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!
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
8-PP
Fish != Reptiles; Fish = Fish
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.
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
These findings just confirm the "above ambient temp" findings that have been known for quite a while with bluefin tuna, other big sharks, etc.
That's why we have harpooons.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
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
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.
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.
Could you not use metric temperatures? Celcius is the norm for science. (Kelvin when it is about physics.)
It also matters because ID is not science. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It isn't even a theory save in the most general and non-specific meaning of the word. More importantly however, is that public schools in the US are not supposed to be places of religious indoctrination, and ID is formulated as a legalistic scam to sneak Creationism past the 1st Amendment.
Evolution is not a religion. It is not a bit of wild-ass speculation. Not all ideas are created equal, and in the world of science there is no debate. Any theory that seeks to replace evolution is going to have to explain the evidence, and DesignerDidIt explains nothing whatsoever.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.