Slashdot Mirror


Toxic Toads Taking Over Australia

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo News is reporting that toxic toads imported from Hawaii to help control the beetle population that was ravaging Australia's sugar cane crops have instead become pests themselves. From the article: 'The toads can grow as large as dinner plates and weigh up to 4.5 pounds. Their heads and backsides are studded with rows of warts that secrete a milky white toxin called bufotoxin. Because Australia has no native toads, many native predators such as snakes, lizards and mammals are very sensitive to the toxin. So when the toads spread, they immediately kill off many of the region's top predators.'"

564 comments

  1. Terrible Summary by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:
    Cane toads (Bufo marinus) were first brought in from Hawaii in 1935 to control the spread of beetles that were ravaging Australia's sugar cane crop.
    Cane toads have been a problem in Australia for a very long time now....this is hardly news.

    So why is this a news story? From the TITLE of TFA:
    Toxic Toads Evolve Long Legs and Take Over Australia
    And from TFA:
    When the toads arrived, the researchers found that those in the vanguard of the invasion had legs that were up to 6 percent longer than average; shorter-legged stragglers followed. The study showed that newer populations of toads tended to have longer legs than those in long-established populations.
    This is the actual 'news', not the summary's title. Given the FIRST sentence from TFA:
    Toxic toads bound across the northern tropics of Australia faster than ever, thanks to the evolution of longer legs in the few short decades since humans introduced them to their own little paradise.
    ...it's bewildering how the submitter could have misinterpreted the article so badly, and mystifying how the editor failed completely to catch the misinterpretation.

    It's a shame that such an interesting story is derailed like this before it even gets started...the editors really do need to start reading submissions.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Terrible Summary by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that, my friends, is a beautiful first post. :-p

    2. Re:Terrible Summary by ZipR · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do they mean 'evolved'? I think that several school boards across the country will agree with me when I say that the toads did not evolve, they were 'improved' by a 'designer.'

    3. Re:Terrible Summary by boggis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah If only the editors had waited for my, lets face it, vastly superior story submission which took into account these facts (-8. The real story, as the parent pointed out is the slap in the fact to intelligent design advocates and their ilk when a fast reproducing species like the toad (20,000 eggs every few weeks) demonstrates evolution on a human timescale. If God's intelligently designing these faster toads the Kakadu Parks and Wildlife Service probably want a word with him.

      --
      - Just trying to survive until the nanobots make me immortal -
    4. Re:Terrible Summary by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. Not really.

      Nearly no intelligent designer writes off evolution. They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    5. Re:Terrible Summary by mjuarez · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cane toads have been a problem in Australia for a very long time now....this is hardly news.

      I was also wondering about this. I remember reading about the problem in a magazine about 20 years ago. Thanks for the clarification, and now that you just gave us the gist of the article, I won't have to spend energy reading it (although probably spent more writing this)... but whatever. Marcos

    6. Re:Terrible Summary by WankersRevenge · · Score: 4, Funny
    7. Re:Terrible Summary by tutori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More crap imported from the US.

      Not if they were imported in 1935...

    8. Re:Terrible Summary by belgar · · Score: 1

      ...it's bewildering how the submitter could have misinterpreted the article so badly, and mystifying how the editor failed completely to catch the misinterpretation.

      No, it's not -- this is Slashdot, remember?

      --
      What does it mean to wake out of a dream
      and be wearing someone else's shorts?
      BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
    9. Re:Terrible Summary by boggis · · Score: 1

      Give them time to get to Western Australia (they're only about a third of the way there). You have all the ingredients of speciation, geographic separation (the fast ones are a long way away from the slow ones still hanging around the Gold Coast) and a strong physical difference which has the potential to develop into a barrier between inter-species mating (Either, I don't like your wierd long legs - the toads are pretty intelligent. Or what with your grotesque legs we don't seem to be able to get in contact in all the right places).

      --
      - Just trying to survive until the nanobots make me immortal -
    10. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Great first post. Pity that it's the only one of relevance to the article, every other post simply references one of two The Simpsons episodes.

      Oh well, this IS slashdot. *sigh*

    11. Re:Terrible Summary by dotpavan · · Score: 1
      they were 'improved' by a 'designer.'

      version 2.0?

    12. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what? I SO hope you are being sarcastic. But I KNOW you are. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. .... you are being sarcastic aren't you?

    13. Re:Terrible Summary by Jozer99 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I could be wrong, and I'm too lazy to check or care (take that flamebaiters!), but aren't those toads the ones that put out halucenogenic toxin if you lick them? I'm pretty sure it was bufotoxin.

    14. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are only about 30 years late with this article.

    15. Re:Terrible Summary by blindbat · · Score: 1

      So, what you are saying is, they are breeding with the kangaroos?

    16. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hahaha, you really think that id doesn't acknowledge microevolution. Now if the toads had turned into...let's say a walrus and iders' said macroevolution is still theory that would be something. Their legs got longer because of the environment favored it, no one debates that stuff like this has and does happen.

    17. Re:Terrible Summary by Belseth · · Score: 4, Funny
      What do they mean 'evolved'? I think that several school boards across the country will agree with me when I say that the toads did not evolve, they were 'improved' by a 'designer.'

      I'd like to take the opposite stance. Have you ever seen a Kane Toad? Anything that butte ugly couldn't have been Intellegently Designed so in fact proves the nonexistence of God! Wait a minute, God must be taken on faith. So if something so incredibly ugly exists then it must prove the nonexistence of God because to assume it must have been designed to rely on faith to prove God's existence then it proves God does not in fact exist. I was worried there for a moment. If anyone has any questions I'll be standing next to the Zebra Crossing sign.

    18. Re:Terrible Summary by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 1

      ...it's bewildering how the submitter could have misinterpreted the article so badly, and mystifying how the editor failed completely to catch the misinterpretation.

      You must be new here.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    19. Re:Terrible Summary by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      So... the toads that have longer legs and can therefore get to new food sources faster... are getting to new food sources faster?

      Every animal has a great potential for rapid adaptation to a new environment. It doesn't take many generations of highly selective breeding to alter an animal in ways that on the surface look very significant. Longer legs, beaks, different combinations of pigments, ... But in terms of DNA changes are really very minor, only selecting a different combination of attributes from an existing set.

      In defence of evolution, this kind of example is the only kind that is ever offered. Is this really enough to claim proof of a process that is supposed to be able to create completely new attributes and organs?

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    20. Re:Terrible Summary by snugge · · Score: 0

      20.000 eggs every few weeks? Hello?

      Cane toads mate once a *year*...

      (and is able to produce ~35.000 eggs, of which normally maybe 0.5% reach maturity)

    21. Re:Terrible Summary by pilkul · · Score: 1

      You don't do your position any good when you ascribe to your opponents opinions that they don't actually hold. All IDers acknowledge the existence of microevolution.

    22. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said in the article that the rest of the toads arrived soon after the 'long legged' guys - couldn't it simply be that in all populations there are minor differnces in the physical attributes and the long legged ones simply earlier because their slightly quicker? In the long run, they would become more dominant as they would always hit the food before the others... I'm down in Victoria near Melbourne in Australia, so we'll still have a little time to wait before they arrive here - will be interesting seeing them cross the desert too!!

    23. Re:Terrible Summary by LiquidEdge · · Score: 1

      I like it when the first post is 100 times better than the topic post could ever be.

      --
      Saving the World: One Drink at a Time
    24. Re:Terrible Summary by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes they are, its also quite common for dogs in Qld to deliberately get stoned the same way.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Terrible Summary by manin_cognito · · Score: 1

      where did you actually get that from? i've only ever seen the foaming at the mouth, blinded reaction from dogs getting anywhere near a cane toad, their poison is in no way mild, it;s caustic to skin if it come into contact with it. causing massive blisters etc, so i can only imagine what it would do to your tounge if you licked it. ash

    26. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you would develop longer legs too if you had to bound across Australia ... its a damn big place :)

    27. Re:Terrible Summary by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno. The Dinner Plates aspect has me intrigued.

      Still, it's a story that's got legs on it.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    28. Re:Terrible Summary by cutedinochick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Their legs got longer because of the environment favored it, no one debates that stuff like this has and does happen." Dude, that's called evolution. Macroevolution is one aspect of it, and neither micro- nor macroevolution are completely understood. And yeah, I would think ID doesn't acknowledge microevolution. Most evolutionists, however, do not see the two as being separate, fundamentally distinct phenomena - many see macro as being lots of steps of micro added up over time. And a toad turning into a walrus is a pretty ridiculous example. Even in macroevolution there are transformational morphologies, even if the fossil record doesn't always reveal them.

    29. Re:Terrible Summary by mikael · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and 'belseth' disappears in a puff of logic...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    30. Re:Terrible Summary by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But nobody believes that evolution works by one animal giving birth to another, completely different, animal. Evolution is about about gradual change over many thousands of years: thousands of tiny changes, over tens of thousands of generations. There are numerous examples of this in the fossil record.

      If you don't accept "macro-evolution" then you must believe there is something that prevents these thousands of small changes causing significant change over geological timescale. What on earth do you think this something is?

      And it's pointless asking what "ID" thinks or acknowledges: some ID proponents (e.g. Behe) accept macro-evolution and common descent but believe there are certain features which were designed. Other ID proponents seem to be nothing more than old fashioned creationists wearing new clothes.

    31. Re:Terrible Summary by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      I think that several school boards across the country will agree with me when I say that...

      Toxic Toads: What they call their students in the Teacher's Lounge?

      Or maybe a punk band...

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    32. Re:Terrible Summary by lgw · · Score: 1, Funny

      They're from Hawaii?

      More crap imported from the US.


      The problem is, you stopped there. What you needed was the follow up: import thousands of shotgun-wielding Dick Cheneys to blast the toads. And, of course, the beauty of the plan is that the Dick Cheneys die in the winter.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:Terrible Summary by ccav · · Score: 1

      Wow, toxic toads breeding with kangaroos??? Sounds like a really bad horror movie in the making; something along the lines of Night of the Lepus.

    34. Re:Terrible Summary by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      A toadaroo? or kangaroad? Ok. bufotoxaroo!

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    35. Re:Terrible Summary by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I can only quote Albert Einstein: "God is subtle, not malicious."

    36. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I respect that view. It does seem to make sense that if enough microevolution changes take place that maybe one species could morph into another. But the Cambrian Explosion nullifies that hypothesis. So we see how certain small changes could be favored and breeding makes the changes more permanent we don't see or have evidence of an animal turning into another through this process.

    37. Re:Terrible Summary by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      ...it's ... mystifying how the editor failed completely to catch the misinterpretation.

      It is? I thought the editors were selected for their ability to uphold the grand Slashdot tradition of not RTFA before commenting (or, in this case, "editing" ... and it's not like any other particular trait appears to be selected for) ... no?

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    38. Re:Terrible Summary by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.

      Thus the intelligent creation of "micro-evolution" as in - we have no way to dispute something that people have witnessed in thousands of experiments with fruit flies, not to mention every single evanglist dog breeder and cattle farmer in Texas.

    39. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard about Behe, I'll have to read up on how he refutes the fossil evidence. I'll investigate his articles to see what he offers up. Like I said to the last guy it can't be gradual because of the Cambrian Explosion, which turns the Darwin's tree of life upside-down. So if you use microevolution and fossil records you don't get macroevolution. It just doesn't add up. With the current data micro and macro evolution don't link together.

    40. Re:Terrible Summary by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      This kind of example is unfortunately the only one people can really see and record within a lifetime of research. We've been studying evolution for so short a time that "macroevolutionary" changes haven't really been observed yet - much of that info is from the (albeit incomplete) fossil record, which records millions of years of change. People have seen organisms diverge to the point of becoming reproductively isolated (easy to monitor in insects and birds) and to many biologists this is considered speciation, and is "macroevolution" happening before our eyes. Usually this takes so many generations to happen, and it is somewhat gradual even if you are a punctuated equilibriumist, that it is difficult for us to observe it.

      Also, even the tiniest DNA alteration can make a huge different in the morphology of the critter - some singular genes control very important and large features. One gene regulates digit length, for example, and in humans it is activated early on, but in bats it is activated much later, allowing a structure on which wings may also grow if selected for. So mutations can be huge.

      "New attributes and organs" don't really happen - evolution is regulated and limited by what an organism already has. Features that appear new always have an origin in the ancestor, and have been altered to prehaps have a new function.

    41. Re:Terrible Summary by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      Ah, good point. To a biologist the Cambrian "Explosion" is a big deal. However, to a geologist, the culmination of lots of diverse critters in basically one rock formation can be taphonomic, and have lots of bias. This is a big debate in paleontology - is this sudden diversity real, or a product of an imperfect fossil record that can time-average (make look like it came from the same time, when actually millions of years can be represented) fossils? Unfortunately, (like I said elsewhere in the comments) we haven't been studying evolution long enough to see big changes; most of this info comes from the fossil record, however we have observed speciation and can see the beginnings of macroevolution, if not macroevolution itself, in insects and birds, among others. It just takes intense observation of one population for decades or longer, and few studies have done that yet.

    42. Re:Terrible Summary by catwh0re · · Score: 3, Funny
      Here in Australia we've just discovered the Internet, so we're posting all our latest news articles from the 1930's to the Internet.

      Next week's lead article "Australia goes to battle against EVIL Nazis!", then in a few years time we'll post the article "Dingo eats baby in outback Australia."

    43. Re:Terrible Summary by kraut · · Score: 1

      Intelligent Designers wouldn't have anything to do with "Intelligent Design".

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    44. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAT'S the news? That frogs have "evolved" longer legs? Seriously I'm sure the members of a high school track team tend to have slightly longer legs than your normal student, basketball team as well. Let's say you drop a group of randomly chosen adults in the middle of the desert... wouldn't you assume the healthier ones would make it to water first? Then lets say they set up a little village in the desert by the water they found... wouldn't their kids tend to be healthier and probably taller than the potential offspring of the ones who died? Nobody has evolved, but the ones that survived passed on their genes.

    45. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But the Cambrian Explosion nullifies that hypothesis.

      How's that?

    46. Re:Terrible Summary by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nearly no intelligent designer writes off evolution. They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.

      Exactly. We believe that tiny changes occur every once in a while, and that those changes could influence the survivability of an animal and increase the likeliness that the trait would survive in its offspring, and that over a couple million years, that would happen many, many, many, many, many, many times, we just don't believe any of those changes could possibly produce sexual incompatibility. That would be crazy.

    47. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, what an interesting story. My life is complete.
      And yes, such a tragedy, missing the point! The world is coming to an end.
      WTF! get a life

    48. Re:Terrible Summary by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being labelled an IDer (I am not).

      Would the change in length of the leg of the toad be actual mutations? Or would they be the result of different combinations of existing genes? There is a dramatic difference.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    49. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Interesting, do you know what they are trying to do to work out debate on the fossil records? I want to examine this more. Also, I'd like to read up on where we have been able to observe the macroevolution of insects and birds. I haven't seen these points before. I just got interested in evolution vs. id and have been trying to keep up my knowledge base. Thanks for the compliment; I don't get it too much when talking about things like this.

    50. Re:Terrible Summary by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      If that were true the word "evolution" would be allowed in schools.

    51. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow this idiotic shit is funny?? Ok someone pass around some of that ganja seed!

    52. Re:Terrible Summary by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Why would it be crazy? In any case, I don't think you understand the length of time involved here. It's not like 10,000 years is an easy thing for humans to conceptualize, never mind 'a couple million.'

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    53. Re:Terrible Summary by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Thank god they're not long-legged toxic zombie vampire toads. That would make such a mockery of intelligent design.

    54. Re:Terrible Summary by e4g4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      For those interested in what this article claimed to be about (from the post), might I suggest a few people with a sense of humor, a case of beer, and this.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    55. Re:Terrible Summary by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      Jeez, I don't even know where to begin. I guess go to Google Scholar and type in Cambrian Explosion or taphonomy and try to access articles by the journals Paleobiology, Journal of Paleontology, or any taphonomy or geology journal, or search in university library collections. Or if you haven't done so already, any textbook on Evolution, Taphonomy or Historical Geology might help. Currently I'm reading Paleobiology II by Briggs and Crowther and that is excellent. It's always a good idea to keep up a knowledge base. Good luck.

    56. Re:Terrible Summary by miro+f · · Score: 1

      ermmm... here in Australia we all know about cane toads. It's pretty much common knowledge that the cane toads brought in were a complete failure, they never even ate the damn beetles they were supposed to. They've been causing issues for decades, and we all know what a problem this has caused, probably since about five years after they were introduced. I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge in America too (after all, it was in a Simpsons episode).

      The article submitter and the moderator must know absolutely nothing about Australia to have come up with such a terrible summary. I almost laughed at Yahoo news for posting this until I read the parent post

      Also, the cane toads were brought in from South America, not Hawaii

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    57. Re:Terrible Summary by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, I dunno.... it's hard to imagine the duck-bill platypus evolving naturally. Kinda makes it looks like that not only is there a God but he gets crazy-ass drunk occasionally too.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    58. Re:Terrible Summary by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ubik. For reals!

      Flow my tears, A scanner Darkly, and...

      VALIS! What happened here?

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    59. Re:Terrible Summary by aled · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What is this reality you are talking about?

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    60. Re:Terrible Summary by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      I guess I forgot the sarcasm tag.

    61. Re:Terrible Summary by ArchAbaddon · · Score: 1

      It must be funny, because I just spat soda on mey beyboard. Gotta clean it... again...

    62. Re:Terrible Summary by natmsincome.com · · Score: 1

      Sorry about this rant but it really annoys me when people mix up concepts and use them interchangeably.

      ----
      Natural selection is the process by which attribute (certain genes) of a population are removed or reduced because of the environment.

      Example: You have a population of rabbits. Half of them are put in boxes and are moved north where it snows and there are fewer predators. The other half is moved south where it is hotter and there are more predators. If you come back in a couple of hundred years the rabbits in the north will have longer hair and will be slower and store more fat whereas the one that were moved south would be faster and have shorter hair. Now the important thing to realise is that during this time no new information (DNA) has been added that wasn't in the original population. All that has happened is that information (DNA) has been removed. Depending on how long the populations are removed from each other for and how different the populations are they can lose the genes all together. Often some of the genes are recessive so if you swapped the south and north rabbits around they would eventually swap characteristics (As long as they survived the transition and enough genetic material survived). It the rabbits are isolated long enough the rabbits could either lose the combination of genes that are required for long or short hair.

      ----
      Evolution on the other hand talks about how mutations while over time cause one species to change into another.

      I can't give you an example because all observable mutation don't change animals from one species to another they just change the attributes of a species (e.g. blue roses aren't natural but they are still roses). If I knew of an example I'd share it but I can't find any. The wingless beetles are still beetles. The different finches are still finches.

      ----
      So the fact that the Australian cane toads on average have a longer average doesn't have jack to do with evolution and has everything to do with natural selection. Get the concepts right, they aren't the same! Cane toads with longer legs spread faster and have less competition from other cane toads is my guess. Notice that it's only the average length, which means cane toads in other countries have legs that are just as long as the cane toads in Australia so the genetic information isn't new. Basically cane toads in Australia are losing the genetic information to have short legs.

      On a slightly related note: This is one of the main reasons why preserving different varieties of plants is a booming industry at the moment as they are dying out and if they aren't preserved the genes will be gone forever (well not entirely true but till we know a lot more about genes it is). Without keeping the old seeds you can't add genetic information for reduced water consumption or increase heat resistance that the other seeds had (but they had lower crop rates). By getting the old seeds and breeding them with the current high yield seeds they can get a slightly lower yielding crop that uses less water and is more resistant to heat so they will provide a better crop in drought affect areas, etc.

    63. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up dumbass.

    64. Re:Terrible Summary by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      The evolutionary development story is interesting. But toads are not the only nuisance introduced to Australia or many other places for that matter. European foxes and rabbits, European rats and mice. All these also played havoc with the natural ecological balance of the region. Because these little critters evolved different dining habits, and also reproduced out of control.

      For instance, the foxes did not keep the rabbits in check, but instead exterminated a lot of the small ground dwelling animal and bird species. Then there were the feral goats on I think one of the Galapagos islands.

    65. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and long too. And posted less than two minutes after the story.

      Almost like it had been written up beforehand, combined with a pre-written terrible submission in order to get a positive score for insight!

      But that would never happen. Not on Slashdot...

    66. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cane Toads have had one small benificial side effect.

      The driving skills of many local golfers, especially in the three to seven iron range, have improved dramatically since the these little buggers have hit our shores.

    67. Re:Terrible Summary by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      This is also news for another reason. Not in TFA is the RSPCA fiasco. The RSPCA is worried that clubbing the toads to death is inhumane. So, stories are running around Australian papers that the RSPCA has pushed through a law making it illegal to club a toad - offenders will get a huge fine. The legal way to kill a toad is to smear it with hemorroid cream (to numb it) and then freeze it to death. I do not know if this story is actually true, but it is becoming a popular joke.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    68. Re:Terrible Summary by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Apologies all around. You just can't make ID jokes around here without riling someone up I guess. Didn't mean to be a prick.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    69. Re:Terrible Summary by docidu · · Score: 1

      "They're from Hawaii? More crap imported from the US. The problem is, you stopped there. What you needed was the follow up: import thousands of shotgun-wielding Dick Cheneys to blast the toads. And, of course, the beauty of the plan is that the Dick Cheneys die in the winter." if olny this were true...ahh, but we can dream anyhow.....youze aussies got any extra coupons for outback steakhouse? mabey we can hasten another heartattack on the face of evil....whats the point, he'll just snatch one still beating from one of our nations youth, and feast on the bloody corpse after the transplant... the USA is doomed in any case...

    70. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off bitch

    71. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No natural predators bitch

    72. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see, first post by tripmaster monkey getting rated fairly highly. Not really out of place around here. But then notice that the article was posted by scuttlemonkey, posted by an anonymouse user. Could Scuttlemonkey be TMM's alternate editor username? It would make sense, tripmaster often has longish comments rated quite insightfully early in the game, which would make him a good choice for choosing to be an editor. And the similarity in the monikers (I.E. both use the word monkey in conjunction with an apparantly unrelated word) could lead one to believe... that TMM and Scuttlemonkey are one in the same. This could be a potential case of editorial abuse.

      Okay, I'm ready for the offtopic/troll/flamebait ratings now. Or maybe even this post will just dissapear into the ether. I'd better get out my tinfoil helmet, and I've already got my important info in my tinfoil wallet.

    73. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down, "-1 Pathetic Attempt to be Douglas Adams"

      I mean really, have you no respect for comedic genius?

    74. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      If you think that macroevolution suggests that one modern animal turns into another, then you have no idea what you are talking about about. What common descent actually proposes is quite conservative: in fact, so conservative that life almost never leaves the taxonomic groups of its ancestors. Human beings are STILL apes, still primates, still eutherians, still tetrapods, still limbed verterbates, still chordates, still eukaryotes.

      Likewise, whatever species descend from frogs will all still be rightly grouped as "frogs," just as all frogs are still rightly grouped as amphibians, tetrapods, limbed vertebrates, chordates, etc.

      If that seems strange to you... then you don't know what you are talking about.

    75. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      You objectively don't know what you are talking about. One species "morphing" into another has not only been observed in real time, as well as shown to have happened in the past, but we understand in great detail the genetic mechanisms that make it happen. The Cambrian explosion doesn't in any way negate this, and if you think it does, you've been misled. Once upon a time, ID theorists proposed that we'd never find the precusors to the Cambrian chordates: that they just appeared out of nowhere. Oops, it wasn't much more than a year after that we turned up pre-cambrian chordates.

    76. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "I haven't heard about Behe, I'll have to read up on how he refutes the fossil evidence."

      He doesn't really, because he by and large accepts macroevolution.

      "Like I said to the last guy it can't be gradual because of the Cambrian Explosion, which turns the Darwin's tree of life upside-down."

      No, it doesn't. Two things are significant about the Cambrian Explosion: lots of diversity emerged faster than it normally does, and hard parts, which fossilize better, emerged en masse for the first time. But nothing about it suggests that none of these forms had precursors.

      "So if you use microevolution and fossil records you don't get macroevolution. It just doesn't add up. With the current data micro and macro evolution don't link together."

      Read this:
      http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Taxonomy.html

      You're not even close to correct on this one. The controversy about Gould and punc Eek has been GROSSLY mispresented.

    77. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "But in terms of DNA changes are really very minor, only selecting a different combination of attributes from an existing set."

      Which random mutation is constantly increasing, as well as adding greater capacity to...

      Do you know what tetrachromatism is? It's four-sample color vision, allowing those that have it to make out much finer shades of color as well as see into part of the UV spectrum. It has arisen recently, and currently only in women. How about ultra-dense, apparently unbreakable bones right out of a Bruce Willis movie? A family in Connecticut. Or immunity to LDH cholesterol? A mutation traced back to a guy in the 1700s.

      My point is that even in just very recent just human history, there are countless examples of quite radical new traits, not to mention tons of small drifts in one direction or another. And great apes are among the very _slowest_ in evolutionary change.

      "In defence of evolution, this kind of example is the only kind that is ever offered."

      This is often because it's the simplest to explain. We, for instance, know exactly how the speciation of abalones works, down to the gene by gene changes. But it would take me a long long time to explain, even assuming that you already have a background in genetics. And that's just one tiny example among countless, and that's one THE simplest speciations to explain. AND that's just the start of discussing the issue!

      If you'd like, though, this is always a great place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      What sort of evidence would YOU like to hear about?

    78. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      All? No. The organizing principle of ID is to not argue with fellow ID'rs about such matters. Heck microevolution? ID'rs include people that believe the earth is 6000 years old: it's just that people agree not to bring it up until evolution is destroyed.

      And those that do claim to accept microevolution often define it VERY differently from scientists, for instance, claiming that it does not and cannot "create new information." Which is, frankly, nonsense.

    79. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      It's not only crazy, but actually not much of a mystery how it happens. Unless yo uwere being sacrastic. Because yeah, people that admit that genetically motivated morphological change that can diverge an Asiatic wolf into a Pug or a Great Dane, but deny that the same process can ever create genetic incompatibility between isolated population ARE sort of unbelievable. Good grief: the morphological difference between a human and a basal ape is TINY. We have the same number of hair folicles, the same basic ear structures, the same molars... most of what we have is shorter hair, a bigger braincase, a rebalanced hip, and an indent in our palate. That's not much change at all: well within the degree to which people admit "microevolution" can do within a species. Why is it so hard to understand that reproductive isolation can lead to reproductive incompatibility due to genetic drift?

    80. Re:Terrible Summary by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      So, stories are running around Australian papers that the RSPCA has pushed through a law making it illegal to club a toad - offenders will get a huge fine

      The law preventing cruelty to animals, including cane toads, exists and penalties are severe.
      Clubbing toads is not illegal for people who are able to do so without inflicting excessive pain on the animal. However it is discouraged, partly because there were a lot of incidents where people had bufotoxin splash into their eyes. Freezing the toads is the recommended way of killing them. More here:

      http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDE R/IKMP/PW/VP/TOAD/CANETOAD_WELFARE.HTM

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    81. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Now the important thing to realise is that during this time no new information (DNA) has been added that wasn't in the original population. All that has happened is that information (DNA) has been removed."

      Which completes a process that serves to increase the information content in the gene pool as a whole. You see, first random variation adds noise. Selection is basically putting that noise through an environmental filter. The result is information about the environment encoded into DNA.

      "I can't give you an example because all observable mutation don't change animals from one species to another they just change the attributes of a species (e.g. blue roses aren't natural but they are still roses). If I knew of an example I'd share it but I can't find any. The wingless beetles are still beetles. The different finches are still finches."

      I hope this doesn't come as a shock, but scientists don't really use terms like "roses" or "wingless beetles" or even "finches." They use the taxonomic system. And, as it might interest you to know, since you seem to be under the illusion that it should, evolution never proposes that descendants move out of older taxonomic groups. All future descendants of roses will still be usefully classed as roses, just as roses are still usefully classed as flowering plants.

      For instance, the ancestors of human beings included first members who were Eukarya. Next there members that were Eukarya AND Opisthokonta. Then a sub-category of that which emerged was Animalia, then Eumetazoa, then Bilateria, then Coelemata, then Deuterostomata, then Chordata, then Craniata, then Vertebrata, then Gnathostomata, then Osteichthyes, then Sarcopterygii, then Stegocephali, then Tetrapoda, then Anthracosauria, then Amniota, then Synapsida, then Therapsidae, then Cynodonta, then Theria, then Eutheria, then Euarchontoglire, then Archonta, then Anthropoidea, then Haplorhini, then
      Catarrhini, then Hominoidea, then Hominidae, then Hominini, then Homo, then Homo Sapiens, then Homo Sapiens Sapiens. At no point in anywhere along that long ancestral change did anything cease to be a part of the parent group.

      Perhaps that's why you aren't finding examples of one creature turning into another: evolution doesn't suggest that anything of the sort happens. Speciation happens all the time, observably. It's just that it forms a branching pattern, not a lateral one as you suggest.

    82. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smoke the dried venom of the Bufo Alvarius (I'm not sure of the marinus species) toad which contains 5-meo-dmt. the t in dmt is tryptamine which is the backbone for a shitload of psychedelics, phenethylamine being the other one (not including feel good drugs and dissociatives).

      http://www.erowid.org/animals/toads/toads.shtml

    83. Re:Terrible Summary by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      Do you know what tetrachromatism is? It's four-sample color vision, allowing those that have it to make out much finer shades of color as well as see into part of the UV spectrum. It has arisen recently, and currently only in women.

      Tetrachromatism has been around forever. It's not restricted to humans, and its mechanism is no different than any other side effects of late Barr body formation. This is grade-school biology.

    84. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Tetrachromatism has been around forever. It's not restricted to humans"

      Uh, sorry, but no. Tetrachromatism is common in reptiles and birds (even pentachromatism), but in humans it IS a fairly recent (sex-linked) mutation, and certainly a different underlying trait (bird vision is quite different in terms of function). Apparently, you need some more grade school biology.

    85. Re:Terrible Summary by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We believe that tiny changes occur every once in a while, and that those changes could influence the survivability of an animal and increase the likeliness that the trait would survive in its offspring, and that over a couple million years, that would happen many, many, many, many, many, many times, we just don't believe any of those changes could possibly produce sexual incompatibility. That would be crazy.

      In this particular case, among toads at the vanguard, clearly it is beneficial to be long legged. Long legs are selected for. Possibly (this is speculation to illustrate a concept), for the toads at the rear (where there are many toads and fierce competition for food) it will be more valuable to, say, have better food economy, and thus smaller legs and body.

      If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that only the fastest vanguard toads and the most food-efficent rear toads have plenty of offspring, it would then very much be in the long-legged toads' interest to reproduce with long-legs and for the short-legs to reproduce with short legs, so as to spawn successful specialists and not a mediocre hybrids.

      Is it so crazy to think that such discrimination can evolve? Does a gene for "mate with toad with long legs" really need to be much more complex than a gene "make longer legs"? It could be some other mechanism than sexual preference also; it can be any other sort of behavioral or mating difference that predisposes the toads to mate with their own kind.

      Actual incompatibility in terms of *inability* to spawn fertile offspring may not come until much later. At the point when different subpopulations don't typically mate anyway it doesn't really matter much from an evolutionary perspective if they are physically capable or not (note for example horses and donkeys, which do get offspring, once in a great while even fertile offspring). The actual inability can come after a long time, when the (already) reproductively isolated populations have accumulated a lot of different mutations.

      Of course this was just a simplified story, but there is empirical evidence as well. In last week's issue of Nature (or was it Science?), they identified two fish species in the same isolated lake, mapped their DNA, and traced them to a single ancestor ten thousand years ago or so.

      Tor

    86. Re:Terrible Summary by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      I've never seen them in person but from what I've read you're correct. Licking them is definitely not the way to go about it, unless you're a real masochist.

      The bufotoxin is collected from the skin and dried, then smoked. Someone must have really been thinking outside the box to come up with that.

    87. Re:Terrible Summary by zopf · · Score: 1

      I liken evolution to pissing off the empire state building. As time goes by and the piss falls down, the single stream spreads and separates with some drops closer to each other than others. Some of the piss evaporates mid-air, and some of it lands on little ledges on the way down. Little by little, we keep finding those little fossilized drops of piss, and with enough time and memory, surely we'll be able to trace it all back to that first glorious stream.

      The hard part comes here: imagine that that metaphorical piss takes 3.8 billion years to reach the ground. If we ran a video of piss falling through the air at even one thousandth of the real speed, it would be extremely difficult to see any significant change. Now imagine running that video at less than one billionth of the real speed. Asking for a reproducible experiment of macroevolution on the timescale of even ten scientists' lifetimes is obviously unreasonable... it just doesn't happen that fast.

      To say that microevolution does not demonstrate a strong premise for macroevolution is like saying that the existence of a foot, as proven by a ruler, does not necessarily prove the existence of the mile. It's all a matter of observable scale.

      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    88. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately cane toads seem to find each other attractive - even without the use of alcohol.

      Just another poor species that is suffering from one of gods drunken practical jokes

    89. Re:Terrible Summary by m00nun1t · · Score: 1

      Is there an actual *evolution* - a change - or just a change in the proportion, ie, there were a small percentage of long legged toads before, and now there is a large percentage? MANY modern cases of evolution are simply a change in proportion.

    90. Re:Terrible Summary by Gumber · · Score: 1

      If the toads turned into wallruses, I'd toss out evolution and intelligent design and sign up for creationism (or satanism)

    91. Re:Terrible Summary by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1

      Which completes a process that serves to increase the information content in the gene pool as a whole. You see, first random variation adds noise. Selection is basically putting that noise through an environmental filter. The result is information about the environment encoded into DNA.
      Filters? Noise? I think you have mixed something up here: DNA is not audio.

      Besides, I would think that even if what you said was a good analogy, the filters would be filtering out the resultant DNA and the noise too: i.e. the resultant DNA has less diversity than what it had to start with, noise included. As the GP said, they adapt by removing genes, they don't mutate new ones. Also, genetic 'noise' in an isolated population isn't that large in the first place.

      evolution never proposes that descendants move out of older taxonomic groups.
      But if these 'mutations' are enough to make new ones, (in other words enough to form a macroevolution,) wouldn't that bring the newer species out of the older taxonomic groups?

      In other words:
      Natural Selection > Evolution
      Natural Selection != Evolution
      Evolution is flawed.
      Evolution is history.
      Bring on the Natural Selection.

    92. Re:Terrible Summary by master_gopher · · Score: 0

      Um. Your above example is an excellent example of natural selection, the mechanism that drives evolution. Passing on of useful genes = whole population better adapted = evolution towards being better adapted to environment. That's what evolution IS.

    93. Re:Terrible Summary by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Why would a combination of the small changes not produce sexual incompatibility? One or two changes would lead to sterility (such as mules), and from there on, the differences just increase.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    94. Re:Terrible Summary by Deluge · · Score: 1

      I thought microevolution only applied to microorganisms? Wouldn't a complex organism developing longer legs fall under macroevolution?

      BTW I'm not an ID'er in case anyone got the wrong idea.

    95. Re:Terrible Summary by douglaid · · Score: 1

      It is true that they have been here for a while, but only recently (within the last 12 months or so) they have been spreading more quickly and beyond the limits of Queensland, where the sugar cane is grown. They now have the potential to upset the national ecology, not just locally. That is the new concern. I am in Victoria, and unlikely to see one for a while yet.

    96. Re:Terrible Summary by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      No, no. God created kane toads in his own image. :-)

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    97. Re:Terrible Summary by blackdropbear · · Score: 1

      You better beleive that it does cause sexual incompatibility - with my ex - whenever I wanted sex she had a headache.

    98. Re:Terrible Summary by snugge · · Score: 0

      so they mate more often with no predators around?

    99. Re:Terrible Summary by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
      BUT How can a Darwinian evolutionist ever hope to convince anyone that they grew longer legs so they can travel faster, cover more ground?
      Surely there must be an element of "Group Toad Consciousness" where they know it's ok to grow longer legs cause there is more room?
      Same thing with the Mammoths, who 'evolved' smaller to suit the environment it found itself before extinction. Also small human skeletons found in Indonesia!
      There must be some kind of unseen force at play here.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    100. Re:Terrible Summary by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      One species "morphing" into another has not only been observed in real time, as well as shown to have happened in the past, but we understand in great detail the genetic mechanisms that make it happen

      youd be helping greatly by posting a source, if youve got a link. id enjoy reading more about this, as, Im sure, would others not familiar with your example.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    101. Re:Terrible Summary by somersault · · Score: 1

      I agree, even I knew that australia had problems like this, and that was just from watching the Simpsons >_>

      What I want to know is when they're going to bring in predators for the frogs, then predators for those predators, and so on.. what a bunch of dumbasses .. hehe

      --
      which is totally what she said
    102. Re:Terrible Summary by somersault · · Score: 0

      "has not only been observed in real time"

      how about some links/facts backing up them thar claims? I wouldnt exactly call biological birth etc as needing to be seen in real time, it is something that usually takes at least a few weeks, and I dont think any species has literally turned into another in 'real time' (I would regard a real time operation as something which needs to be measured very carefully down to a small fraction of a second, whereas most people seem to say that macro evolution takes thouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusands of yeaaaaaaaaars..) in front of a scientist's eyes.

      Also if we really understand these genetic mechanisms so well, then how come there is no proof of macro evolution, no simulation that seems to prove it, etc.. and dont use circular reaasoning.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    103. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
      Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
      Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
      Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
      Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
      Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    104. Re:Terrible Summary by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      The Cambrian explosion *was* gradual. It took place over at least 10 million years, and quite possibly longer. And remember we're dealing with organisms that will go through many generations within a year.

      It's called an "explosion" because this is much smaller timescale than most other evolutionary changes preserved in the fossil record. But it's not even remotely a small timescale by our standards. No scientist has ever thought it "turns Darwin's tree of life upside-down", whatever that means.

      Where are you getting this crap? Aren't you even slightly worried by the fact that someone has spoon-fed you stuff that's completely untrue?

    105. Re:Terrible Summary by devross · · Score: 1

      I dunno. The Dinner Plates aspect has me intrigued.

      Me too! I immediatly invisioned a post toad-apocyliptic world where all there was to eat was toad with a light drizzle of spicy bufotoxsauce. Sounds tasty.

      --


      If these walls could talk they'd probly still ignore me. --MF DOOM
    106. Re:Terrible Summary by Ventriloquate · · Score: 1

      Just look at Humans! Now those are some crazy weird creatures!

    107. Re:Terrible Summary by mikael · · Score: 1

      BUT How can a Darwinian evolutionist ever hope to convince anyone that they grew longer legs so they can travel faster, cover more ground?

      Simple. Consider a group of Australians who are looking for a 'cricket ball' for their afternoon game. They see some cane toads at the edge of a field, and start running towards them. The cane toads start hopping away. However, the slowest one (with the shortest legs) gets caught by the humans first, while the others escape.

      Thus, by culling the slowest cane toads, the Australians are effectively causing evolution of faster cane toads (which have longer legs).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    108. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Besides, I would think that even if what you said was a good analogy, the filters would be filtering out the resultant DNA and the noise too: i.e. the resultant DNA has less diversity than what it had to start with, noise included."

      No, because variation is constantly increasing due to mutation and other factors. Granted, natural selection can indeed outpace it: in fact one of the major conclusions about what natural selection functionally does on a macroevolutionary scale is that it SLOWS DOWN morphological change, rather than speeding it up.

      "As the GP said, they adapt by removing genes, they don't mutate new ones."

      But they do mutate new ones: that's the "noise." Traits aren't beneficial or detrimental until they are expressed and shoved up against some environmental pressure. How do you think the variation of "longer/shorter" legs got to be there in the first place?

      "But if these 'mutations' are enough to make new ones, (in other words enough to form a macroevolution,) wouldn't that bring the newer species out of the older taxonomic groups?"

      No. Macroevolution works by branching at the tips of the twigs, not on the trunk, so to speak. New species always belong to all the same "older" groups as their direct ancestors.

    109. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Oh, my bad. I thought that evolution started with a single cell organism and than over very large periods of time morphed into different types of multi celled organisms and so on until all that we see today. I didn't realize the theory had been updated.

    110. Re:Terrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Classroom dialog*

      Little Billy, "Teacher why does that frog have longer legs?"

      Teacher, "Because god wanted him that way, now lets get back on how to properly tie a witch to a burning post...."

    111. Re:Terrible Summary by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Doug? Is that you Doug?

    112. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Interesting read. A couple questions though. It talks about whales and snakes being similar but can't breed, and then it talks about human families with cousins and siblings. It seems to show that yes the humans are the same because technically all the people in the same family can breed with each other but the whales and snakes can. So they are totally different, at least from what the author of this points out. The article also seems show a more conservative evolution. It says there where a bunch of different organisms that changed into all the life we see today. So not everything stems from a single cell through the tree of life. With this I would say that naturalism doesn't explain life on earth. Are they trying to reconcile this or is it new to evolutionary? Also the genetics part seemed weird. Life on earth is pretty complex. How many ways can dna make the proteins needed for an arm? So because our arms and apes arms are similar than I would think the genetic codes would be similar. So if something looks or has a similar internal makeup similar to something else one would have to assume that the dna would be a pretty close match.

    113. Re:Terrible Summary by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      What if they evolve to Poliwags?

    114. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, I like the analogy. I guess our faith needs to be put somewhere, whether evolution or design.

    115. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I would have to say the same thing to you. Here's an article I found on it. There's others if you just look up cambrian explosion and or darwin tree of life and upside down. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cach e:tSQAUDJFdDsJ:63.74.14.138/pubs/btg/btg-150.pdf+d arwin+tree+upside-down

    116. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, I think evolution would then finally have it's smoking gun.

    117. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      By showing that all of a sudden, relatively short period of time with no transitional fossils, we have all or most of the phylas that we see today.

    118. Re:Terrible Summary by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      But this is just based on lies.

      It says the Cambrian explosion was "sudden". This is either a lie or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The Cambrian period was at least ten million years long. During the Cambrian we see a slow increase in diversity and complexity, with species evolving millions of years apart.

      And the Cambrian is not the only period of significant diversification. The first fossils of many important groups (e.g. plants!) appear in the Ordovician period.

      Ask yourself why this article is saying things that simply aren't true.

    119. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Yes it was. But for the history of living organisms on this planet it accounts for like 2% of time they have been here, I don't have the exact number. So all of a sudden there's a bunch of different phyla's with no transitional fossils and then no macroevolution takes place after that. So microevolution didn't cause the macroevolution of the cambrian period. And I would ask you to do the same. Why would a lot of evolutionists disregard data that doesn't help prove their theory? All the data is picked apart from both sides. New data comes along that seems to be the smoking gun for one side and is then discredited by the other. We just need to keep studying and go where the data points us. I'm not saying that iders don't do the same thing. It seems that for this particular subject there will be no objective science. People have put too much faith in either side and no one wants to back down. With the way the data comes in by helping either side it's tough to know which one is right. I say put your faith where you want. I believe God created the creatures of this world and you believe evolution did it. I do like dialoging about it though. It's always interesting to see what new scientific data has revealed to us.

    120. Re:Terrible Summary by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Please. This doesn't even constitute speciation, which creationists readily acknowledge.

    121. Re:Terrible Summary by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      "All of a sudden"? Are you reading what I say? There is nothing "sudden" about ten million years.

      "And then no macroevolution takes place after that"? So, by your definition of "macroevolution", evolution from Cambrian organisms to modern organisms didn't involve "macroevolution"? Impressive.

      You can cut the relativism crap. There aren't two comparable sides. There are scientists: Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist or whatever, investigating the world to the best of their ability, and developing theories which change as more is discovered about the world. And there are a few well funded outfits of religious zealots, mostly non-scientists, doing no research and publishing the same old crap year after year, knowing that it's false but not giving a toss.

    122. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      There is no good substitute for doing a journal search and reading about this stuff directly. Talkorigins has reams of this stuff: it was set up to BE a resource for showing laypeople the actual biology. And here's a decent recent example described pretty well in terms of the way in which reproductive incompatibility occurs in abalone, one of the very simplest and easiest to understand examples (scroll down belwo the reply box):
      http://p222.ezboard.com/freligiousdebate60574frm43 .showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=2.topic&index=1 6

    123. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Interesting read. A couple questions though. It talks about whales and snakes being similar but can't breed, and then it talks about human families with cousins and siblings. It seems to show that yes the humans are the same because technically all the people in the same family can breed with each other but the whales and snakes can."

      I assume you meant "cannot."

      "So they are totally different, at least from what the author of this points out."

      I'm not sure what you're asking. Yes, whales and snakes are different from each other, though in some ways they are actually very very similar. They can't breed because we wouldn't expect species that have diverged so long ago to have compatible genomes. Once species are no longer in the same reproductive gene pool, there is no force keeping them close enough together, and they drift off in different directions, eventually becoming incompatible.

      "The article also seems show a more conservative evolution."

      Indeed! One of the things people don't seem to realize about evolution is that it is taxonomically very conservative. The changes it proposes are almost never radical digressions from the past. In fact, descendants of something almost never leave the taxonomic groups to which their ancestors belonged.

      "It says there where a bunch of different organisms that changed into all the life we see today. So not everything stems from a single cell through the tree of life."

      Well, it basically DOES say that. The real confusion near the very beginning is that a) life probably started with something far simpler than any cell apparent today and b) early life almost certainly swapped around genetic material without reproduction, making tracing any exact lineage hard and almost meaningless. But the basic idea of all of life's diversity starting from basic protobionts is still very much the same, as is the tree of life.

      "Also the genetics part seemed weird. Life on earth is pretty complex. How many ways can dna make the proteins needed for an arm? So because our arms and apes arms are similar than I would think the genetic codes would be similar. So if something looks or has a similar internal makeup similar to something else one would have to assume that the dna would be a pretty close match."

      Yes, and indeed that's exactly what we find. The exceptions are helpful to look at too. Sometimes we'll find traits in creatures that developed indepedently, such as shark fins and dolphin fins. They LOOK pretty similar to each other. But genetically, they are not. So humans have ape arms, but dolphins don't have shark fins. That fits in perfectly with what the tree of life predicts.

    124. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Well with almost all of the evolution taking place in less than 2% of the time creatures have been on earth does put a damper on slow small changes that macroevolution takes. I guess maybe the terminology is changing again. When I was younger there was evolution and natural selection. I thought now it was microevolution, natural selection, and macroevolution, evolution. All I'm saying is single celled organisms didn't evolve into what we see today. And you are right there are scientists that are coming up with data and reviewing others data and there are those that don't take into account any new data just using the old because at one time it worked. There are those on the other side of the fence that do the same thing. With how heated this debate is objective science is hard to come by.

    125. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      There is no "updated" in what I described. The first eukaryotes were single celled. Multicellular eukaryotes are a SUBGROUP of eukaryotes, not something completely new. Multicellular eukaryotes with bony parts are a subgroup of multicellular eukaryotes, not something completely new. At no point does anything tantamount to a cat evolving into a dog ever happen. What does happen is that existing creatures are modified over time. But the modifications are actually relatively small potatoes: they never amount to radically shifting into new, higher forms of life. Humans are still mammals, birds are still tetrapods, elephants are still eukaryotes.

    126. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "and I dont think any species has literally turned into another in 'real time'"

      Of course they have. The biological species concept requires only reproductive incompatibility to arise to separate one species from another. This has been observed to happen countless times in multicellular life within human lifetimes.

      "Also if we really understand these genetic mechanisms so well, then how come there is no proof of macro evolution, no simulation that seems to prove it, etc.. and dont use circular reaasoning."

      Not only is there proof of macroevolution, but it's regarded as an almost blase fact by biologists. I have no idea what you mean by "no similation seems to prove it" or "there is no proof." That's ridiculous.

      Start here:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    127. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I guess what I'm saying is because some life is similar doesn't mean that they evolved from a root ancestor. Beaks of finches might serve as an example; they are still finch's just different beaks. With 90% of the phyla showing up in fewer than 2% of animals being here it seems that it would be hard for simple organism to mutate into a bunch of complex ones and then stop evolving, those figures might not be exact but they are pretty close. Or at least leave some evidence of it happening. It would be like saying the next version of the ENIAC, pretty much the first computer, was the DOE/NNSA/LLNL, top rated supercomputer, without showing the years of progression. This is a really bad example when compared to a single celled organism eventually becoming the animal life we see today.

    128. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "I guess what I'm saying is because some life is similar doesn't mean that they evolved from a root ancestor."

      That's true, which is why mere similarity is not really the story. The story is finding a very particular pattern of similarities AND differences, and finding the same exact pattern in every which way we can think to look at the evidence. AND having all of those apparent links match what we find in the fossil record. AND having all those connections match up with what we know of geological history, population statistics, and so on.

      Remember also that it's not only the functional expressed parts of genes that match up: it's also the non-important parts too. For instance, all living things have a protein called cytochrome C. This protein, while basic to all life functioning (and hence ubiquitous) can come in many different forms. Like most proteins, you can change lots of parts of its sequence without affecting its function much or at all. And so, when we look at this protein in different creatures alive today, we find that random differences have cropped up in the non-important parts of the protein (those that don't affect it's function, and so hence natural selection doesn't actively work on) in such a way that creatures who are supposedly more distantly related have more distantly related versions of cytochrome C. There is no reason that this pattern (which, again, matches up with the fossils, the other genetic tests, the morphological groupings, and so on) should exist, and yet it does. It's the fact that all the evidence converges on the same conclusion that convinces scientists that common descent is so certain. If it wasn't true, then there is no real reason why all these things would converge. If any one of them were in error, or if somehow ALL were in error, the answers they gave should be random, not matched up.

      "Beaks of finches might serve as an example; they are still finch's just different beaks."

      The problem is that once you really start to look at life as biologists look at it, there is no real distinction between "different beaks" and "different finches" and "different creatures." All are just matters of some degree or another. For instance, between apes and men, not much is different in the structures of our faces other than the shapes of our jaws and our hair being finer and shorter.

      "With 90% of the phyla showing up in fewer than 2% of animals being here"

      Wait, I'm not sure I got what this means. 90% of the phyla: which phyla, and what "here"?

      "it seems that it would be hard for simple organism to mutate into a bunch of complex ones and then stop evolving, those figures might not be exact but they are pretty close."

      I'm not sure to what the figures are referring to, please explain in more detail for me. I'm also not sure what you mean by "stop evolving." While different forms of life evolve at different rates, and major morphological changes tend to be pretty stop and go as far as becoming fixed in a population, nothing really "stops" evolving unless it stops reproducing and/or dies out.

    129. Re:Terrible Summary by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      "Thus, by culling the slowest cane toads...."

      Typical Darwinian explanation, except that the shorter legged Cane toads aren't being eaten/killed/culled. The long legs seems to be a response to their environment.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    130. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Here's one article that shows what that might not have happened. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosym biont.asp Here's a longer one I found about eukaryotes but seems like it's probably less biased. http://blog.nerac.com/2005/08/25/actin-%E2%80%93-a n-ageless-protein-with-an-intelligent-design/ We should invest more resources in a time machine and end the debate once and for all;).

    131. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree with you there. Life on this planet is very similar. We could even throw in that it's all carbon-based life. But unless a transitional form is found we still have just lots of life with similarities. On the phyla thing, this site seems to show what I was talking about. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHI CS-CAPTIONS/sub2.html For stop evolving your right, there are always changes. I guess I mean that we see a bunch of radically different life forms in a very short period of time and from there on we don't see the same thing ever happen again. Life changes to fit the environment, but we never get bacteria changing into something else that changes into something else and so on until it's unrecognizable as coming from bacteria.

    132. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      Actually, that first article is about endosymbiosis, which is what I was talking about in the other post: mitochondria and some other organelles are now thought to have originally been parasites or symbiotes that got embedded in other cells. Of course, I wouldn't trust AiG's take on this (indeed, a lot of their "questions" seem woefully uninformed about the basics of things like reproduction and so on)

      The second article is about another of the ubiquitous proteins: i.e. a component of living things that seems so basic to all life that it's present everywhere and conserved against too much change. Actin is a protein that is seemingly so central to the function of a cell that it hasn't diverged much at all (though it has diverged somewhat). You can do the same tests with actin that you do with cytochrome C, and you get the same results: the same tree (at least to the extent that you get much detail at all, since as the article notes, most animal life has the same sequence of actin and its only when you start comparing animal life to other kingdoms that you start to see differences)

      The main points of both articles pretty much confirm what I was talking about (aside from the sniping of the AiG writer, endosymbiosis is considered to be quite real, and while it complicates the story about the origins of life, it doesn't contradict them).

    133. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the correction. I guess I wasn't sure exactly what about eukaryotes you were using. Can you give me an article to read about your point? Thanks. Also, thank you for the dialogue, I think I learn more with these conversations than anything else. Only because I want to make sure I at least read some articles on subjects I'm not totally sure about before forming an opinion. Oh and that first article I know was biased, to me it seemed to fit what you were getting at but I was wrong.

    134. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Life on this planet is very similar. We could even throw in that it's all carbon-based life. But..."

      Note: I didn't just say that it's very similar. It's that there is a single particular a pattern of similarity AND difference that we find confirmed from every angle we look at things. In addition, life groups by its nature into nested clades where certain sets of features are strongly correlated throughout time. That sort of pattern only ever exists for one reason: when traits are passed via ancestry. Indeed, just as we can run a DNA test (which is basically a test looking for degrees of grouped/correlated traits between two samples) to figure out that you are your mother's son, we can run the same exact sort of DNA test to find out that humans are related to monkeys. The underlying logic works the same way: if it's valid for paternity, why not for evolution?

      "But unless a transitional form is found we still have just lots of life with similarities. "

      I'm not sure what you mean. Transistional forms are all over the fossil record. Of course, it's important to understand that the idea of there being a special "transitional" thing as opposed to other "normal" life is misleading. All the creatures that ever lived are "transitional" in a very real sense, even if they may not have left offspring (most don't make it).

      A really knock-dead impressive transitional form is generally one which happens to have features which are normally unique to two different groups of modern animals. For instance, a certain number of digits with fingernails are unique to a particular group of land mammals, and nostrils pushed up the head are unique to whales. That's why fossils with both traits are considered "transitional" between modern whales and land mammals. But keep in mind that if some branch of these transitional creatures had by happenstance lived on without losing their hind legs, then no one would have thought true whales to be uniquely possessing blowholes in the first place.

      Ah, so reading the article you posted I see what the problem is. Where this article goes radically off base is where it assumes that there is something special or more fundamental about "phyla" emerging for the first time in Cambrian. But remember, taxonomic groups are classifications we created first to describe and group MODERN animals. Applying that system to the past can thus be a little confusing when we start thinking about ancient animals, because we forget that modern animals are descended from ancient animals, and thus have a lot more categories and groups, having undergone many many more divisions and so much more change. But this doesn't mean that just because we can class a Cambrian creature into a species within a phyla that the sudden emergence of its "entire" phyla is any more distressing than the sudden emergence of domesticated dogs from wolves in their time. These "phyla" only became distinct from each other as differences between the species magnified over time. The first appearance of a phyla in ancient times should not be interpreted as anything more stunning than the appearance of a new species in recent times.

      This is because while the "different bodyplans" may well have become very distinct far down the road, when the only modern examples of each of those plans are quite different from each other, but back in the Cambrian, the "bodyplans" they speak of are really not all that different from one another. Nor do they really appear without any precusors at all, as the graphs purport to show. The Cambrian explosion does represent a big increase in the diversity of multicelluar forms, but remember that this was back when most of those forms were still pretty simple. The simpler somethings structure is, the easier it is to experiment with different concepts, since you aren't yet as committed to any particular structural constraints. And in any case, plenty of pre-Cambrian life has been found that fills in many of the seemingly unrooted appearances (most notably are the pre-Cambrian

    135. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      Sorry, hit post too soon:
      "I guess I mean that we see a bunch of radically different life forms in a very short period of time and from there on we don't see the same thing ever happen again."

      Again, this is a confusion based on the misunderstanding of how taxonomic classifications work. All modern life has to have been descended from at least one of the things alive in the Cambrian era. That means that all modern life is subsumed underneath and inside one of the categories made up of the creatures alive at that time. But that doesn't mean that life today is necessarily an less radically different from other Cambrian lifeforms than Cambrian lifeforms were from each other. I would certainly argue that a dinosaur is far far more radically different from a trilobyte than a chordate is from a trilobyte. And yet dinosaurs ARE classed as chordates!

      "Life changes to fit the environment, but we never get bacteria changing into something else that changes into something else and so on until it's unrecognizable as coming from bacteria."

      Well again, that's right, because evolution is pretty conservative. For instance, we are all STILL, even after all this time, Eukaryotes and Opisthokonts. Our ancient one-celled ancestors were also Eukaryotes and Opisthokonts, but the no frills versions: they were JUST nucleated cells with flagella, without any of the high order cell specialization and multi-cellular coordination that we have. But look closely at all our cells, and you can see that we are characteristically and recognizeably still eukaryotes and opisthokonts.

    136. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      Here's a good article on what endosymbiosis is all about:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory
      It took decades before enough evidence amassed to convince most biologists that it was true.

    137. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I guess I can see how dna could show that. But also, how many ways are there to make a wheel, quite a few but they are all still wheels. Fingers, hearts, lungs, etc. pretty much act the same way and perform the same functions. But aren't evolutionists looking for the whale with legs. At that point they can say what was a whale walked on land and helped form land mammals. It sounds like evolutionists have given up on that. The body plans are different enough to warrant a different classification. I'm human just like someone from Africa is human and someone from Japan is human as well.

    138. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Yes I would say life from that period would be different to a degree. It seems like there was simple life forms than boom a bunch of different ones. There's going to be change over time but such a radical event seems like it would either seriously change evolutionary theory or dump it for a new one. What source are you using that humans came from eukaryotes and opisthokonts? I'm finding lots of for and against on this subject. I guess I'm looking for the smoking gun, which isn't going to happen.

    139. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "I guess I can see how dna could show that. But also, how many ways are there to make a wheel, quite a few but they are all still wheels. Fingers, hearts, lungs, etc. pretty much act the same way and perform the same functions. But aren't evolutionists looking for the whale with legs."

      Sure. And indeed, there are several key fossils showing the transition from land mammal to whale: which includes the titular "whale with legs" (though, remember, a whale is a modern animal: this creature is one that has features of BOTH land mammals and modern whales).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus

      In fact, modern whales are actually sometimes (very rarely) born with legs, just as humans are occasionallu born with tails (and like humans, whose embryos form and then reabsorb tails, whale embryos form and then reabsorb legs).

      "At that point they can say what was a whale walked on land and helped form land mammals. It sounds like evolutionists have given up on that."

      I'm not sure what you mean. Not only have they not given up on it, but genetic testing that showed that whales were most closely related to land mammals in a particular part of the world is exactly what directed them to look for transitional fossils in the place they eventually found the "whale with legs."

      "The body plans are different enough to warrant a different classification. I'm human just like someone from Africa is human and someone from Japan is human as well."

      The problem is that there is no "different enough" in morphology anymore than there comes a point where a pile of salt becomes a dune of salt, added grain by grain.

    140. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Yes I would say life from that period would be different to a degree. It seems like there was simple life forms than boom a bunch of different ones."

      Which were, at least compared to modern life, still pretty simple, and still obviously quite related to each other. And keep in mind that the "boom" took place spread out over the course of 30 million years: pretty fast in terms of evolutionary pace, but no small potatoes either.

      "There's going to be change over time but such a radical event seems like it would either seriously change evolutionary theory or dump it for a new one."

      Evolution did change to some extent: things like the Cambrian Explosion did away with a view which was known as phyletic gradualism, which was the idea that the amount of morphological change in all living things was constant. In contrast to that, most biolgoists today think that changes are more stuttery: populations remain fairly stable for longer periods of time after they reach equilibrium, and then burst out and change a lot faster when the environment changes and they have to adapt.

      Genetics also seems to confirm this, in that most of the genetic code is unexpressed: mutational change to it don't actually affect anything, so bigger changes tend to come in clumps rather than at a steady rate. Likewise, studies in populations today show that creatures are actually capable of changing many many many time FASTER than what we see in the fossil record: faster even, in fact, than anything seen in the Cambrian explosion. That means that a lot of what natural selection does is not speeding up change, but rather slowing it down.

      "What source are you using that humans came from eukaryotes and opisthokonts?"

      Well, all of our cells are eukaryotic. And our reproductive cells are always obvious opisthokonts, as opposed to using cillia or some other means of propulsion found elsewhere in life. As for how we know that we are descended from...

      "I'm finding lots of for and against on this subject. I guess I'm looking for the smoking gun, which isn't going to happen."

      Well that link I posted before is a good start(the main page is just the start of things: the real meat is in the taxonomic class-by-class discussion of our ancestry:
      http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Clades.htm#An%20or ganism%20is%20any%20organic%20(Carbon-based)%20RNA /DNA%20protien%20which%20replicates%20&%20reproduc es.

      The talk.origins common descent FAQ is also a really great start:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    141. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Here's an article that might show a problem with the basilosarus. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p hp/id/839 There's a section on whales there that was interesting. For the embryos I thought all vertebras develop in this fashion. But I haven't looked at a tree of life in a while I'm sure that it states all vertebras come from the same lineage. I see your point on morphology. I'm leery than about that discipline of science. If anything can morph into anything than what good is it?

    142. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Interesting, seems like a good theory. I'm going to have to read up on these. I thank you for the dialogue. I'm going to read more extensively on these subjects as I'm am of no way an authority in them. It's been easy enough to take something from a current evolution pro and find an id con for it. At least that way I can see what both sides say before making a conclusion. One thing cool about all this is there's so much back and forth in the science. But at least I don't have to sit around with no knowledge of the subjects when it's brought to life.

    143. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Here's an article that might show a problem with the basilosarus. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p hp/id/839 There's a section on whales there that was interesting."

      The best I can say is that he makes a good try of it, but ultimately he's arguing upriver (and apparently this was written before the discovery of far more of the fossil remnants of the creatures he lists as incomplete). He also misuses plenty of concepts like, for instance, vestigial, which he implies MUST be functionless. But the point of vestigial features is not whether or not they retain some function or not: it's that they are examples of a trait obviously adapted from a previous usage and, in this case, eventually lost altogether. All this handwaving never quite explains why it is that fossils with features unique to both modern whales and land mammals doesn't conclusively demonstrate that there once existed creatures who were at the very least indirectly ancestral to both groups.

      "For the embryos I thought all vertebras develop in this fashion."

      Well, finned fish never form leg buds, and they are vertebrates. Dolphin embryos develop in a characteristically tetrapod fashion, despite not ultimately (at least normally) having four legs.

      "But I haven't looked at a tree of life in a while I'm sure that it states all vertebras come from the same lineage."

      Well, yes. But that doesn't mean that all vertebrates have the same traits. Some vertebrates, like birds, have wings. Others, like mammals, bear live young. And so on.

      "I see your point on morphology. I'm leery than about that discipline of science. If anything can morph into anything than what good is it?"

      But anything can't morph into anything. An insect can't morph into a dolphin: it can only give birth to modified insects. Likewise, a eukaryote cannot start producing prokaryote cells. If evolution is true, then the changes that life can go through are constrained in many many sorts of ways. The fact that all observed life seems to obey those constraints is another good reason why we think common descent is so certain.

    144. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I'll have to find a newer article for this. It was just the first in the list I found. I probably should have done research but I wanted to keep up the dialogue and not drag it from days into months. I was thinking of the tail thing for human embryos. The offspring of animals do differ but not by much. I guess with evolution now going with such small successions of changes there never will be a transformational phase. As long as any creature is similar to another that should be good enough. The fossils don't even need to reflect it because it can always be said that we just need to keep find more fossils and modifying the tree of life to fit what we find. I figured evolutionists were still looking for the walking whale. I suppose this should be good enough for now or until some evidence is found that makes for a new rule.

    145. Re:Terrible Summary by fm6 · · Score: 1

      "Microevolution"? What a stupid word! It's a way of pretending that evolution doesn't happen, even though we see it happening right in front of our eyes. You're allowed to use mutation to explain why cane toads have longer legs, but not to explain why people resemble apes or chickens resemble dinosaurs. This, from people who insist that evolution is "just a theory"!

    146. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      No, the fossils must reflect it, and do. We can't expect a complete fossil record, but we MUST always expect the fossil record and any new finds to either fit into the evolutionary scheme, or else disprove it. So far, it holds up against all the evidence we've found.

      "I was thinking of the tail thing for human embryos. The offspring of animals do differ but not by much."

      Indeed: because they are all basically minor modifications on a long-standing overall scheme.

      "I guess with evolution now going with such small successions of changes there never will be a transformational phase."

      I don't know what you mean by transformational phase. Evolution has never predicted that cats would transform into dogs or anything like that: nothing has changed other than what creationists wrongly claim.

      "As long as any creature is similar to another that should be good enough."

      Nope. The similarities and differences must match up in very particular ways. Otherwise, it's NOT good enough.

    147. Re:Terrible Summary by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I am not saying they don't kill alot of dogs but many dogs deliberately "mouth" them, ie: pick them up like a hunting dog would pick up a bird and then drop them. I have not seen this first hand, rather I saw it on a documentry in Australia sometime in the 90's.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    148. Re:Terrible Summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Do you know what tetrachromatism is?

      Yeah; it refers to having four color pigments in the retina rather than the four that (most) humans have. It's the norm in birds, who have three pigments with about the same sensitivity as ours, plus a fourth that's sensitive to violet/UV.

      Actually, there's good evidence that all these color-sensitive pigments are derived from a common ancestor. What happens is that the color-pigment gene in a chromosome gets duplicated, and then one of them starts "drifting" so that it has a different peak absorption frequency. Anyway, all the color pigments in vertebrates are nearly identical; they have small differences that alter the frequencies that they absorb.

      This splitting doesn't cause a new species, but there's a similar phenomenon, tetraploidy, which does. This is common in some kinds of plants, including the grasses. What happens is that an individual has double the number of chromosomes. Usually that individual is sterile, as with the common domestic banana. Sometimes the individual is fertile. Usually it can only fertilize itself, though sometimes there are others that appear at the same time. This happened in the ancestors of some of our grains.

      In this case, you get an individual that is literally a new species, in one generation. This isn't common, but it has happened a few times during our domestication of plants.

      The domestic banana is a tetraploid plant that appeared only around a century ago. But that one wasn't self-fertile, so it's a "species" that consists of only a single genetic individual that is reproduced by cloning.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    149. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Yeah; it refers to having four color pigments in the retina rather than the four that (most) humans have."

      You meant three.

      "It's the norm in birds, who have three pigments with about the same sensitivity as ours, plus a fourth that's sensitive to violet/UV."

      Some birds actually have five, to be complete.

    150. Re:Terrible Summary by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      Try responding to one of my posts.

    151. Re:Terrible Summary by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1

      what natural selection functionally does on a macroevolutionary scale is that it SLOWS DOWN morphological change, rather than speeding it up. Yes, but I believe my point was that in some cases it could stop macroevolution completely.

      How do you think the variation of "longer/shorter" legs got to be there in the first place? They did some exercise?

      "As the GP said, they adapt by removing genes, they don't mutate new ones." But they do mutate new ones: that's the "noise."
      Macroevolution works by branching at the tips of the twigs, not on the trunk, so to speak. New species always belong to all the same "older" groups as their direct ancestors.
      Ok, so you've said Macroevolution though enough microevolutions will stack up to form An Entirely New Species, and yet new species have to belong to do "older" groups of their direct ancestors. Now tell me how this condition can still be satisfied if one day they contain so many "new" genes to no longer be amphibian.

      Excuse me, but that doesn't follow. I call BS.

    152. Re:Terrible Summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I've actually had the fun of using these isolated cases of an "extra" visual pigment in discussions with religious types. The idea is that they are obviously special, isolated cases, especially the occasional human with a fourth pigment. Why would God do it this way? If there's a benefit to it, and it seems fairly obvious to them that seeing more color should be a benefit, why wouldn't God give it to everyone? It's especially mysterious that in the human case, God would give this improved vision to only a few females, since we know that God prefers males, right?

      It's easy to explain such things using evolutionary bioloy, but not so easy to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would things that way.

      But ultimately, it's not a very interesting argument, because it's hard to get past the "God moves in mysterious ways" stage. You really can't argue productively with willful ignorance.

      Our computer screens must not look very realistic to a bird.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    153. Re:Terrible Summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      This, from people who insist that evolution is "just a theory"!

      Of course, it is "just a theory", constantly being tested in new ways by biologists.

      What we should be doing is publicly insisting that other "just theories" be labelled as such.

      Imagine if all bibles had a warning on the cover: "This book contain theories that haven't been tested thoroughly. Alternative theories should be considered." Or something like that.

      It might be useful to label political ads similarly.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    154. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I want to see evidence of a whale born in what that was able to walk on land. You said the tree of life supports this. It must have existed but where is it. The records will show similarities but the holy grail still hasn't been found. The whale with legs is a start but there must have been whales with nubs all the way up to whales with pelvic bones and skeletal structures that would all the legs to hold it's weight. Right now it looks like a abnormality or something that could have been used for swimming. In evolution these forms must have existed but I don't see them all hiding or by chance their fossil records just don't exist. We will keep digging and maybe the records will show us this happening but it hasn't. It's easier for evolution because they can just keep digging and saying well we are close and maybe in a million years the tree of life will be complete or at least show the walking whale. For id they have to work extra hard and so far, I believe, they've done a pretty good job.

    155. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. I've only been responding to emails sent by slashdot. Could you send me some links. Thanks.

    156. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "I want to see evidence of a whale born in what that was able to walk on land."

      Remember that science doesn't really use terms like "whales." The order cetacean is generally what we look at when we discuss the ancestry of whales.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetacean s

      What we're looking for in the fossil record is not a fully formed modern whale that happens to have legs and walk on land (some whales are born with throwback legs, but they could nevre walk on land)

      "It must have existed but where is it."

      It is Ambulocetus and Pakicetus, for starters. These creatures may not look like whales to the quick glance, but on closer inspection they have features which are unique to modern whales, as well as features that place them in a particular class of land mammals. This mix of features alone shows them to be ancestral to modern whales, though not necessarily _directly_ ancestral. It's generally unlikely and unecessary that we'd ever turn up the particular fossils that are directly ancestral to modern life.

      "The whale with legs is a start but there must have been whales with nubs all the way up to whales with pelvic bones and skeletal structures that would all the legs to hold it's weight."

      Creatures with features like this are found, and I noted them above. But keep in mind that you are quite wrong about the idea that we MUST find fossils for every single stage of any connection between this modern creature and that. The fossil record is just not that robust or complete, and likely never will be. Luckily, fossils are only a tiny part of the story of how lines are demonstrated, and only a very tiny part of how evolution is shown to be true. Anyone telling you that fossils are the be all and end all of whether evolution is true and unless we find the fossilized form of every animal that ever lived evolution can't be proven is misleading you.

      "Right now it looks like a abnormality or something that could have been used for swimming."

      Actually in Basy, it could not have been used for swimming. It might have been used for copulation.

      "In evolution these forms must have existed but I don't see them all hiding or by chance their fossil records just don't exist."

      Then you don't understand the nature of the fossil record.

      "We will keep digging and maybe the records will show us this happening but it hasn't."

      It has: again in part because fossils are only a tiny part of the story now.

      "It's easier for evolution because they can just keep digging and saying well we are close and maybe in a million years the tree of life will be complete or at least show the walking whale."

      No. We don't expect the fossil record to ever be complete. It is more than robust enough now, as it is, to be absolutely certain that common descent is true. It would be nice in some specific cases where ancestry is ambiguous if we had more fossils to help resolve smaller questions. But we have and have NEVER had the expectation that we'd simply get a picture of the entire tree of life spelled out in fossils. It's not that easy.

      "For id they have to work extra hard and so far, I believe, they've done a pretty good job."

      What is you measure of "good job"? What have they ever provided an explanation for? What predictions have they made that have come true? What discoveries has their theories led to? Nothing.

    157. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      You can always look online, there's plenty of resource. There are tons of books. The hard part is reading them with open minds. Right now most of id has shown doubt about what was spoon feed to most of us during high school and college. Even the biased stuff I think is okay as long as you take it with a grain of salt. I only believe this because a lot of evolution articles and books are biased to, so you can arrive at a happy medium and make a good choice. I get a lot a hatred of my use of the word transitional forms, but I can't think of another way to say it. I guess I just need the B. A to C can seem logical but to me the B is the import step. I need the how A ended up at C.

    158. Re:Terrible Summary by plunge · · Score: 1

      "You can always look online, there's plenty of resource. There are tons of books. The hard part is reading them with open minds."

      I think i've been pretty patient and open to the criticisms of ID proponents. The problem is that they are so obviously misguided, and many of their criticisms are just recycled creationist diatribes.

      "Right now most of id has shown doubt about what was spoon feed to most of us during high school and college."

      Even if that were true, and I don't think it is, this still doesn't show ID as having produced anything in the way of testible, useful theories of their own.

      "I only believe this because a lot of evolution articles and books are biased to, so you can arrive at a happy medium and make a good choice."

      The problem is that the truth is not necessarily found in the middle of two camps. Just because some people deny the Holocaust doesn't mean the truth lies in the middle, between mainstream historians and the deniers. The mere ability to make a fuss doesn't mean that they have made a worthwhile point.

    159. Re:Terrible Summary by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Out of curosity, how are they misguided? I've heard that before and no one has explained it to me. The only conclusion I've come up with is that the research isn't done with a belief in evolution. I am definately not an authority on this, but I will keep reading and try to answer your question better on id studies. If you like you can always discuss on id message boards about the subject. That's where it seems the scientists hang out that are actually studying this stuff. I'm just a lowly programmer;). On th middle thing I was just thinking along the lines of if one side is leaning one way and the other is the leaning the other way than you take both and see what the middle holds. So there are those that say the Holocaust happen and that German people are crazy killers and those that say none of this happened. Well ther German people aren't necessarily like that but the Holocaust did happen. So you can try and take the science that looks good on both sides and combine them into a middle ground and arive at your own conclusion. It's like the conspiracy theorists. Sure they make some points and you can look at evidence from both sides but in the end you'll probably never know what really happened.

    160. Re:Terrible Summary by fm6 · · Score: 1
      The bible isn't "theory" in any sense. It contains assertions that are taken on faith, and are not subject to testing.

      Which goes with my point: that "theory" is not a negative concept.

    161. Re:Terrible Summary by somersault · · Score: 1

      "That's ridiculous." oh yes, totally ridiculous. Yes it's regarded as fact by most people for some reason, but you still didnt link to any proof there, just a general site, would prefer something that I didnt have to trawl for ages instead of working, just a single example of macro evolution would be fine, thanks. Perhaps one of these 'countless' times where some descendants have become sexually incompatible with their ancestors, and not counting things like ligers, which all seem to be born without the ability to reproduce.. interesting stuff to think about anyway, but I'd prefer whenever you say things like 'that's ridiculous' or 'countless times', you'd give some proof instead of just seeming to accept it as fact yourself just because everyone else does, much the same as people think we only use 10% of our brain power.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. OMFG! by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 1

    OMFG! Giant Killer Toads taking over Australia! Say it isn't so!

    Honestly, is this actually news to anyone?

    You can learn pretty much everything you would ever want to know about the relationship between Cane Toads and the people of Australia in this delightful little movie:

          http://www.cane-toad.com/

    G.

    1. Re:OMFG! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Could be worse. At least they aren't Mexican Staring Frogs of Southern Sri Lanka!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:OMFG! by yobjob · · Score: 1

      What the article doesn't tell you is that these little critters do wonders for your golf swing.

  3. Cane Toad documentary by nizo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cane Toads is a great documentary about these little beasties. Not only does it give a good overview of the cane toad saga in Australia, but it also includes interviews with some really bizarre people (the guy imitating the mating calls of the cane toad is particularly amusing).

    1. Re:Cane Toad documentary by Wabin · · Score: 2, Informative
      Dang, you beat me to it. That is one fantastic documentary. It does a great job of illustrating the potential follies of biocontrol. But scientists do always seem to think they have worked everything out this time.

      Some other wonderfully bizarre scenes include the girl playing with a toad that she has dressed in a tutu, and my personal favorite: the guy in the VW microvan swerving down the road trying to hit every toad in his path. You know you've gotten one when you hear a good pop.

      --
      Most exciting phrase in science: not "Eureka!" but "Hmm... That's funny..." -Asimov (abridged for \. limits)
    2. Re:Cane Toad documentary by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What was missing from that documentary for me was this: What eats Cane Toads in Hawaii, a much smaller island that hasn't been overrun? And why don't we introduce THAT animal to Australia?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Cane Toad documentary by nizo · · Score: 1

      This is their worst predator.

    4. Re:Cane Toad documentary by Maxx169 · · Score: 1
      Was that the docco where the wisened hippie type was talking about smoking cane toad skin, and says something along the lines of:
      "Whoah, man - It makes you feel like you're seeing the world through the eyes of a cactus!"
    5. Re:Cane Toad documentary by dpreformer · · Score: 1

      quite an amusing movie. haven't seen it for a while, looks like it is available via netflix, so I'll be seeing it again before long.

    6. Re:Cane Toad documentary by sandstorming · · Score: 1

      The pest in Australia wasn't originally the Cane Toad, it was the Cane Beetle. The cane toad was introduced originally to eat the Cane Beetle. That's why so many people in Australia are afraid to introduce something to eat the cane toad without being 100% sure, last thing we want is yet another problem. My area used to be filled with Green Tree Frogs, it's now filled with Cane Toads. Cane Toads have spread like a plague, and I doubt anything introduced could ever stop them. I think some kind of contagion will probably be the way to go.

    7. Re:Cane Toad documentary by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that they've missed the one native inhabitant of Australia that if they would just breed them in captivity then release them, your cane toad problem would be gone: Common Keelback Snakes. But it seems they are currently quite rare- and it seems to me somebody in Hawaii may have a better answer to the question, what eats cane toads?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Cane Toad documentary by heli0 · · Score: 1

      It can be downloaded here: http://www.mininova.org/tor/49932

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    9. Re:Cane Toad documentary by VelvetHelmet · · Score: 1

      Is this the same documentary that showed a VW bus swerving side to side trying to run over the toads? If it is, I highly recommend it! I saw it a few years ago and it's wonderful.

    10. Re:Cane Toad documentary by anothy · · Score: 1

      clearly you weren't paying attention the first time.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    11. Re:Cane Toad documentary by urbaer · · Score: 1

      An even better documentry is Whatever happened to Baz?. I think it's important to see both points of view of any issue and this truly shows how Australia really isn't the easiest place for the toads to live. It's an emotionally charged account of one toads concern for his friend. A must watch really...

  4. Why always Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Rabbits, toads, etc. Why is it always Australia that has these problems?

    1. Re:Why always Australia? by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 3, Funny

      Rabbits, toads, etc. Why is it always Australia that has these problems?

      Because Tokyo finally learned to cover these things up :-)

      G.

    2. Re:Why always Australia? by nizo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Rabbits, toads, etc. Why is it always Australia that has these problems?


      Probably because the local flora and fauna that has been seperated from the rest of the world for so long that it can't compete with every critter/plant that some moron brings in from somewhere else. Though there are certainly plenty of other critters introduced elsewhere that cause problems like this.

    3. Re:Why always Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the local scientists should over a bounty for every dead cane toad brought in. make it a jobs program for teenagers and they will be wiped out. If the Aussies don't have enough people to do the job, import some redneck kids from the US. They love killing anything that moves.

    4. Re:Why always Australia? by AuMatar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Can we just volunteer to give them the entire South? None of the rest of the US would miss it.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:Why always Australia? by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Hawaiian islands gets hit almost as badly as Australia. Sometimes it's accidental introduction -- there's a frog species overrunning some areas and causing serious noise pollution with their croaking -- and sometimes it's deliberate but misguided. People introduced the mongoose to control the rat population. Not only did they not take care of the rats (they forgot to take into account different nesting habits and day/night cycle), but they proceeded to infest the islands themselves.

      Like Australia, Hawaii is geographically isolated. Species thrive without competition, but when a more competitive species arrives, it has an easy time taking over.

      On the other hand, Australia has been isolated for a lot longer than Hawaii has existed, so while Hawaii is populated by successive waves of immigrating species going back thousands of years, Australia's got millions of years' worth of native species that haven't had to deal much with foreigners until a few hundred years ago.

    6. Re:Why always Australia? by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      I thought the aim was to get rid of vermin?

    7. Re:Why always Australia? by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed, it's not like Australia has a shortage of lethal animals. In practice its largely because Australia has been fairly successfully isolated for a long time and the flora and fauna smply aren't adapted to deal with the introduced species. You'll find exactly the same sorts of problems in New Zealand, and, in fact, in the US if you introduce the wrong species.

      Jedidiah.

    8. Re:Why always Australia? by Joebert · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that laugh, I have tears in my eyes !

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    9. Re:Why always Australia? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Washington, D.C. then.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    10. Re:Why always Australia? by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      They may as well already be here!

    11. Re:Why always Australia? by cmoss · · Score: 1

      Some things are worse for Hawaii because the native species are so specialized and evolved with a very limited set of predators. Most/all of the native bird population was ground nesting/dwelling. Rats and Mongoose decimated the native birds.

      The climate is so hospitable almost everything introduced thrives. African Chameleons, american anoles, parrots etc all survive and prosper when released in the wild.

    12. Re:Why always Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Australia exported a nice Brown Tree Snake to Gaum during WWII. Fairly innocuous in Australia with a bite a bit like a wasp sting, but on Guam they are bigger and more venomous. The birds on Guam are looking a little endangered. - Australia also sent some possums to New Zealand, where they also grow bigger and nastier, they also turned from vegetarian to carnivore. - Australian eucalypts are pretty much a weed in parts of the USA. They takeover by creating very flammable leaf litter and then surviving bushfires better than other trees. Probably a message in there about not playing with ecosystems you don't understand.

    13. Re:Why always Australia? by Marimus · · Score: 1

      The brown tree snake is another interesting example. It was a native of Australia and Papua New Guinea, stowed away on a US ship to Guam. Oops!

      There is also a starfish that is carried around the world by ships, that is causing major problems not only for Australia, but many countries. I can't remember the name, but it eats the coral reefs, leaving a desolate wasteland.

      Another example of evolution in action, is the effect on certain snakes the toad is having. I think its the Red Belly Black snake that is evolving a smaller and smaller jaw size, which limits the size of toads that can be ingested. smaller toad means less toxin, ie non-lethal doses. This is measurable from museum specimens taken over the years, since the cane toads introduction.

      --
      Umm, can I submit a response later?
    14. Re:Why always Australia? by nicoleh · · Score: 1

      NZ has had their asses kicked due to the introduction of mammal species such as ferrets, weasels and possums. They have been isolated for so long that they do not have any native land mammals, so the devastation they cause to local fauna and flora has been of extremely high proportions - and is the main cause of the endangered status of many species of Kiwi.

    15. Re:Why always Australia? by JakartaDean · · Score: 1
      Indeed, it's not like Australia has a shortage of lethal animals.
      Yeah, you're not wrong! I was visiting Cairns (cane toad and poisonous thingy capital of the world) last year, and was surprised to learn that, of the 11 most poisonous snakes in the world, 11 of them are found (only) in Australia.
      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    16. Re:Why always Australia? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Crown of Thorns Starfish

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    17. Re:Why always Australia? by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      I always like to point to the funnel-web spider. People are used to the possibility of dangerous spiders, but... leys' collect the highlights from the Wikipedia article:

      "...regarded by some to be the most dangerous spider in the world...wandering males have caused a large majority of fatal bites to humans...the venom is known to cause death within a period ranging from 15 minutes to three days...and they often bite aggressively and repeatedly...their fangs have been known to penetrate fingernails and soft shoes, resulting in dangerous bites."

      Sounds positively wonderful really.

      Jedidiah.

  5. Timeliness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Note that the article says they were brought in in 1935, not exactly the peak of scientific understanding, and the problem has been known for 70 years.

  6. Sounds like a job for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Dick Cheney and his 28 guage shotgun!

    1. Re:Sounds like a job for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nope, Cheney only shoots shark, not toad.

    2. Re:Sounds like a job for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope - this is clearly a job for Chuck Norris.

    3. Re:Sounds like a job for.. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Considering this is Slashdot, it's entirely possible you haven't developed the necessary social sense to realize this, so I'll tell you: the Chuck Norris thing is played, and it never really reached a mass critical enough to become a lasting meme. Sorry - you'll just have to find some other favored annoyance.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:Sounds like a job for.. by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      no kidding. It was a shitty meme in the first place, as it was a rehash of Bill Brasky, which was and continues to be funny to this day.

  7. And in recent news ... by SimonInOz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    These toads were introduced in 1935 and became a pest pretty much immediately.

    It's good to keep up with the news, isn't it?

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
    1. Re:And in recent news ... by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't wait to hear about World War 2 beginning in 4 years time.

    2. Re:And in recent news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in other news, yet again, some other dumbass read the summary and not the article and thought he was smart enough to post.

      The toads being a pest isn't the news. RTFA

    3. Re:And in recent news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...except the Americans won't notice anything for a couple of years.

      And the Czechs will wonder why no-one else has noticed that it's already started for the last 12 months.

    4. Re:And in recent news ... by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      Give us yanks a break. We have very limited exposure to Australian culture here. The whole of my generation's education is from Crocodile Dundee and Outback Steakhouse commercials, and my daughter's generation doesn't have a clue if it's not on The Wiggles or Koala Brothers.

      I lived in Adelaide for a while about 10 years ago, so I often field deep questions on Aussie culture prompted by The Wiggles. Just the other day, I had a 30 minute conversation about the meaning of the phrase "beauty mate," including the important consideration of whether all Australians wiggle their arms up and down like that when they say it, and why not.

      My goal for the year is to progress to more serious questions like, "Why do the Wiggles call it the big red car when it is really quite small?" I'm afraid a real discussion about Australian history will require decades more of groundwork, unless Mel Gibson stars in a Hollywood blockbuster named "The Curse of the Toads".

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:And in recent news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they did RTFA. The /. writer and TFA both seem focused primarilly on the fact that these toads are pests, which is not news. The GP response was not necessarilly made in ignorance of TFA.

      Any real news here is burried in the history lesson.

    6. Re:And in recent news ... by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      ... a 30 minute conversation about the meaning of the phrase "beauty mate,"

      Now would take some creativity. Well done.

      (You do know nobody ever actually says that, don't you?)

      Hmm, and in the spirit of the "let's be cruel to Yanks" ...

      "very limited exposure to [Australian] culture here". Hmm, so who's fault is that?

      I confess to continued amazement about the insularity of USA-ites. Look at Time, for example (the US edition). See how many refernces to the rest of the world you find. Now consider this is supposed to be "the" international magazine.
      Next, look at the news - is there much outside your home city, let alone state, or heaven forbid, country?

      Oh boy. At least the rest of the world knows the rest of the rest of the world exists (good phrase, eh?). I exclude North Korea, of course.

      So wise up, gentle Yanks, start learning about those foreigners (and stop invading them).

      Of you, having lived in Adelaide, must be a well read, much travelled, wise and balanced person, I'm sure. But you are in the tiny minority. So sad.
      But fear not Slashdot (I originally wrote Slashsot, which I quite liked) and the rest of the Internet will save you!

      Disclaimer. I am London (yes, that one in England) born and bred, have lived in various countries (even USA a bit, where I found people friendly, kind, and insular), and now live in Sydney (Australia).

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    7. Re:And in recent news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider how important Aussies are? USians know/heard of a thing or two about Europe, even Asia. Australia? New Zealand maybe (you know, frodo and all that), but Australia? Come on...

    8. Re:And in recent news ... by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      Now would take some creativity. Well done. (You do know nobody ever actually says that, don't you?)
      Hence part of the difficulty of the explanation. "Why would the wiggles say it then?", "What kind of people would say it exactly?", etc.

      Your comment about the news is all too true. I stopped watching CNN after 2004's hurricane season. They would show a map with one of the hurricanes completely engulfing Puerto Rico (I happen to have friends there) or another Carribean island, and all they would talk about is the damage it might do when it made landfall in the U.S.

      I don't know what to do to help the situation, though, other than what I have already been trying: one person at a time.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    9. Re:And in recent news ... by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      One of the Wiggles (the blue one) runs a coffee shop just near my home (actually his wife, but he drops in from time to time. I think it's a hobby. They have stacks of money, that's for sure. More power to them). Nice bloke. [And do you know why they have long sleeves on their outfits? Tattoos on his arm!]

      I'll ask him ... nah, maybe not.

      Hang on, aren't we supposed to be talking about cane toads? Damn.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    10. Re:And in recent news ... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our Yankee Overlords!
      But seriously folks you can't blame the yanks. The USA culture (ermmm plus politics, military, Economy etc), has permiated most of the world. Very little of any other country's culture has had the same effect on the average US American. Snippets here and there only.
      But what do Australians know of other, non-invasive cultures?
      Lebanese?
      Muslims?
      Greeks?
      Italians?
      Vietnamese?

      Even though 50% of our urban population is made up from immigrants, we know very little about all of them, some know a bit more as they may be 2nd or even 3rd generation of an immigrant family who came here after WWII, fewer know more of their history, music, art etc.

      Everybody re-writes history. No-one can be truely unbiased and the US view is an acceptable one for most people as they are not critical in their understandings.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  8. Simpsons quote by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

    Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

    Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

    Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

    Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas! Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's an okay reference, I suppose. A better would be:

      "Bufo marinus? I would'a called them Chazwazzes"

    2. Re:Simpsons quote by irtza · · Score: 4, Informative

      I first lernt about this from the simpsons

      Homer: Hey, look! Those frogs are eating all their crops.

      from Bart vs. Australia

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    3. Re:Simpsons quote by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      The first thing I thought about when I saw the headline of the article was that Simpsons episode. The better quote, though, is

      Owner: [sweeping a bunch of toads out] Get out, get out! Shoo, shoo.
                    Get out of here, yuck! These bloody things are everywhere.
                    They're in the lift, in the lorry, in the bond wizard, and all
                    over the malonga gilderchuck.
      Clerk: They're like kangaroos, but they're reptiles, they is.
      Marge: We have them in America. They're called bullfrogs.
      Clerk: What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers".

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    4. Re:Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should 'lern' a little less from the simpsons.

      Sorry, it had to be said :)

    5. Re:Simpsons quote by Himring · · Score: 1

      I first learned about these toads, dunno, a decade ago on some PBS or discovery channel show. I was shocked to see it as a blurb on /. as some new thing. I think what I saw might be what's mentioned above, but not sure. What I found the most interesting is that some local folk boil the things, drink the water to get a hullicinagenic high and/or ... lick them....

      Again, quite shocked to see /. so botch this ... well, maybe not....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  9. Welcome by jalvear · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new toxic toads overlords!

    1. Re:Welcome by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new toxic toads overlords!

      You misspelt old.

  10. Reminds me of that Simpsons episodes... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    Eventually, you'll see old people tossing pieces of meat at bears in the parks rather than pop-corn at pigeons.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  11. Look! by Burpmaster · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Those toads are eating the crop!

    That's what happens when you introduce a foreign species into an ecology that can't handle it.

    Hahahahahahaha!

    1. Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and some people STILL believe bioengineering crops is safe. If you can totally screw things up with stuff nature invented what do you think screwing with its DNA is gonna do?

    2. Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your line of argumentation is weak. It could be applied to any invention of humanity. But I, for one, really like the idea that I don't have to live in a fucking cave just so the ecosystem stays pristine and intact (well, until a natural disaster or something else causes it to change despite humans).

    3. Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really draw the line at that comment in that episode... maybe its just because its about Australia that annoys me, but the whole episode is very harsh, and then that comment at the end just pissed me off even more.

      Didn't they make it illegal to use cane toads as golf/cricket balls? I remember watching a video once where you see cars on a highway swerving all over the place to hit the toads... they make a huge POP sound. :p

  12. This plot seems familiar... by Manchot · · Score: 1

    Haven't I seen this somewhere before?

  13. In other [old] news by luder · · Score: 1
    Junkie dogs chasing a high.
    Only in Australia.
  14. Oblig.: I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" by slackomatic · · Score: 1

    Owner: [sweeping a bunch of toads out] Get out, get out! Shoo, shoo. Get out of here, yuck! These bloody things are everywhere. They're in the lift, in the lorry, in the bond wizard, and all over the malonga gilderchuck. Clerk: They're like kangaroos, but they're reptiles, they is. Marge: We have them in America. They're called bullfrogs. Clerk: What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers". Owner: [sweeping a bunch of toads out] Get out, get out! Shoo, shoo. Get out of here, yuck! These bloody things are everywhere. They're in the lift, in the lorry, in the bond wizard, and all over the malonga gilderchuck. Clerk: They're like kangaroos, but they're reptiles, they is. Marge: We have them in America. They're called bullfrogs. Clerk: What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers".

    1. Re:Oblig.: I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" by NoMaster · · Score: 1
      I'd have called them "chazzwazzers"
      ... [much later] ...
      I'd have called them "chazzwazzers"
      You're from New York, New York, aren't you?

      (Old Australian joke - if you were Australian you'd be from Wagga Wagga...)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  15. This is news? by cammoblammo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't RTFA yet, but this isn't exactly news Down Here--Cane toads have been pests for years, at least in the tropical north.

    The big news is that they are {evolving|being noodly appendaged} to be able to travel further (they're spreading at a rate of up to 60 km/year as opposed to 10 km/yr when they were introduced) and they are adapting to colder climates.

    Apart from their utility in practicing my golf swing, this is quite scary stuff for those of us here in the south.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

    1. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice Evolving FUD. Most scientists worth their salt would call this "adapting".

      Nice to see the Evolutionists spreading their ideas as bad as the creationists.

      They adapted.. when they increase leg length by 20% and speed significantly by muscles and other changes that are now the norm THEN I'll believe your evolve claim.

      Until then they have an observed adaptation that is slightly outside that of standard error.

    2. Re:This is news? by jdb8167 · · Score: 3, Funny
      The article might not be news but this is an old Usenet News classic:

      Death of a Cane Toad

    3. Re:This is news? by w.timmeh · · Score: 1, Funny

      In Queensland (I'm not sure about other parts of Aussie), the only legally accepted method of killing these pests is by catching them and putting them in the freezer. Golf, cricket, rugby or any other "sporting" (or not as the case may be) method of disposing of the cane toads is actually in violation of state legislation.

      The frozen toads may, however, be used as curling stones.

    4. Re:This is news? by JPriest · · Score: 1
      From wikipedia, aparrently only 101 of them were imprted in 1935 to control the beetles. I guess game regulations were different in the 30's, but don't you think thy fact that they mate year around and lay 30,000 eggs at a time might have thrown up some warning signals?

      Either way, at least they can be made into purses

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:This is news? by m00j · · Score: 1

      These new improved toads are something I have noticed. I have been moving around quite a bit, two years ago I was in a house surrounded by a lot of toads, the regular slow type. Six months ago I moved to a new house in a more bushy area with a lot more toads. The ones here move very fast compared to the other ones (I call them fast toads, after the fast zombies in HL2).

      They are very inconvenient to hit as the rate they move you can't get them with the car easily and if you're playing golf you can't line it up, you have to go Happy Gilmore style!

    6. Re:This is news? by qzulla · · Score: 1

      I am over 18 and stated so in the link you posted but it won't let me in. It just loops.

      Is google censoring cane toads now?

      So can you break copyright and let us see it?

      Kinda tongue in cheek but the link won't let me in.

      qz

    7. Re:This is news? by Autonomous+Crowhard · · Score: 1

      This been around since the 1992-1993 timeframe. I originally read that exchange back on usenet. You remember usenet don't you?

  16. A classic example by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've gotta love it. When you mess with the eco-system, you've pretty much got to be careful-as-hell. The lessons taught in the movie "Jurassic Park" have been discussed for decades prior to the book's writing. (Although, I think that perhaps if they bred the toads to be lysene deficient...)

    Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with as a solution to the new non-indigenous toad problem. Will it be another mistake of the same type or will they attempt an artificial means to exterminate the toads? And wht of these toxins? Are they actually useful for anything? My guess is that they might be useful for making drugs... is this the same toxic toad that kids lick to get a trip on?

    They just need to get a collection of "Crocodile-Dundee" types together and have themselves a toad-hunt and then a Bah-bee.

    1. Re:A classic example by Y2 · · Score: 2, Informative
      You've gotta love it. When you mess with the eco-system, you've pretty much got to be careful-as-hell.

      When I first saw this on /. I was thinking "have we learned nothing..." Then I RTFCs and saw that this mistake was made in 1935. That puts it in the great run of eco-mistakes like mongooses to Hawaii, rose bushes to West Virginia, and Kudzu all over the south.

      Sure, there will be a new harmonious balance of nature eventually. We generally don't like it. And we pretty much never like the intervening period before the new balance emerges.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    2. Re:A classic example by evilviper · · Score: 1
      They just need to get a collection of "Crocodile-Dundee" types together and have themselves a toad-hunt

      They are doing exactly that. At the current rate, it'll take over a century before the problem is under control... So a better solution is warranted.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:A classic example by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Then I RTFCs and saw that this mistake was made in 1935. That puts it in the great run of eco-mistakes like mongooses to Hawaii, rose bushes to West Virginia, and Kudzu all over the south.

      Funny, how what you call "the south" is in the NORTHERN hemisphere, huh? A small (but real) testament to the parochialistic viewpoint so common to USAians. It's like the end of the world happens at country's borders, and anything beyond is on another planet.

      Also, did you notice how every single example you brought up happened in the World of the United States? It's not your fault, it just betrays the limitations of your culture.

      PS: I'm a USAian, living in Northern California, and frustrated with stupidity and parochialism - don't take it personally.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:A classic example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also, did you notice how every single example you brought up happened in the World of the United States?

      Wow. Who would have thought that a native of a certain country would be most familiar with that country's particular history. A real shocker, that is.

      Take the time to visit another country, and talk to people there. Get some idea about what they know (not what they think, what they know) about the US, or any other country outside of their own. The vast majority of people are, not surprisingly, primarily concerned with and knowedgeable about their own particular corner of the globe, and otherwise blisfully ignorant about places they will never likely visit or otherwise interact with.

      Would you have been quite so condescendingly rude to someone from outside the US who chose to quote their own country's history as an example in a discussion? Somehow, I don't think so.

  17. Us aussies have been playing cricket with them by Swiss_Cheeseman · · Score: 1

    Or golf, depending on what is handy. I live on the Gold Coast and this place is rather infested with them during summer. It's almost become tradition to use them as golf/cricket balls. My brother managed to hit one around 100m down the road.

    Now, I usually love animals. Green Tree Frogs, a cute little native frog, have almost become extinct in this area because of cane toads. Cane toads are one of the rare animals that I have absolutely no remorse in sadistically killing.

    1. Re:Us aussies have been playing cricket with them by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

      managed to hit one around 100m down the road

      so that's how they've tricked you all into helping them to spread at 60km/year instead of the expected 10km/year.

    2. Re:Us aussies have been playing cricket with them by nizo · · Score: 1
      Ort: What a beautiful blue planet we have discovered!
      Moog: Yeah, but what are all those little things all over it?
      Ort: I dunno, I think they call themselves 'people'.
      Moog: I wonder how far they would fly if I hit them with my whacking stick?


      I bet they once worshipped us for bringing them to the toad equivalent of the Garden of Eden, but now the hordes of cane toads hate us with all their fury!

    3. Re:Us aussies have been playing cricket with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe

    4. Re:Us aussies have been playing cricket with them by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      You think toads are great, wait til we send you some of our oppossums! (or did we get those from you? I can't remember). I've never felt regret over a dead possum before.

  18. A better headline would have been... by IAAP · · Score: 1
    Toxic Toads Take over Tazmania!

    Tazmania is in Austalia, but exactly where?

    it also reminds of a funny but embarassing story:

    I was once talking to an Australian, and I asked about Tazmanian Devils (Thinking that they were some ficticious character invented by Warner Borthers for their cartoons). He goes off on how vicious they are to livestock and what a pain in the ass they are to get rid of. Here I am, the ignorant American, laughing my ass off, thinking that he's just running with the joke. Looking back, it now makes sense why he was looking at me funny - he was very polite, though.p/Doh!

    1. Re:A better headline would have been... by Slotty · · Score: 1

      It's Tasmania.

  19. Evolution? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't those in the vanguard have longer legs because those with longer legs put them in the vanguard?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Evolution? by krayzkrok · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That is actually a highly relevant point. We do know that toads on the vanguard are significantly larger than those in established populations, and it may have nothing to do with evolution but rather a lot to do with population dynamics.

      The toads to first colonise an area will of course be the fittest, fastest toads; these are individuals that have eaten the most, grown the best, and able to move longer distances more quickly in search of new feeding areas. The motivation to move comes from competition in existing areas, and an abundance of "resources" (ie. food, space) in uncolonised areas. Less fit competitors take longer to move into new feeding areas because they are less able to do so. As far as the toads in the "older" established populations in Queensland go, they reached carrying capacity in the environment decades ago so there are no new areas to colonise, no abudant resources to lead to monsterous toads, and generally a much smaller average size given their short generation time.

      I have not read Ben's paper yet so I'm not sure whether the claims of evolution are simply media spin, but I know enough about toad population dynamics (I research toad impacts on native species) to question the assumptions made in TFA. Without knowing more about the research, the conclusions seem to be explainable through standard population models.

    2. Re:Evolution? by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't those in the vanguard have longer legs because those with longer legs put them in the vanguard?

      Yes, this brings up a good point. THere are basically two underlying, not necessarily exlusive evolutionary explanations:

      1. The first toads had some variation in leg length. Now only the ones with long legs are found at the vanguard.

      2.Some time since they were introduced, mutation(s) have occured given longer legs. These traits have then been strongly selected for.

      Clearly 1. is part of the explanation, that is self-evident. The question is then if new mutations have been involved as well. I just read the Nature paper, and it does present some evidence that 2. is at least partially at work. In particular, the "toad front" has accelerated a lot; in the 50s and 60s it moved at some 10km's per year, now it moves at 50km per year. If 1. Also, when they looked at some old specimens in vats they had much shorter legs than the modern toads near the front.

      Tor

    3. Re:Evolution? by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      I think that point is moot because the idea of toads having a vanguard is too silly to merit furthur discussion. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to visualize a toad wearing a general's hat and chomping down on a corncob pipe.

    4. Re:Evolution? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      no abudant resources to lead to monsterous toads

      Oh yeah? I've seen a toad in Queensland the size of small cat, not kitten. I quite like toads, but their effect on the environment is horrendous. Bad days when they hit Kakadu ... like now.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    5. Re:Evolution? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work with a couple of Aussies and they're seriously sharp tacks, so I'll make a broad generalization and assume that all Aussies are smart.

      What you guys need is a roaming army of toad killing robots. My solution for the dead toads would be to use them as a fuel for the robots.

      You'd have a mother type robot that would contain a miniture Thermal depolymerization plant that would eat toads and then burn the resulting oil to power itself. It would probably need to suppliment it's power usage with solar panels.

      This mother robot would then send out smaller all terrain toad capturing robots.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    6. Re:Evolution? by heck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What you guys need is a roaming army of toad killing robots. My solution for the dead toads would be to use them as a fuel for the robots.

      But what happens when the robots go out of control roaming the countryside?

      - John Connor

    7. Re:Evolution? by AnotherBrian · · Score: 1

      That's great, until it rains and one of thoes robots gets it's brain shorted out and figures out that one human contains a lot more bio mass that a toad. How long do you think it will take to learn to attract rubes by playing popular ring tones? This has trouble written all ovet it.

    8. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wouldn't you think it likely that the evolutionary pressure to evolve towards maximum carrying capacity by reducing size in densely populated areas is at work? I am only passingly familiar with the argument from the first chapter of Futuyma's coevolution, but the basic argument is that if smaller individuals can compete about as well for food, mates, ect. (and they will only be able to do so up to a point) then it is evolutionarily advantages to become smaller because the environment can support more of you. This pressure would go away in newly colonized areas with low population densities, and so individuals would tend to evolve only to maximize resource access, and not to balance maximized resource access with minimized resource usage.

      Weather or not the selective pressures Futuyma discusses are responsible for the observed variations in morphology, I think it would still be appropriate to consider it an evolutionary phenomenon. If the increased size is hereditary, and not entirely environmental (which wouldn't be too hard to test) then we could attribute it to a transient feature of the population dynamics, as you say, but if this feature where not transient, then we can easily see how the population dynamics would lead to evolutionary change and would rightly consider the observed variations to be the result of a novel environment, that is the new meta-population dynamics. If colonization was an important feature of the toads' survival strategy (which it wasn't in Hawaii I think we can safely assume.) wouldn't we expect them to get larger to facilitated that colonization, even if there where no other advantages or disadvantages of increased size?

      Is there good reason to believe that larger toad size is entirely environmental, and is there any other assumption that would invalidate the observation's relevance to evolutionary theory?

    9. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is a change in genotypic frequencies. IF population dynamics or an atomic bomb causes this change, it is still evolution.

    10. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bigger robots, of course.

  20. But by Timesprout · · Score: 0

    since the toads are in Australia which as we all know is upside down why dont they fall off the planet when they jump?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because YOU SUR are an IDIOT.

  21. 5-MeO-DMT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The toxic mixture present in Bufo cane toads contains up to 15% 5-MeO-DMT, similar to one of the most powerful hallucinogenic substances known to man, DMT (endogenous to the humain brain). Would be psychedelic experimenters in Australia now have a vast source of smokable material extractable from the toad saliva with a pipette or turkey baster.

    The high from the 5-methoxy version of DMT is not nearly as visual, but it's an incredible mindfuck. Check out Erowid for details.

    This may cause hell for the environment there, but at least the Australians can get high.

    1. Re:5-MeO-DMT by 25albert · · Score: 2, Informative

      The toxic mixture present in Bufo cane toads contains up to 15% 5-MeO-DMT

      I don't think this is correct. It is Bufo alvarius which does have this hallucinogenic venom.

    2. Re:5-MeO-DMT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bufo alvarius, native to the southwestern United States, contains up to 15% 5-MeO-DMT. The proportion in this species of cane toad is substantially smaller.

    3. Re:5-MeO-DMT by Profound · · Score: 1

      Have you been licking toads again?

  22. Nothing new by syousef · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This isn't recent. If you read the article the toads were imported in the 1940s to 1960s. They've been a problem for a very long time. I first heard of them in the 80s as a school kid. /. news about 40 years too late

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  23. as large as dinner plates my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our area (like most of the Queensland seaboard) is infested with cane toads. Believe me, I've seen some mighty big toads. About as big as they come.

    And none of them were even as big as half a dinner plate - well I suppose it depends on what size dinner plate you eat from. Maybe the author eats from a 15cm dinner plate?

    t

    1. Re:as large as dinner plates my arse by robbak · · Score: 1

      The Cane Toads we have here are generaly smaller. There are a few (I think native) fungi that stop them growing as large. Smaller toads also do better in the slightly drier conditions here, as opposed to Hawaii.

      So, although the species does grow that large, they rarely achieve that here, although I have seen one or two that would come near the half-dinner-plate size. (Around Innisfail, FNQ)

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  24. Problem Solved by nexcomlink · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just call in the french.

    1. Re:Problem Solved by nizo · · Score: 1

      Yeah but how will we get rid of the poisonous cane toads?

    2. Re:Problem Solved by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      "Just call in the french."

      And lest you worry about replacing one invasive species with another, once the French have eaten all the toads all you have to do is attack a few of them and the rest will surrender.

  25. Jesus Christ of Nazareth! by Paraplex · · Score: 1

    Toads are a pest here in Australia???
    I hardly knew despite spending my youth cruelly launching them onto rooftops with golf clubs and continuing to encounter them hiking across pristine hinchenbrook island, throughout the rainforests of Far North Queensland and along the fringes of the Great Barrier Reef!

    Next thing they'll be telling me Lincoln's dead and Hitler is a bad man!

    The ecosystem is a tremendously delicate thing, and yes it will always balance itself out in the long run, but humans have to *really* be careful as they fell huge forests, import rabbits, toads, beetles, create nanotech, genetically engineer wildly and without thought to decided if they want this balance to be upset, and furthermore if they are prepared to allow this balance to shift toward... roaches... toads... cold hard industrialisation?

    The last thing I heard was they were planning on importing some disease to kill off the rabbits in australia... Its ok though.. it only kills rabbits.
    "I don't know why I swallowed a fly... maybe I'll die!"

    I'd prefer cassowaries than sugarcane. (very few remain)

  26. hmmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I am not, not licking toads"

  27. Nothing for you to see here... by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    back to our favorite show: THE HYPNO-TOAD

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Nothing for you to see here... by croddy · · Score: 1, Funny

      zzzvzzvvzvvvwvvwwvwwwowwoowooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvz zvvzvvvwvvwwvwwwowwoowooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvzzvvzv vvwvvwwvwwwowwoowooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvzzvvzvvvwvv wwvwwwowwoowooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvzzvvzvvvwvvwwvww wowwoowooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvzzvvzvvvwvvwwvwwwowwo owooomoommommmzmmzzmzzzvzzvvzvvvwvvwwvwwwowwoowooo

  28. Hopping Toads by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I don't know what it says about me that when I saw "4.5 pound toad" the first thing I thought of was "How far can it jump?" I need to move away from Calaveras.

    --
    Qxe4
  29. any ozzies, here's a question for you: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Redundant

    are these the toads i hear about in australia that you can lick and get high?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:any ozzies, here's a question for you: by ozsynergy · · Score: 1

      Yeah they are. Stop into my ebay store 'ToadLickers' buy yourself a box of em. Minimum order is 1000. Delivery is free as they self deliver via genetically enhanced legs!

    2. Re:any ozzies, here's a question for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are no toads that you can lick to get high -- it's the venom that contains 5-MeO-DMT, an analogue of DMT. DMT is one of the most powerful psychedlic substances in existence, endogenous to the human brain and synthesized in the pineal gland. It's a distinct possible that DMT release is responsible for such crazy, life-altering near-death experiences reported by people who have nearly died.

      5-MeO-DMT is not as visual as DMT, but is still an extremely powerful trip. Check out Erowid. Venom for smoking is best extracted from Bufo alvarius though, found largely in the southwestern United States. While the Australian toads are part of the bufo genus, they are not quite the correct species from which to extract the venom (a turkey baster in the mouth is the way to go).

    3. Re:any ozzies, here's a question for you: by paulthomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not an Aussie, but as I understand it, these are the toads that you can lick and get a sore throat.

      However, Australians have been known to take this species of frog, kill it, dry the skin, and smoke it. This will get you high. See previous anonymous poster's link to erowid.

      Best,
      Paul

    4. Re:any ozzies, here's a question for you: by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are! If you like I can mail you a few over.

      I'm sure it's not just you I'd be doing a favor for by doing so.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  30. Toads Staying alive! Staying alive.... by aapold · · Score: 2, Funny
    Last year, researchers announced they had successfully lured and trapped the toads using ultraviolet lights like those used in disco clubs.
    Why do I see that scientist from the simpsons demonstrating his toad-trapping discoteque invention before a bunch of skeptical townsfolk?
    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  31. Old story...good documentary by mattkime · · Score: 1

    An exellent and extremely entertaining documentary about the cane toad invasion is known simply as "Cane Toads"

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130529/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZn x0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9Y2FuZSB0b2FkfGZ0PTF8 bXg9MjB8bG09NTAwfGNvPTF8aHRtbD0xfG5tPTE_;fc=2;ft=2 2;fm=1

    The article has a little bit of new info regarding leg length. However, the documentary makes paints these as creatures completely absurd. You have to be to reproduce that quickly.

    Its so funny and bizzare that I didn't believe it was real.

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
  32. Cane toads? by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

    Cane toads? I'd'a called 'em a 'chazwazzle'.

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    1. Re:Cane toads? by My-Kung-Fu-Is-Best · · Score: 1

      Blast! You beat me to it!

  33. In other news... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Militants have taken over Russia! Calling themselves "Bolshivics" a group of Marxist seperatists, led by the charismatic "Lenin", recently siezed control of the city of Petrograd and fighting has spread to every other major city. Fighting in Moscow lasted about a week but has been relatively bloodless, not interrupting the opera or the ballet. Theaters, schools and government offices are still functioning but Bolshivic dominance of the Duma now seems assured.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:In other news... by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      WHAT! Next thing you know their going to be in China....what is the world coming to.

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    2. Re:In other news... by anothy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ah, the good old days. before Stalin rose to power, destroyed communism, sold its soul to capitalism, power, and ambition, hunted down all the Trotskyites, demonized their ideas, and his and that fool Mao's pseudo-Communism stalled progress for half the world for a few decades, with some of it still going.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    3. Re:In other news... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. What they stood for was a world revolution that just wasn't happening. Stalin had the sense to recognise that Russia couldn't depend on the workers rising up in the west to come to their aid. Thus the whole "socialism in one country" approach. Unfortunately the response of his contemporaries was the knee-jerk of revolution. By liquidating them he was just assuring his own power, which history has shown was in the best interest of Soviet Russia. Had Stalin been overthrown before he implemented his first isolationist "5 year plan", Russia would have been the first country to fall when Germany attacked.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:In other news... by anothy · · Score: 1

      this is all nonesense. you need a history lesson.

      first of all, stop the horrible doublethink word games. Stalin wasn't "liquidating" people, he was murdering or assassinating them. calling it otherwise is simply gross.

      and no, "history" certainly has not shown that Stalin's rise to power was "best" for Soviet Russia. obvious flaws with that claim include the fact that it obviously wasn't better for the 20+ million Stalin had killed; the resulting Soviet internal economy reinforced a split between Inner and Outer party members, with just as much exploitation of the working class as under a capitalist system (exactly as Trotsky predicted); and, most obviously, without comparative examples it's totally vacuous to claim that history has "proved" anything about a situation. i contend that it would have been much better for Russia, certainly their immediate neighbors, and the world, if Stalin had never come to power, instead having Russia go in a Trotskyite, Marxist direction of actually protecting the working class rather then selling out to it.

      also, you're simply wrong about there not being workers uprisings in other places. it certainly wasn't happening as rapidly or dramatically as Trotsky (or Marx) expected/hoped, but it was happening. witness the huge socialist trend in the United Kingdom or much of Europe today - the "global Communist" movements of the era is where the effects we have today come from.
      and, of course, it was much more global than that. look at south-east asia, south america, or africa, for example, for numerous examples. not to mention the trade unions in nearly every industrialized country in the world, including the poster child for capitalism, the United States. the fact that it was spreading was the basis for the Red Scare in the United States.

      finally, Stalin's psychotic tendency to eliminate anyone in his military who didn't entirely tow the entire party line (that is, his line), including his top generals and lieutenants, dramatically weakened the Soviet army. this is why Russia performed so tremendously poorly in the Winter War. the fact that this war served as a wake-up call to Stalin led him to temper this policy in time to avoid sure defeat at the hands of the Nazis, but the fact remains that they had certainly not recovered to the point before Stalin started his massacres.

      Stalin killed Communism not just by selling out the ideas, but also by turning it into a ideological pariah. he strove after personal power only, as evidenced by the military nature of his conquests of his neighbors and the cult of personality he built up around him. it's hard to find more then a small handful who've done more to hurt all of humanity through malice or sheer disregard.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  34. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a gay attempt at FP'ing. +5 just because you can cut and paste? Give me a break. But these people are the ones who get the modpoints.

    Good Sir, know that you speak of TripMasterMonkey, whose karma whoring has passed into legend, even on these most whore filled of boards.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  35. Floated in on driftwood? by Winlin · · Score: 1

    The toads must have washed ashore along with the camels and occasional wizards.
    (Sorry, I just finished reading The Last Continent.)

  36. Exactly Where: by slashbob22 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tazmania is an Island State to the south of Australia.

    --
    Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    1. Re:Exactly Where: by jratcliffe · · Score: 1, Informative

      T"azmania is an Island State to the south of Australia."

      No, it isn't. Tasmania is an island south of Australia. Tazmania describes a bipolar cartoon character when he's not depressed.

    2. Re:Exactly Where: by slashbob22 · · Score: 1

      Touche Salesman. Ironically, look at the Wikipedia Link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazmania". I was in such a tizzy to post I got confused. Now I'm glad I refrained from commenting on the Parent's spelling mistake ("Austalia").

      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
  37. RTFA by sc0ob5 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not news that there are toads Australia. The article is about the toads growing longer legs. Clearly not many people have actually read the article...

  38. The toxin is hallucinogenic! by JPriest · · Score: 1

    If consumed the toxin can cause one to hallucinate. Maybe these things do have a natural preditor, hippies!

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  39. amazing alliteration by Xeo+024 · · Score: 1

    Toxic Toads Taste Terrific Tomorrow Today Time To Tie To Tang Tambourine Tazer..

    I was going to read the article but I was blindsided by the topic. Sorry if I let you guys down.

  40. Sorry, not the psychoactive kind by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    In case anyone was wondering, this isn't the psychoactive toad that's been a pop culture reference. Various TV shows have had episodes about toad licking (though according to wikipedia licking can be deadly, you're supposed to smoke the venom). That toad is native to the US.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Sorry, not the psychoactive kind by gratman · · Score: 1

      that wikipedia says that the cane toad IS psychoactive. Just not as much as the colorado river toad.

  41. Re:Toads Staying alive! Staying alive.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disco Stu says "Welcome toads".

  42. Re: Seems obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a toad has longer legs, even by 1% (assuming this is a reasonable variation in a population), it'll cover proportionately more ground. Thus, if toads were introduced in one location, and given that Australia is really quite large (especially if you're a toad), it seems obvious that in a few generations, the only toads that have moved a long way from their original introduction point are more likely to be longer legged. So, of course they're going to evolve longer legs.

    What I want to know is, are they going to evolve airbags to combat toad golf...

  43. The Man really messed up Australian wild life. by SlashThat · · Score: 1

    Rabbits, toads, wild cats and dogs, even wild camels! A list of human "improvements" to Australian fauna can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_A ustralia.

    --
    1's and 0's should be free.
  44. I was battling them by doctorwc · · Score: 1

    Long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far, away, I was already fighting them Cane Toads.

    http://www.aaaugh.com/jokes/cane_toad.html

  45. Toad King! by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    English:
    I, for one, welcome our new toxic toad overlords!

    Toad:
    ribbet, ribbet ribbt, ribbbit riibbite ribbit!

  46. That's the price we pay... by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    > Their heads and backsides are studded with rows of warts that secrete a milky white toxin called bufotoxin. Because Australia has no native toads, many native predators such as snakes, lizards and mammals are very sensitive to the toxin. So when the toads spread, they immediately kill off many of the region's top predators.

    That is the price we pay for being "clever" human beings. I wonder why on one hand, countries like Australia advocate for leaving nature to take its toll while on the other hand, they mute out "clever solutions" to nature's "problems" in the eyes of humans.

    Next, they are going to embark on an aggressive control or eradication program. Once in place, they will boast that it's the most extensive and most complicated program anywhere on the globe.

    That is: -

    1: Create the problem or create conditions enabling the problem to flourish, then

    2: Find a solution to the problem, then

    3: Boast that you have the best solution t such a problem. That is the west's mentality - sadly I must add.

    1. Re:That's the price we pay... by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      More a case of 'the sins of the fathers' Matey, all nice to be self righteous and pious about it, but this critter was introduced in the 1930s, not one of the smartest moves in history I'd agree, but hardly something that can be blamed on the current generation, I for one am not guilt ridden about it, BUT I wouldn't mind finding a solution for this pest nonetheless, I care not a sausage who will boast about it!

      --
      You never catch me alive
  47. Solution.... by jemenake · · Score: 1

    So the toad has no natural predators in Australia? Here's the solution... just import whatever its predators are in Hawaii.

    Oh, and, so that we don't have this problem again, don't forget to import whatever their predators are (and so on). And, once we've had all of Hawaii's fauna displace the native ones, have Hawaii annex Australia... and rename it something like "Ulawakai'i". :)

    - Joe

    1. Re:Solution.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the real solution. Just call in the French Brigade. The French love eating frog legs, and don't these frogs have massive legs? The French would love it! No other country would be better suited for this job.

  48. D'oH! by simrook · · Score: 1

    Butter's Sidekick: Simpsons Did It! Simpsons Did It!

    Solution to this? Send Dick down there with a gun.

    --
    'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
  49. All Your Ponds Are Belong To Us! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Not to mention your dry lake beds.

    None shall be spared, except maybe those who follow The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    P.S.: Please don't lick us. We're not psychoactive, just poisonous. And watching you ugly humans writhe on the ground in pain really puts a damper on our day.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  50. Hmm by bogie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Didnt' I see this on the Simpsons? Dam Bart.

    From another epi but still funny

    Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
    Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
    Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
    Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
    Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
    Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  51. Evolution by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Cane toads really need to evolve into something that can avoid cars, I ran over one last night...

    --
    Task Mangler
  52. An even BETTER Solution ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    So the toad has no natural predators in Australia? Here's the solution... just import whatever its predators are in Hawaii.

    An even better solution would be to:

    Build A Giant Fence Across Australia To Stop the Toxic Toads!

    Of course, if they can hop really high, it would be a really big fence, and then we could dislocate even more locals ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  53. This is news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Slashdot Welcome to 1978 .. this is news ? Thanks Australia

  54. Real story is the Ravens by Alcimedes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last I'd heard nothing was eating these toads.

    Nothing that is except a small population of Ravens that learned that if you flip the toads over, the bellys have no poison. As soon as one figured this out, others started to copy the behavior. Now ravens are disembowling these toads all over the place.

    Now that is cool.

    1. Re:Real story is the Ravens by robbak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, several native species are beginning to target the Cane Toad.

      Ric Nattrass, in his Wildlife Talkback radio segment (search on abc.net.au for more), often recieves reports about various birds and other animals beginning to eat toads.

      Personally, we have native White-Tailed Rats that catch toads in our pond, and eat their insides, leaving a neatly-cleaned skin and skeletal parts behind.

      So, although all is not lost, it takes some time, and many species are wiped out before they work out either how to eat them or to leave them alone. When they reach Kakadoo, it is going to be a disaster, but no one has any way to prevent it.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    2. Re:Real story is the Ravens by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      "it is going to be a disaster, but no one has any way to prevent it."

      Four words:
      "National Toad Wacking Month"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Real story is the Ravens by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Why can't they just build a big wall? I mean, how high can a toad jump anyway?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Real story is the Ravens by Meph_the_Balrog · · Score: 1

      Just a small point of interest from a local, they hit Kakadu a couple of years ago.

      They're starting to be seen around Darwin itself, though they're still not common.

    5. Re:Real story is the Ravens by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sounds good, but these things are *tough*

      I've seen one hit with a golf club, fly a fair distance and smack into a tree only to crawl off. They have been run over by cars and survived.

      A whacking day won't kill them. A *chopping* day might.

    6. Re:Real story is the Ravens by nicoleh · · Score: 1

      Keelback snakes are another predator - but they'll often only go for the smaller cane toads.

    7. Re:Real story is the Ravens by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      people already kill the shit out of the cane toads, to no avail.
      They have no natural predators in Australia. This ravens eating them from the belly is the first I've heard of anything eating them.
      They find snakes all the time, dead with cane toads in their mouths.
      The cane toads tadpoles both hatch and sprout legs and come to land earlier than any native toad species, thus effectively locking down all toad habitat and food supplies.
      Plus they're poisonous from the moment the eggs are laid. which is just awesome.
      the video posted above is sweet.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    8. Re:Real story is the Ravens by anothy · · Score: 1

      go watch the movie referenced above. they've basically already tried that.

      the movie's also really funny in its own right. i'm particularly a fan of the guy who, when swerving wildly on the road to run over the toads in his bus, much prefers to hit them head-on since - and i can't make this stuff up - it makes a more satisfying popping sound.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    9. Re:Real story is the Ravens by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution is to introduce another species to eat the frogs. Then it's your kids' problem, not yours.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    10. Re:Real story is the Ravens by A3gis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my boss runs www.frogwatch.org.au - he was saying a little while back that there is a snake that hunts them too.

    11. Re:Real story is the Ravens by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Well as a Queenslander, I can tell you every month is national toad-whacking month. We're all encouraged to kill them "humanely" by putting them in the freezer (shyeah!). About once a year some politician gets in trouble from the "look at me I'm on TV" brand of animal rights dickheads for telling people to cricket bat toads. Which of course puts the cricket batting of toads on everybody's mind :)

      Nothing beats a successful night of toading!

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    12. Re:Real story is the Ravens by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Nothing that is except
      Add to the list crows, the keelback snake, long necked turtles, water rats and a crocodile in a sewerage treatment plant at Cairns that only eats the legs. All but the turtles and the keelback snakes have worked out which parts to avoid. The turtles and keelback snakes don't seem to be affected - but other types of snakes die very rapidly after biting a toad. After decades some things have worked out how to deal with them - but there are a lot of toads out there despite many Australian children killing the things for fun. The most humane way is to freeze them - but bleach, disinfectant and blunt instruments are also used.
    13. Re:Real story is the Ravens by Tuross · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the Queensland government recently passed a law outlawing the (northern) national sport of playing golf with cane toads.

      Of course, if the NSW government haven't got the same legal problem, nothing stops those in Coffs whacking the little blighters back across the border ;)

      --
      Matt
      1. Read Slashdot
      2. ???
      3. Profit
    14. Re:Real story is the Ravens by inphorm · · Score: 0

      As a fellow Queenslander, I'd have to say this is 100% accurate.

      A friend of mine has a nice Acerage in Bridgeman Downs, we will frequently head out at night and play a bit of Toad Golf.. quite amusing..

      - paul

    15. Re:Real story is the Ravens by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      dettol is your answer. not in any way humane, but one spray and they hop off to die

      --
      TIAEAE!
    16. Re:Real story is the Ravens by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry about that. On my work browser (IE 5.1, MacOS 9,2) there's no preview button and the submit button is only four pixels high.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    17. Re:Real story is the Ravens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every month is toad whacking month in Northern Australia. There are dead toads all over the roads here in Townsville, North Queensland and any toad that gets into people's gardens is fair game for toad golf.

    18. Re:Real story is the Ravens by FinalMidnight · · Score: 1

      There has been some suggestions that effective toad traps can cut the Cane Toad population by up to seventy percent. The expense would be quite prohibitive though, Kakadu is a rather large place.

      My personal favorite solution is to have the CSIRO breed a toxin resistant olive python or brown snake, and set them lose into the wild. A toxin resistant native preditor would go a long way to restoring some kind of balance. Besides, I think that four meter long Olive Pythons are cute as hell. Example: http://www.mcmartinville.com/reptiles/trips/austra lia/olive.htm

      Brown Snakes, on the other hand, are not quite so cuddly, but have been here for a long time. I'd rather have a bazillion brown snakes (who run away, er, slither away given the chance) than unlimited quantities of toxic toads.

      Anyone want to buy a toad skin jacket?

      Midnight9

      --
      In the maelstrom of the chaos at the center of my mind, I taste the salt of sadness as I feel my soul unwind.
    19. Re:Real story is the Ravens by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is inhumane. I used to have a water pistol loaded with Dettol and when I squirted them they didn't even hop away just stayed there looking at me. Then slowly closed their eyes and toppled over to die. Beats an axe or putting them in the freezer (yuck!).

      Physical force isn't very effective I have found. If you don't impale them to the ground with a sharp object then usually the next day they have gone. Almost indestructible.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    20. Re:Real story is the Ravens by Archades54 · · Score: 0

      "RSPCA BECOMES BILLIONAIRES AFTER CANE WHACKING MONTH"
      The RSPCA reports record profits from the new fine in which a person can get up to 80 000 dollar fine for inhumane treatment of toads.

      thats the new law they brought in anyway, 1 hit kills are ok, but if you need 2 or more, you can get the fine.

      kids also use to smoke the toads, for the effect it gives, the poison in its back seems to make them high or whatever.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  55. thanks anon ;-) by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i'm not really interested in trying it, i'm just curious in the way i'm curious about the veracity of most urban legends

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  56. Here's a documentary on Australia's Cane Toad Hist by putko · · Score: 1
    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  57. And this is news how? by NerdENerd · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I am 35 years old and the cane toads here have been a problem as long as I can remember. I live in Queensland Australia where the cane toad is the biggest problem. I is kind of a state sport to see how many ways you can kill a cane toad when you are a kid here. Methods include golf clubs, cricket bats, air rifles, bow and arrow, home made flame throwers, shovels and any thing else you can imagine.

    1. Re:And this is news how? by TeleoMan · · Score: 0

      Dude. Just lick it. Lick it good.

      --
      $6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
  58. D'oh... I meant toad. by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    Wow. I can be really stupid. I hit preview and still managed to post something blatantly wrong.

    s/frog/toad

    Best,
    Paul

    1. Re:D'oh... I meant toad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you have been smoking too many cane toads again? :-)

    2. Re:D'oh... I meant toad. by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      or drinking them?

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
  59. Old news: old problem, old solution by brindafella · · Score: 1

    I am an amateur herpetologist and have heard the bad-news stories of reptile deaths from eating Cane Toad (Giant Neotropical Toad, Bufo marinus) in northern Australia for some years.

    Some populations are in great danger. The toads are toxic from the egg stage, and are eaten by native amphibians, reptiles, and mammals at all levels of the food chain. Because the native populations can't learn and pass on their new behaviours (to avoid the toads, because the ones who eat a toad normally die) there has been considerable reduction in some kinds of native animals who have been eating the toads. It has been reported that even the seemingly indestructable Saltwater Crocodiles have died after eating toads.

    Because the cane toad 'escaped' into the environment, Australian scientists have been much more aware of the dangers and have studied subsequent releases of biological controls at very considerable depth before release. (I am aware of this from being peripherally connected to studies into release of several other biological controls by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.)

    Using a car to squash a Cane Toad that is on a road has been a sport in certain parts of Australia for many years. Many people in areas infested with cane toads (used to) consider a golf club, cricket bat, or shovel a suitable implement for toad control; they are probably a *little* more Politically Correct these days.

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
    1. Re:Old news: old problem, old solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen Australian park rangers swerving their Landrovers specifically to maximize their hit rate in Queensland. Park rangers in other places don't normally go out of their way to run over wildlife. These guys aren't doing it for sport, they're being paid.

  60. Psychedelic Toad of the Australian Desert (Not ) by 25albert · · Score: 1

    These are related to Bufo Alvarius aka The Psychedelic Toad of the Sonoran Desert.

    But (unfortunately), the venom of Bufo Marinus does not seem to contain the strong hallucinogenic compound found in Bufo Alvarius (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine aka 5-MeO-DMT).

    While some have claimed that bufotenine does have a psychoactive effect, it is disputed, and I wouldn't try it. It definitely does have a cardiovascular effect, which can be dangerous.

    See TOAD VENOM...THEIR TOXICITY & PSYCHOACTIVE EFFECTS.

    So, I don't think I will go toad hunting to Australia. Good old psylocibin or LSD seem much safer...

  61. Killer bees by lems1 · · Score: 1

    Reminds me a lot of how those bees were imported from Africa and released by "mistake" on Brazil... Ah, the planet is being forced to change by humans again...

    --
    This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
  62. Humane Killing by StArSkY · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The damn cane toads are always in the news here.

    The current huge argument is over whether it is human to beat them to death with Golf clubs.

    Seriously, a NT minister suggested that golf clubs worked great, and lots of animal liberationists lost it, and suggested the only humane way was to put something on their back (can't remember what, put them in a plastic bag and then freeze them to death.

    Hello people, this Toad is destroying our Native wildlife and you are worried about cruelty ????

    --
    lounge around on the blue couch
    1. Re:Humane Killing by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Why not just find out what eats them in Hawaii and import that?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Humane Killing by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      Don't know if this could be deemed to be humane, but word has it that a spray bottle with Dettol (disinfectant) will do the trick, supposedly numbs them, pop them in a garbage bag, throw the lot in the freezer and Bob's your uncle, I don't know if I would chuck a steak on the BBQ after that though ;)

      --
      You never catch me alive
    3. Re:Humane Killing by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Nah, just go the two wood.

    4. Re:Humane Killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Senator who suggested hitting them with a Golf club caused a huge fuss with the RSPCA.
      The RSPCA responded and made the front page of the NT News (www.ntnews.news.com.au) with the claim that hitting toads with a golf club may land you with a $12,000 fine.
      The RSPCA claimed that a toad should only be hit once otherwise you may be charged with cruelty to animals.
      We have found a simple solution: you and your mates happen across a toad and someone has a golf club. Well, you only hit it once. Thats once EACH. I've seen an AFL football team of blokes beating the crap out of a toad from 1 end of the park to the other.

      p.s. The RSPCA recommends you get ANUSOL (no joke) a heamaroid cream and put it down thir back to "numb" the toad then stick it into the freezer to kill it humanely. So far i havent heard of a single territorian stupid enough to put a toxin that kills animals (and humans) in the freezer next to the ice cream. ....mmmm bufo toxin flavoured ice cream, great for when you run out of Magic Mushrooms and Rat poison...YUMMY!!!

    5. Re:Humane Killing by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      dettol doesnt numb them, it kills them... and fast too. you spray one shot of dettol on them and they hop off like crazy (they really dont like it), the next day youve got dried up toads all over your lawn. i think it absorbs into their skin and dries them right out

      --
      TIAEAE!
    6. Re:Humane Killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello people, this Toad is destroying our Native wildlife and you are worried about cruelty ????

      Hey, you're right! Let's go kill all humans since they've already done more than enough damage to wildlife everywhere.

    7. Re:Humane Killing by Elvis77 · · Score: 1

      Had one in my front yard last week, just below the 3 foot boulder retaining wall. "Looks like I need me a nine iron", I said.

      I wacked that bugger from here to eternity. I'm not sharing my heamaroid cream with anyone mate...

      --

      The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed (SK)
    8. Re:Humane Killing by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      dumbass

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    9. Re:Humane Killing by Icculus · · Score: 1

      usually folks post a little comment before appending their sig

  63. Reminds me of an episode of The Goodies. by Ricdude · · Score: 1

    Wherein various new predators were introduced to control increasingly out of control predators. I think the final attempt used a 40 foot tall version of a domestic cat. I don't recall it turning out very well...

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
    1. Re:Reminds me of an episode of The Goodies. by vortexau · · Score: 1

      You would be commenting here on the episode "Kitten Kong", which is a treasured episode indeed!
      .

      --
      (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  64. As a canetoad myself... by PigIronBob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Coming from Brisbane (capital of Queensland), I am referred to as a 'Cane Toad' as are all Queenslanders, a slightly better nickname than our southern brothers from New South Wales who have the 'Cockroaches' predicate, Victorians are known as 'VWs' (Victorian Wankers). There is only 1 known predator that can handle the Cane toad and that is the native Crow, it has learned (clever little buggar) to flick the toad on its back and go for the belly, thereby avoiding the poison glands on the back, I would be tempted to say 'Go the Crows', but I'm from Brisbane, not Adelaide ;)

    --
    You never catch me alive
    1. Re:As a canetoad myself... by aaza · · Score: 1
      I've never heard of you lot as "Cane Toads" before; we usually call you banana-benders.

      (Crow-eater here - That's in South Australia for the rest of the world)

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    2. Re:As a canetoad myself... by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      must be just the bloody cockroaches doing it then, go the Lions btw ;)

      --
      You never catch me alive
  65. can they get you high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to get high off these toads? I thinking about moving to Australia now..

  66. Crows learned how to kill cane toads by pauly_thumbs · · Score: 1

    I saw somehting on Animal Planet the other day that showed common crows flipping the toads onto their backs and disembowling them and then eating up their yummy entrails! DELISH!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/05/31/wtoad31.xml

    "Some species are learning how to deal with the toads. "Crows have learned to flip them over and eat their bellies out, avoiding the poison glands," Dr Kennett said."

  67. I found a solution... by realilskater · · Score: 1

    ...to the toad problem. Bring in a predator that can eat them without dieing.

  68. Cane toad? That's an odd name! by ScaryMonkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I'da called it a chazzwozzer!

  69. Just Call In The French Brigade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet there's enough frogs there to feed the entire French army! See, there's a solution for every problem, you just have to think outside the box.

  70. Obligatory... by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our dinner-plate sized, predator-killing overlords.

    --
    --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
  71. really bad news by Intangion · · Score: 1

    i heard that alot of peoples dogs wind up dead after eating the frogs also their crocidiles are even dying off after eating these toads, a predator so unchallenged that it hasnt had to evolve for .. what millions of years? is now dying off because it eats a bad toad ;)

  72. Australian Cane Toad Sports by MishgoDog · · Score: 2, Informative

    But all is not lost! Us sport-obsessed Australians have developed numerous new past-times with these wonderful beasts! There's Cane Toad Golf, the time honoured past time of wandering fields with a driver and rather than wasting good golf balls, working on your swing and ridding a national pest at the same time! Cane Toad Cricket, very similar to golf, but with a cricket bat. Not quite as much fun. Then there's Cane Toad racing, which I think will be hugely benifited by the increase in leg size - however will this invalidate the old records set by shorter-legged toads of yore?

    1. Re:Australian Cane Toad Sports by thouth · · Score: 1

      Not only all of that, but if you flatten them out and roll em up you can smoke them! The bufotoxin is a powerful hallucinogenic so if you don't die you'll trip pretty hard. Apparently.

  73. simpsons anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds alot like the episode of the simpsons where they travel to australia... did the aussie government take this idea from them? :-p

  74. Disco Overlords by bdaehlie · · Score: 1

    "Last year, researchers announced they had successfully lured and trapped the toads using ultraviolet lights like those used in disco clubs."

    If they're going to take over, lets not give them any ideas.

  75. Genetic self-destruct button by Peaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to encode genetic weaknesses into creatures you are going to spread in such an environment, so that you can get rid of them in case they cause too much trouble?

    I am not sure about the exact implementation of this, but perhaps reducing resistability to some otherwise harmless disease, or increasing sensitivity to a type of poison...

    Any biology experts to comment on the idea?

    1. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be a good idea to encode genetic weaknesses into creatures you are going to spread in such an environment, so that you can get rid of them in case they cause too much trouble?

      I would say it's FAR BETTER to simply NOT INTRODUCE THEM in the first place.

      This was nearly a century ago, long before genetics was advanced enough to do anything like this, anyhow.

      The "invasive species" we hear about often, are almost always stow aways which pretty well precludes genetic modification of them. If we could capture them in the first place, we would be better off killing or returning them where they came from.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by Excen · · Score: 0

      But GMOs are wrong! PETA and Greenpeace said so, and they're NEVER wrong!

      Yeah, mark me flamebait if you wanna, you know I captured the zealot sentiment.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    3. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by Ra+Zen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, it's not very easy to genetically modify a tomato to produce extra vitamins (something people very much want to do), let alone giing a toad a self-destruct button. If you do manage to engineer something of the sort your likely to A) have a defective toad that won't get out of the starting gate, or B) the that trait will be lost due to selective forces in the wild. Part of the reason genetic engineering works is that we do it for crop plants or domestic animals for which we control the environment. Further, it's just a bad idea to introduce anything into nature, especially genetically modified organisms (we are having enough problem with resistance gene spill over from crop plants as it is), because the consequences are completely unpredictable. Lastly, our ability to genetically modify organisms is extremely overblown by the media, the process is both much harder and mush cruder than most people imagine.

    4. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by eyeb1 · · Score: 1

      don't worry it's already been implemented ..

      they are called humans ..

      they think they are intelligent enough to f**k with a system as complex and evolved as a bio-sphere and get away without unforeseen dire consequences ..

      oh!! oh!! .. wait we can fix that .. and that .. and that ..

      the planet will have the last say ..

      and the fundamentalist have not even though to ask were do the new plagues of Revelation come from anyway ..

      from colonialism .. globalization .. genetic engineering and modern medicine ..

      by the time you realize it was a mistake .. it's to little and to late ..

      if humans were really exhibiting intelligence they would know enough not to f**k with it ..

    5. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by Henk+Postma · · Score: 1
      Yes, but you will only wipe out the ones that still have your genetic backdoor in place. Those with mutated backdoors will survive and mutiply.

      Ahhh .... evolution is a wonderful thing isn't it? :)

    6. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > encode genetic weaknesses into creatures you
      > are going to spread in such an environment

      After 4 years - they die. And the ones in nature can't reproduce.

      -- at least, that is part of the plotline in Blade Runner

    7. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by lbft · · Score: 1

      It'd never work - just look at Jurassic Park!

    8. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by bpd1069 · · Score: 1

      you mean like in Blade Runner? hehe see what good that did Tyrell

      --
      --
    9. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by emilicon · · Score: 1

      Having a personal vendetta against cane toads as they almost killed our dachshund when I was 5, I roped in my family to submit an invention for Australia's Northern Territory Government's competition last year (sadly, we didn't win, though it was still genius, of course - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1356797.htm )

      In any case, the NT Government competition had way too many controls around the invention with the organisers wanting it to be a physical trap, when, in my opinion, they'd be best served by a bot similar to Ian Kelly's Slugbot (http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/People%20Pages/i-kelly/t ta.htm) as the Cane Toad's spawn are quite distinct from those of native toads - which are beautiful, and we don't want to kill, obviously.

    10. Re:Genetic self-destruct button by sandmaninator · · Score: 1


      I'm no biology expert but I can tell you about a problem we have in the great lakes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamprey

      What they do is release sterile males into the population. I guess the female gets her freak-on with a sterile male and that disrupts the life cycle of the little blood suckers.

  76. Obviously a y2k problem... by argent · · Score: 1

    It's obviously a y2k problem, Slashdot got reset to 1906 at the beginning of the year and it's taking them a while to catch up.

    Maybe when they get to 1982 they can slip Jobs a word about giving the Lisa a miss?

    PS: that's "Bolshevik".

    1. Re:Obviously a y2k problem... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was impersonating a Slashdot story, spelling mistakes are a requirement.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Obviously a y2k problem... by john83 · · Score: 0

      PS: that's "Bolshevik".

      I was impersonating a Slashdot story, spelling mistakes are a requirement.

      Given that the Russians don't use our alphabet, I wouldn't be surprised if your spelling would be acceptable too. :)

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  77. a toxin ??? You mean psychoactive substance ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Bufotoxin'... well I've never seen it called this way, in my part of the world (well, at least my perception of my part of my world where I used to 'live') it's rather called 'Bufotenine'.

    Just google it and I'm sure you'll find you could be in for one helluva trip if you'd go to Australia...

    (ever heard the term 'toad licking' well.. it's the same toad... and 'dinner plate' sounds like just the right size to me)

  78. Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by lorelorn · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This is not news, the toads were brought over here in the 1930s. information, yes. news, no.

    I didn't bother to read the article, but the crows here have recently worked out that they can flip the toads over to kill and eat them, and avoid any toxin. As a result, crows have moved from listed pest to protected species.

    Bringing the toads over was more a political decision than a scientific one. The sugar industry was crying out for a magic bullet to solve their problem, and the toad was it. The toads failed to control the pest they were supposed to eradicate, and became a major pest themselves. When cane toads move into an area, the first thing that happens is that the native frog population plummets.

    The toads are spreading annually and have recently arrived in Daintree, one of the last native frog habitats we have.

    Predicably, our sugar industry is still a bunch of government-subsidised whingers, and no one has yet suggested they start helping pay to control this major pest they introduced.

    1. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by RedWizzard · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is not news, the toads were brought over here in the 1930s. information, yes. news, no.

      I didn't bother to read the article,

      If you had of RTFA you'd know that the news here is that the cane toads are evolving longer legs.
    2. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by PraGu3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a local to the region the Cane Toads were introduced (Cairns) I can assure you the Daintree has had them for decades. The Daintree is only about 120 miles north of Cairns and I can remember as a child back in the 70's seeing them at Cape Tribulation (another 40 miles north of Daintree).

      You may be thinking of Darwin about 2000 miles west of Cairns which has only just started getting them in the last few months.

      There are 2 ways to kill cane toads ... the humane way, and the FUN way.

      The humane way involves bagging then freezing them. Which many dont like doing for obvious reasons.

      The fun way involves either playing chicken with them on the roads (the toads rarely win against most cars, however those smaller buzzboxes may flip at high speeds). On some the main highway there can be "splatters" of toads as close as a metre appart, and on a 15mi stretch of road thats ALOT of toads and the smell when the sun comes out to dry them is spectacular.

      The other fun way if you have nasty neighbors involves practicing your golf swing by slicing them up onto your neighbors roof. Be warned however, beurocracy and stupidity have once again reared their heads with the RSPCA (like the ASPCA of the US) is calling for maximum penalties against those found inhumanely treating toads (golf clubs, etc) this carries a maximum $100,000 penalty IIRC.

      It will be impossible to eradicate the Cane Toads except through a biological means (virus/bacteria genetically targetting them) as their population is beyond comprehension. At any one time during a downpour there could be up to 50 toads in one yard, there are over 100,000 yards in Cairns alone (say 40 sq mi area) and that doesnt include the "bush" which easily covers the whole area of Queensland (about 666,000sq mi) and on into Northern Territory. So you can easily see that they could easily number into the tens or hundreds of millions.

    3. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by miro+f · · Score: 1

      don't be ridiculous, no one reads the articles!

      Might be actually justified if submitters posted halfway decent summaries

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    4. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by sinewalker · · Score: 1

      Well then, the headline should have been: "Cane Toads Evloving Longer Legs"...

      I have heard that there is now a solution to the original pest (the beetle) involving some native critter. Unfortunately the toads are still a major issue, and the only solution appears to be domestic travel (squish with cars)...

      --
      “Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
    5. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Well then, the headline should have been: "Cane Toads Evloving Longer Legs"...
      I agree, the headline and summary were terrible. But people still shouldn't be commenting on the article if they have not read the article.
    6. Re:Not News, This is a Decades-Old Problem by lorelorn · · Score: 1

      Actually the sugar industry has responded to the cane toads' failure by dousing their crop in a potent chemical that is a major source of the coral bleaching affecting the Great Barrier Reef.

  79. I've seen this before by LParks · · Score: 1

    There was an old lady who swalled a fly...

  80. I don't think there is any way to stop them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I don't see any way out of this one. The toads cannot be touched, and folks will never stand for the only feasible option, which would be some sort of devastating toxic chemical or biological assault on them. Is Australia lost?

  81. Cool! Go crows... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...although when they figure out how to dine on our entrails, we're in trouble. Those suckers are smarter than bears even.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Cool! Go crows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The squirrels raiding my bird feeder regularly demonstrate their intellectual superiority to me.

  82. Toads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think professionally they are called Politicians.

    But in the true tradition of unusual animals in Australia, they are led by a spineless weasle, commonly known as Johnie.

  83. Give it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it up! (Give up the toad now)
    It's no joke, buddy!
    Give it up! (Give up the toad now)
    Or you'll croak, buddy!
    Give it up! (Gotta give up the toad now)
    And don't smoke,
    Or you'll see - it hurts to pee.

  84. Futurama quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-TOAD

  85. Re: Seems obvious by skoaldipper · · Score: 2, Funny

    What about all these Aussies now hunting down and chasing toads with pellet guns? That's an awful lot of exercise there mate. Why are there no reports of extra long legged Aussies now?

    --
    I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
  86. Cane toad evolution by Ra+Zen · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yup, very bad title, since Cane Toads have been around for so long... but you all knew that already. I'm a PhD student studying evolutionary biology so I'd like to comment on the evolutionary aspects of the story. Specifically, the claim the that the long-leggedness of the toads on the forefront of the migration demonstrates evolution. This idea, of course, makes sense because legs are likely to help with dispersal. But, whether this will cause evolution or not depends on at least two factors: 1) Is leg length genetically controlled? If it's environmental, in that toads with better luck (i.e. found lots of juicy worms as a youngin') then leg length cannot be passed on so there's no evoution. I'll have to read the nature paper to find out what the authors said about this. 2) The long legged toads must have a disproportionate contribution to the gene pool of future generations. However, this story notes that the short legged toads start to arrive eventually. Interestingly, we actaully have some evidence to suggest that the long legged toads could have this advantage. In Estoup et al's 2004 paper in Evolution (Vol 58, Iss 9) it is shown that founders of new toad populations (possibly long legged toads?) actually have a very large contribution to the gene pool in comparison to later arrivals (the short legged toads?). This would make sense given that these early founders will be able to arrive early and breed often. Thus, they would gain a fitness advantage for being long legged. But, as far as the story goes we have none of this information.

    1. Re:Cane toad evolution by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Unusual leg length in toads at the front of the wave of advance could be environmental, but I'd say the fact that they spread five times faster now than they did in 1935 (about 50 km/year as opposed to 10 km/year) points to evolution.

  87. Re:This is news? [OT but necessary rant] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adult Content Warning

    The page that you are about to view may contain adult content. In order to continue, you must read our terms for adult content and confirm that you are over 18 years of age.

    And then I get a button to click on saying 'I am at least 18 years of age' but nothing happens - presumably because I don't have cookies enabled.

    So Google heroically resists US government pressure to turn over information, but caves to China's demand to censor its inhabitants - but then imposes its own censorship on US citizens? Unless, of course, we agree to be cookied and fill in forms for 'adult content'... for a Usenet post? I could go to alt.bizarre.kinky.sadomasochism.bork.bork.bork if I was five and/or read the *original* Usenet posting with no age authentication or cookies whatsoever but, now that Google 'owns' this, it's handled this way?

    All of this could be completely barking up the wrong tree and there's a simple explanation and if so, great, but it sure seems damned bizarre to me.

  88. National Toad Wacking Month. by robbak · · Score: 1

    Yes, I like your idea (Although the RSPCA is threatening anyone who participates in toad-golf with imprisonment), but I will point out that, in the area arround Kakadu, there are few people, and toads breed quickly. By the time toad number 1 lands, another few hundred reinforcements have just hopped out of the swamp.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Just offer a bounty for them and they'll be extinct faster than you can say "Tasmanian Tiger."

    2. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by m00j · · Score: 1

      But the government will be bankrupt! There are just so many of them! Last night I counted around 5 in a 2 m^2 area of the yard. It is not uncommon to see 10 or so toads on the 100m of driveway at night, and there will be countless more hiding in the grass.

      My friends and I went on a toad hunting night at a local park, we cleared away around 50 toads in an hour. Considering due to us being idiots we only had ONE torch I think we did pretty well.

      The scary ones is when your up late at night, and then you hear a *thump* as a big one jumps against the glass door (they are attracted to light).

    3. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by vivian · · Score: 1

      Just offer a bounty for them and they'll be extinct faster than you can say "Tasmanian Tiger."

      Australians are a bit more enterprising than that. Within a month of a bounty on cane toads being offered, there wold be cane toad farms in every back yard.
      People can be remarkably resourceful when it comes to clawing back tax dollars from the govornment.

    4. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      So you killed 50 in an hour. If you'd gotten $100 for your those 50, you probably would have kept going. Additionally, the entire town would probably be doing it as well. A few months of that would make a huge difference. Never underestimate man's ability to completely eliminate a species.. he just needs a little motivation.

      First estimate how much damage they're likely to cause. Next estimate the number of toads. Take half the expected damage, divide by the number of toads, and you have your bounty. After a few months, once population levels were in serious decline, you could up the bounty to keep people going.

      The sibling poster brought up a good point though.. artificial breeding could present problems. Some sort of cap would have to be implemented. But if you set the bounty on a curve (Say, $.10 each at first, then maybe $1 each after a few years), people would be less inclined to go through the trouble. Additionally, anyone who consistantly turned in a large amount of dead toads after population levels were lowered would be extremely suspicious.

    5. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      Lord Vetinari had the solution to an out of control rat bounty.

      "Tax the rat farms."

      'nuf said.

    6. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Most of the affected area is totally unpopulated. Killing all the toads around Brisbane would be a nice symbolic gesture, but it wouldn't really address the problem.

      Plus, the RSPCA are ensuring that the cane toads aren't cruelly treated, so the only officially sanctioned way of killing them is to put them in the freezer (no joke).

    7. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by AlienSlav · · Score: 0

      Attracted to light? Dig a pit several meters across and a few deep line it with pongee sticks or broken beer bottles then hang a light over it at night.
      AlienSlave

    8. Re:National Toad Wacking Month. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      George W had a solution as well.

      "Liberate" the rat farms.

  89. Bart did it by homerj79 · · Score: 1

    And this was all chronicled in the Simpsons episode "Bart vs. Australia".

    --
    SYSOP ('sih-sop) n.: the guy laughing at your typing.
    1. Re:Bart did it by sbillard · · Score: 1

      I'm not not licking toads.

  90. -=M-O-D Parent U-P Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Truer words were never spoken. Sadly, there is no "+1 Says It Like It Is" mod to give to you.

    1. Re:-=M-O-D Parent U-P Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called insightful

    2. Re:-=M-O-D Parent U-P Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you REALLY believe that, you apparently have not seen of some of the RIDICULOUS posts that have been ignorantly modded as "Insightful" lately.

    3. Re:-=M-O-D Parent U-P Please=- by ePhil_One · · Score: 1

      What really bugs me is that per the rules of Meta-Mod, you have to meta-mod the mod as correct if there moderator might have really thought the most back-assword explaination was "insightful". I so want a "Yes but the moderator is an idiot who should never be given mod points again"

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  91. Not Just Australia by gknoy · · Score: 1

    As the parent said, Hawaii is hit hard by foreign species, also. However, it's not just animals. Kauai's being overrun by foreign plants, which are out-competing indigenous plant life.

  92. Evolving legs by DECS · · Score: 1

    The word "evolved" was used to create the suggestion that genetic variation within a genus or species is the same thing as life springing from non-living matter, or a lifeform making dramatic jumps to 'outsmart' genetic error correction systems and thereby develop incredable new technologies via random flaws in DNA which result in totally different lifeforms.

    It's like talking about your dog's puppies having "evolved" longer hair (or a louder bark) than their parents.

    By associating two totally different things with the same word, you can create the illusion that both share the same flaws (or accuracy, depending on what ideas you are trying to spin). This is particularly effective in linking a non-controversial idea with a rabidly controversial one in order to create controversy for both (or depending on the desired goal, to do the opposite!)

    One could do the same thing by:

    - referring to birth control as "abortion"
    - referring to global warming as "climate change"
    - referring to imprisoned people you torture without trial as "illegal combatants"
    - referring to the establishment of state sponsored religion as "faith based inititives"

  93. The geek angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  94. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly... by PsychoBrat · · Score: 1

    So, basically, any four year old could have told them it was a bad idea at the time. Anyone want to trade governments?

    --
    Invisible to moderators.
  95. On the plus side... by fm6 · · Score: 1

    ...this particular ecological crisis has inspired a great video game.

  96. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia has a long history of screwing up their environment by introducing species. First there was sheep and cattle, which promptly overgrazed the slow-growing local vegetation. Then there were rabbits and foxes which have overrun the native ecosystem.

    It's not that British settlers were any more tilted away from stewarship and toward exploitation in Australia than they were in other places. It's just that Australia, with its dry climate, can't rebound in a timely way from the white man's "business as usual" approach to ecosystems. Oops.

  97. Simpsons Reference (annoyed grunt) by Gorilla_Man · · Score: 1

    Marge: We have them in America. They're called bullfrogs.
    Australian clerk: What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers".

  98. That's SO surprising! by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

    Because usually when mankind gets involved and moves nature from place to place, the results are exellent!

    I mean... Look at the lamprey in the great lakes, not to mention the zebra mussels.

    Also in Michigan, we have these great lookalike lady bug things (I've heard them called both "Asian Beetles". and "Japanese Beetles"), which multiple by the thousands, and smell something fierce when killed. They supposebly were also imported to combat a native pests back in the 80's (aphids for one).

    And don't forget about such wonders as the snakehead fish, and Africanized(sp?) bees (ie, "Killer Bee's")! Yesiree.. When man starts manipulating nature, it's truly a wonderful thing.

    1. Re:That's SO surprising! by scalpod · · Score: 0

      Why, just look at all the various breeds of dog we have these days. Not too long ago (in evolutionary terms) they were all wolves. Hmmmmmmm?

      --
      If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
    2. Re:That's SO surprising! by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      Why, just look at all the various breeds of dog we have these days. Not too long ago (in evolutionary terms) they were all wolves. Hmmmmmmm?

      Good point! My wording should have read "when man relocates nature".

  99. is this ever a good idea? by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

    Has there ever been an example of bringing in a non-endemic species for a purpose and it not becoming a major problem? I feel bad for New Zealand, which does not have any native mammals (except for a couple bats) and so all niches were filled by diverse bird species, which are now suffering (several have gone extinct) from introduced cats, dogs, pigs, etc. Have we ever had a success in this? You'd think we'd learn by now.

  100. On Slashdot by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    The toads can grow as large as dinner plates and weigh up to 4.5 pounds. Their heads and backsides are studded with rows of warts that secrete a milky white toxin called bufotoxin. Because Australia has no native toads, many native predators such as snakes, lizards and mammals are very sensitive to the toxin. So when the toads spread, they immediately kill off many of the region's top predators.'"

    I for one welcome our new toxic toads overlords!
    On Slashdot we call them moderators
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  101. Simpsons did it! by Ober · · Score: 0

    Episode 2F13 Bart vs Australia

    Homer: Oh. We left at 1:30pm Monday. What time is it now?
      Lisa: It's 6:45am next Wednesday. You may also be interested to know
                  that it's summer here, not winter.
    Homer: Oh! [throws his sled away]
      Bart: What does that sign say? ["Advisory: foreign florae and faunae
                  prohibited!"] I thought they spoke English here!
      Lisa: It says you can't bring in outside plants or animals. Any
                  foreign creature you bring in could upset the environmental
                  balance.
      Bart: Oh. [removes toad from bag] Sorry, girl. I don't want to get
                  into any more trouble down here. I'll pick you up on the way
                  home. [puts it on the edge of a fountain]
    -- Bart, ecosystem havoc-wreaker, "Bart vs. Australia"

  102. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by shobadobs · · Score: 1

    How dare he steal karma by providing an informative post! Oh the humanity!

  103. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't use the word, "gay" to mean bad. That's so retarded.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  104. The real problem with cane toads
     
    Mirrored here, in case of DDOSing (32MB DivX avi).

    --
    "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
  105. Very old news. by plowboylifestyle · · Score: 1

    There is a famous movie about this problem. Made in 1988, way to get the scoop /.

  106. NO!!!! by robbak · · Score: 1

    Our fellows might have their problems, but at least the're not Bush and Cheney!!

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  107. my good mate Baz... by zolaar · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a hilar^W^W^W^W^Whorrid, deporable short film I saw a while back about one cane toad who's worried about his missing friend (who is also, coincidentally, a cane toad)...

    Cane-Toad

    always a crowd-pleaser!

    --
    One man's constant is another man's variable.
  108. Visit NT now before the toads ruin it by a1291762 · · Score: 1

    Cane Toads are making their way through the NT and totally ruining the native wildlife populations as they go. I remember reading somewhere that experts have estimated large tourist areas could be devastated in just a few years.

    The problem is that none of the native animals have seen a toad so they don't know not to eat them. Once they do, they die before they can pass on the bad news ;)

  109. I say... by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

    ...build a bridge from Australia to the rest of the world and let everything duke it out. And may the fittest species survive! It's not like this hasn't happened a million times before throughout the history of the earth. It would leave us with fitter species and provide lots of entertainment along the way.

    --
    "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  110. Not Evolution by charminggeek · · Score: 1
    TFA doesn't say anything to support that evolution or even natural selection happened here. All the study found was that toads with longer legs move faster. Shorter legged toads follow. This is a no-brainer.
    those in the vanguard of the invasion had legs that were up to 6 percent longer than average; shorter-legged stragglers followed
    Does anything even suggest that this study took place in the last 40 years?
  111. Teenage Mutant Ninja... by bforsse · · Score: 1

    Toads?

    When I saw the subject line I immediately thought of BattleToads rampaging across Australia smashing thing with huge fists and feet.

  112. Predators to Predatees by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

    Let's find out what eats those in Hawaii and introduce that in Australia.

    As far as the long legs: they might be an advantage against predators in Australia (meaning the ones that can't jump as far get eaten first?)

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  113. as mentioned on south park... by eventhorizon82G · · Score: 1

    Simpsons did it!!!

  114. Longer Legs? Disco Clubs? by AeroIllini · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA:

    Toxic toads bound across the northern tropics of Australia faster than ever, thanks to the evolution of longer legs in the few short decades since humans introduced them to their own little paradise...Last year, researchers announced they had successfully lured and trapped the toads using ultraviolet lights like those used in disco clubs.

    I guess those long legs are being put to good use. I'll bet that hallucinogenic stuff they secrete is a hit with the ladies on the dance floor.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  115. That title is misleading by ecorona · · Score: 1

    When I first read the title I thought a rebel group of Toxic Toads armed themselves and took over the Australian government.

    1. Re:That title is misleading by Davidge · · Score: 1

      You mean it didn't?

      How do you explain John Howard then ?

      --
      David de Groot Snr Systems Engineer
  116. Mark Lewis made a movie about this in 1988 by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Called "Cane Toads"
    It mostly played art houses, I saw it at the local college.
    But it wasn't as special-effect-y as Jurassic Park.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  117. Those little guys are Nasty by serutan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Man I hate cane toads. They are ug-a-leee little mofos. They hide in the daytime and come out at night, so you go walking around in the grass and something moves nearby, and Yikes, it's one of those little buggers. They're big and squashy and creepy looking, like atom bomb mutants from a 50s sci-fi movie. And fearless. Stomp your feet at them and they hop toward you, not away, and I've heard that they bite. The up side is that they really aren't poisonous unless you try to eat one (which is why the predators don't fare too well), or possibly if you manage to touch one without getting bit and then you ate something without washing your hands.

  118. I love the night life, I've got to boogie...ribbit by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 1

    Australian scientists have tried for decades to eradicate the toads, but with limited success. Last year, researchers announced they had successfully lured and trapped the toads using ultraviolet lights like those used in disco clubs.

    Sounds like all they want to do is have sex and party. It's not their fault that they're mounstrous toxic beasts.

  119. Cane Toads aint new by blackhaze · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is not news at all! I've read Cane toads have almost crossed from QLD to upper NT... Every night there are lots of cane toads outside my house, makes for a nice sound when you roll over them in the 4WD.

  120. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by ShaneThePain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't use the word "Retarded" to mean bad. Thats so gay.

    --
    Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
  121. This is news?? by TheBrutalTruth · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Uhhh - this was made fun of by even The Simpsons almost a decade ago. Maybe the AP should watch more Discovery Channel or Animal Planet.

    What was news is that the cane toads are evolving, growing longer legs (mmmm froglegs) - why wasn't that mentioned in the lead?

    --
    Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
  122. he likely doesn't by cutedinochick · · Score: 2, Informative

    Darwin never came up with a "tree of life", that was Linnaeus and no one follows that anymore anyway. I think BobTheLawyer said it better than I could. If you want to see macroevolution in action, read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner - very good book. Most biologists don't decouple micro- and macro- evolution, that might be an ID aspect in itself. There really is no difference, and yes, both can be seen. A toad will never turn into a walrus, no scientist will ever say it can.

    No one ever said that evolution is easy - there's a reason why it's usually a 400 level class, and I recently took a class actually entitled Macroevolution that is graduate level. This stuff takes intense knowledge about both biology and geology, something I am just beginning, but most people who speak like macroevolution "doesn't add up" probably aren't studying the details. And like I said, the Cambrian Explosion might be taphonomic, rather than biological. It could have been more gradual than anyone thought. Studying the fossil record requires geology, not just biology, and taphonomic (preservational or depositional) bias is a big part of that. Also, there were plenty of critters around before the Cambrian explosion - the Burgess shale fauna for one, and shelly faunas after that. It wasn't as big of an explosion as we previously thought.

    1. Re:he likely doesn't by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I'm looking into getting some quick, but I will check out this book to see for myself. Just wanted some redirects from this article since you've read the book and probably others on the finch subject. I haven't been able to find any on the internet. http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/finch-variation. html. Thanks

  123. Pop Pop Pop by Ranger · · Score: 1

    I saw this cool program many years ago on TV about the Cane toad problem. In one scene they showed a VW microbus heading towards the camera down this two lane rural road. Every so often the microbus would swerve and you'd hear a pop. Then they'd cut to an interview with someone. Then cut back to the microbus, more swerving, more popping. It's not till they get close you realize he's running over toads. They did indeed make a mighty satisfying pop. Then they eventually interviewed the driver of the VW microbus. He quite enjoyed running over the toads.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  124. Rugby League by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else think "State of Origin" when they first read the title?.

  125. Yeah But... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    The mongoose did a solid number on the snakes in Hawaii. There are no snakes now. Before the mongoose? Place was crawling with them! Believe it! Also, mongoose are cool. Not like some yucky toad. They should genetically engineer the mongoose to be resistant to bufotoxin. Then they could prey on the toads. Problem solved!

    Cane toads are also a problem in the Southern part of the USA. They caution you not to let your dawg eat them, since a good sized toad will kill a dawg. Or at least make it pretty damn sick. Whether it kills your dawg or just makes it hork up toad parts all over your livingroom carpet, that's not a good day. Solution? Genetically engineered mongoose! Problem solved!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  126. Remember Eco-Island? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Classic game... I guess they have never played it.

  127. she was warning us by friedman101 · · Score: 1

    With a taste of your lips I'm on a ride You're toxic I'm slipping under With a taste of a poison paradise I'm addicted to you Don't you know that you're toxic And I love what you do Don't you know that you're toxic To any RIAA readers... Any overlap between my poem and the song of a trailer-trash starlet is purely coincidental.

  128. Not eating them.... SMOKING them! by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1
    "Last I'd heard nothing was eating these toads."

    From the NT News last year:

    Kids smoking cane toads
    `Children as young as 12 are licking cane toads in an attempt to get high, the Northern Territory News has learned.
    Some juveniles and young adults in Katherine and Arnhem Land are even drying out the skins of cane toads and rolling them up as joints to get a hit.
    But Territory health authorities have warned that those who lick or smoke cane toads are dicing with death and stress that there are no hallucinogenic effects possible from bufo toxin, the toxin excreted by the introduced pest.'

  129. SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Playing God 1.0' failed. Introducing a new species doesn't solve an environmental problem.

    I suggest 'Playing God 2.0'. Let us genetically-engineer several of the native predator species to be toxin-resistant and perhaps also bacteria and viruses that will specifically target the toad. Nothing bad will come of this.

  130. all hail hypnotoad by darth_linux · · Score: 1

    bzzzzzzzzzz

    --
    Power to the Penguin!
  131. obligatory quote by hgh · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Homer: Hey, look! Those frogs are eating all their crops.
                    [everyone starts laughing]
      Lisa: Well, that's what happens when you introduce foreign species into
                  an ecosystem that can't handle them.

  132. Dick Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dick Cheney and a shotgun will solve the problem...

  133. ID is right: evolution can't produce a new species by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

    ID is right: evolution can't produce a new species. Evolution merely creates teeming biodiversity. It takes man to divide it up into species.

    They're wrong to suggest speciation requires God's involvement, of course. Species can be created and destroyed without God, they are all the time.

  134. Let the nature take its course by layer3switch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There seems to be plenty of natural predators of these toads.

    http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/canetoad.htm
    "Predators of Cane Toad tadpoles in Australia include dragonfly nymphs, water beetles, Saw-shelled Turtles and Keelback Snakes. Keelbacks also eat young toads; laboratory tests have shown that they can tolerate low levels of toad toxins. Young or adult Cane Toads are eaten by wolf spiders, freshwater crayfish, Estuarine Crocodile, crows, White-faced Heron, kites, Bush Stone-curlew, Tawny Frogmouth, Water Rat and the Giant White-tailed Rat. Some predators eat only the toad's tongue, or attack its belly and eat only the mildly poisonous internal organs."

    Also from this;
    "Only about 0.5% of Cane Toad individuals that hatch from eggs survive to reach sexual maturity and reproduce."

    It's best to let the nature deal with the 0.5% and give some time for the natural predators to neutralize the toads. It's under reported that these toads are consider NEUTRAL and not harmful pests as they are portrayed (typical over-reaction by media) because mainly they eat as much "pests" as they harm non-pests (whatever that means). The effects are over-shadowed by the human-factor ("the toad killed my dog/cat!" factor).

    Lastly it contributes scientifically valuable data on evolutionary effect. It may be more valuable and important to let the nature take its course rather than outback Ausies make some holiday "wacking" these toads as some sort of past time out of this as far as the ecology of Australia is concerned.

    I'm no biologist, but hell, I can see that nature is more resilient than we give it credit for.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:Let the nature take its course by AlterTick · · Score: 1
      It's best to let the nature deal with the 0.5% and give some time for the natural predators to neutralize the toads.

      How much time? Cane toads have been multiplying and spreading unabated for 71 years . Apparently even .5% is more than australian "nature" can handle.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    2. Re:Let the nature take its course by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      give or take about couple of thousand years or more.

      71 years ain't enough for many animals to adapt. As you states, that 0.5% can be resilient. So can nature.

      If Ausies can't wait that long, I suggest, they start cook up some "Toad on the Barbie" and stop fucking with the natural food chain.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  135. Did anyone mention that Bufotoxin is a halucinagen by impactdni · · Score: 1

    When smoked or ingested by a human (in small doses), it is a strong halucinagen...

  136. The Snakes are Evolving Too by spook0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Longer legs on the toads is not the only evolutionary effect going on here.

    Snakes in Queensland (where the toad was first introduced) have increased in length by 3-5% since the toad arrived. The theory is that the longer the snake, the greater the body mass, the better it can handle the toxin.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRe publish_1250708.htm

    I also remember reading somewhere about smaller heads in relation to body size thus limiting the size of the toad consumed and the amount of poison ingested.

  137. And in recent news...the geographically challenged by xenn · · Score: 0

    just to back you up, check this out:

      Ignorance is bliss

  138. And in other news.... by Shanep · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Germany and Japan have been defeated! The war is over! The allies have prevailed!

    I grew up with these terrible toads in my backyard. That was in the early 70's and does not even come close to how long we have had these rotten toads.

    BTW, they have also been known to kill crocodiles who eat them, due to the toads very powerful toxin. We urgently need something effective to use against the cane toad. They are killing off native species and are now invading our beautiful Daintree rainforest.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  139. Time to invent the better mouse trap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA. ...Last year, researchers announced they had successfully lured and trapped the toads using ultraviolet lights like those used in disco clubs.

  140. As an Australian by MickDownUnder · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can tell you this is really really old news, the CSIRO Australia's premier scientific research body has been focused on the control of foreign pests for many decades. Australia is a unique land, during the ice age (40,000 years ago) it was connected to asia since then it has been cut off from the rest of the world. It has many unique species of flora and fauna, most of which are almost completely defenceless to foreign species such as cane toads, foxes, pigs, rabbits, fire ants etc etc. It's the reason why we have such strict quarintine laws and customs inspections, and why many here go by the moto "If it's feral it's in peril".

  141. Same Thing In Jamaica. by jamrock · · Score: 1
    "People introduced the mongoose to control the rat population. Not only did they not take care of the rats (they forgot to take into account different nesting habits and day/night cycle), but they proceeded to infest the islands themselves."

    We have first hand experience with the mongoose here in Jamaica as well. Three pairs were introduced a couple centuries ago to eradicate rats, but adaptable bastards that they are, the rats quickly found out that mongooses can't climb and took to the trees. The mongooses reverted to doing what they do very well, namely kill snakes and ground-nesting birds. The Jamaican Yellow Boa and Jamaican Green Boa are teetering on the edge of extinction thanks to the mongoose, and the Jamaican Iguana was thought to be extinct until a few years ago when a small breeding population was found on the coast near Kingston.

    Island ecologies are particularly fragile, as Australia (rabbits), New Zealand (deer) and many others visited by Europeans have found out, but the most destructive of all introduced animals are the rat, cat, and pig. The National Geographic Society recently discovered the remains of a Jamaican monkey, the only species native to the island, that went extinct sometime after the arrival of the Spanish, probably due to hunting. Sad to say, the original native Jamaicans, the Taino, also went extinct after the arrival of the Spanish.

  142. 2 wood by DeathElk · · Score: 1
    They are indeed a loathsome beast, the cane toads.

    As a jab at the sometime tense North/South relationship during football season between Queensland (from where the plague originated) and New South Wales, one TV advertisement for beer recommend a posting at the border and a two wood as an effective means to return the little shits whence they came.

    Unfortunately, only fraction of a percentage of the little buggers actually use highway one...

  143. Oddly enough, I read about this on eBay months ago by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

    An interesting note is that the leather from these toads is a very popular material for hats in Australia. Oddly enough, the hats seem to run around $300 and up. Which I find odd since you can find other leathers for far less - you would think something considered a widespread pest would yield cheap leather.

    That just struck me as odd, though I must say the leather is beatiful - and makes for a fantastic Crocadile Dundee style hat.

  144. Ruger 10/22 by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

    Too bad you gave up your right to firerams, toad shoots could be quite fun....

    1. Re:Ruger 10/22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We gave up nothing; we never had such a right.

  145. What happened to Baz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get an insight into the life of a toad here in Oz, you have to see this movie d/l (30 meg).
    http://www.cane-toad.com/movie.php

  146. How to lick those toads by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    To get rid of the toads, just put up an article the Bufotoxin is Hallucinogenic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufotoxin, and before you know it, the toads are gone! woowoowwwooweeeeeeee

    1. Re:How to lick those toads by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Bufo can have 5-MeO-DMT in it. Wowee indeed!
      Just need an MAOI and you're set, get to licking!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  147. There's No Point Whining by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    Just vote them out of office.

  148. Hear ,Hear!! by buback · · Score: 1

    And in case you were wondering what this saying means:
    http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html

    p.s. The more I learn the more brilliant The Simpsons becomes

    1. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      The Simpson's did predict this happening on the episode in which they all went to Australia.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    2. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the first thing I thought of when I read this article was:

      "Simpson's did it!"

    3. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much of a prediction - this happened decades before the Simpsons episode.

    4. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      No. No they didn't.

      As much as I love the Simpsons, in this matter they were actually making fun of the cane toad problem that predated the episode, indeed predated the very existence of The Simpsons, by decades.

    5. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Me too

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    6. Re:Hear ,Hear!! by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      fine! I'll give you that one :)

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
  149. Guns by Brianwa · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the government should loosen laws regarding varmit guns. Not a solution by itself, but maybe a new pastime for the Australian population.

  150. A bit of background on the cane toad problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the article state, the cane toad was introduced to try to battle a particular type of beetle that was, at the time, eating the sugar crops in Queensland, in Australia's north-east. Unfortunately, they neglected to consider one particular aspect of the problem: cane toads live on the ground. The beetle in question lives at the top of the sugar cane.

    Who else sees a bit of a disparity there?

    Sure enough, the cane toad didn't do the job it was meant to. Whoops. But it gets better: having no natural predators, its population took off. Most creatures that tried to eat it were killed by the poison glands on its back.

    It has been spreading slowly across the continent, and is now, I believe, as far west as Darwin. It won't be long before it hits Kakadu national park, which will be an absolute tragedy.

    Having said all that, there are signs of hope: some local bird populations have learnt to flip the toads onto their back, and eat them from the belly, thereby avoiding the poison glands. Also, much of the population of Queensland is very adept with a nine iron, thanks to hours of practice with the local cane toad population.

    It's here to stay; there's no way we can eradicate it from our shores. But at least our natives are learning to fight back; it's no longer as one sided as it used to be.

  151. Simpsons, anyone? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    DAMN YOU, BART SIMPSON!!!

    --
    This sig is false.
  152. toad licking by caller9 · · Score: 1

    So these things have a hallucinogenic effect unless you get too much and paralyze your heart, the trip kind-of stops there I'd imagine. Why not just tell Bush it's part of the war on drugs. America would spend millions hand over fist to get rid of these nefarious drug dealing animals.

  153. I take exception to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I Am The Designer and I resent your public discussions of my "great noodly appendage"(sic) [it is properly titled "Great Noodly Appendage", thank you]. Only my wife and doctor are allowed that freedom of discussion.

  154. Award winning short film by Turnipator · · Score: 1

    A highly amusing (and award winning) film about the cane-toad can be found here
    http://cane-toad.com/ - "What happened to Baz?"

    I find it a strange coincidence that this morning I fished out 4 of these buggers having an orgy in my pond.... and then here I find on slashdot a cane toad story!

  155. Toad Season! by g-san · · Score: 1

    Toad: Roo Season!
    Roo: Toad Season!
    Toad: Roo Season!

    Roo puts toad in pouch, hops away.

  156. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah! Doc Ruby can whore TripMasterMonkey into the ground on any day of the week.

  157. aussies should import sponge monkeys ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    to eliminate the toxic toads. Of course, then they would need to import razor fish to get rid of sponge monkeys ...

  158. Bad editors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The editors are not very educated. Frankly, I think they need to spend a little more time in the "real world". I've submitted stories FAR more accurate and interesting to boot, and been ignored, only to find the same story published POORLY and inaccurately days later. The editors don't have a fucking clue. They couldn't find water if they fell out a boat.

    The other reason I don't read /. that much? The extreme liberal socialist/communist rant from many of /.'s population. I just can't take it when they cry and complain about everything that sits slightly to the political right of Castro. Communism/socialism and the included 50% tax rate, 25% unemployment rate, and 50% poverty rate are fond thoughts of many /. posters.

  159. another obligatory simpsons quote by evwah · · Score: 1

    and I for one welcome our new toxic toad overlords... and would like to remind them that as a trusted slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others, to toil in their underground sugar caves.

  160. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fag.

  161. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, God! Please! That's REALLY not something that I needed to think about! Ewwww!!!

  162. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha. It's so funny to make fun of homosexuals. Now drop your pants and we'll see who's laughing.

  163. post text by Brewdles · · Score: 4, Informative

    (Damn the lameness filter!)

    First, an introduction.

    Cane Toads (Bufos Marinas?) are an obnoxious, brown, warty type of frog (OK, toad) that inhabit vast areas of Australia. Their introduction and proliferation in Australia is a classic example of ecology gone wrong. In the beginning, there were no cane toads in Australia. Sugar cane was introduced to its fair shores, along with the sugar cane came the cane beetle, a nasty, brown insect about 3/4 inch long.

    "How do we stop the cane beetle," ask the scientists, "the little fuckers are eating all our sugar cane."

    "Ahhh," says someone clever, "Why not look around the world to see what eats cane beetles, then introduce them into Australia and the problemo is solved!"

    Wrong.

    They found a natural predator in the cane toad, which came from Hawaii of all places. In 1935, 55 pairs (as in 110) cane toads were released in the small North Queensland town of Gordonvale. Unfortunately, Australia did not have any predators that liked to eat the toads, probably due to the poison glands on the back of their neck. Similarly, the cane toads found that there was much more interesting and tasty stuff to eat than boring old cane beetles.

    The result was a plague of biblical proportions.

    As a consequence, every man, woman and child living north of Sydney has grown up knowing the extreme pleasure of killing cane toads. Motorists swerve to hit them, cricketers hoist them for a six (equivalent of home run for you 'Merkins) over the boundary, weekend gardeners chase them down with a lawn mower.

    The following, is some of the many varied ways I have dispatched these nasty little buggers while I lived in Queensland. Perhaps some other Aussies can add to the list, what about you Hawaiians out there?

    THE THONG SLAP (TS)
    The Thong Slap (TS) is not fatal to a cane toad, but is an important component of many of the other means of disposal. To perform a TS, one quickly removes their thong (rubber, sandal-like footwear) and slaps a toad hard on the head. This stuns the toad and stops it from hopping all over the place.

    DEATH BY CLUBBING
    #1) Take golf clubs out into the back yard, usually only a 2-wood, 6-iron and 9-iron. Find a toad and dispatch with club of your choice. If the toad is sitting upright, use the driver. Extra points are
    awarded for lofted shots over the house and on to the street. Hitting a "slice" tends to result in separate pieces of toad.
    #2) Take a field hockey stick and dispatch as above. Remember not to raise the head of the stick above shoulder height, otherwise a penalty may ensue.
    #3) Using a cricket stump, first smash the toad with the blunt end, then reverse the stump and impale it with the pointed end. Shake the toad off the pointed end and repeat if necessary.

    DEATH BY GARDEN TOOL
    A special class devoted to common garden tools. Favorite tools are the shovel (hit with flat side, then chop up with blade), the mattock (chopping only), the pitch fork (see how many you can collect) and the
    axe (slice and dice).

    DEATH BY SPORTING EQUIPMENT
    Another special class, covering those instruments not involved with clubbing. Some nice effects can be gained with tennis rackets (small toads only - great for perfecting that two-handed backhand), darts
    (nothing like a moving bullseye) and football boots.

    DEATH BY SLICING AND CHOPPING
    #1) Take you mother's best carving knife outside and see if you *really* can throw it like a Bowie knife.
    #2) After performing a TS, flip the toad over and use an Xacto knife to practice your vivisection techniques. See how much you can remove and still get the toad to hop away.
    #3) Perform TS, throw toad into the air and try to hit with a machete. More points are awarded if the pieces are equal in size.

    DEATH BY SQUASHING
    #1) One of my all-time faves: Perform a TS, then throw the toad out onto a bust street. Bet with friends how many cars will miss it before it goes POP.
    #2) Go to the local cricket field late

    1. Re:post text by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      THE THONG SLAP (TS)


      The Thong Slap (TS) is not fatal to a cane toad...


      Depending on the size of the wearer and the fabric involved, I'd be willing to bet it still isn't a whole lot of fun!

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  164. Cane toads are hitchhikers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm dubious about the relevance of longer legs leading to them spreading further.

    In my encounters with them, they've been decidely lazy critters, not moving an inch when you've unearthed them and proceed to pound them with rocks (the big ones need quite a pounding too!)

    The most popular method for them spreading distance is to hitch hike a ride on a car or bike, hopping up into some space under the car while it is stopped and jumping out at some place later.

  165. We tried that already... by BiggerBoat · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...on Isla Nublar with the Lysine Contingency. Didn't work out too well.

  166. vermin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I thought the aim was to get rid of vermin?

    Then they can have the midwest, too.

  167. Just say Toad! by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

    I worked in a university research lab with these toads - they are fun to watch at feeding time, the way they aim at the mealworms was very robot like.

    The 'Toxin' also has an 'LSD/Mushroom' effect. As in licking toads. Jokes were made of this on American_Dad and Simsons.

    Just say _Toad_

  168. Toxic Toads by samcon · · Score: 1

    Is this News? I saw a documentary on the proliferation of these pests five or six years ago. Is Slahdot going to report on the plague of rabbits Down Under next?

  169. Obviously this is a dingo problem.. by Lactoso · · Score: 1

    If we can only make these toads taste/look more like human babies...

  170. Who's with me? by benbranch · · Score: 1

    There are toads the size of dinner plates taking over the country? Damn! I am going to pack my golf clubs and head down there to help out. Who's with me?

  171. Merkey Alert! by CPNABEND · · Score: 1

    Customs should beware of visitors searching for frogs!

    --
    My wife doesn't listen to me either...
  172. also... by master_gopher · · Score: 0

    Interestingly, there is similar evidence that cane toads are as a whole increasing slightly in size, and simultaneously red-bellied black snakes have smaller mouths than they did 10-15 years ago. It seems that both species are adapting for the same purpose: the toads so that predators such as snakes can't swallow them, the snakes so that they can't swallow the toxic toads.

  173. I'd think you'd have learned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just call in the french."

    The whole point is that importing toxic frogs is a *bad* idea.

  174. It's a dupe by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Look what I found in the archive:

    Toxic Toads Taking Over Australia
    Posted by HueyLong on 11:32 Friday 8 March 1935
    from the bad-sci-fi-radio-show-ideas dept.
    News Science

    Isaac Isaacs writes "Amphibian News is reporting that toxic toads ..."

  175. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new toxic toad overlords! *ducks*

  176. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by ZvlvLord · · Score: 1

    As opposed to using 'bad' to mean gay ? Isn't that a bit like, 'old-fashioned' huh ???
    Similarly don't use 'old fashioned' to mean... zzzzzzzzzzzzz

  177. New Inventors Cane Toad Trap by chr1sb · · Score: 1

    Last year, the Australian New Inventors show featured a cane toad trap, which used a light to attract insects, which in turn attracted cane toads, which would jump onto the top of the trap and fall through trap doors. The trap won a competition with over 100 entries, sponsored by the NT government.

  178. bufotoxin by goarilla · · Score: 1

    Isn't bufotoxin a hallucinogen.

    Isn't this the toad that makes you trip upon licking it

  179. Observed cases of speciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speciation has happened and being observed many times in plants and animals in our lifetimes

    A big list of documented and academic articles here, start at section 5.0 - Instances of Observered Speciation
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

  180. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our bufotoxin-producing overlords.

  181. Citric Acid Solution by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    In Hawaii they are using Citric Acid as a pesticide to kill the invasive coqui frog. Just spray the fields and PRESTO! They die. Perhaps this could help the Aussies. When life gives you lemons, make pesticide.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  182. There is on predator that can kill them by antron-jedi · · Score: 1

    There is one very clever semi-predator that is able to kill these toads: the crow. A few crows will show up in the field, and one brave one will come up from behind, grab it by the leg, and flip it on its back. Then the crows will run in and joust it in the stomach with their beaks. Clever animals!

  183. Do these schemes ever work? by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1

    I swear I've read about similar situations in other countries and regions that have tried messing importing a foreign predator and ended up with a bigger mess than before. Didn't they release a bunch of mosquitoes that were genetically engineered to be sterile to help curb the mosquito population in southern Florida and end up with flocks of "love bugs"? These schemes seem like a good idea on paper but messing with the eco system never seems to work out the way anyone intends, and not for the better...

    Chris

  184. Re:Terrible Summary (uhh, multiple?) by gosand · · Score: 1
    Nearly no intelligent designer writes off evolution. They write off evolution being able to produce entirely new species altogether.

    Damn, I thought there was only supposed to be ONE intelligent designer. Now you are telling me there are many? This religious hoo-ha is more complicated than science, I am switching back.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  185. We can try these... by orim · · Score: 1

    Komodo dragons
    Lions
    Tigers (don't they need a place to live since India is all overpopulated anyway)
    Wolves
    Bears! They'll eat anything! ...
    or maybe we can clone a T-rex from those DNA samples found. That would be freaking awesome!

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  186. Re: Cane Toads Documentary by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

    The Cane Toads documentary linked above is one the most amazingly awesome documentaries out there. I HIGHLY recommend you watch it if you havent. Get some friends, beer or other mind-altering fun, and have at it. You wont regret it.

  187. Forget the legs, how's the high evolving? by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    Cane toads are mildly notorious for their toxin's recreational psychedelic effects. Devotees literally lick a toad to get high. I wonder if vanguard toads have evolved better defenses in the form of more potent toxin?

    1. Re:Forget the legs, how's the high evolving? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      You would think the Toads would develop more potent Hallucinogens, well I would anyway if it lead to more licking incidents.

  188. All part of the non-toxic toads' brilliant plan... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    I thought the RIAA had hired all the toxic toads, anyway. What are they doing in Australia?

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  189. That is quite similar to by Whyzzi · · Score: 1

    this.

    --
    "BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
  190. Just mixing things up a bit more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, don't retard that bad word "mean" - the gay's used to.

  191. A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, that ID website only considers their own misconstrued definition of reproductive isolation as evidence for speciation. Reproductive isolation doesn't mean animals that cannot interbreed if artificially inseminated - it has never meant that, even when first proposed. It defines species as those that do not freely interbreed with others, and this has nothing to do with genome. Some insects are reproductively isolated, and are considered as separate species, simply because the shape of the genital organs do not coincide, even though if artifically inseminated, yeah, they probably could produce viable offspring. Polar bears and Grizzly bears, if artifically inseminated, also produce viable offspring. But the question is - do they in nature? No. No one would say that Polar and Grizzly bears are the same species - they are morphologically very distinct.

    Besides, that definition of speciation is also losing favor with many biologists, since it cannot be tested in the fossil record, and because of the polar bear/Grizzly bear phenomenon. One of the fundamental questions in biology is "what is a species?" and so far that has not really been answered by anyone, though many hypotheses, not just that of reproductive isolation, exist.

    It's things like this that make me sure that IDers read an "intro to Evolution" textbook, or maybe even a middle school biology text, and then try to spread their knowledge. A lot has happened in this field since the Biological Species Definition was proposed (I believe over 50 years ago). This type of "evidence" is seriously outdated and is the reason why IDers have so far not been seen as scientists by the rest of us.

    1. Re:A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Ah, that is a good point. But I thought that is exactly what they said. "So, simply observing that some groups have become "reproductively isolated", while basing a definition of "species" on that concept, and then extrapolating that whole new genotypes arrive from it, really has no easy evidence in nature. We cannot show how one genotype can change and be modified simply by natural selection to create subsequent novel genotypes." I guess I misinterpreted this. I was just trying to figure out how finches with different beaks made them different finches altogether. If so does that mean a man with black skin and one with white are different creatures? Seems that the regions these people came from encouraged skin color while the region the finch came from encouraged a type of beak.

    2. Re:A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      That's right, but the point is whether or not this leads to different species - it is selection. Besides, Darwin wrote and understood relatively little about the finches on the Galapagos: the research I was talking about was much more recent and is ongoing. Darwin's brilliant observation was that all these finches, with different beaks and of different sizes and morphologies, had all evolved from one common ancestor, and had speciated to fill all the open niches on the islands. The problem is that your ID site was basing their definition of species on this reproductive isolation concept alone, and that is not done anymore, at least as the only definition. Morphology plays a huge part as well, as do other features. Morphology can reproductively isolate organisms - if you were a small bug-eating finch with a small beak would you mate with a huge ground finch with a big beak? Probably not. You have to consider how the animals see themselves and one another, not just genome. They choose who to breed with, and evolution is a result of their behavior.

    3. Re:A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      That works for me. Darwin did see that they were pretty much the same and showed that microevolution did this. These are good observations and well thought out. I guess the problem comes when that ancestor finch evolved from some other bird like creature that evolved from something else all the way back to a single celled organism. Although it seems like evolutionists I've talked to recently kind of ignore this part of the theory. Has it been taken out of the current evolutionary theory? I'm just curious.

    4. Re:A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      Theropod dinosaur - bird evolution is pretty well documented, but that's opening a whole other can of worms. You have to think of evolution as branching events, rather than linear. And these branching events can be very small at first. Also, the jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is also well-documented, and fascinating. Since so much of this stuff is in the fossil record, which like I said, is incomplete and can be quite biased, it is hard to pin down exactly what happened, but that's why we keep digging up stuff. I'm sure more people on here know more about dino-bird evolution than I do.

    5. Re:A little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing... by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      Here's one article I found on that subject. http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board =humanbio&main=428309&type=post There were bunches more on google about the subject of dinosaurs to bird hypothesis. I agree that we should keep digging. There's no reason not to study the fossils of extinct animals. Plus it's interesting to see all the cool creatures that once inhabited the earth.

  192. I feel better now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...now that I've wasted three karma points. About to be four. Suck my balls.

  193. Re:-=M-O-D Parent D-O-W-N Please=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is exactly why they make fun of homosexuals.

  194. Zea maize by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  195. Monty Python meets National Geographic... by Sody · · Score: 1
    At least that's what a colleague of mine calls the documentary "Cane Toads: An Unnatural History." Brilliant!

    You can find it if you look, like at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005JG6X/103-45 08192-4394218?v=glance&n=130

  196. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

    You can't just fill in the holes of science with "God did it." No matter how much data we collect and how many hypotheses become theory, we will never have everything figured out, especially when dealing with fossils. Sticking God in anywhere only simplifies things, not explains things - it explains nothing because there is no physical evidence for God, and the absence of a perfectly transformational series of organisms does not negate evolution.

    I also can't stress enough that the Cambrian Explosion probably took a lot longer than most paleontologists realize, and also that phyla (singular: phylum) are arbitrary. Looking back, we can see that the diversification was phylum-level, but at the time, how much divergence was there really between these guys? Not a hell of a lot - they were very similar, and quite unlike anything we have today. It was simply speciation, and now we recognize them as phyla only because nothing more different than them have shown up since. If all you had was an armadillo, a bat, an elephant, and a human, and nothing else, you wouldn't group them into the same class, certainly. But compared to all other organisms, they certainly are very closely related. Keep scale in mind.

    The idea behind science isn't faith, it's evidence. No one says, or should say, "I believe in evolution," because it negates what we're trying to do. Yeah, scientists get their favorite hypotheses; we are human after all. But what we hypothesize is based on evidence, rather than the lack of it, which is what faith is based on. Not that I'm not a devout person myself, but there is a separation between the two. Faith helps us with many things, but will never explain how the world works. You can sit and think about the world all you want, or what God would or wouldn't have done (if you have that kind of hubris), but it is not science, and in the end explains nothing about how things work.

    1. Re:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence by w1ll0w · · Score: 1

      I suppose your right that we will never know and that God can fill those holes, but is it much different than nature filled those holes? And maybe there will come evidence that the cambrian period was really long and natural select had time to create all these creatures, but you still believe that the cambrian period was longer than what science thinks it is now. Scale is good to use, but with that we can take a scale and wonder how could a single cell have come to create so much diversity. Faith doesn't have to be on a lack of evidence. I guess creationists now have a lot of scientific evidence showing that evolution might not be the answer to humans being here. So far the 2 major positions are God created it or nature created it, if there's not enough evidence for nature and design starts creeping in than so be it. We shouldn't be saying that since design calls for God that science should go in a different direction. If that's where the data is taking you in your research than there's nothing you can do about that, at least ethically.

  197. Not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look on the bright side... the next tornado to hit your trailer park will probably take care of your toad problem.

  198. Kudzu kills cane toads. Or is it anthrax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple, just introduce another species to kill off the cane toad. Rabbits, perhaps. Or kudzu. Or how about bird flu.

    Can these things be converted to fuel?