Slashdot Mirror
Warm-blooded Fish?
DIY News writes "Scientists now have direct evidence that the north Pacific salmon shark maintains its red muscle at 68-86 degrees Fahrenheit, much warmer than the 47 F water in which it lives. The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive the cold waters of the north Pacific and take advantage of the abundant food supply there. The heat also appears to factor into the fish's impressive swimming ability."
both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.
ID isn't theory, it's a belief.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Fish != Reptiles; Fish = Fish
ID is not a hypothesis, it's a wish.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast because of the need for food and for some really stupid/ignorant reasons. It would be great if more folks would see this as more reasons for onservation and the repeal of the "tragedy of the commons"... I know, in my fucking dreams.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Who's going to claim this as evidence first...?
...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?
[/offtopic]
This sig left blank for page turns.
Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Zealots on both sides have arguments to discredit each other. A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong. Neither side of intelligent design or evolution can say 100% that the other side can not be proved.
Get a FREE Sony PS3
Intelligent Design isn't a theory. Being non-falsifiable, it isn't even a model. Saying that it is "wrong" is being overly generous. Lamarck was wrong. ID doesn't even try to be right. The geocentric model of the solar system is a far more compelling idea, frankly. Perhaps fundamentalists should go back to touting that; after all, at least you can try to fudge things with epicycles and such in astronomy.
English is easier said than done.
Since salmon's propulsion muscles are like heart muscles, they never get tired and are always working, doesn't it stand to reason that a muscle that's always working is always generating heat? Expending calories will always have some excess waste heat unless salmon have figured out how to have 100% efficient muscles. So then why is this a suprise?
Call a spade a spade. And he didn't mean evolutionist whackos.
Bah, evolution is not 'provable'? It is testable, it has been tested. I am aware that said testing and verification prove no theory 100% (hence the name 'theory') but let's look at the score:
Evolution - theorized, tested. directly observable in organisms with short life spans (bacteria, small insects). indirectly observable with long-lifespan organisms (fossil record)
ID - theorized, untestable. impossible to prove on ANY level.
Based on this score, why does ID get argued as if it's an entirely equal theory to evolution? The media feels the need to cover both sides of the issue, why must both sides be considered equal? As scientific theories go there is no comparing the two. One is a scientific theory. One is not. Why is the nonscientific theory given equal weight?
We call gravity a theory but you don't see people in legislatures trying to get 'both sides of the controvery' tought. I can't say gravity has been proven 100% but I can say there's a damn lot of testable evidence.
I know your point, you are playing the Devil's Advocate. You don't like seeing scientific theory getting called 'fact'. I can accept that. What bothers me is this equal weighting. Evolution has a damn lot of testable evidence on it's side, just like gravity, just like a huge number of scientific 'theories' that are accepted by many people on the basis of that testable evidence.
Fine, don't call it 'fact', but don't act so damn surprised when most of the scientific world looks at you funny for giving equal weight to ID and evolution. Simply claiming that evolution has to be 'believed in' is foolish too, as you can go test the published theories on your own.
You forgot, one of them has withstood scrutiny by the scientific community for over a century, one has not.
I'm just point out one of ways they are different since you were pointing out how they are the same. Fair's fair.
Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
Worse yet, AFAIK most Western Christians also believe the theory of evolution is broadly correct - i.e. that anything it has wrong is detail, like having the sequence of ancestry a bit off here or there, or having some missing fossils, but the overall principle being sound. What does that do to 'Made In God's Image'? What becomes of the Fall, and hence of Original Sin, and hence of the need for Christ's salvation?
Certainly it's possible to overcome all these problems and accommodate modern biology and cosmology within a Christian worldview, but it requires a good deal of mental flexibility, a rather different mindset to the absolutist fundamentalist.
It's interesting to notice that the Vatican has already come pretty much to terms with evolution and modern cosmology - indeed, they were said to be quite delighted with the Big Bang model, since the alternative was Steady State and a universe with nothing for a creator to do at all!
Basically what it boils down to is: if evolution is taught, then some of those kids will realise that God is an unnecessary addition to their worldview and will drop him into the same bin where they already put Santa Claus. If it is not taught, then some of them will continue to believe in God. That's enough for the fundamentalist. That's a soul saved from hell. Perhaps introducing intelligent design will save a few kids from this insidious atheist menace. Perhaps then, bit by bit, it might be possible to expand on intelligent design and introduce creationism proper, and from there roll back the whole materialist worldview...
There was a very good investigation into the fundamentalist agenda here in the New Scientist a few weeks ago. It was the 8th October 2005 issue, if you want to track it down at your library. Interesting stuff.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Here's a start. Tell me what constitutes a *scientific* theory?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What term should FSM'ers use?
satirists?
must... stay... awake...
Could you not use metric temperatures? Celcius is the norm for science. (Kelvin when it is about physics.)
You're right, as far as tuna-family fish go at least.
It's been well-studied that some of the larger species of tuna direct blood that's been heated by the action of their largest swimming muscles to their brain... which helps keep their super-fast twitch-reactions humming. Swordfish use the warm blood to improve their eyesight.
Mind you, these are some enormous fish.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Nothing. These three concepts are absolutely not mutually exclusive with the idea that evolution was the process God used to create Man.
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
You're 100% correct about this. However 'religious establishments' oftentimes have little to do with what they supposedly represent. Too often they are only interested in shoring up their numbers instead of practicing what they preach.
Having something in place that 'allows people to be atheists', as you put it, is a good thing. God doesn't want people who want nothing to do with him. Better to have people as being outright atheists than fake Christians. Lord knows there's enough of those running around...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
The complication comes in that scientific laws are almost universally expressable as a simple equation, devoid of units and specifics. F=M*A is a law.
Evolution will *never* be a law, because it cannot be expressed in a one-liner. Biological systems are infinately more complex than anything we have quantified and reduced to a scientific law.
However, as you said in your post, "Scientific Theory" doesn't mean what the Religious ID proponants think it means. A scientific theory has been tested and, to the extent possible, all evidence we have supports its truth. Theory is as far as Evolution will ever get, and it might as well be fact.
When the school board of _________ says that they have to put a sticker in the textbooks claiming that "Evolution is just a theory and that other ideas should be considered", the word they are thinking about is "Hypothesis". Theory in the scientific world, and "I have a theory about where I left my car keys", do not have the same meaning, and therein lies the main distortion between proponants of ID and of creationism vs. evolution - most of the creationists see the word "Theory" and assume they have a foothold because of some longstanding debate in the academic world, where the reality is that no such debate is taking place - all serious scientists without an agenda agree that evolution is a fact.
sig?
It IS irony. See point 2 below
irony Audio pronunciation of "irony" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies
1.
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2.
1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.
I think you confused it with 'sarcasm' :
sarcasm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
Darned if I see any validity in the way ID and Evolution got into this discussion, but I must comment: Evolution is two things: a theory, and a principal. Both are scientific terms, and have validity only as long as evidence supports them. They describe things known to be true, because Observations from around the world and under different environments support both. Should new observations conflict with some part of either, then our description of them will be modified to fit the new information. This is how science advances. ID is not a theory, it is an idea based upon a belief. It has no observational support. This does not make it false, simply not verifiable and not science. I am a Christian. Not only Christian, but also Catholic. I am also a Physicist and Mathematician. You should not be required to be any of these to understand the difference between Science and Faith. Now, to dive deep into my own meditations: If you want, you may consider ID an article of faith. If you have faith, Science should not be any challenge. You should also be secure that whatever men decide about God, he (or she) will remain unchanged and immune to our manipulations! If one view: Faith is what you believe God did, Science is our attempt to understand HOW! These do not conflict, and no one need study them together to benefit from either. Those who confuse this issue and generate needless conflict only display their lack of both faith and understanding. Mind you, I welcome anyone who wants to disagree with these thoughts. Those who offer scientific evidence may help me modify my understanding of science. With or without evidence, none will be successful in prompting any change in my faith. My children go to a church school. Anyone who suggests having them taught ID or Creationism in Science would meet with my strongest objections because these are NOT science. I would not react quite so strongly to an attempt to teach them the Theory of Evolution if Theology class, because it just MAY demonstrate a tool of Gods will! Please consider, and be kind to each other.
Light, Love, Happiness,
"ID is not a hypothesis, it's a wish"
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
But anyway, all those discussion about ID vs. evolutionism are ridiculous: what can a professor say in a class for more than 5 minutes about ID?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Warm blood has a huge cost. Snakes can go for weeks or even months to a full year without eating, simply beause they don't need to maintain all that energy wasting hot body temperature. In water, maintaining a body temperature of 37C like mammals, or 42C like birds, might be impossible, because compared to air, the rate of heat loss in water is just so much greater. So all these fish get is something above ambient, and you can bet that they have to hunt and feed and pay very dearly with energy-cash for each extra degree. But since the heat gives them speed, extra agility, there is probably some balance point, some optimum temperature. I wonder if such optimum temperatures could be mathematically deducted, and how close these fish get to it. It's hard to stick a number on hunting success vs. agility, even if you can stick a number on agility vs. temperature. Of course when you got very plenty food, all the food in the world that you want, that temperature might come out something nonsensical, like 200C, so this temperature is probably very dependent on the available food supply too.