Slashdot Mirror


African Catfish Hunts On Land

Dave Knott writes "The journal Nature will be publishing a report on an African catfish that hunts its prey on land. The fish wriggles out of the swamps to catch land-based prey. From the article: 'The eel catfish, Channallabes apus, catches unsuspecting victims by arching upwards and descending upon prey, trapping an insect against the ground before sucking it up. The same trick may have been used by the very first vertebrates to venture onto land, the researchers speculate.' There is a video of the fish in action."

176 comments

  1. Africa eh? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

    I predict that, as Africa industrializes, the level of pollution will increase & these catfish will mutate into giant man-eating catfish.

    Also, there will be no worshiping of Catfish Over Lords. They cannot understand you. Prostrating yourself beneath them will merely make their task easier.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Africa eh? by Amonimous+Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Global warming will take care of'em.

    2. Re:Africa eh? by d4nowar · · Score: 0

      Also, there will be no worshiping of Catfish Over Lords.

      Screw that! I, for one, will welcome our new catfish overlords.

    3. Re:Africa eh? by cciRRus · · Score: 1
      I predict that, as Africa industrializes, the level of pollution will increase & these catfish will mutate into giant man-eating catfish.
      You have forgotten to mention the part where they evolve with frickin' laser on the top of their heads. That's how they're gonna hunt us down, with frickin' laser beams!
      --
      w00t
    4. Re:Africa eh? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...giant man-eating catfish.

      You do know that one way to catch catfish is to use your index finger as tackle? (and often your entire hand and parts of fore-arm...)

    5. Re:Africa eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Do not, I repeat DO NOT try that with a giant man-eating catfish.

      You have been warned.

    6. Re:Africa eh? by NeuralSpike · · Score: 1

      This would only happen if we nuke Africa. Furthermore it would be accompanied by a deluge of awesome African science fiction B-movies about giant land-hunting catfish and the development of African style animation. Doesn't sound half bad.

    7. Re:Africa eh? by thc69 · · Score: 1
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    8. Re:Africa eh? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Also, there will be no worshiping of Catfish Over Lords. They cannot understand you. Prostrating yourself beneath them will merely make their task easier

      Oh, come on. It just means you need to study law. Even violent Catfish Overlords will need lawyers to help subjugate all the crazy hu-mans.

  2. *Shock* *Disbelief* by Yst · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did Slashdot just report on a topic in evolutionary biology without using the phrase "missing link" to describe a theorised stage in development? Isn't there a rule against this or something?

    --
    Karma: Chameleon (comes and goes)
    1. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the missing link?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      We tried. You just blew it.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by msh104 · · Score: 1

      there is one big reason why this can't be our missing link.
      I mean... what would it hunt on land if it was the first thing to enter land.
      and we already had other animals that can exist in both water and on land.
      but I admit that this one is more fish like then I have seen before.

    4. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It very well could be the missing link. There is nothing stopping it.

      The obvious answer to what would it hunt on land would be other catfish. OOOR whatever else decided to go on land too. Just because this catfish hunts on land doesn't mena it is all it huunt or eats. Catfish are aslo scavengers and eat fish. I see nothing preventing this catfish from doing the same. Actualy, i use catfish (yellowbellies) to catch other more larger catfish so it wouldn't be out of the question to say the fist landwalkers ate other land walkers of they found them on land.

      If this so called missing link is a missing link and not a reletive of this catfish or a toad, then this catfish is just as evolutionary and missing linkness as the fossil found. You see whatever forced the fish to land would have effected the enitre population of fish in that area so it would be likley that more then one missing link got that ability at the same time. It is also possible that these creature are just that creature and don't show anything evolutionary outside they exist (they were and still ar ethe same animals)and went from sea to land. There are a lot of "evolution theorist" that think when the conditions were just right for life to become life, millions of different lives happened and the evolution from one cell to animal stayed within thier own species. This is to say the only thing common in a common ancestor might be the basic building blocks of raw material that was neccesary to creat life in itself. I'm in that camp with lots of others too. This is know as "the buble theory".

    5. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      What about plants? >_>

    6. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      And arthropods. (Did arthropods come on land before vertebrates?)

    7. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by plunge · · Score: 1

      Yes, they did.

    8. Re:*Shock* *Disbelief* by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      Why getting upset? Are you the missing link?

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  3. direct link by blhack · · Score: 5, Informative

    Direct link to video:

    Link

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:direct link by blair1q · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's dead already. Prompting this new slogan:

      "A /. of one"

    2. Re:direct link by G00F · · Score: 3, Informative

      if you post a link, you might want to make sure the url is correct.

      the correct link is here

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    3. Re:direct link by Bob+Wehadababyitsabo · · Score: 1

      More pics and info at Planet Catfish. I'm still amazed by the breadth and depth of websites on seemingly random topics...

      --
      fsck -u
  4. Vaguely Familiar by Misanthrope · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That sounds like one of my friend's ex-girlfriends....

  5. family tree by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Well, I'll be a fish's uncle

    1. Re:family tree by plunge · · Score: 1

      Actually, if we insist upon strict monophyletic terminology, then you are a fish, all your uncles are fish, and contrary to all those kindergarden level "cool facts!" nature videos, whales are, in fact, also fish. There is simply no way to draw a family tree that both includes all fish and their descedants but also excludes every tetrapod that every lived.

    2. Re:family tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nephew, surely?

  6. time to update wikipedia by NoInfo · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to add this to the eel catfish article on Wikipedia. It's a little lacking.

    1. Re:time to update wikipedia by Xeriar · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to add this to the eel catfish [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia. It's a little lacking.

      So umm, why don't you?

    2. Re:time to update wikipedia by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      (Yes, I realize this is on a tangent.)
      Wikipedia looks authoritative and formal, but actually it's anarchy. Have you ever tired to correct something in Wikipedia? It's not worth the effort if you value your time. Someone else may come along and edit you away so that they can further their own ideas. The system doesn't work for solid information. You have to have reliable editors.
      If you want to write on a subject, you're better off creating your own page on your own site. It's sad.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    3. Re:time to update wikipedia by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Exactly,That why i like the idea to decentralize the wiki.Or make wikisphere of linked interest sites.Like that trendy semanticWeb blogosphere and social
      networking.
      soft of web ,structured by wikisphere:
      You catfish wiki will be a single server
      in fish category,or a category on Fish server.You will not have to fork entire wikipedia.Link to other Single interest Wikis.

  7. link to video broken... by logik3x · · Score: 0

    Wait... No it's not, IE is broken... the link just crashes my IE... :P Get FireFOX

    1. Re:link to video broken... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You know what, for some reason in my FF, I cannot play many videos like this one, and I have to fire up the IE to do that. The video just won't open.

    2. Re:link to video broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video plays fine here on firefox in linux... And linux is supposed to be the shitty one with media :P

    3. Re:link to video broken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so don't play it in firefox -- save it to disc and play it with vlc, or your favourite video player.

  8. Just as God intended by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course fish can jump out of water. How else could they get into Noah's Ark?

    1. Re:Just as God intended by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the firm grip of one of His Noodly Appendages?

    2. Re:Just as God intended by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew that it would only be a few minutes before the appearance of a Flying Spaghetti Monster joke. But I fear that now that there's a mass-market book on the FSM, the humour will soon seem passé to the Slashdot crowd, used to more obscure and nerdy chuckles.

    3. Re:Just as God intended by Malor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Phew, good thing there was room. It would have been awful if all the fish drowned.

    4. Re:Just as God intended by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      You kidding? We still have tired old jokes from the Simpsons that appear in nearly every story, Dilbert still makes several appearances a day. both of these are now fairly mass-market.

    5. Re:Just as God intended by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our repitious, mass-market, tired-old-jokes Overlords!

    6. Re:Just as God intended by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, repetitious, mass-market, tired-old-jokes tell you!

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  9. Cross dressing by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fish hunting on land and mammals turning into ocean swimmers? The world is going mad, I'll tell ya, mad!

    1. Re:Cross dressing by hinux · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      G.W.B. as the brain of America. Enough said.

    2. Re:Cross dressing by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I always liked the idea that the land-dwelling ancestor of the whales said "fsck this, we're going back in the water".

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Cross dressing by sunwukong · · Score: 1

      land-dwelling ancestor of the whales said "fsck this, we're going back in the water"

      I believe it went more like ...

      Pre-weasel: "Whoa, looking pretty chunky there!"
      Pre-whale: "I'm big boned!"
      Pre-weasel: "Ya know, swimming is the best form of exercise."

      The rest is evolutionary history ...

    4. Re:Cross dressing by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      G.W.B. as the brain of America. Enough said.

      Well, given the kind of job he is doing, a Monty Python quote would certainly be in order:
      Mr. Gumby: My brain hurts!

  10. Let's see... by greenguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This fish hunts land-borne insects... like the archer fish. But it leaves the water... like the mudskipper. And TFA doesn't even indicate that it breathes air, like the lungfish (or the mudskipper).

    Somebody clarify how this is news.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:Let's see... by nwbvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say going onto land to hunt insects (as opposed to merely hunting insects from the water or merely going on land) makes this interesting. No, its not a halt the presses type of news, but that doesn't keep it from being an interesting article.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    2. Re:Let's see... by Rxke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could see it as a very early, primitive stage of going-to-the-land.

      Probably, when there were no earth dwelling creatures bigger than insects, those insects would be an easy catch to anything that started to jump out of the water to get at them, because they had no defenses for something like that happening (why would they, it never happened, evolving strategies against such attacks would be wasteful, and not help them in their fitness...)
      So fish that adapted this strategy would've had had ample, 'unsuspecting' prey, as opposed to water-bourne prey, which would've obviously had survival (evasive) strategies to big fish. So these fish were probably quite successful in surviving, even when food in the water was getting scarce for whatever reason.
      So, that catfish demonstrates a *very* hunt-efficient evolution, and over time it would stay longer out of the water, go deeper inland, while evolving the stuff to survive outside the water (lungs)
      What it shows is quite convincingly the incentive/bonus behind becoming a land-animal: more readily/easily available food.

    3. Re:Let's see... by moultano · · Score: 1

      Somebody clarify how this is news.

      Well, I personally found the video pretty entertaining. Do you need another reason?

    4. Re:Let's see... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Somebody clarify how this is news.

      It's not news, but no matter, it's stuff that's good enough for /. : )

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Let's see... by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious to know is if this is actually energy efficient.

      Is it worth going out of the water to get these bugs? Really it's a question of how many they get in one go I suppose.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    6. Re:Let's see... by Rxke · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert (at all! But I read most of Dawkins (the 'gene-centered evolutionist') more than once, heh.) but I'd say yes, otherwise this behaviour wouldn't have evolved -or persisted.
      I mean: if this were a less optimal behaviour compared to other predatory/feeding tactics, individuals of a species exhibiting this behaviour would be at a disadvantage, compared to others of their species, and so they would be less 'fit', end up at the bottom rung of the reproductive ladder, not able to pass this trait... ('xcuse my less than brilliant English) So this behaviour would die out pretty quickly. The mere fact that there are individuals exhibiting this, shows it must be a fairly successful strategy (assuming there are quite a bit of them showing this behaviour)
      OTOH.. It could be a losing strategy, one would have to study these catfishes for awhile, see how many do this, and how they compare to others.

    7. Re:Let's see... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Well, there is another possibility. It could be that the fish that exhibit this behavior were being crowded out of their niche by other fish, either through some climate change or due to other fish simply breeding and surviving better than they do.

      So, the most optimal solution (which gets solved by enough of them getting killed and only the ones with the advantage surviving) is for them to hunt on land. They could still get enough energy from eating plants and insects to hunt and survive, and they don't have to worry about competition from the other fish who are surviving just fine in the water.

      Also, evolution is about history and often leads to dead ends (literally) based on changes that can no longer be adapted to. Look at the panda, for example. The predecessors of the panda ate meat, so the panda has a stomach that is better suited to digesting meat. However, meat isn't any good for them since, for some reason, they evolved such that they had to eat bamboo. Thus, the bamboo doesn't absorb very well, so they have to spend all their time eating and sleeping in order to survive. What has saved them from extinction is that, by a staggering coincidence, hordes of insane, ridiculous primates that call themselves "humans" find them to be adorable, and thus have no choice but to spend tremendous effort to preserve the cuteness of pandas.

      Okay, perhaps I should stop going off on tangents now...

  11. Getting in would be the easy part by Yst · · Score: 3, Funny

    What with the world flooding and all, they'd have a clear enough route to the boat. The tricky part would be getting back down off Mount Ararat. As far as those creatures of the sea go, you just try to explain to the dolphins that you've saved them from the perils of the flooding sea by landing them on top of a mountain in the middle of the desert. See how they like them apples.

    --
    Karma: Chameleon (comes and goes)
  12. wait... by hjf · · Score: 0, Funny

    wtf is an eel catfish? the result of an orgy between eels, cats and fish?

  13. New Realms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be impressed when an orgasm starts hunting inside volcanoes. Colonize the mantle today!

    1. Re:New Realms by IcarusMoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and I'll be impressed when an orgasm does anything but feel spectacular and help me sleep.

  14. My kind of fishing! by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

    Now that's the way to go fishing. Sit by the water and the fish come to you!

  15. Paging General O'Neill by zephc · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    1. Re:Paging General O'Neill by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we've got a crack team recovering fishing nets fashioned by the Ancient to use in the fight against them!

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  16. Another Nail by RedHatLinux · · Score: 0, Troll

    in the coffin of intelligent design. Jesus/Allah/Budda (I love you all) this idiocy dies here.

    1. Re:Another Nail by turvalon · · Score: 1, Informative

      Being that all things of existence are in constant change for the Buddha, I think he is more likely to side with the evolutionists so I don't know why you lumped him in with Jesus and Allah.

    2. Re:Another Nail by RedHatLinux · · Score: 1

      I was referencing the Simpsons.

    3. Re:Another Nail by turvalon · · Score: 0

      *whooosh*

      No, that's not the sound of the catfish making landfall...it was the sound of your reference going over my head. I guess I need to stay in more. :-p

    4. Re:Another Nail by spacebird · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just wondering... how does this disprove ID? I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible or in ID theory that says that there's no such thing as a lungfish, eel-fish, amphibian, or anything else this remarkable...

      --
      What, me? Never.
    5. Re:Another Nail by Eternauta3k · · Score: 0

      I thought Jesus was for creationism, not that ID crap.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    6. Re:Another Nail by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Just wondering... how does this disprove ID?"

      It doesn't have to disprove ID, since ID doesn't make any testable predictions, or result in any advancements in understanding; ID's purposely deceptive design allows us to simply ignore it without any repercussions.

      A class in ID would be the easiest damn class ever. "Welcome, students, to Intelligent Design 101. This is the only course in this field. You can receive your B.S. in one day, or you can receive your Ph.D. if you stay after class and help me clean the erasers. Lesson 1 (of 1): God did it. Alright, that is it for today. We'll see you at the final exam tomorrow!"

    7. Re:Another Nail by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the psychology of creationists. There's no need for proof or disproof in their reality tunnel, just faith. A creationist can just wave his hand and say "God did it for his own reasons", and that's it.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Another Nail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      It doesn't put a nail in anything. Everyone at slashdot whines because ID is unfalsifiable and then gloat about how they've falsified it. But you see, here on slashdot you can get modded up for free on any biology-related post. Simply follow these easy steps:

      * Bash creationism! They are idiots and their lives are an impediment to the almighty science. Bury the infidels!
      * Make an unfunny, overused reference to that moronic "Flying Spaghetti Monster" fad! What's that? It's been literally done 42 times in every bio related post on /. since 2005? Doesn't matter! Just paste the following into the "Comment" field and hit submit:

      "IT MUST HAF BIN HIS NUDULY APENDIJE!!!!!!LOL"

      Within six minutes of posting, you'll be at +5, Funny!

      With these simple tips, you too can be a +5 Funny or +5 Informative/Insightful on slashdot! Every bio post is like your own personal April Fool's day!

    9. Re:Another Nail by AndGodSed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And this disproves ID how? And proves MACRO evolution how? It is sure interesting if you look at it from the viewpoint of MICRO evolution, which has been proven.

      And the only grasp you have of religion is from watching simpsons?

      sad.

    10. Re:Another Nail by plunge · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure how this catfish got dragged into things. I think the implication is that most evolution skeptics don't really have a good grasp of the fundamental diversity and flexibility of life on earth: they see everything as static kinds, when the real deal is fluid, multi-talented, and often surprising.

      Both macro and micro evolution are well-documented facts, of course, and chances are what you mean by "macro/micro" is something rather different from how biologists use the terms. In biology, there is no real solid divding line: macro is just how we discuss larger conglomerations and trends that come out of micro, much in the same way there is macro/micro economics.

    11. Re:Another Nail by AndGodSed · · Score: 0

      I find these discussions very interesting. I am an avid aquarist and read the news story even before slashdot had it.

      I enjoy reading about science stuff, but I am astonished that every new discovery about evolution and adaptation or new species degrades into God bashing.

      Half the comments on this story are anti deistic, and anti creation and no one has anything much to say about a very interesting fish!

      As for the catfish getting drawn into this, I dont know either, he was just eating lunch for crying out loud!

    12. Re:Another Nail by plunge · · Score: 1

      Hey, what do you expect from the internet? Arguing over religion and so forth is the hottest sort of controvresy available, and people primarily comment in order to debate.

    13. Re:Another Nail by AndGodSed · · Score: 0

      True. Maybe all we are doing is fishing for responses to create an opening where you can slip in and HAMMER YOUR POINT HOME and everyone else into submission.

    14. Re:Another Nail by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      I'm not really sure how this catfish got dragged into things.
      Probably on its belly.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    15. Re:Another Nail by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      You must be the type that jumps for joy at the comment that was at the end of the original post where scientists are using this to *speculate* on something else. Speculation (and lots of it) is the basis for evolution. This is more like another nail in the coffin for the idea that scientists know what they are doing. Scientists keep guessing (speculating) because they have no clue as to what really happened because they have no idea how to interpret the evidence they have found so far.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    16. Re:Another Nail by spacebird · · Score: 1

      ID covers only the beginning of things... i.e, where it came from. Comparing ID to evolution is comparing apples to oranges... ID is better compared to, say, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, etc... after that, ID uses the same science everyone else does. Evolution's starting points aren't any more testable than ID's.

      --
      What, me? Never.
    17. Re:Another Nail by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "ID is better compared to, say, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, etc... after that, ID uses the same science everyone else does. Evolution's starting points aren't any more testable than ID's."

      This is nonsense. You're essentially saying, "once God figured out how to make everyone turn out the way currently are, he quit getting involved." The problem is getting everyone to turn out the way they are. You're disguising ID as only covering "the creation" when in fact it is essentially covering everything after the creation, since God would have had to determine that ahead of time for it to occur as it did.

      As for the untestability of abiogenesis, I'm not sure what gives you that idea. If a decent theory comes along explaining how objects began to self-replicate, and scientists run tests to see if they can get self-replication to occur, then yes, it is testable. The big bang theory is also testable; although we can't physically make a big bang occur, we can compare the predicted results to what actually resulted. If they don't match up, then there is something wrong with the theory. God, on the other hand, we can never test.

    18. Re:Another Nail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being that all things of existence are in constant change for the Buddha, I think he is more likely to side with the evolutionists so I don't know why you lumped him in with Jesus and Allah.

      In fact, it's my understanding that the Buddha understood that species would change, and also become exctinct. He got there way before Darwin.

  17. Oblig. by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new African Catfish overlords!

    --
    Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
  18. Now Explain How They Develop Feet by Proto23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given a lot of time, how do fish start to crawl out of the water just because they catch insects this way?

    1. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Did you miss biology classes at school? Look up selection, mutation etc...

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    2. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Given a lot of time, how do fish start to crawl out of the water just because they catch insects this way?
      1. Fish catch insects on the surface in deep water
      2. Insects are in short supply so fish move into shallow water to find food
      3. Fish have to almost leave the water to find insects
      4. Fish reach out of the water to get insects then slide back in
    3. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably due to the environment found in temporary waterways, freshwater eels often go across fields from dam to stream or vica-verse at nighttime. The eels use dams to breed, usually during or after rain. In Australia the lungfish goes from pond to pond using it's fins to push it along. Most permanent water in the Australian outback is in artesian springs seperated by desert but every few years the desrt floods, fish and frogs "come out of the sand" and water birds somehow "know" the inland sea has formed. Within days, pelicans, ibis, storks, gulls,,, that usually live on the coast converge in their millions on the inland sea to feast on the explosion of fish, frogs and bugs.

      There are lots of places in Africa and Australia where water almost dries up, feeding from land or mudflats could be a distinct advantage over other creatures confined only to water. However I think that feeding is insignificant compared to the survival potentintial given by the ability of a species to move from a small evaporating pond to a larger body of water, even if that means laying eggs in the rapidly drying mud and hoping a flood will nuture your offspring.

      Moving over land (or surviving dry periods) lets you exploit virgin aquatic environments first and is a means of escape (at least at the species level) from dying ones, getting a snack on the journey would seem to be just an added bonus. The interesting thing about TFA is that the catfish seems to habitually hunt on land.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Snakehead ( http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/state/fl/snake head.shtml ), a fish that can breathe air, survive out of water for up to a week, crawl to other bodies of water, and can grow to be some five feet long.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    5. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Given a lot of time, how do fish start to crawl out of the water just because they catch insects this way?

      They don't, land animals do not descend directly from eels (eeles don't have a jaw).

      However, just look in the science section, they have a missing link of a legged fish.
      Not to mention the living fishies what got leg-like fins (aroud australia I think). They mostly use them to hang on to rocks IIRC.

      I mean, to go from "fin to swim" to "legs to crawl" isn't hard to picture (tougher fins). The fish that breathe in air from their mouth to their swim bladders when their rivers dry up and go stagnant, THOSE I find immensly fascinating (there's some in the Amazon river). Because going from "pocket of air to tweak buyancy" to "pocket of air to exchange O2 and CO2" is a less obvious move to me.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:Now Explain How They Develop Feet by Expert+Determination · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can get an overview of the general principles here. This books is pretty old but it's still good and in some ways it's better than modern texts because it doesn't take anything for granted. This is a good modern popular account of the kinds of processes involved. By time you've read all three of these you should be in a pretty good position to think about how feet might develop. None of this tells you anything about how feet actually did develop - it just removes roadblocks that make such development seem impossible. If you actually want to find out more about how feet develop a good starting point might be here though I haven't read that.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  19. Offtopic quicktime video help by LaurenBC · · Score: 1

    Open QuickTime (the program)

    Edit->Preferences->Browser->MIME Types

    Make sure QuickTime is set as your player for your basic formats (a new Flash installation can overwrite these defaults.) This should prevent you from needing to open IE to view QuickTime videos (I've had this problem quite a few times myself.)

    --
    I don't need this, I've got a Master's Degree in folklore and mythology!
  20. Better link by mattr · · Score: 1

    Try this (mplayer barfs unless you download it first)

    movie

  21. video evidence for GOD! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny
    I don't know why the Evolutionary contingent makes a big fuss about this video. Hasn't anyone noticed the Hand Of God at the start of the segment?

    Not only is this video evidence that this experiment was Intelligently Designed, but in fact it proves the IMHO more important point that God Has A Tapping Finger. Take that Richard Dawkins, God Actually Captured On Video!

    1. Re:video evidence for GOD! by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "more important point that God Has A Tapping Finger".

      You mispelled "Noodly Appendage", you insensitive clod!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  22. Spawn of Dagon! by SushiFugu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't you all see? These are not mere fish, these are THE DEEP ONES!

  23. clearly satan's work by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    shame on you slashdot. satan deposits funny bones in rocks and creates demonic catfish to lead you astray of the lord. you people consider yourselves so smart, and yet you fall so easily for satan's tricks

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:clearly satan's work by Armadni+General · · Score: 1

      As the parent here should also be modded funny. Not out of spite, but, as the Dr. Strangelove ref indicates, because it's meant to be funny. Idiot mods and all that, chop chop, move along now.

  24. Missing link, indeed! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    Here's your missing link.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  25. News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News! Birds dive into water to catch their prey!

  26. No No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Free thought" and "unbiased research" are only allowed to be used to get people to stop believing in a deity. You can't ask the objectivity on the other side.

    1. Re:No No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to reply, but honestly, I'm not really sure what you meant by that. Heh. Please explain?

  27. The Cleverest Species of Them All! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    This african fish is no match for the cleverest species of them all...

    The Landshark!!!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  28. it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to ask for objectivity from Christians and others who happen to believe in God, and then to have as much bias as your accuse your opponent of having. People accuse Christians of being biased in their rejection of evolution. Their asked to open their mind. Where is the open mindedness on the side of evolutionists? Evolutionists see their theory as the only allowable one in the game. The only one allowed to be considered by science. Let's suppose that it's true that evolution is the best explanation we have for the origin of life. Ok, great. Now, what's the second best explanation? It seems that no one wants to admit that there is a "second best" explanation. What's the fun in that? What good does it do to say you've won the race when no one else is playing?

    1. Re:it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AH.. I'm glad I asked before replying. When I originally read your post, I thought you were saying exactly the opposite.

      Looks like we agree. :)

    2. Re:it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's suppose that it's true that evolution is the best explanation we have for the origin of life.

      If you start with that assumption then you're not going to get anywhere at all. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, nor does it set out to. Evolution is all about what happens once replicative life is in place.

    3. Re:it was sarcasm by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll
      Then why is the the thoery of evolution being used incresasingly more to say god doesn't exist and creation couldn't possible be true?

      I think either someoen doesn't understand this stuff or someone doesn't understand this stuff. Either way, it apears that evolution has become just as much of a religion as any other religion is. It has all the facets of regular religions, lets list them
      • Some people who claim to understand it still get it wrong
      • it has so many variations that people constantly confuse exactly what they are supposed to belive
      • People use it to disprove other religions or claim that other religions are wrong
      • People draw conclusions or faith based on stuff they don't know to be true.
      • Even when histroy shows it to be the most likley scenario or steps of events, it is still a guess to come to the same conclusions.
      • If you wait long enough, someoen will come out with a new and improved version starting another cycle in all of the above.


      I guess there are som many obvious simularities you could substitute about any religion/scientic theory into any one of those statments and have it still be true. Maybe evolution has become a religion and we should all start whoreshiping the god of testtubes too.

      And yes "faith" can mean complete confidence in a person or plan, or loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person as much as it means believing in a god.
    4. Re:it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think either someoen doesn't understand this stuff or someone doesn't understand this stuff."

      Yeah. YOU don't understand. Evolution says nothing about any god existing or not existing. Evolution and the knowledge accumulated about the many extinct species says that the Christian creation myth doesn't hold any water - big surprise! The bible doesn't say anything about electricity or internal combustion either, it's not a science textbook. Most people get that.

    5. Re:it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you chose your nick accurately.

    6. Re:it was sarcasm by plunge · · Score: 1

      "Then why is the the thoery of evolution being used incresasingly more to say god doesn't exist and creation couldn't possible be true?"

      This is the mounting hysertia used to drum up donations to think tanks and right wing groups, but I'm not sure I see any "increasing" anything on the part of biologists or scientists.

      "* Some people who claim to understand it still get it wrong"

      I would say that this is fundamental to all human acitivity, religion or no. Being capable of error is precisely WHY we need something like the scientific method as our ethic: it's FIRST PRINCIPLE is that we error-prone and cannot take anything for granted.

      "* Even when histroy shows it to be the most likley scenario or steps of events, it is still a guess to come to the same conclusions."

      If you read what scientists do and discuss and debate, it's pretty darn hard to write off everything they are doing as guessing. Sure, there are always a lot of educated guesses in the start of exploring a new field. But then they get down to testing all the assumptions, putting the evidence through the wringer, and what they come out with is often some pretty darn solidly supported conclusions: as good and as certain as any empiricial knowledge can be. And, more importantly, scientists are always pretty good about laying out what the evidence for this or that claim is, and NOT overstating the certainty of this or that conclusion.

      In general, I don't really see how any of your examples really paint science as a religion in any sense. Almost all of them are characteristics of any human social activity or debate. But when you come down to it, science is about as different from religion as any human activity can be. The principles and goals and philosophy is just radically different.

    7. Re:it was sarcasm by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      Evolutionists see their theory as the only allowable one in the game. The only one allowed to be considered by science.

      If a creationist/ID theory was made that actually fit the critera of a scientific theory (call it X), many scientists would give it a chance. Sure, there are some "evolutionists" that would be blinded by their own prejudices, but not that many. The hard part would be that the many of the reasons for promoting X would be carried over from creationism/ID, so there would be quite a stigma to overcome.

      It seems that no one wants to admit that there is a "second best" explanation.

      What's the second best theory of gravity, angels pulling you down?

      But seriously, there's Darwinian evolution vs puncuated equalibrium, gene swaping among early organisms vs single lineage, half a dozen models of the details of human evolution, arguments over the importance of different kinds of selection (natural vs sexual, etc). There's not a lot of argument over the validity of evolution, but there's plenty of competition within that framework.

    8. Re:it was sarcasm by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      I will let you in on a secret....very few christians even dispute evolution because there is no reason why evolution would cause problems in their belief of God. A small percentage of christians have a problem with it, but hell, even the Pope said evolution is fine and dandy and does nothing in regards to the existance of God.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    9. Re:it was sarcasm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well it apears that we cannot discuss this without the religious zealots marking it as a troll so anonymouse is the way.

      I would say that this is fundamental to all human acitivity, religion or no. Being capable of error is precisely WHY we need something like the scientific method as our ethic: it's FIRST PRINCIPLE is that we error-prone and cannot take anything for granted.

      I can certainly understand your line of reasoning here. In fact it is probably the best way to think. I do have one reservation though. We Have seen event thoughout history that we belive to be true but cannot place the scientific theory inot effect. This might be because only one account survived in writen record or because numerous other cities or developements have sprunng up destroying any artifacts or other evidence. We also discount things we don't understand but are very real to those who witness it. Look at the anymosity towards those researching aliens or UFO sightings/abductions. My understanding is that implants related to abduction are sometimes even made of a metal not known or redily availible. In other cases, it is explained away as some ilusion created by the witnesses imagination and some other event. This explaination isn't even scientific either becuase it involves untestable explainations. So in essence while the scientific way is important, there needs to be a companion proccess that can co-exist that allows for untestable processes to be valid until a means to disprove it comes around. It may be that somethign like ghosts have legitamit explaination that allow for them to be real but the scientific method cannot test for it so it is voodoo or somehtign (think parralell universe).

      If you read what scientists do and discuss and debate, it's pretty darn hard to write off everything they are doing as guessing. Sure, there are always a lot of educated guesses in the start of exploring a new field. But then they get down to testing all the assumptions, putting the evidence through the wringer, and what they come out with is often some pretty darn solidly supported conclusions: as good and as certain as any empiricial knowledge can be. And, more importantly, scientists are always pretty good about laying out what the evidence for this or that claim is, and NOT overstating the certainty of this or that conclusion. Sure it is. Some "scientist" though are using this evidence as a means to prove religions are myths or crutches for the weak. I would imagine that if religion fails the scientific test then science has no right claiming thier research disproves a religion. It isn't as much the scientist I am using to make a point though, It is the "followers" of those scientists. Even in this thread, you will find someone making the statment "Evolution and the knowledge accumulated about the many extinct species says that the Christian creation myth doesn't hold any water". This shows exaclty my point in its essence. It is almost the same as a religion.

      The funny thing is that according to UN human rights charter, they recognize that freedom of religion includes the religion of not believing in a religion. This means that Even the UN has determined that atheism is a religion now. go figure.

      In general, I don't really see how any of your examples really paint science as a religion in any sense. Almost all of them are characteristics of any human social activity or debate. But when you come down to it, science is about as different from religion as any human activity can be. The principles and goals and philosophy is just radically different.

      I never said science was becoming a religion. I said evolution was and there is a fundamental difference there. You see it isn't the science behind evolution or the process that being whoreshiped. It is the outcome that is. This may be totaly unintentional by those doing the science and I'm sure it isn't the intention of the science itself. What we have now is a following that is showi

    10. Re:it was sarcasm by plunge · · Score: 1

      "We Have seen event thoughout history that we belive to be true but cannot place the scientific theory inot effect. "

      I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. For things in the distant past that were singular events that leave few traces, we generally can apply the scientific method to evaluating the evidence, but we often have to note that the findings are tenative and speculative about a lot of the details. It's still certainly worthwhile though: what else are we going to do? The only alternative is just making things up about the past that we don't actually know to be true or not.

      "We also discount things we don't understand but are very real to those who witness it. Look at the anymosity towards those researching aliens or UFO sightings/abductions."

      I think subjects like this are more complicated though. While people that assert the existence of UFOs definately feel strongly about the subject, I think there are clearly a lot places where their claims are problematic and unconvincing. Again, if we don't apply science, what is the alternative? People who believe can believe, and people who don't won't, and there will be no way to resolve the debate objectively. Science is the only method anyone can think of that ultimately promises to be able to do that.

      "So in essence while the scientific way is important, there needs to be a companion proccess that can co-exist that allows for untestable processes to be valid until a means to disprove it comes around."

      I don't know what you mean by process though. The process by which things can be valid even if we can't prove them true or false is belief. I don't think anyone advocates forcing people to stop believing in things they can't prove: nothing can stop them, and they are free to do so. Science only comes into play when people with all sorts of different views on a subject like UFOs want to try and justify this or that position with evidence. Science can't replace belief, and there's no need to try and make it do so.

      "Some "scientist" though are using this evidence as a means to prove religions are myths or crutches for the weak. I would imagine that if religion fails the scientific test then science has no right claiming thier research disproves a religion."

      The divide isn't as neat as that though. If a religion makes a falsifiable claim about, for instance, the age of the earth, then its going to bump up against science, because that's something science CAN tell us about. If the religion is talking about God and the supernatural however, then that doesn't really affect science and science doesn't really affect it.

      "It isn't as much the scientist I am using to make a point though, It is the "followers" of those scientists. Even in this thread, you will find someone making the statment "Evolution and the knowledge accumulated about the many extinct species says that the Christian creation myth doesn't hold any water". This shows exaclty my point in its essence. It is almost the same as a religion."

      I'm not sure that it follows that just because something challenges a claim made by a religion, that the challenge is itself a religion. I do agree that some atheists will use scientific findings to challenge religious claims. But given that religious people make claims in order to promote and argue for their beliefs, I'm not sure this is really particularly unfair. Again, if a religion is going to hang its hat on a claim that is scientifically testible, then it just is exposing itself to being proved wrong.

      "The funny thing is that according to UN human rights charter, they recognize that freedom of religion includes the religion of not believing in a religion. This means that Even the UN has determined that atheism is a religion now."

      How can not believing in a religion be, itself, a religion? :)

      "Now don't take cult as a bad thing, the only thing seperating a cult from a religion is the legal standing of the religion. In other words they are the same thign outs

    11. Re:it was sarcasm by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. For things in the distant past that were singular events that leave few traces, we generally can apply the scientific method to evaluating the evidence, but we often have to note that the findings are tenative and speculative about a lot of the details. It's still certainly worthwhile though: what else are we going to do? The only alternative is just making things up about the past that we don't actually know to be true or not.

      Yea, thats my bad. I didn't proof read that statment and it turned out all wrong. It should have read more like this "We Have seen even thoughout history what we belive to be true but cannot place the scientific theory into effect to validate it. We still belive it corectness though." This is ment to ilistrate how we are subjectivly applying scientific principles to different subjects for our own benefit.

      I think subjects like this are more complicated though. While people that assert the existence of UFOs definately feel strongly about the subject, I think there are clearly a lot places where their claims are problematic and unconvincing. Again, if we don't apply science, what is the alternative? People who believe can believe, and people who don't won't, and there will be no way to resolve the debate objectively. Science is the only method anyone can think of that ultimately promises to be able to do that.

      Our alternative is to take the first hand acount for what it is worth. You see, much like other events in history, we cannot apply scientific tests to prove or disprove the even. Even in the basics of the even, sometimes we have absolutly no evidence to prove or disprove either way. Still we look and belive it had happened because someone recorded it or we think another outcome was a direct result but have nothign other then the even and outcome as proof. Now don't get me wrong because the outcome could be proof of the even in some situations but in others it is just a grasp to make a conection. Now with UFO's and some other events, we have to wonder if it isn't an ilusion. The problem i have is the automatic distain for someone trying to find this out.

      I don't know what you mean by process though. The process by which things can be valid even if we can't prove them true or false is belief. I don't think anyone advocates forcing people to stop believing in things they can't prove: nothing can stop them, and they are free to do so. Science only comes into play when people with all sorts of different views on a subject like UFOs want to try and justify this or that position with evidence. Science can't replace belief, and there's no need to try and make it do so.

      For years, we knew we had air and it was comprised of something that we needed to live. We also knew that some air would kill you. We had no way of testing it, determining what it comprises or knowing what it was. We belived in it as we needed to consume quantities of it. Because we couldn't test it, we should have automaticaly dismissed it as not existing. Instead, we worked to understand it and explain it and we know have the ability to test and verify it. Now other items outside the abilities of scient to test may exist and because we cannot test it or falsify them doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means we don't have the correct understanding of them. If we applied the same scientific values that is being used to say gods don't exist and there is no such thing as divine intervention (by some scientist as well as thier followers) we would never be able to expand outside our own knowledge.

      I think this is one reason inventions follow the scifi/fiction area so much. It takes someone thinking outside the scientific constraints to go outside the box, then someone inside the constraints makes a discoverey that eventualy leads into simular technoligy.

      The divide isn't as neat as that though. If a religion makes a fa

  29. Walking catfish by cciRRus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Southeast Asia, catfish that comes out of the water is not really surprising. For example, the "Walking Catfish" can "walk" from pond to pond in search of better living conditions.

    --
    w00t
    1. Re:Walking catfish by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      "Before the beginning, there was this turtle. And the turtle was alone. And he looked around, and he saw his neighbor, which was his mother. And he lay down upon his neighbor, and behold! she bore him in tears an oak tree, which grew all day and then fell over -- like a bridge. And lo! underneath this bridge there came a catfish. And he was very big. And he was walking. And he was the biggest he had seen. And so were the fiery balls of this fish, one of which was the sun, and the other, they called the moon."

    2. Re:Walking catfish by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Egads, man! That article says that your walking catfish came from Thailand...same place that had the gigantic 620lb catfish (about which I posted in a different thread above, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183243&cid=151 37820 )

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    3. Re:Walking catfish by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      the "Walking Catfish" can "walk" from pond to pond in search of better living conditions.

      I wonder if this guy can do it too, from the video it only seems to do a grab and retreat without ever completely leaving the water.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Walking catfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the best comments I've seen here, thanks

  30. Incomplete article by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    This was recently in the news; The scientist on the study noted the amazing thing was that the fish can eat prey exactly in the way they do underwater by "sucking it in" which doesn't allow air to come in their mouths. It would be considered a breakthrough as it proved there isn't a long evolutionary progress required to be able to feed on land as previously assumed.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    1. Re:Incomplete article by Stanneh · · Score: 1

      The BBC program i watched showed exactly the opposite... they cannot use suction on land they have evolved to bow their heads forward so they can open their mouths and land mouth first on their pray catching them in their mouth then they drag themselfs back to the water and eat their catch from in the water throughout all this balancing themselfs with their eal like body. whats special about this fish is its ability to bow its head.

      --
      I Predict A Riot
    2. Re:Incomplete article by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1
      University website
      Dutch Fragment:

      Zodra hij contact maakt met de prooi, doet de vis zijn bek herhaaldelijk open en dicht tot het insect stevig tussen zijn kaken vastgeklemd zit. De typische zuigbeweging van in het water komt ook op het land van pas, hier om grotere prooien gemakkelijker naar binnen te werken.

      Dit -voor een vis- merkwaardige gedrag kan licht werpen op de evolutie van water- naar landdier en op de ingrijpende lichamelijke aanpassingen die daarvoor nodig waren.

      Quick translation:

      As soon it contacts the prey, the fish opens and closes its mouth repeatedly until the insect is locked fermly between its jaws. The typical suction-movement from in the water comes handy on the land, here to work bigger prey inside more easily.

      This -for a fish- weird behaviour can shed light on the evolution from water- to landanimals and on the serious adjustments which were required for this.

      It sounds in the journal as they are able to feed on the land, with the help of their longer and flexible spine. So the movement of the head is required to feed on the land. (the article states "without it they'd just push their prey over the ground and it would be impossible to eat it.")

      I'm just relaying what I read, I'm not an expert on fish nor evolutionary biology and I don't want to dispute one source and blindly trust another. It's fascinating nonetheless.
      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    3. Re:Incomplete article by Stanneh · · Score: 1

      "without it they'd just push their prey over the ground and it would be impossible to eat it." Actually the BBC program i seen used that line word for word i think if we compare the two articles we will find the truth somewhere in the middle.

      --
      I Predict A Riot
  31. yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a mantle orgasm the earth is really going to move

    1. Re:yes, but by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      with a mantle orgasm the earth is really going to move

      "Mommy, where do earthquakes come from?"

      "Well, when two tectonic plates love each other very much...."

      "Quiet Woman!! That's Just A Theory!! Son, it's time you learned all about Intelligent Drift."

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  32. Apparently there's a German catfish that hunts dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    German catfish eats a dog: "I couldn't believe my eyes. I heard the old woman screaming, she kept saying, 'My dog, my dog,' and pointing wildly at the water."

    -------------------
    Phone backup, contact management

  33. Further evidence... by scooter.higher · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it coincidence that this is an eel catfish?

    The similarity between this fish and the FSM's Noodly Appendage should be enough evidence for ANYONE to see that the FSM is the one true creator.

    RAmen

    --
    Ramen
  34. Why "Africa"? by aaron.rowe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it "the tropical swamps of Africa", rather than an idea about the countries involved?

    Africa is a huge place, The Worlds second largest and second-most populous continent after Asia with a hugely diverse population in 61 countries and territories.

    My point is if you hear about animals found in "tropical swamps of" Asia, or North or South America you would normally hear the actual country or even state within the country it was found in otherwise you have no idea what sort of environment to imagine.

    From "tropical swamps" we can only derive that it's one of the countries in Sub-Saharan africa that fall in the tropics, and that's the biggest, most diverse part and it's not one big swamp!

    I could forgive them if these fish eel things are swimming all over sub saharan africa but then I would have to say what the hell have they been doing all this time?

    If they are everywhere then I've probably eaten a few of these myself. Mmmm.

    1. Re:Why "Africa"? by vidarh · · Score: 1
      I could forgive them if these fish eel things are swimming all over sub saharan africa but then I would have to say what the hell have they been doing all this time?

      The "news" here is that Nature is publishing an article about them - they're well known and have been for ages.

    2. Re:Why "Africa"? by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It might apear that they left the country out so you don't know it is some secluded remote area that hasn't completley been explored yet. This way it could possibly be claimed as a recent evolutionary step to prove evolution.

      I'm not sure if any of the above are true but after reading a few other comments, I'm already seeing people attribute this behavior to recent evolution. It could be that this behavior was already the norm for several thousand years for this particular species at this particular place.

    3. Re:Why "Africa"? by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, according to this, their known range extends from Angola to the Congo River Basin. So no, they are not confined to just one country or territory, but are spread out amoung several countries. And considering the conflict in that region, that list could easily change any day.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  35. Actually even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, apparently this fish has eaten a DOZEN dogs over the years: http://user.bahnhof.se/~wizard/GUSTeng03/artiklar_ moenchengladbach.html

    So this was not just a single-dachshund type of fish. No this cat had a taste for dogs.

  36. So are you saying by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    That Satan created the visible world? That's Manichaeanism. Which is a schismatic religion. To avoid that, you have to posit that God created all those things to lead us astray right down to putting just the right amount of radionucleides in the rocks to make it look as though unstable nuclei had been fissioning for billions of years. Which means that God tells lies. Which is a major heresy.

    So either we should be burning the Dover school board at the stake for Manichaenism or for denying the truthfulness of God. A Catch-22 as good as the one Novell has used to entangle SCO.

    I never thought I would be living in the days when it's the Catholic Church that asserts that the Big Bang theory and evolution by natural selection are part of God's great plan, and the Protestant descendants of the Protestants who emigrated to avoid persecution by backward Catholics have become the reactionaries. Jay Gould must be spinning in his grave so fast it's distorting space time.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:So are you saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude I am so going to your next party.

    2. Re:So are you saying by plunge · · Score: 1

      It's funny. Creationists are habitual liars, and their vision of God is of a being who lies on the grandest scale imaginable: who concocted an entire universe full of false and misleading evidence. It's interesting how people project their own failings onto their understanding of God.

    3. Re:So are you saying by tlynch001 · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Church doesn't make calls on science, although it is a big fan (contrary to all the interpretation of what they did to Gallileo). So although the Pope (and the one before him, and the one before him) say that evolution is certainly possible, they don't back it as absolute. The current Pope denounces ID though.

  37. Thats not a fish... by thelem · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its a goa'uld symbiote. Watch out for glowing eyes and egyptian gods!

    1. Re:Thats not a fish... by plunge · · Score: 1

      Please add your insight to the wikipedia article on eel catfish, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

  38. Not Helpful by awol · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Clearly this is not a helpful example to help understand the first creatures to leave the water for the land since there would have been nothing on the land for them to "arch up and pin down" in the first place. Still and interesting behaviour but it is slightly "cart before horse" in term os anything particularly probabtive.

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    1. Re:Not Helpful by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

      Which article did you read? The one we're all talking about involves sea-living vertebrates feeding on invetrtebrates already on land.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    2. Re:Not Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Clearly this is not a helpful example to help understand the first creatures to leave the water for the land since there would have been nothing on the land for them to "arch up and pin down" in the first place. Still and interesting behaviour but it is slightly "cart before horse" in term os anything particularly probabtive.
      No, you are completely wrong. Insects, arachnids, and other invertebrates were living on land before vertebrates were. So this is in fact a perfect analogy for the "chain of events" leading to vertebrates moving from water to land.
  39. God did it by Arru · · Score: 1

    Do you really mean that the second best explanation is God did it((TM)). Even "the species have always been here" makes less assumptions, predicts as little and is therefore better than creationism.

    --
    There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
  40. God done it? by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

    And there was me thinking it was the butler.

    --
    "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  41. Mod parent and GP up -- fish hunts dogs on land! by thc69 · · Score: 1

    Mod parent and GP up for links to freaky giant catfish that breathes, walks on land, and EATS PET DOGS!!!!

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  42. Why is this a headline story? by nicc777 · · Score: 1

    This is old news. Maybe you geeks don't come out enough :)

    Then again - I do live in Africa and most of you not... You are missing soooo much.

    Cheers

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
    1. Re:Why is this a headline story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then again - I do live in Africa and most of you not... You are missing soooo much.


      ,
      Yeah, like starvation, poaching, female genital mutilation, and mass killings. I'll stay where I'm at.. thanks.
  43. Don't forget gd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to ensure that the god of the Jews is included in all references to the creationist ignorance. Buddah should be removed though.

  44. In Soviet Russia... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia fishes phish for YOU.

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by XdevXnull · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Africa, fish hunts you!

      --
      "I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
  45. First fish out of the water didn't hunt insects by DoorFrame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe I drastically misunderstand evolution, but it seems highly unlikely that the first fish-like-thing out of the water would have been hunting insects. Theoretically it wouldn't have been hunting ANYTHING, it would have been all alone on the land. Right? It could have tried to hunt, but it would have been awfully lonely and fruitless endeavour.

    1. Re:First fish out of the water didn't hunt insects by tuffy · · Score: 1
      Theoretically it wouldn't have been hunting ANYTHING, it would have been all alone on the land. Right?

      Insects were on land before fish-like things, as were plants. But given the size of bugs in such a drastically different atmosphere, there's a good chance the fish-like things would've been hunted by them.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    2. Re:First fish out of the water didn't hunt insects by BoogedyBoo · · Score: 1

      The arthropods had already evolved to survive on land well before then. more info --> http://scienceboy.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-animal s-first-conquered-land.html

    3. Re:First fish out of the water didn't hunt insects by plunge · · Score: 1

      Well, if you really mean "fish-like thing" then there were already plenty of insects on land: insects were never fish like in the first place. Of course, calling them insects at the time isn't really good nomenclature either. They were the mighty protosomes!

  46. Aah, Now THAT'S News by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Carlos Mencia asked last season why it's news when someone goes swimming in the ocean and gets attacked by sharks. He points out that if the guy were at, say, a 7/11 and got attacked by sharks, THAT would be news.

    Now, one of the theories as to why the sharks have been attacking people more often lately is because their usual feeding grounds have been fished out and so they're forced to come into more shallow water to find food. I could forsee an eventual evolutionary advantage for a shark that could employ this method of hunting. It could come up on the beach and scarf down some unsuspecting seals. Or sunbathers. I wonder if in the not so distant future, we might see a shark attack at a local 7/11. Really we'd have no one but ourselves to blame.

    Giant land-hunting catfish (or sharks) is a creepy thought. You KNOW that one day we'll be on the menu.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  47. Nothing new by edwardpickman · · Score: 1, Informative

    When I was growing up I saw catfish in a zoo pond climb completely out of the water and go as much as a foot to retrieve popcorn. Most catfish can leave the water to got after food. I think the unique thing about this catfish wasn't leaving the water but the way it pounched on the food. It would raise up and strike. They aren't fish but something as large as an orca will leave the water to go after food. I've seen medium sized sharks scramble half out of the water going after food. Catfish seem to be the record holders for actually completely leaving the water to search for food.

  48. Not THE missing link but ... by willtsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting


    This isn't THE missing link between sea and land animals. But it is yet another example of a phenomenon you can see throughout the animal kingdom.

    Critics of evolution point to so called "intermediate structures". That somehow anatomical features have no value in a state of evolution, therefore they could not be selected under Darwin's own models. They ignore the little thing called the natural world. If you look closely you can see fish that hold their "water" to crawl around on land and tree dwelling animals like squirrels and snakes that glide from their perches to the ground. There are primitive animals in the sea with basic photo-receptors and other rudimentary sensory apparatus. All intermediate forms are out there ready to be viewed.

    One primitive forms of these anatomical structures appear, it is no stretch to see that enhanced versions provide the animal with a greater capability and hence natural selection.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  49. So It's Basically A Snake by PiercedSoul · · Score: 1

    Might be interesting if a goldfish did it....

  50. Another Troll by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

    who fails the same litmus test as literal creationists. Evolution does not disprove creation, nor are the two incompatible. The fact that you make this same logical error as proponents of Intelligent Design is some pretty delicious irony.

  51. Planet of the... by mtec · · Score: 1

    Damn Dirty Catfish!

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  52. Good for us.. by William+Robinson · · Score: 1
    the same trick may have been used by the very first vertebrates to venture onto land

    Otherwise, I had been posting this from 2000 feet under water.

  53. Good god. by Aristocrat+George · · Score: 1

    I am fucking terrified.

  54. Now Explain How They Can Bite Your Hand Off by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

    (eeles don't have a jaw)

    I beg to differ. "Eeles" may not have jaws but EELS most certainly do. The moray in particular has a strong jaw lined with razor sharp teeth that is capable of removing limbs and appendages.

    So now you know why my hovercraft remains full of eels.

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    1. Re:Now Explain How They Can Bite Your Hand Off by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. "Eeles" may not have jaws but EELS most certainly do

      After RTFA again, I think it's a catfish that got the monicker of "eel" because of it's appearance. So, it's a moot point, but I do think eels don't have a jaw. I'm pretty sure... nope. They have jaws. I was thinking of lampreys. Those don't have jaws. I'd make a horrible marine biologist...

      So now you know why my hovercraft remains full of eels.

      :D

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  55. I am from Africa ... I have seen this fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly the article should be specific. Africa is a CONTINENT and they should name the country of origin where this fish is from. I assume that slash dotters are not dumb and would have the intelligence to NOT generalize in broad terms ... As a regular slashdotter I would like to state that I AM FROM Africa, Nigeria specifically and furthermore I am Ijaw (ethnically) and lastly I have seen this fish a million times. People actually eat it (pepper soup), but it is bony and not very tasty (I have eaten it too). They are very very common. There is another catfish that has spines under its fins, this is regularly eaten as well.

    As I said this fish is common in the mangrove swamps of the Niger Delta. This and other types of catfish. Some of them in fact do creep on to the banks of the river ... and they can even survive out of water for a bit. Usually about 30 fish are thrown in a bucket with a little water and they live for a few days ...

    The most common land-fish is the mud-skipper. If you go to Port Harcout in Nigeria, you will see a lot of them.

    I saw many animals whose scientific (Western) classification may be unknown ... the best way to classify these animals is to work with the Professors at the local Universities in these areas University of Port Harcourt and others ...

  56. Obligatory... by graffix_jones · · Score: 1

    Boy, and all this time I thought Catfish Hunter was just a pitcher for the A's... *rimshot*