Slashdot Mirror
Newly Discovered Sea Creature Was Once the Largest Animal On Earth
sciencehabit writes Almost half a billion years ago, the largest animal on Earth was a 2-meter-long, helmet-headed sea creature that fed on some of the ocean's tiniest prey. The newly described species is one of the largest arthropods yet discovered, a class of animals that includes spiders and crabs. The well-preserved remains of the multisegmented creature are providing clues about how subsequent arthropods' legs may have evolved from the dozens of stubby flaps used to propel this beast through the water.
It all makes sense now
2-meter-long, helmet-headed creature....
First post :)
This is the most "Why not Zoidberg" scenario ever.
uuuh.. ehehe.. hey Beavis... ehehe
Rock Lobster.
O my gods! Leviathan has shrunk!
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
.... then pretty soon the largest creature on earth will once again be 2m long - us. Since we seem to find some sort of glee in killing pretty much all the large fauna on this planet.
One question I ask myself whenever I see some new creature is "I wonder how it tastes". It's kind of disturbing when watching sci-fi flicks though.
For a short time I was the youngest person on earth.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Keep reading this kind of stories. But I wonder how the scientists come to a conclusion, about newer species and all the evolution that might have happened, and make people believe it... just based on theories.
Almost half a billion years ago, the largest animal on Earth was a 2-meter-long, helmet-headed sea creature that fed on some of the ocean’s tiniest prey. The newly described species is one of the largest arthropods yet discovered
Now, if it's the largest animal ever on Earth, doesn't that mean it also has to be *the* largest arthropod, and not just one of the largest? Or are there some arthropods that are larger, and also not animals?
That artwork is straight out of the Pokedex, maybe an ice type?
I seems to me that single celled organisms also were the largest creatures on earth for quite a while...
Kirk, is that you?
People making extraordinary claims need to present extraordinary evidence. There is NO evidence. On the other hand, there IS evidence that the existence of a god would be incompatible with the basic rules of this universe, so no, as an atheist who makes Richard Dawkins look like a wishy-washy (and he really is an agnostic, not an atheist, btw), all the evidence to date points to god not existing.
Show me SOME evidence, some mathematical proof, and we'll talk. Until then, the numbers do not (and can not) add up.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So what they are saying it they really don't have a clue when this really lived and so we are just going to throw out some guess.
It funny how scientists have giving more proven that God is real. But yet they want to believe that this complex world came from nothing.
You're not so ignorant that you wouldn't accept a god as a possibility, are you?
Just a god? How about an asexually-reproducing giant, a cow licking people into existence, and Earth being created from the corpse of said giant? That sounds reasonable, right?
Is it possible? I suppose, it's possible. Very very many things are within the realm of possibility. For example, it could be possible that you are the only sentient being ever created, and everything that you are experiencing is nothing more than a fever dream in your mind. That's a possibility. It doesn't seem very likely though, does it? I doubt that the sky is actually the skull of a giant held aloft by 4 dwarves, and I doubt that a creator god that no one has ever seen decided to create everything with a huge master plan in mind, and then go about "testing faith" and doing other things as if he didn't know exactly what was going to happen (being omniscient, and all that). Is it possible? Sure, it's possible that an omniscient, omnipresent god created everything and then ordered people not to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics. I don't think it's very likely though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Bacteria, once the largest creatures on earth, are now the smallest!!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If there were any evidence at all that the existence of god would make any observable difference on reality than the question of whether god does exist would be relevant.
If your concept of god is that it has no detectable impact on the universe than it is functionally equivalent to not existing. Much like I can add "+0" or "-0" to any mathematical equation without invalidating it, but doing so is completely pointless: you can assume the existence of an impotent god or choose to define whatever is responsible for how reality works as 'god', but both are pretty pointless as they make no difference on your results from if you'd assumed god doesn't exist and they add unnecessary clutter.
There is no evidence that Russo's Teapot doesn't exist either, but the practice is to assume it does not as a universe which includes it is indistinguishable form one which does and there's no gain to assuming the existence of a teapot that has no observable impact on your results.
This is pretty much the concept of Occam's Razor. If the unfounded hypothetical doesn't affect the outcome, it's best to discard it.
Hey, Babs, uhm, you do realize that to those people who believe in a god, that god plays above the rules?
And for the record, I am agnostic. I am just playing "Devil's* advocate". I am just tired of science bashing religion, when they know they can't disprove it. And if you can't disprove, then you must accept it as even a remote possibility.
Funny how the perfectly logical, yet unpopular opinion gets modded down by this horrible fucking mod system.
* Don't worry, it is just a figure of speech.
I can't disprove winged flying dragons, but since there is zero evidence for them, I can safely say they don't exist on earth. There might be ants the size of humans, that evolved with titanium composing their body so that they don't collapse under their own weight, but until there's at least a smidgen of evidence, they simply don't exist here either.
Anyone who claims otherwise needs to do more than just make the claim. Let them prove I am wrong about the non-existence of god - or as the preacher would say - "Show me da money!!!" (They're called the flock because they're always getting fleeced).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
the sky is actually the skull of a giant held aloft by 4 dwarves,
FIVE elves.
Heretic.
Nor was there any evidence for, fanged frogs that give birth to live tadpoles. So there is a possibility, however remote, that your winged dragons exist. They probably don't, but you never can be sure.
As I stated before, all the evidence in the world still can't disprove a god was behind it all. There is a difference between evidence and proof.
It is impossible for them to prove you wrong. It is just as impossible for you to prove them wrong. I would think that on a science-based forum, that would be better understood.
I'm pointing out that, since you can't prove them wrong, you should be a little more tolerant of their people's beliefs.
There is a difference between evidence and proof.
Try saying that in any court - you'll be laughed out. Evidence and proof are synonyms.
And why should I be "more tolerant" of superstition? There is NO evidence or proof that there is a god. You want to believe it, that's your business. However, accept that most religions have blood on their hands.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.