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."
name-calling. nice.
both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Christians will probably claim that nothing but Jezus' love for the fish keeps it nice and warm...
What's next i wonder? A fish that roasts ITSELF?
It's a fairly significant mutation and well targeted to the environment in which it exists. God doesn't care about fish -- just people, since we're all made in his image and all that.
I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. -- Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics
How ironic that the 'thingy' at the bottom of my page reads as above...
In any case, a warm-blooded fish is... well interesting though somewhat worthless trivia in the grand scheme of things. Some interesting information would be in determining how long this change required and if there is indication that this change is not yet complete in that they will continue to get warmer or develop other features to aid in their survival in that environment.
learn what mist4kes users. BSD/OS gains market share
To paraphrase John Stewart, you, sir, are one of the idiots who's destroying civilization. Please stop.
Just because there are two sides to an issue does not mean that both have to be treated 'fairly' and 'evenly'. There are *wrong* positions to take, and just because twits take those wrong positions it doesn't mean we have to coddle them and seriously consider their opinions. They're just stupid and don't deserve any respect.
Creationism is impossible to prove experimentally (and don't give that political bullshit about creation myth and ID being different, I don't have space in this box for that), while natural selection is. Until someone comes up with an experiment that can prove creationism, instead of creation proponents just trying to look for flaws in evolution, they're not science. They don't deserve to be treated as anything except religion, and have no place in technology and scientific learning.
Therefore, those who support it as science are stupid, whackos, fanatics, ignorant, or a combination thereof. Grandparent's terminology is just fine.
A great discovery, but what amazes me is how come some people who make great discoveries like that have not yet discovered the metric system !
Last I heard, the oceans were getting bigger due to ice caps melting and such.
Being non-falsifiable, it isn't even a model.
I don't quite understand why this is so. Are you saying that we cannot prove that Henry Ford designed the Model T as well?
At the moment, evolution cannot falsified either since it has never been observed to ocurr.
Really, both the theories of intelligent design and evolution do not utilize the scientific method because empericism is irrelevant. Both are theories that use inductive logic to arrive at their conclusions.
Until someone observes spontaneous cross-species evolution, and not simple changes due to selective breeding like stone-age farmers used to give us modern cows and dogs, we will continue to have this debate. We really don't know anything more about the topic than the farmers of thousands of years ago.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
genius, kelvin: cosmologists, physicists (example: stephen hawking)
average, celsius: chemists, residents of nations where football is played/ soccer (example: antoine lavoisier)
stupid, fahrenheit: americans (example: gw bush)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it