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."
Who's going to claim this as evidence first...?
Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The next round of global warming is going to see warm blooded land-dinosaurs roaming the tropical forests of the North American continent. We'll all be sorry then!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How to convince my mother-in-law to stop swimming. 8-)
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
8-PP
So now there is a scientifical proof that they are not the cold-blooded killers as some of us may have thought.
For example. Honeybees generate heat in the winter to keep the hive warm and use heat to kill predatory wasps -- surrounding the wasp, heating up to 45 C (113 F) and killing the attacker.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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.
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
learn what mist4kes users. BSD/OS gains market share
What advantege does it give for lasers?
One that hath name thou can not otter
i am fish...
i am fish...
i am fish...
Accept any challenge, No matter the odds.
The distinction is not between "cold-blooded" and "warm-blooded" animals but between poikilotherms, whose body temperature is the same as that of the environment, and homeotherms, whose body temperature is closely regulated and held within a normal range of a couple of degrees or less
On the one hand, practically every poikilotherm that's been studied actually thermoregulates in some ways. Very few of them truly assume the temperature of their environment.
On the other hand, "maintaining" temperature at "68-86 degrees Fahrenheit" -- 77 degrees plus or minus 9--is far from comparable to the degree of thermoregulation shown by mammals. Nine degrees too high or too low is enough to kill you, and most mammals.
It's interesting to learn how another kind of poikilotherm performs a crude kind of thermoregulation, but by no means earthshaking.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
As a long time deep sea fisherman I thought there were a bunch of fish who lived with an elivated core temperature. Many of the red meat fast swimming open ocean fish (such as tuna, dorado, baracuda, swordfish) are decidely warm when you pull them in and have a radicaly different muscle structure than what you see with slow moving cold fish. Also the tend to have many fewer visable internal parasites, which I always associated with having a much different metablism.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
welcome our new warm blooded... eh never mind
Do any fish have an insulating layer of fat, like many mammals?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Have a nice day :-)
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?
Wouldn't this also make it easier for predators to find them? How sensitive are marine predators to heat?
It is a cartilagenous fish. Common ancestor somewhere way back, but still different. This is also not localized to this fish. Tuna and other sharks exhibit this. It is called regional endothermy, or also heterothermy. We just learned about it in Vertebrate Zoology. It has been hypothesized it allows them a huge increase in swimming speed for attacking prey.
Virtually every organism implements homeostasis to some degree. As evolution chugs along, certain mechanisms come into existance that allow them to alter their temperature and other factors as appropriate. The catch is that these mechanisms tend to be expensive (check your heating bill), so there has to be a significant benefit to the organism.
It's silly to argue that warm-blooded organisms are "more advanced". It simply makes more sense in the context of their habitat, food source, and so on. Staying warm in cold water is a tricky business too, one of the reasons large aquatic mammals have done fairly well in my opinion.
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.
What advantege does it give for lasers?
Use these sharks and they don't have to carry separate frickin power supplies for their frickin lasers. Power straight from the sharks themselves (kinda like geothermal).
Warm sashimi... mmmmm.... yummy!
w00t
Your point is well taken, but you should know that "evolutionist" is generally used only by creationists and has a pejorative flavor to it. Most supporters of evolution prefer the term "biologist."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Fahrenheit? What is this, the dark ages?
Ah but the other has withstood scrutiny by people who believe they will go to hell if they prove it wrong... ah. That may have been your point ;-)
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Or at least, can CHOOSE to be. Female rattlers incubating eggs will wrap themselves around the eggs, and 'shiver', to elevate their body temperature to keep the eggs warm.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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 !
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligent design.html
/.ers analize it.
This web site makes claims on the fallibility of ID, I thought it would be intesting to have
I have to keep surfing or else I will cease to exist.
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to destroy the robots. THe could prove useful against these highly evolved sharks.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
When Biologist ask for proof of ID, they are told to just have faith.
I wish I could tell my boss to just have faith when he demands proof of my progress on my TPS reports.
Wait, wait, wait, are you telling me YOUR MARRIED!?!?!?!?!?!
My ex-gf was a north Pacific salmon shark...somthing smelled fishy, thats for damn sure
#include bier;
Could you not use metric temperatures? Celcius is the norm for science. (Kelvin when it is about physics.)
Last I heard, the oceans were getting bigger due to ice caps melting and such.
Now why is it the Temperature is quoted in Farenheit when the scientific community and the everybody outside of the USA uses celsius ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna
Wow, not sure why it is news that some fish are warm-blooded.
The warm-bloodedness of tuna also makes allows them to be very good swimmers even in cold water.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I'm pro-science as well, and am quite shocked that religion is considered as factual in a Western civilazation...
Just want to point out your argument is flawed as "Christianity has been around for over 2 milleniums" (look at the date, it's a painful reminder.), a creationism is dated even further back.
Also, "cause most scientist say so" sounds like "cause I've been told so" or even "I read that somewhere" or why not "I believe so". With the last you engage in a "my belief is superiour to your belief cause I believe it!"-type argument.
More accuratly would be "Most finding indicate based on data which can be reproduced" and "from that data, those who know quite a bit of their field, most conclude and agree on xyz".
I'm not religious. (even if I were, religion in education should be limited to optional catechise) So I'm not trying to debunk what the message of your post was.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Dude.. I'm hungary... how about salmon for dinner ;-)
It's been known for quite some time that many fast-swimming fish such as tuna are warm blooded.
NOT "!=" IS NOT "="; NOT "!=" IS "==".
It was supposed to be something like !("!=") != "="... Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
D'oh....
Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
1) Live birth (not eggs)
2) Fur or Hair (not scales)
3) Warm blooded
I'm sure some vet major can list the rest but lets look at it this way.
If I'm cold blooded and I move my muscles like a mad man (err. fish) I use energy. Energy = Heat no? and friction creates heat.
Does that mean if this fish stops moving he gets cold again because the movement of his body creates the heat? I know when I lay down I stay warm (as long as I'm not laying in the snow).
I think this is just a bunch of fish rubbish. Eat more chicken!
Obama = Socialism.
OK. I'll bite on two items (three if you include a suggestion to RTFA).
... it just isn't so.
...." Which is a really lame argument. I mean, if it's OK to kill a few in the name of science to possibly benefit humanity, then it is equally OK to kill off a few more to certainly benefit feeding humanity, no?
....
1) How does knowledge of shark muscle performance in low temp give us insight into vehicle technology? Sharks = organic. Vehicles != organic. You can even argue that the hydrodynamics of sharks aren't particularly relevant since they are necessarily adapted to: eating, hunting, and swinging a tail back and forth. (But you'd be partially wrong because the streamlining does work to some extent even if you replace the tail with a prop.) It's like saying we can build better aircraft by studying bird muscles
2) At this site, there is a suggestion that the creatures could be facing endangerment. And yet, these researchers happily killed off a few to draw the conclusion that "The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive". So some educated guess work but nothing hard and fast. One can conclude with certaintly, that without the researchers and Japanese fishermen hooking them, they would survive to the limit of their natural lives. Or shall we trot out the old saw about "needs of the many
No. This was simply science answering (or attempting to) a question of curiosity. How do these sharks do what they do when other sharks could not? The importance of that to humans has nothing to do with vehicles. But you could speculate that they were hoping to find something useful and profitable like maybe a protein a drug company might be interested in
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I thought all fishes are warm-blooded, once they're on the frying-pan. However, it could be fairly dark and solidified if it's fish-n-chips.
That humans evolved from lesser creatures is also impossible to *prove* *experimentally*. I could not propose an experiment that would prove that I evolved from apes. I could, however EASILY disprove it. It's called falsifiability. It would be trivial to disprove evolution. Just find a fossil record of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs to church, and you're set.
"Intelligent Design" and other varieties of creationism are unfalsifiable, meaning they can't be proven false. There is no possible test that would prove ID and creationism false.
This is the key feature that makes them NOT scientific theories. Any theory that can't be disproven is not a theory.
A fish has bones but a shark has only cartilege. A shark is a totally different species, a very ancient one.
How to convince my mother-in-law to stop swimming. 8-)
How to stop her and all her her friends to stop wearing bikini's!
Warm-blooded fish? Gah, the murloc will get me!
Grrrmmmblrrrmbbrrrgggrlll!
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,
This is still a bit of a debate, but:
Shark != Bony Fish, Sharks = Cartilaginous fish
The distinction is important, because taxonomy-wise, that makes them as different from 'fish' (bony) as mammals, amphibians, reptiles or avians. It's a split at the class level. A warm blooded shark is not as impressive as a warm blooded bony fish would be.
Of course, since chondrichythes (cartilaginous fish) and osteichythes (bony fish) still contain the word chythes (fish), sharks are still refered to as 'fish' but biologically, they're just as different as the other classes. They just also happen to look kind of the same.
The same mistake is often made between reptile and amphibian, or aracnids and insects, etc.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Sadly platypuses and echydnaes have mammary glands but no tits.
So there.
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"? ...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
No, rather: "Intelligent Design proponents or Scientists".
You can't take the sky from me...
You've just got to laugh at "scientific" publications that print their data in Fahrenheit.
How many roods to the hogshead is that anyway?
Da Blog
Does it run Linux?
What's the big deal? Tuna fish are warm-blooded too.
Johnny
Ok,
First, this site does present a falsifiable theory, because it does make predictions. It's too bad they get most of the predictions made by the other side wrong.
This is different from most "ID", as in typical ID pains are taken to not present any information about the creator or the creator's motives, etc. The site even explains this. I personally think it is funny that here we have an ID site complaining about the poor science of most IDers. Yeah, guys, we noticed that too.
They have made a mistake in saying that evolutionary, or "Anti-Supernatural" as they label it, theory predicts that "Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common". This was once true, but they seem to have missed out on the whole punctuated equilibrium thing that was a big deal in evolutionary theory about, oh, 20-30 years ago. Perhaps they would like to point out problems with the phlogiston theory also. Poking holes in old, discarded theories must be very difficult. Also they state that their theory places "No restraints" upon the recovery or transition times. No restrictions is not a prediction. They would do well to state what their predicted time periods of change and recovery would be. If their model does not do this, this is not an advantage. A theory which does NOT tell us something is not preferable to something which does.
In addition, their model is "bible-based". It is intellectually dishonest to use the bible as the basis for a scientific theory without also mentioning all the times throughout history when scientific theories based upon scripture have been proven false (Copernicus would like a word with you). This does not by any means prove their theory wrong, but it can be used to prove that basing scientific theories upon the bible is often a way to end up with a wrong result (this would be a criticism of methodology).
So, lets look at the predictions:
1) There is only one universe. Not much disagreement with the vast majority of scientists on that prediction. Maybe they have been talking to David Deutsch to get their multiverse prediction from the "Anti-supernatural" camp. So this cannot be used as evidence to distinguish between the two theories.
2) Fine Tuning. This is a cosmology argument. What is it doing in an arguement about biological evolution? Who got their chocolate in my peanut butter?
3) Uniqueness of Earth. This is a valid prediction. When enough evidence is gathered, then we will see what the answer is. Right now the inability to detect earth-sized planets leaves this as an open question.
4) Existence of Life in our universe. This makes a valid prediction. Also an open question as in 3.
5) Prebiotic chemistry. This makes a valid prediction: that of all the chemicals required for life, that one or more cannot be generated by naturalistic processes. So far, naturalistic processes for some of the chemicals have been found. Because there are a limited number of chemicals required for life, it is difficult but possible that naturalistic processes could be found for all of them. However, unless it is proven that it is impossible for one of those chemicals to be formed naturalistically, this prediction is still an open question. This really is about the Origin of Life . Stop getting your chocolate in my peanut butter!
6) This is the Origin of life question. They say the naturalistic theory predicts that "Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)" and that their theory predicts that "Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex." Did they get part of this backwards? Are they really predicting that life began earlier than 4 billion years ago, and that conditions were worse than the oxygen-poor conditions on earth at that time? Also, it should be pointed out that their prediction that life has alwa
Nothing to see here.
The whole point of evolutionary theory is gradual change in genes
0. Imagine a fuzzy cloud of dots on a graph representing all the animals of a species.
Imagine that part of that cloud drifts off (because say of geographical separation from the rest, and a change in the environment's selective pressure on each successive generation).
1. Eventually you get one cloud with two centers.
Wait a bit longer for more drift.
2. Eventually you get two overlapping clouds
Wait a bit longer for more drift.
3. Eventually you get two NON-overlapping clouds
Case 0 - All the animals are one species
Case 3 - All the animals are two different species
Case 1+2 - One species, but the speciation process is occuring. And yes this kind of case is observed in nature!
For example, there are polar sea birds, where the species varies in size as you go West to East round the globe... it appears one species gradually varying in size (the birds will always breed with similar size birds) until you get to a sudden point, where the really big birds meet up with the really small birds (and they won't interbreed)
Or you get sub-species (races if you like), which do not always suddenly switch from one sub-species to another, but can gradually vary from one sub-species to another.
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution? I imagine it being a rather small number.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that parts of the theory of evolution are obvservably true, such as the theory of natural selection, while other parts make no sense genetically, such as the formation of new features in a species which did not have them before. Instead of putting all of this effort into trying to find the answer to how this could have happened, we should put as much effort into trying to determine if maybe it didn't happen and that there is some other non-supernatural explanation.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If they had called it the theory of 'Intelligent Decline' that would have been a masterpiece.
As it is, it was good fun. Thanks for the link.
it was a press release, and therefore intended for the layman...
this was a press release and therefore intended for the layman...
All one has to do is run X number of lemmings off a cliff and see if they develop wings. If they do, then ID is false, as it did not take intelligence to design the wings.
I wonder if Sharks start to go more and more insane as they age. I mean, they can't stop swimming or they'll die so that means that have to never sleep or rest or anything. Its nothing but swim, swim, swim, eat, swim for them. Their whole life is amounted to swim or die.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Steve Zissou's Jaguar Shark glows in the dark. Without the benefit of frikkin' lasers.
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
So yeah, other sharks and the tuna are being mentioned in posts here for good reason. The news here is that Salmon Sharks hadn't been looked at for this before. We don't know that much about them. (Scientists observing them, for example, had no idea a few years ago whether they'd be safe to swim with; they bear a fair resemblance to white sharks.)
Radiating into a new niche with a new adaptation is hardly new. Bull sharks are easily the most common serious shark attack, because they're able to move into brackish or even fresh water. Adapting to a new niche opens up new opportunities to take advantage of that niche. (It's not all predation, of course. Bull sharks seem to move into the shallows in more numbers during years where they're mating there in numbers, mostly, but then attacks are associated with them there. [The Matewan Creek attacks in New Jersey, which inspired Jaws and that whole great white thang, were most likely made by bull sharks.])
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
68 - 86F = 20.0 - 30.0C
47F = 8.3C
And, to make the "Troll" mod more insulting, you were making quite an astute( sp?) observation and comment!
Cheers!
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
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
does anyone have any actual temperature data? i didn't see any in the article.
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
It's not the generation of heat that's interesting, I gather, but the fact that the fish may go to some effort to hold onto the heat, i.e. the heat is not just allowed to seep into the water as fast as it's generated.
Wait, let's look at the ranges for the muscle temps: 68-86 F. Seems a bit of an odd range, doesn't it? If you don't know the temps any better than +/-9 degrees, why state it as 68-86 instead of, say, 70-90?
But converting to Celsius, we find the temperature range is 20-30 C. Aha! One strongly suspects the PR people converted the Celsius numbers in the original paper for the purposes of publication.
Kind of reminds me of buying a quart of milk and there at the bottom it says:
Contents: 1 qt (946 mL)
Hmm, so they're saying this bottle contains 946 mL of milk, and definitely not 945 mL or 948 mL or even 960 mL? Giving three specific digits conveys the false impression that the amount of milk is known to 1 part in 1000. In their "own" system they understand this, which is why it says "1 qt" and not "1.000 qt." But the "common sense" function of the brain just sort of clicks off when they convert to SI. Or maybe it's some kind of brain-dead legal requirement, I dunno.
I find this humorous, although not as funny as the time I found "low sodium salt" for sale in the supermarket.
I guess I should check myself into some kind of clinic to get help, huh?
There is no flaw, you just don't understand the argument.
ID is not presented as christianty, so consistency with christianty does not add anything to its value.
ID is presented as science, hence, it's perfectly valid to criticize it only on its scientific merit.
Nothing was said about the correctness of either idea. One has been scrutinized by science for over a century, the other has not. One has had thousands if not millions of man hours dedicated to understanding the subleties of its implications with the results scrutinzed and deliberated over in the scientific literature, the other has not. Therefore, regardless of the correctness of either idea, they have a property, namely, their history, that is significantly different. Hence, one of these things, is NOT like the other.
Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
I laugh more at cowardly assholes. If you're going to say something, put a name to your opinion.
Today only the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar have not officially switched to the metric system.
You're in good company there - what is that, like 4% of the world? Well done!
Da Blog
In Soviet Russia, fish fish you!
Fahrenheit? *shiver*
arghhh bad things only leave to return on the next best occasion.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
without prejudice
Facts bear witness of truth, and are not the complete truth themselves.
Depending if the theory is societal, worldly, solar, or universal; all the theory being alleged by both sides is moral! I'm not going to lower the heat on that bunsen burner if bacteria have souls or spirit or not.
They're both a distraction and the ends after the goal is to give the facade that they represent people with the same thoughts, allthewhile convincing idle people to join their mantra. If these two parties had any intention to help the people other than legislate their own worlds of the universe affront to the known world in the universe, then it is to legislate compelled respect and contract stipulations biased to one another. I see none of them are using affidavits, and all the matter in dispute is not theirs to dispute itself because it is not a true and correct and complete and non-misleading sampling. Finger-nail clippings of the corpus.
Somwhere, someone is typing at his keyboard and thinks that God is a figure of speach (sound, transmittal, thoughts) and the LORD God is all That inside the universe -- both inside and outside the world. Diapers and doodoo to me, because that form of science doesn't cure illness and neither does it feed the hungry. At the earliest dispute, the Talmud Jews said God is unconcious -- that's just a religious application to say that the universe and the quality of all it encompasses, is a fine (excessive order) aspect of being.
Fruitless work, proves nothing but how much more an ass one group can sit on the others' head of management and pull someone elses' finger for the pearl of great prize (that's for you mormons).
without prejudice
What's a fahrenheit?
ID and Scientific Theory are two feuding commercial parties giving the facade of representing actual intelligent people holding scientific theory, and are intended to separate you from good people. If it hurt anyone that I say scientific theory is a blessing from God, then I wont say it but exercise it in my work. Don't let them spread their disease onto you; Folie a Deux. The proponents of the most wicked changes in banking (government) regulations is the hand of Masons; documented as early as Genesis 4:22 (KJVAV1611); "[22]And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron..." When any wealth, be it money or knowledge, changes hands to another tenant (realy), there come the attorneys; Matthew 24:28 (KJVAV1611) "[28]For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.]
As for your thoughts on the Bible, I'll reveal and declare to you; they are not stories of fiction (think Tubalcain, the pleading of the non-masonry Masons/guild); they are history and strategy (logic/technique), enumerated, and acknowledging the cryptic tendencies governments and rules of men have afflicted onto good people (for those Bible thumpers, think about Benjamin and His small tribe). I've studied the Bible cover to cover many times and am finding non-ending and deep truth that supports the cause of those good people not drawn in by the distractions of those two separate feuding nobilities. Study the Bible, you will see some of the foundations of the people that hate you and the witness of the people that want no ill will; Consider how the first and second enumerated bodies (chapters) of the book of Genesis speak of a God on the first six [D]ays of creation and then a LORD God for the eigth [d]ay, thereby the first speaks about the Spirit of God was on the face of the deep, and given that the so-called "waters" were existant before creation occured. Hate it if you will, but this is detailing a Form of creation that intersects with truth and the world. The people that recompiled the scriptures kept as much of the deep in it as the septuaginst had contributed; excellent english skill, that even I struggle with, therefor I reveal to any naught in the know an early comprehensive study in English for an eighth-grade 1895 graduating student at Salinas Kansas.
Continuing...The book of Revelation at the rear of the Bible says that the people are water, and Jesus looked for living water and referred to the jews in the Synagogue of Satan as dirt; sow good seed and it'll leech from both. As meteors fall from the sky, so say many people that Satan is fallen; as wateer from a cloud, so say that which seeks after Satan to saturate and subdue it. Evil people hate and throw rocks, [G]ood people bless and withal water. It gets deeper. Revelation is often thought idolatry by interpretation of the already-existant covenant because it foretells a dream, and much of the Bible has oppressed people enlightened in such a way that is impossible to prove somthing (the future) because the law says to speak nothing of the future but what is Now (today), but they still speak for "concern". It is rebutted that only inspiration from God would allow such thought to be known before its fruition, but that didn't keep people from tresspassing on the original covenant to kill another for tresspassing on the original covenant. All the prophets were thought idolaters Now; if you think calling the people as "water" isn't a hint that the Bible is as though a syllabus or codex to conceal a law or message that had been carried over time, then it naive and woah to you brother! John the baptist had a job working in one of those water purification shops -- purifying water; did he? Jesus said it is Spirit; to me, it is a sacrifice to become a neural surgeon because someone will not get the Certification until one-third of their life is consumed in study. Take your goat "GNU Hippy" to the fro
without prejudice
I read the encyclopedia entry titled "Wedge strategy" and am not amused; it is political in no derogatory way by the little content it presents, with an enormous touch of bias quashing the couple paragraphs of concept that adhere, therewith by the author is self-evident an application of both those "Intelligent Design" and "Scientific Theory" parties. I was hoping to see more to that strategy, but it was just another application of concern, or defining the movements of one interested posse commitatus over another, equal meritless bias of both parties to the ruin of a perfectly good english word "Wedge", and is ulterior. Let me quote THAT Analysis Of Wedge (...) theory, regardless of the obvious slant on the rest of that WikiPedia article;
The same can be said of either party. They are neither devils of eachother, because the claims are without merit and as though intentionally interlapping two unrelated Fields of STUDY; the people they ensnare is intended to strawmen their meritless claims with endless chanting and chicanery with malice. I am certain, having studied the merit in both attempted jurisdiction-spreading claims of the Intelligent Design and Scientific Theory parties is that both are neither scientific and intelligent, given that they are speaking of what they think to know yesterday and barely know today and neither know what is to come. One group holds a book of a possible(theoretical) future titled Revelation, and the other holds a book of a theoretical(possible) future titled R-evolution. It is not scientific to speculate on theory beyond the Now(today), and it is idolatry to move IDeas that are built and confounded by the authority of the Principle and Agent doctrine inherent in the Uni-verse and having no improvement to the life of friends. Therefore, it is true that any disorder caused by these two feuding parties, their both tending collateral not theirs to attorney(tournament); is insurrection and terrorism, non-other but sabota
without prejudice
You should add:
Fish != Shark
FalconShould there be a Law?
We still get along right?
They are vertabrates with a full skeleton. That skeleton just happens to be a softer relative of bone called cartilage. That's why all fish are vertebrates and there's a class of vertebrates called cartilagenous fish.
I feel like such a fool. I made a reply to a post above stating that a shark isn't a fish. When I took a class in Marine Biology about 25 years ago that's what we were taught, that fish were vertabrates whereas sharks had cartilage not bones and therefore weren't fish. After reading your post I quickly googled and found this, FISH- class Chondrichthyes that states "members of the class Chondrichthyes ("cartilage-fish") include the sharks, skates, rays, and ratfish."
FaclonShould there be a Law?
Instead of putting all of this effort into trying to find the answer to how this could have happened, we should put as much effort into trying to determine if maybe it didn't happen and that there is some other non-supernatural explanation.
So some non-supernatural explanation for the origin of species that does not involve evolution or the supernatural in any way? Hmm.. they could have been planted here by aliens... but then where did the aliens come from? That kind of thinking leads only to logical fallacy.
You're missing one important point in the whole discussion. The ONLY opposition to evolution comes DIRECTLY from those pushing a belief in God, and wanting that belief taught instead of (or alongside) science. The idea that there's some pent-up demand in the scientific community for an alternate theory is misguided.
Biologists have come up with the theory of evolution because it's observable and fits all the evidence. If it didn't fit the evidence, there would be a demand for an alternate theory.
You're absolute right, and that's what I first thought. Imagine my surprise when I picked up the container and it said, nope, I'm made of 100% pure salt in the Pure Food and Drug Act sense of the word (i.e. nuthin' but NaCl). I contain no KCl, no sugar, no secret spice, no nothing. And yet, the box insisted the stuff contained "30% less sodium per serving*" than regular salt.
Yes, I figured out the secret by following the asterisk. In fine print at the bottom it said: "* When servings are measured by volume, not weight."
Ah. What those clever buggers had done was repackage sea-salt, which is naturally made up of larger and more jagged crystals than salt from mines, and therefore packs down less efficiently. So when you measure out a teaspoon of their salt, it contains less salt by mass than a teaspoon of normal salt. Voila! Less sodium.
Incidentally, the standard-sized salt container it came in sold for $3.50 (versus 65 cents for the "high-sodium" regular version).
Best marketing trick I have ever seen. Re-package identical stuff in a slightly different shape, give slightly different instructions for use, and clean up 200% profit. Beats the heck out of "You May Already Have Won!"
Years ago, Ron and Valerie Taylor measured the inside temperature of a shark and found it to be a few degrees warmer than the water it was in.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
And shark fin soup.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Shark fin soup anyone?
FalconShould there be a Law?
When I was a kid reading up on sharks 15 years ago, I remember reading this as fact. Nice of slashdot to finally catch up.
Someone at ufl really blew that conversion. You don't at 32 when converting differential temperatures from C to F, only absolute.
I wonder if that shark can really keep 60F differential when immersed in water (a very good conductor of heat). Maybe it can only keep 27F (the proper conversion of 15C differential)?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The first time I saw a tuna next to a human being, I thought the photo was fake. Apparently, the giant tuna of yesteryear are long gone. Fisherman have depleted the gene pool of the record sized tuna of 40 years ago, and we're left with what would've been the runts back then.
There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast
Son, I think you're confusing oceans with rain forests.
While the oceans themselves aren't disappearing the marine life in them are. Many fishing grounds are being overfished and be cause of this the fish that survive are getting smaller. Crustaceans like crabs, lobsters, and shrimp which many other marine species depend on are also being over harvested. And aquaculture, fish farms, are only making it worse.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Greetings and blessings.
It is not possible for you to be anonymous, because I know you. We are of same flesh and bone, we drink the same water, and eat of the same crop. I gave you fat to chew on, and now I give you meat. Wicked men hide in religion behind a good name, but of their religion they are purported as otherwise. Do you actually think a dishonest church would register to the public as a church? What more to send discord among people but behind a good word as Scientific Theory, and not upheld by any scientific theory? You go ahead of yourself fast, as "biology" is the life studied, while Biology is whatever your construe that word to be in title. The bigger question of religion is whomever first applied it -- not knowing, but believing on things they've not seen or not heard.
I'm trying the best I can to uphold scientific theory, as well as those facts proven scientifically. Over here near the States, it is written that those "We the People of the State" are greatfull to Almighty God for their freedom...", and thereby, I want no ill will. I'm not throwing any stones to your way, but living water.
I don't want to say that all law is a matter of religion, yet there it stands -- school is not desired by many children because the teachers don't breath any life into the subjects -- school is coerced. Think of a world where children may choose their study, yet who is to say that they must first learn language before they can proceed to their volunteer study? I say to you, the first stones were thrown by none of us, but teachers -- because a child can't be coerced to contract the services of a teacher. If you will, I will show you, but may you proceed knowing that it is all a matter of religion?
Read it again, brother. You are a preist, dividing the truth. By this method, there is no separation of church and state because you are the prist to [ad]minister the things subject to you. I want this no offense, but it stands by itself. I count you a good neighbor to question the actions of men. Their words are subjected unto you. Everything I say is thought as a confession to a crime, but I spake with not pride, but humility, humble words. I'm not bonded to a voter, but a lector.
Many years ago, brother Thomas (Jefferson) thought to trial the effectiveness of a history without religion; his fruits was the Jefferson Bible. It's quick, and precision lost, because religion is not separable. I don't believe, I know. I hope you see the difference between a man applying religion for intent of malice, as oppposed to a man applying religion for intent of honor and respect; the State can't respect the people because they are competent and particular. If you need setting a forum to copy and move thoughts, let us look no further than Slashdot.
What would you say about a religion that asks the student to study? What of a religion that is a mere pearl that begins the first assembly of a jewel, and is good for further assembly? I don't confuse the truth with Truth. I think it not possible to hinder or allow religion into school, because the text is already assembled and effectuated to religion -- anything added or subtracted is a matter of religion. It only depends on your thoughts on schooling, because before public schools there were schools that people attended without having been coerced. Before compelled Education, as opposed to education, the people entered voluntarily by necessity.
I'm going a way, not away. As I said before, controlled environments give controlled results. I figure that I and You would not want an environment as such. Let the truth come raw, unhindered, without interpretation, and I'll accept and agree with it parens patriae; all men nowithstanding.
without prejudice
I recall when that movie came out, scuba diving was seriously damaged by the movie, with many dive shops having to close. Others were able to hang on in part by giving away free scuba lessons. It helped some but not much really, too many were simply afraid to get in the water. Where friends and I like to dive, the Florida Keys, it wasn't some much sharks you had to beware of, instead it was barracudas. If you wanted to keep your arms you'd better not wear that shiney watch, cudas are fast and love shiney objects.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution?
;-). Just when did the theropods split off from the other dinosaurs? We don't really know, and some recent theropod fossils in South America have pushed the split back by several million years. Maybe the theropods are really a separate order, more closely related to mammals or reptiles than to the other dinosauria. Maybe Deinonychus was a closer relative to us than to Stegosaurus. That's a wild surmise, but it hasn't been disproved, so some biologists push it as a "devil's advocate" argument.
Two answers:
1. Lots
2. Not enough.
In a sense, most of the digging at paleontological sites, plus the laborious extraction and study of fossils, is done with the goal of finding evidence for or against various hypotheses. Granted, these are mostly about details. But this is because the general evolutionary history of the Earth has been quite well filled out. There's no longer any room for doubt about the general outline, so you have to concentrate on the finer aspects of it all.
Thus, one of Darwin's conjectures was that birds had a lot of similarities to dinosaurs, and there was a good chance that birds are modern dinosaurs. But birds are fragile and don't fossilize well. When he was alive, only a few Archaeopteryx fossils had been found, and scientists just said "That's interesting, but you need better evidence than that." And so things stood for a century.
Then, back in the 70's, a gang led by John Ostrom decided to attack the puzzle again. By some luck, China had stopped sending their intellectuals to re-education camps, and field research was again permitted. In the rocks of Liaoning, some very fine siltstones and limestones were found that contained fossils of several more primitive birds and some of their non-flying relatives. Some of those birdlike non-flying dinosaurs had feather-like coverings, as Ostrom predicted. The evidence built up, and now birds are officially classified as a suborder of the dinosaurs.
The evidence could just as well have shown that birds weren't dinosaurs at all. They could have been crocodilians, as some biologists argued. They could have been a completely separate order. The details still aren't complete, but it is clear now that birds are theropod dinosaurs. This idea was falsifiable, as were the other classifications. The others were debunked, and the theropod hypothesis was supported by the evidence.
But there's still a lot of work being done (and funded
Anyway, there is funding for this research, though few paleontologists get rich from their life work. If we really want to know about such things, we should find ways of sending more money their way. That's more likely to answer the questions than any debate with religious folks.
And really, how credible are they? They claim to have this private communication channel to the Intelligent Designer who set it all up. But they can't even tell us where to find the relevant fossils. Why don't they just ask the Designer? He must know, and He talks to them, but they aren't telling where the bodies are buried. Doesn't this failure sorta discredit them?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That should have read "...that the origional poster referred to in their origional post." I see you two are indeed two different people.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.