and processes in behaviour, function and purpose. This is surprising because it is the total opposite of the necessary 'rational' foundation of evolutionary biology.
        • sinrtb, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Humans achieved reason, this allowed them to override the initial need to procreate that other mammals follow. So evolution found a way to encourage procreation. IE those women that enjoyed sex reproduced more often and those that did not enjoy sex did not do it.
        • ShinMoses, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3yeah. I stopped reading your big long thing like half way through because I was bored.

          Humans can reason.

          I'd bet my next pay check to say that if chicks couldn't get off we would be much less populated (the world that is) .
        • SampleX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1So. What is reason, and where does it come from? Because your 'evolution' cannot explain the part that 'reason' plays. Evolution works only on the concept that 'if it is broke, it needs a fix, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' So what was broken about millions of years of genetic survivalism which required the sudden 'evolution' of 'reason' and where, in the genetic code, do you identify the gene for 'reason.' Further, if 'reason' is an evolutionary improvement, why has 'reason' made things so much worse and made the survival of the human species a far more critical and variable issue than it has ever been for humanity's claimed ancestors? The logic doesn't compute... You want to argue millions of years of continuity in making general improvements, advancements, additions of information, increase in genetic capability, and yet from the moment that, according to evolutionists, man attained his fundamental distinction from his 'ancestors', the *****, so as to speak, has hit the fan - man's lifespan has plummeted from what it once was, his rate of biological decay has apparently increased, the number of conditions from which he can suffer terribly and die have increased, his propensity for facilitating his own doom through the use of his 'reason' without 'wisdom (or knowledge)' has grown exponentially... you think humanity is proof that evolution is an ongoing process? You can't justify the claim of a millions-year process of progressive evolution using humanity as an example, because humanity is the epitome of utter degeneration, all apparently as a result of that wonderful 'reason' that distinguishes man from beast.
          You cannot explain how evolution on a genetic level accounts for psychology in the human, how genetic survivalism would ever in a trillion trillion years forge a distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness, reason and absence of reason, choice and instinct... These are not logical progressions - there were no problems of biological life which would require these characteristics and traits in order to be fixed. Everything you're arguing denotes external information, and at the very least, evolution by design, if not distinct and unique design in itself. No 'rational, objective, scientific' system has ever been demonstrated, or ever will be demonstrated, as being innately and organically capable of such feats. And your insistance that 'science' can explain it all is inexplicable in its own right, and unscientific, since true 'science' goes solely on the basis of what can be observed to be true, not on what can be hoped to be possible. Therefore all that remains is a philosophical insistance that the concession of intelligent intervention in the existence and development of biological life on this planet would be uncomfortably close to an admission of human gnostic frailty and would come dangerously in line with the view that man might be accountable to a higher intelligence.

          "I'd bet my next pay check to say that if chicks couldn't get off we would be much less populated (the world that is) ."
          That may well be very correct. Evolutionary biology cannot explain it, though, because 'rabbits' don't 'get off' like humans apparently 'need' to, and breed like... well, rabbits. No other biological population group on the planet seems to be having a great problem breeding - rather, their problems to 'overcome' are the result of man's evolved 'reason' buggering things up organically speaking... Rats breed prolifically. Bacteria reproduces prolifically. There is no convention in the biological continuity which you attribute to 'evolution' which requires a distinctive reproductive mechanism of the greatest complexity to be bestowed upon humanity. Indeed, 'evolutionary biology' could have had NO PART in the 'evolution' of human sexuality as a means of guaranteeing survival, for the simple reason that such an organic, distinct, purpose-driven 'evolution' would never in a million trillion years find such 'final' accomplishment in a mechanism which relies so heavily upon feelings, psychology, moods, and all the subjective human frailties of sexual attraction and reproduction. And certainly, looking around at some of the 'ugly sex' going on out there, evolution would not have yielded a process which so unashamedly built reproductive survivalism within the species on such arbitrary and random decisions which suspend all conventions of the selection of a genetically superior mate.

          I find it interesting that the 'creationist' who gets dismissed so flippantly and easily has considered the complexities of human reproductive mechanism and their relationship to the concept of evolution far more carefully and in greater depth and detail than the idiots who are intent on not actually thinking for themselves, and instead just utter their religious mantra that 'evolution did it and though we may not know why, we can just be assured that it did.'

          Amazing the conclusions that we'll leap to, having been taught evolution as unquestioned, unprovable gospel truth, and then employing that philosophical position in a retrospective sense, to apply an evolutionary linkage inexplicably to a biological absolute, and insist that we can work the biological story backwards, from Darwin to the gene....

          Most odd.

          And far more flimsy than any creationist argument I've ever heard put forward by qualified scientists.
    • pirategaspard, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I don't see why its such a big big mystery; Men have nipples & women have orgasms. The sexes both build off of the same basic body structure and women got lucky in the orgasm (and nipple?) department.
  • PinkChicken, on 05/28/2008, -21/+414. Why I love lesbians so.
    • HotBaconSauce, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Prepositions are not to end sentences with.
  • DeskFlyer, on 05/28/2008, -21/+9314. Why the toast always lands butter side down.
    • xtinamo, on 05/28/2008, -5/+50Busted.

      http://mythbusters-wiki.discovery.com/page/Buttere ...
      • DeskFlyer, on 05/28/2008, -0/+20Inaccurate, they weren't in my kitchen. ;)
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+30They are such losers... obviously they buttered the wrong side. :)
        • jp12380, on 05/28/2008, -3/+4Or perhaps they buttered the right side and everyone else is doing it wrong.
      • Goblin, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Mythbusters didn't test this correctly. There was a program on UK TV several years ago that tested the butter-side-down and found the same result as Mythbusters, assuming you threw the toast in the air spinning. However, they tested knocking the toast off a table or counter top and found that the time it took to reach the ground is around the same as it takes to complete half a revolution and hence land butter side down. Take something toast sized (DVD case is good) and push it gently off your table and you'll see the same result.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1So, 14. Why the toast, when bumped off the edge of a kitchen table, always lands butter side down.
    • ileftfark, on 05/28/2008, -5/+151But cats always land right side up. Tape buttered toast to a cat, and drop it- prepare to divide by zero, my friend.
      • Phyltre, on 05/28/2008, -3/+14Man, last night on re-runs I heard Art Bell read this joke from an email forward. It was a re-run from 1998. Congratulations on bringing back that ancient nugget.
        • ileftfark, on 05/28/2008, -18/+5I also breathed life into your mother's vagina, but unfortunately contracted the curse of King Tutankhamun, which apparently is a part of the legend. Congratulations on being a self-righteous prick on digg.
        • trogdoor, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6@ileftfarkileftfark
          You should stick to other people's jokes / insults.
      • KennMac, on 05/28/2008, -12/+4You just tried to pass that joke off as your own. Lame.
      • desertDenizen, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3You forgot the part about the buttered-cat array and the high speed train from NY to Chicago.
      • tavisjohn, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1I think te whole "Cat's land on their feet" thing is full of poop.
        My cat lands on his butt more than his feet.
      • hadak, on 05/28/2008, -0/+18http://i31.tinypic.com/1zld6yu.jpg
      • evilgeniuscow, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Don't forget the taping the toast butter side down on a cat if the cat makes you mad. ;)
      • LogicBomB, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Daily Planet had a MUCH better explanation:

        When toast falls off a table it's usually brushed off the edge of a table which causes it to spin (once it's more than 50% over the edge it starts to tilt over, causing the spin). The height of your average table is about perfect for the top side, buttered or not, to land face-down. Increase the height of the drop and you can pretty accurately get it to land face-up.
    • thanakar, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10The odds of toast landing butter-side down are directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.
    • LogicBomB, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1(wrong reply button, digg down... or digg up for fun, whatever)
    • jhop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3I don't understand. Why do you throw toast?
      • thanakar, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Guess you've never been to a Rocky Horror Picture Show.
  • michael12345678, on 05/28/2008, -20/+2hmmm...why is water wet?
  • PrintScrn12, on 05/28/2008, -2/+84The question of what purpose the female orgasm evolved is a bit misleading. Characteristics don't evolve to a purpose. Rather characteristics which encourage replication become more dominant. In this case see what characteristics encourage replication can ultimately be a question of interpretation. Perhaps orgasms encourage attachment to a mate, sex or fertility .Of course merely being vestigial itself is a viable explanation. An issue would be how to test some of the more social/psychological ideas. Testing within current society doesn't represent the society in which humanity evolved, unlike wilder animals. For example seeing if orgasms encourage sex in the current UK or US might not be relevant as to whether orgasm encouraged sex for our far ancestors.
    • negativenancy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+46I... concur.


      *sips tea*
    • lotsa1s, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5Indeed.
    • Logicexe, on 05/28/2008, -1/+11It could also be simply impossible to eliminate the female orgasm without eliminating the male orgasm at the same time. Kind of like how men have nipples even though we have no use for them.
      • PrintScrn12, on 05/28/2008, -0/+17That would mean female orgasm are essentially vestigial. They don't give any particular advantage to replication. They are just left overs.
      • username7D8, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5I have nipples Logicexe... can you milk me?
      • Logicexe, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3I don't think it would fall into the vestigial category since it serves an important purpose in the opposite gender. Although, I guess you could qualify it by saying it's vestigial in women but not men. Meh, it's just a labeling issue.
        • SampleX, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1How does the survival of a species at the top of an evolutionary tree of millions of years which has seen the birth of billions upon billions of creatures suddenly and without external influence, source or reason become dependent upon something so superficial as 'female orgasm' for survival when it has been utterly unnecessary in every ancestor up to that point in order to be, ostensibly, unique... Surely 'evolution' only makes necessary positive advances, and only 'saves' necessary and advantageous adaptions into the genetic record in order to make them a fundamental an requisite characteristic of a species?
          That's like saying 'ten thousand species survived on eating cabbage and drinking mountain water throughout a long process of millions of years of evolution, and then, last friday, without warning, an offshoot of that evolutionary process emerged, which could only survive on cabbage and mountain water if it received a compliment and felt emotionally fulfilled for a few brief minutes... and now the entire evolutionary genetic record has skewed in favour of something so non-essential and meaningless being the underlying premise for all future evolution and survival from this point on.'
        • Logicexe, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3What the ***** are you talking about? Did you understand anything I said? I said that the orgasm is extremely important in males, and that the same genes for male orgasms result in female orgasms. If you remove the genes from one you remove the genes from the other.

          Who the hell is implying that the orgasm is the most important thing anyway? Just what exactly are you bitching about?
      • Ramble, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Speak for yourself, my left nipple regulates body temperature and my right nipple tunes short wave radio.
        Well, how do you listen to Jazz FM?
    • vikki77, on 05/28/2008, -1/+15Why would we want to replicate if it wasn't any fun for us?
    • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -6/+0You have to ask yourself at what point was orgasming giving one a selective advantage over another. Orgasm is not even a trait that is openly discussed when soliciting a mate, so it can't be seen as a selection factor. Its hard to explain it right now in terms of evolution -- to many unknowns and variables.
    • LoudMusic, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7I think it can be tested. Question a bunch of women.

      1) Do you commonly orgasm during intercourse?
      2) Does this cause you to seek sex / sexual partners?

      I'd say probably so. People tend to repeat doing what makes them feel good. And by doing so they have a higher chance of reproducing. And those offspring are likely to have the same trait as their mother.
      • PrintScrn12, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4The point is different cultures will have a very big effect on both 1 and 2. Our evolutionary history has different cultures than the modern age.
    • avsa, on 05/28/2008, -0/+14I agree that this "science can't explain female orgasm" is probably more an urban legend than a "science myth". First, there's the obvious fact that pleasure is a stimulus for having sex, and the fact there is a female orgasm just shows that we as a species did not spend the last million years forcing females into copulation.

      I would even go further to say that the characteristics of the female orgasms (and because they are not the same as the male's), makes women prefer mates that have endurance, patience and the ability to care for someone else's feelings, even after he is satisfied himself. This makes for potentially a good mate to raise and protect the offspring.

      • ICSU, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1"and the fact there is a female orgasm just shows that we as a species did not spend the last million years forcing females into copulation."
        come again? (no pun intended)
      • SampleX, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2"First, there's the obvious fact that pleasure is a stimulus for having sex, and the fact there is a female orgasm just shows that we as a species did not spend the last million years forcing females into copulation."
        You may want to rethink this 'obvious' fact... Millions of years... millions of species... millions of types of animal... Long, LONG survival tradition... why did ONE of those species suddenly, and without reason, need to be able to 'process' the notion you have of 'pleasure', which is, incidentally, inextricably interlinked with psychological and emotional fulfilment which goes way, waaaaaaay beyond biological or instinctive fulfilment through evolved biological function, not at the beginning of this 'evolutionary' geneology, but at the end of it, and for the briefest time period of all living creatures, in order to survive and reproduce. Were animals not reproducing quite efficiently before evolution invented the complex experiences which we call 'pleasure', and the enigma that is the female orgasm? What detriment to survival promoted this sudden complex change and the sudden, complex spontaneous addition of information to existing genetic systems which are themselves irreducibly complex, so as to speak? And clearly it didn't work, because animals before the invention of the orgasm and pleasure-centric sex, running on instinct, reproduced far more prolifically than humans do WITHOUT the extra 'survival-necessary' stimulus, and formed far more stable, organic and healthy social relationships as a result of that instinct, promoting greater stability within species. 'Pleasure centric sex' and the worship of the female organism is, genetically speaking, positively a degeneration compared to the happy functionality of biological life before that time. Indeed, as many creationists point out, for 'natural science' to be best served evolutionarily, sexual reproduction would have been the last characteristic to have been evolved - survival would be best promoted with asexual reproduction or spontaneous cellular division and inherent 'cloning' ability.
        • Valmorian, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Anything that "creationists" point out is usually worth discarding.
        • kingmanic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1In evolution there is no beginning or end. There just is. Traits drift in and out and so long as they don't' have a strongly negative effect on survivability or strongly positive one their frequency remains fairly neutral and evolution doesn't pick the best design only the ones that are adequate for it's environment.
        • SampleX, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"Anything that "creationists" point out is usually worth discarding."
          I can't think of a more ignorant comment that you could have made. When did we start discarding educated scientific opinions on real subjects based on philosophy alone? Oh... I know... we started doing it when atheists and humanists insisted on fraudulently using 'science' to build a philosophy by which all trace of theistic belief could be erased in future generations. Silly me.

          "In evolution there is no beginning or end. There just is."
          You're not a scientist, then?

          "Traits drift in and out and so long as they don't' have a strongly negative effect on survivability or strongly positive one their frequency remains fairly neutral and evolution doesn't pick the best design only the ones that are adequate for it's environment."
          Definately not a scientist then.
        • Valmorian, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0SampleX: Faith is useless in determining anything about reality. Creationists rely upon faith. They aren't interested in seeing where the evidence leads, as they've already decided that the answer to those questions. Science, on the other hand, is about the evidence, not belief.

          All that is meaningless, however. Can you name a discovery that Creationists have come up with by using their methodology of "creationist science"? Anything novel or unique? Any advance in medicine, biology, astronomy?

          Having trouble? Wonder why THAT might be.

    • zaffir, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4I believe studies have shown that when a woman orgasms she retains a much larger amount of sperm.
      • shwerm601, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1link? cant say i have heard that, however, it is possible considering the contractions involved with a female orgasm could possible help keep majority of a sperm injection to remain contained within allowing for greater chance of one of those little buggers actually doing its job ?
        • kingmanic, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3There was a series of documentaries about human sex where they strapped a camera to a fellow who was having sex. In a missionary position it seems the cervix dips into the pool of semen when the woman orgasms increasing the amount of sperm to gets into the uterus.
    • GreyColumbus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Why do we have goosebumps?
      • kaptainchump, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2I think, but don't quote me on this:
        It's because the erector pilli muscles are stimulated by the autonomic nervous system as a protection system for our blood stream. The erector pilli muscles raise hairs on the arm (goosebumps) until our veins are able to constrict enough to protect body heat from leaving too rapidly. I think it's more functional in animals with a greater amount of hair. I don't remember. This was from my anatomy class two year ago.
    • jeuhrn, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1This might turn gross at the next corner, (and at that point i'll jump in a taxi and yell "Dry Square!"), but have you ever come in a lady who is herself coming? The suction is _crazy_.
      And as zaffir points out above me, it seems it is handy for retaining all the delicious DNA.
    • yeti22, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Ironically, most of the people replying to you (PrintScrn) are rationalizing the female orgasm through anecdotal evidence and speculation. Science only advances through experimentation, so until we have results we can stand on*, it remains an open question.

      * I'm deferring to the article here, and assuming that the experimental results are inconclusive.
    • SampleX, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1And amazing to see, as always, that the 'evolutionists' rush to embrace the most ridiculous assertions of coincidence and clever happenstance rather than accept that the evidence points to DESIGN.
      And then avoid all the valid points...
      Millions of types of creatures all manage to reproduce for millions of years without needing a 'pleasure centric' sexual fixation or a 'female orgasm.' Evolution is, supposedly, advancing biological life. Suddenly, at the zenith of evolution, emerges a creature which apparently cannot reproduce happily in the same way as all the other creatures could, and for some bizarre reason needs incentives. So instead of a reproductive system identical to its 'closest ancestors', it needs a redesign to incorporate these new 'incentives'... except we can't talk about 'design' and the idea of 'redesign' would denote intelligent process. But then there's the problem that non-breeding species die out quickly without time to evolve. So what we're arguing is that man's closest ancestor, as claimed by evolutionists, had no problem breeding without these MAJOR biological, biochemical, and indeed emotional and psychological distinctives, but we're supposed to believe that suddenly a marginal deviation from the genetic ancestor to the genetic descendant rendered the conventions of reproductive process null and void (the new species couldn't reproduce like it used to) and instead of dying out as being unfit, it underwent an apparently retro-active regrade and adjustment within its reproductive mechanism, forming a whole lot of new nerve connections, synaptic responses, biochemical stimuli, emotional and psychological prerequisites, and a whole new set of reflex actions, as well as some biological repositioning in order for all these new characteristics to tie together and make a creature that formerly had no problem reproducing suddenly more able to reproduce in spite of there being no good reason or valid explanation for this 'dysfunction requiring correction' to have taken place, let alone survived evolutionarily speaking... And we avoid the point that a biological species must be inherently capable of reproduction from the moment it is 'realised' genetically speaking, else it dies out. 'Irreducible complexity' again, eh... that term that the evolutionists hate because they can't invalidate its arguments, can't explain around its stark logicality, and cannot demonstrate science which precludes the concept, and instead run around the place screaming 'it's religion, it's religion... ban God from human thought... burn them at the stake.'

      And instead we get offered strokes of rationalist genius like 'evolution has no beginning or end... it just is.'
      I've yet to see the difference between this gigantic leap of irrational quasi-religious faith in the unknowns and unexplainables of 'science' somehow inevitably satisfying a human philosophical position without question, and the assertion that 'it is how it is because God made it... God has no beginning or end, He just is...'
  • mikesbaker, on 05/28/2008, -27/+10pffft - the female orgasm is a myth
    • aelias, on 05/28/2008, -3/+16Tell that to my girlfriend. She's a squirter. It's nice to have hard evidence that you're doing a good job.
      • StGhurka, on 05/28/2008, -9/+5You realize that's urine, right?
        • santaliqueur, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10You realize you're wrong, right?

          The latest research indicates the possibility that all women produce female ejaculate, even if they are not aware of it:

          * The expelled or released fluid is not urine, it is an alkaline liquid secreted by the paraurethral (alongside the urethra) glands.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculation
      • Disease, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3She's faking it.
      • vibrate, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3shes just pissing herself at your clumsy attempts at teh sex
    • xmizzbojanglesx, on 05/28/2008, -0/+17Just because you've never seen one doesn't mean they don't exist.
    • ZiggyPlayedG, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4...said the little one.
    • sovereign3, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3That's what your girlfriend believed too... till she met me :)
  • Kisama, on 05/28/2008, -3/+16515. Why I can't uninstall Deus Ex, ever.
    • xero040486, on 05/28/2008, -2/+20That's no mystery. That's common sense.
    • timesheetsrule, on 05/28/2008, -0/+9Incredible comment. I cant thank you enough for that....
    • shwerm601, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1greatest mystery of my time thats for sure... :-(
    • gummih, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1It has become a ghost in the machine...
    • stwobie, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Simply one word: Gunther!
    • Nidy1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Because you will right after you play through it just one more time...just once more...
    • Sabretou, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1It's definitely a conspiracy.
  • chadillak, on 05/28/2008, -24/+2616. How general anesthesia works.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4We would have to understand the nature of consciousness first.
    • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4Wait, I thought we know how it works. I mean at the pain receptor level we know how it works right? It blocks certain pain receptors which are connected to axons relaying impulses to pain center in the brain. did i miss something?
      • sdfguy, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2We still don't fully understand the neural pathways that NMDA receptor antagonists affect.
  • MaxObliteration, on 05/28/2008, -6/+11117. Why people post things that are on more than one page.
    • 333cale, on 05/28/2008, -0/+17for a higher profit in advertising
    • tas08, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Agreed. 10 items, 10 diff pages.... almost an auto-bury.
    • DesdinovaEL, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1In the age of high speed internet I really do not understand peoples frustration with multiple pages. How many different pages do y ou click through a day? Does it really make any difference?
      • BrainInAJar, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1it's more the symbolic nature of it... like, how cheap can you be to need to pump up your ad revenue 10 fold?
  • Newportbeachguy, on 05/28/2008, -23/+14816. Why is Bill O'Reilly still on the air?
    • h4mx0r, on 05/28/2008, -1/+59Because he ***** it and does it LIVE!
      • romistrub, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1I lol'd exceptionally hard at this one.
    • sovereign3, on 05/28/2008, -2/+14WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
    • patrickxbateman, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6Easy. He has the #1 rated show in cable news.
      • Foot56, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Easy. He is the #1 rated douche in cable news.

        *fixed*
        • korvan504521, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Like him or not, you still gotta respect his ability to get people to watch.
          He's good at what he does, regardless of how you feel about it.
  • s0m31john, on 05/28/2008, -28/+107Let's fill in the gaps with God!
    • vuke69, on 05/28/2008, -2/+24Let's not
    • Zuwxiv, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure that's already been done, but second place in a good race isn't half bad! ;)
    • junkwheel, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5God definitely gives women female orgasms.
      • Ramble, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Well, that's a blow to my self confidence.
    • redlock, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3You do not fill in gaps with God. Belief in God is a way to put meaning on things that has been or hasn't been explained by science.
    • shandula, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Let Christ fill your gap!
  • TheGreatBelow, on 05/28/2008, -59/+34***** THING SUCKS!
    • ObiWanCalobi, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6I assume you mean the reply button?
      • pigducksheep, on 05/28/2008, -2/+9MEME IS GETTING OLD!
        • Madrox17, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7The good news is that if it's officially getting old, we only have 14 or 15 more months of it being run into the ground to endure!

          Hang in there fella...
        • WELLDOITLIVE, on 05/28/2008, -1/+0IS NOT!
        • equinoxChild, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4***** MEME SUCKS!
  • suwoo244, on 05/28/2008, -32/+5917. Why Hilary is still in the race.

    Oh wait, thats mathematics...
  • sidewinderaim9x, on 05/28/2008, -27/+12Where's the Top Ten Things Religion Can't Explain list? Oh yeah, it's 1. Life, 2. Life, 3. Life...
    • callinthelaw69, on 05/28/2008, -7/+2That list is only one item long:

      the world.
    • lotsa1s, on 05/28/2008, -6/+2I like how Digg automatically turns every single article into an excuse to bash religion.
      • init100, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Adults that still believe in fairy tales like the bible certainly need some senses and some logic bashed into them. If they would have believed in Santa Claus or trolls, they would have been laughed into the ground. But since they believe in what's written in a 2000 year old book, it's called religion and the believers demand respect from everyone else.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Actually, science has yet to explain the origin of life as well.
      • lotsa1s, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Or the universe, for that matter. Everything before and even parts OF the Big Bang are an utter mystery to us.

        As well as what happens at the universe's end. A gnaB giB, maybe?
  • danomagnum, on 05/28/2008, -3/+19Mirror please and thank you.
  • tuckerleary, on 05/28/2008, -4/+13dead.
    mirror?
  • alienbiker99, on 05/28/2008, -5/+13http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk.nyud.net:8080//in ...
  • Maxbliss, on 05/28/2008, -15/+6311. What do women want? No, srsly, wtf do women want?
    • skyshock1, on 05/28/2008, -3/+42Money, shoes, chocolate, shoes, shoes filled with money, shoes filled with chocolate, chocolate wrapped in money, chocolate shoes filled with money, money shaped chocolate filled in shoes.... etc ad nauseum.
      • SyntraFTW, on 05/28/2008, -4/+12A 9 inch ***** made of chocolate that shoots money.
        I totally meant to reply to Maxbliss's comment, but oh well.
      • cutekelvins, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10and a baby.
    • xdra, on 05/28/2008, -10/+11Hate to be rude (wait, no i don't), but women don't want to date fools like you who think we're too complex to understand. What do you want? Sex? Women want it. To make a lot of money? Women want that. To have fun? Yup. A guy that incessantly complains about how he doesn't understand the entire population of women? No. You sound annoying. Women probably just don't like you, and your ego is probably too big to get that.
      • cutekelvins, on 05/28/2008, -1/+7How a man would read this sentence.

        Hate...rude..women...don't....date...fools..complex...SEX.....MONEY.complains..ego..blah.blah.blah.

        Well your comment was a difficult read. Do you want sex and money and are fool enough to date with us ?

        /sarcasm

      • sat0shi, on 05/28/2008, -3/+7Sex? Some women want it, sure, but not all of them.
        Money? Some women want to make it, sure, but some want to take it.
        Fun? Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean your idea of fun will be the same as mine.
        • niksa, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Like no man wants to just take money. Please.
    • Attol, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Blackhawk
    • yayintertubes, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1*****
    • calvmari, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1A whole lotta love
    • OzzieAlThor, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Everything.

      Now.

      MOVE IT!
    • GameWizard, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Women want a penis made of chocolate that ejaculates money.
  • martian, on 05/28/2008, -15/+10The word, "yet" is missing from the end of the title.
  • bstew22, on 05/28/2008, -13/+718. rubber duckies
  • radiodemon, on 05/28/2008, -1/+11http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GGTqWFe9XUUJ: ...
  • brbroman, on 05/28/2008, -8/+2418. Servers that don't work
  • toxicityj, on 05/28/2008, -5/+18dugg for
    "Many male opponents see the debate from a different angle and argue that claiming female orgasms serve no function is a surefire way to stay single forever."
  • toxicityj, on 05/28/2008, -7/+711. people that extend lists beyond their listed limit. :o why did I do that?
  • bryantee, on 05/28/2008, -1/+42There's a difference between not being able to explain and currently being unknown.
    • Stupidumb, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Yes, and the difference lies mainly in the different words and letters used.

      They are unable to explain these things because they are currently unknown. Since these things are currently unknown, they can't be explained. This is not a circular argument/definition; those things go hand in hand.

      Nowhere in the article or title do they mention "Never being able to explain these things ever in life for infinity always.". In fact, there are a couple of examples that indicate possible hope for new discoveries:
      1) Dark Energy: "No one has been able to find any dark energy yet..."
      2) Dark Matter: "...particle physicists have yet to pin down either a MACHO or a WIMP."
      The key word is "yet".

      The fact of the matter is that these things are unknown NOW. Now is the present. We do not have knowledge from the future. Not yet, anyhow. Not until we get there, providing that the answers will eventually be found.

      But whatever, your comment sounded incredibly profound.
      • shwerm601, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1agreed... its a matter of perspective
      • bryantee, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Good point. And really we're just getting down to semantics now. But I still think initially it seemed like the article's title was addressing the methodology of science as being inadequate, which is simply not true. The real problem lies with available evidence.
  • theredbanana, on 05/28/2008, -12/+612. why the chicken crossed the road.
  • arcooke, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk.nyud.net:8080//in ...
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5Based on the headline...I predict many insightful jokes from junior scientists....

    "Science can't explain female orgasms...but I can...My [insert body part here that at one point gave a woman an orgasm]."
  • Akraz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3I love how most of this stuff is related to our existence
  • Birdman3, on 05/28/2008, -9/+4Buried for title.
  • db0255, on 05/28/2008, -8/+3719. digg users.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 05/28/2008, -21/+17How about adding in: How an idiot like Bush is STILL in office after he committed so many crimes that would have been grounds for impeachment.
    • morphinapg, on 05/28/2008, -3/+8Why must everything be about politics? Seriously. I hate that over 50% of all the jokes I hear tend to be political in nature. ***** annoying. There's plenty of other topics to joke about. And even if your post was serious and not a joke, still, why must everything be about politics?

      This is supposed to be about science.
      • Ramble, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Because politics are the large part of everyday lives and there is a huge amount of to joke about in the field.
        • samw1ns, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2yeah but still, silverblade killed the list extension thing by making it about politics. im sure all digg users would like to see at least one article on the front page that doesnt mention politics.
    • gryphon50, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2that's an easy one. If he gets impeached, who gets in? Cheney. That is like protection against impeachment. I once heard that they didn't try to impeach Nixon until Spiro Agnew left, it's the same principle.
    • Cerebron, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2All of the people that are capable of impeaching him are just as guilty as he, and you are just too blinded by the party game to care.
  • lickmylovepump, on 05/28/2008, -34/+120. Evolution.
  • LiarGame, on 05/28/2008, -18/+1120. Love
    • source1984, on 05/28/2008, -2/+0emoooooo

      hah, but seriously, you're getting dugg down. Human love is very unique amongst species.
    • tehknotte, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5lol i imagine you as a sad bear
      • slowmotiony, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1How can a bear love if his arms are LAZER?
    • equinoxChild, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1aww ... how sweet ^_^

      not.
  • Mikhail101, on 05/28/2008, -5/+8man number 1 the human brain, scientists find new stuff every day and still dont know about parts of the brain that well such as the pinneal gland. And all this third eye stuff ive read about is crazy.
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2The human brain is most fascinating.I don't think we will ever truly understand how it works. The areas of perception are just amazing to contemplate alone...
  • rowlodge, on 05/28/2008, -5/+2if we knew everything ,we would probably kill ourselves.
    • Rage67, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2it's not that we'd kill ourselves...
      we'd turn into dust like that
      russian girl in indiana jones
    • cmoney298, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1The huge brain on Futurama knew everything and look where that got him, a different dimension thank to the scooty puff jr!!!!
  • truebeliever83, on 05/28/2008, -2/+39How about gravity? We know exactly how it works, but WHY mass attracts other mass is still completely unknown . . . at least to me anyways.
    • zmjone2992, on 05/28/2008, -0/+14you mean why mass warps space-time
    • dopplerdog, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10Funny - that's what I thought too for a long time, as I remember reading that somewhere. Except now I'm read