Fish with Limbs 137
kpogoda writes "American scientists have unearthed the world's oldest arm bone, a 365-million-year-old fossil that provides key evidence that fish used limbs in water well before animals used them to climb up on land."
yay for science! (Score:1)
Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:1)
Note: I am not affiliated with the LW church.
-Bruce
---------
|\|3+85D: f0r t3h r3al 133+ h4x0r5. Those who know will attest! They will agree! They already use it! They will not use annoying hacker-esque stereotypes!
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
If it was, why are there *two* totally different stories?
Re: Two Christian creation myths (Score:1)
I know about the seven-day creation myth (and the "Who was Cain's wife?" and other paradoxes contained therein), but I am unfamiliar with a second creation story.
Re: Two Christian creation myths (Score:2)
Read the bible. There are two listed right in a row.
Re: Two Christian creation myths (Score:2)
Read Genesis 1.
Now start at Genesis 2.4a and continue 'til ~2:25.
See? Two stories, and it's commonly held that this is the case.
When was the last time you had read Genesis?
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea who you are, so I'll try to be as cordial as poss
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
What proof have you that natural selection improves a species, rather than just slowing the survival of harmful genes, and reducing di
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Simple.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
After all, if that is the definition of evolution, it says nothing about the common ancestry of all living things, which most people put under the title of "evolution".
Personally I prefer the definition from talkorigins:
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.
I will not dispute the definition you gave. I still believe that species are degenerating over generations, and that we do not s
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Feel free to IM me, at Ieshan.
I'll be on later tonight and some of tomorrow.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
There is not the slightest piece of evidence, in the fossil record or in zoology to support this.
The only reason you believe in this nonsense is because your particular interpretation of the bible tells you that must be the case.
(The irony is that this particular interpretation of the Fall is entirely modern: you won't be able to find any proponent of such a view before the 1800s.)
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
> When I said an absence of natural selection I was not speaking about reality, but a hypothetical situation. For us to understand what natural selection does, we must be able to imagine what would happen if it did not play a part.
That's easy enough: download the code for your favorite genetic algorithm, hack it to replace selection-by-fitness with random selection, and see how well it works.
> Please define "evolution", as it has different meanings in different contexts and for different things. Q
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Thanks for supporting my argument. I already could imagine life without natural selection, but the person I was responding to could not.
Certainly. Darwin's finches are the
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2, Insightful)
> Ha! Among Darwinist evolutionists I encounter the greatest zealotry
Zealotry? What's different about these discussions and everything else that goes on on Slashdot? Or anywhere else on the internet?
> and unwillingness to listen.
Maybe it's because we've spent the last couple of years patiently explaining what's wrong with your claims and watching others do likewise, only to have you jump in with the same claims again every time the subject comes up.
> As for zealotry, woe to anyone who quest
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
This "genetic entropy" concept has a fundamental flaw: if there
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Ultimately I don't believe that the predators of insects are powerful enough to destroy them. This is obvious from reality, and I'm saying that in reality creatures could be devolving. Natu
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
No, natural selection can't balance out devolution; the more selective pressure there is on a species, the less it would devolve. This is not symmetrical to evolution!
Evolution would speed up when the selective pressure is high, causing the species to change
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Natural selection can be split into these two functions, for purposes of clarifying this debate:
1. Selection of existing traits - Darwin's finches are a good example. This is when a creature inherits traits from its parents, but only those that inherit certain traits have a better chance of survival. This has the dual effect of producing rapid speciation and reducing diversity in the gene pool.
2. Selection of mutations
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
1. Rapid speciation - the gene pool would initially be large, and offspring would be selected based on the traits they inherited. This is the faster change you noted when there's high selective pressure
I'm sorry, but I still don't get this. The way I see it: if we accept the concept of devolution, meaning the genetic makeup of species w
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Or, at least one
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
The question is how you define qualifications like "progess" and "perfection". If progess means "better adapted to the current habitat/environment" then most certainly evolutionary progress is taking place. This however says nothing about the state (of perfection) of the changing environment; which makes evolution and devoluti
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
IOW stands for In Other Words :) If we agree that natural selection causes better adaptation to the environment (by adaptation and speciation), we can only describe this as a negative development or as "less perfect" if we think the global environment/world itself is degrading independent of adaptation and speciation. This is
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't. In order for speciation to occu
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
Yes, but speciation does not remove genes from the originating species genepool (it could wipe out the species by competition though), it creates a new species from those useful genes but leaves the originating s
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:4, Interesting)
Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:5, Informative)
First, "Darwinism/evolution" has no "natural (racist) conclusion of Eugenics". Evolution, as a theory - and if you can't handle what "theory" really means, go back to school, I don't want to get into it - describes how genomes change over time. Period. Like it or not, it's working on humans just as it works on every other living thing.
Second, scientists generally do NOT "have a hard time accepting" etc. Helping the poor is quite acceptable; they have not demonstrated a genetic disadvantage in reproduction. In fact, if they are reproducing at a greater rate than those who are not poor, they are demonstrating an advantage! Short term, I would think, but still an advantage.
As for birth defects, most are not carried into the next generation, being caused by either prenatal trauma (of one kind or another) or chromosome replication error. Most people with developmental disabilities, believe it or not, will have genetically normal children if they have any at all.
Close hospitals and ban free choice in human reproduction? What on earth makes you think this is part of the theory of evolution? I suppose some deeply twisted individuals might make a logically flawed argument that this is necessary, but I've never heard it advocated. Got a citation from a reliable source?
Now, personally, I'd like to see reproduction controlled, but only because there are too many people around already. However, that's irrelevant to the theory of evolution; we will be acted upon by selection pressure no matter what. It's the way things work. If we exceed our carrying capacity, a bunch of us will die; the survivors will be those whose genes (and memes, if you're into that kind of thing) confer advantage in that situation.
I'd like to see some kind of quote before I believe that Darwin "wholeheartedly believed in this sort of proposition"; I think that's complete hogwash, but I could be wrong. Again, got a citation from a reliable source?
"Rational believers of intelligent design theory"? Sorry, I don't think there IS a scientific theory of "intelligent design". A bunch of stuff promulgated by religious believers, yes, but I'm not aware of a scientific theory of that nature.
As far as "intelligent design" as a religious proposition (not scientific theory), I think you'd find that MANY scientists believe it to be quite compatible with evolution... the religious ones, anyhow. They just place the design further back in time - say, about 15 billion years further back.
Evolutionary theory describes a mechanism of great beauty and elegance; it's a shame that people's preconceptions often hide that truth from them. Still, if you can get past your prejudice long enough to read some good books on the subject, you might come away with a bit more appreciation for the subject.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:1, Troll)
But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hur
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
Evolution isn't moral license to go do whatever you like. Evolution is the phenomenon that surviving members of a species transmit their genes to the next generation. Killing what you percieve to be the "weak" certainly has an effect on that subsequent generation, but it has little to do with ethical principle.
The major problem with anti-evolutionists is that they read too much into the idea.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
Otherwise, you're right. In a structured society, if you can deal with the consequences of your actions, then you're free to do what you wish.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
OK. Anyone who says "natural selection and evolution no longer takes place for humans" is, IMNSHO, just plain wrong. And furthermore, doesn't understand the concept very well. Culture does not - repeat, does not - replace natural selection! It may alter the environment in which natural selection operates, but you can't convince me that it removes selection pressure. And since everything humans do is "natural", things humans do to change their selection environment is a change to - not the removal
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
As for moral arguments, what argument can you give me that could possibly make me care what you think, unless somehow that benefits me? If my desires carry me to rape or murder someone, then why shouldn't I? You can use arguments like "you might get caught", fine. But they are only good because they appeal to my desire of self-preservation. If I believe I am in no danger, what argument can you offer? I may n
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
I know of only one explicitly stated "moral law" based upon evolutionary theory. It's called the Law of Limited Competition, and was popularized by a guy named Daniel Quinn. It goes like this: "You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Second of all:
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another. So what the heck has that got to do with being 'messed up'? It's just pure logic, and the necessary conclusion of darwinism.
Third of all, if I assume darwinism, then what do I care i
Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks).
Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.
Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.
If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?
Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.
If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.
Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.
So clearly, you do not reject darwinist evolution based on rational arguments, but based on irrational fears. Fear of what people would do if they didn't have the fear of hell in them...
To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness.
You retard. There was racism before Darwin, there was racism before the theory of evolution.
The bible promotes racism. There are the superior tribes, descendants of angels, and the others are inferior. God commanded the israelites to genocide at jehricho.
Stop trying to discredit things you don't like by linking them to things others don't like.
You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist.
You absolutly, necesserily have to be a racist to believe in god, because god is racist.
You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Again, wrong because you do not understand the theory of evolution and the darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.
As long as there are enough ressources, all groups can survive. There is no magic need for one group to diappear.
The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
That's nihilism, not darwinism.
And you should never trust the convictions of your mind.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:2)
Jaques.
Cousteau.
logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.
Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.
And we recently have f
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't understand this response/reference.
Sure, but it wasn't always this way. The natural history
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:2)
Cousteau.
I don't understand this response/reference.
Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond the limits of our bodies.
So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain frenchman.
The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success chang
Fish, breathing fish, hoping fish, not fish. (Score:2)
Interesting translation (Score:2)
Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Even that, though, is not the whole story; remember that every individual (broadly speaking) has a unique arrangement of genetic material. Evolutionary forces work upon both unique arrangements and the products of mutation and other forces.
An oft-quoted example of this is the
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:2)
So you affirm my point that all living things are not equal?
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION! (Score:2)
that:
I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.
Tired of your god nonsense, buh-bye now.
Re:Interesting translation (Score:2)
My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.
New genes not required to create a new species: isn't this what some folks call "micro-evolution"?
Moths: same species, sure. But species aren't discrete little boxes, with a population jumping neatly from one to another; this example of natural selection is valid. Add up enough such changes, especially
Re: Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
> But anyway, if I suppose that evolution is true, what moral argument can you give me to stop me from murdering the weak, hurting the downtrodden, and generally getting my way when I know I can get away with it? As far as I can tell, any argument you give me I can respond with, "so?". As long as it's benefitting me, what do I care?
Kind of like with atomic theory, eh?
Also, regarding your speculative position, do you observe that people who accept evolution behave any worse than people who don't?
I kn
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:1, Offtopic)
I wish that skeptics would apply their brand of thought to their own beliefs - so quick to criticize followers of religions as chasing after myths, yet so stubbornly refusing to look at their own beliefs.
I'd be happy to continue this conversation... (Score:2)
Re:I'd be happy to continue this conversation... (Score:2)
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
Because he's informative and you're a troll.
Now, I don't know why you get modded offtopic instead of troll, but I know why your denial of evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded down while a post that clarifies evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded up.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:1)
How about Darwin's own pen?
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
1) The "civilized races", etc. (first sentence)
- Genocidal practices of the colonial era, anyone? I don't see Darwin ENDORSING this - just saying it will "almost certainly" happen. Which it has. And may continue to.
2) "...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between" etc. (final sentences)
- Again, this is already happening; most great ape species (with the exception of ourselves, if you count us) are in danger of extinc
A simple syllogism, indeed (Score:2)
Neither did he "present natural selection as being a universally good thing". He presented it as a mechanism to explain evolution. Did Newton present his physics as a "universally good thing"? No, he presented them as an explanation. Stop trying to read morality into natural law and then attacking the resulting morality - it's moronic, and akin to i
Persistent, aren't you? Wrong, but persistent... (Score:2)
Because you're talking about evolution, which is a natural force. It doesn't desire things; it doesn't even want to be anthropomorphized.
If you're asking whether I consider a given trait to be desireable, you're asking a different question. Likewise, whether you consider a given trait to be desireable. Or Joe. Or Jane. But the traits that we (as fallible human beings) consi
Re:A simple syllogism, indeed (Score:2)
Man, you're chuck full of hubris aren't you?
Natural selection occurs naturally, it doesn't need our guesses to make it happen.
The problem is that the human psyche has a hard time reconciling this thought be
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one... (Score:2)
And on intelligent design, I'd say we agree. I was being conde^H^H^H^H^Hdiplomatic. I wouldn
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:1)
Take, for example, the relationship between sickle-cell anemia (recessive genetic disease) and malaria. Individuals who have sickle-cell anemia are immune to malaria, and those who are just carriers are highly resistant.
Ultimately, it benefits us to let anyone and everyone reproduc
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story. (Score:2)
> On the other hand, very few rational believers of intelligent design theory
Rational people see that ID is based on some very elementary logical fallacies. Nor does it have any more of a theory behind it than spoon bending does.
> You'd be hard pressed however, to find an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that intelligent design and evolution might not be mutually exclusive.
No I wouldn't. I'd go over to talk.origins and post a message with subject line "Ping Stanley Friesen", and get a re
I'm Troy McClure (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm Troy McClure (Score:1)
Late april fool's joke maybe? (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of wings (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, chickens don't fly very well, but have you ever tried to catch a chicken? Those "vestigial" wings sure impart bursts of speed and the ability to leap over obstacles.
It's neat to see the discovery of similar intermediaries between swimming and walking limbs. Evolution is an amazing and beautiful thing.
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:4, Interesting)
I once read an excellent rebuttal of that which described how to get from a photosensitive cell to a full eye while each stage had a noticable survival benefit... and then followed up by mentioning that it's happened on multiple seperate occasions in evolutionary history.
Heh.
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just that, but _differently_ in each of the major eye types. There's no "animal eye", there are at least 3. (I forget exactly how they're categorised, but they're roughly vertibrate, cephalopod, and creepy-crawly.)
In particular, our retinas are 'back to front'. It's an flawed design, and that's why we have blind spots -- it's where the nerves leave the inside of the eyeball. If our eyes came about through _design_ then it was _crap_ design.
God-freaks can take the soft cheese out of their ears now.
THL.
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:5, Funny)
Fish are not animals? (Score:2)
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Fish!
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:1)
I want the damn retina to plug in at the back
So, what happens when you overdose on the pill?
hind sight?
extra eyependages?
eye in ass... er.. ass in eye... er... asinine?
Karma or not, I coudln't pass that up...
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:3, Interesting)
see: Weiss, K. (2002). "How the eye got its brain." Evolutionary Anthropology 11: 215-219.
Cheers,
Simon
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:2)
The original anti-evolution statement is (roughly) 'Something as complex as an eye could not have evolved via the tiny increments evolutionary theory describes'.
The rebuttal is, 'Yes it can, here are the steps, here is why each step is consistent with evolutionary theory, and here are actual (multiple) examples from nature'.
You can deny evolution all you want, it just makes you either stupid or willfully ignorant.
Re:Reminds me of EYES (Score:2, Offtopic)
Damn, that's one persuasive argument. Well, I guess I was wrong, because I don't want you to think I'm stupid or willfully ignorant. Seriously - I want evidence of evolution. How often people say someone is an idiot to deny it. Then, I imagine, they conjure in their minds images of children different from parents and suppose that it is proof of 'evolution'. And they then wonder to themselves, given that evolutio
One persuasive argument (Score:2)
The evidence for evolution is all around you. It's in every living thing, it's in the fossil record, and it's in recorded natural history. If anyone has "seriously misunderstood the issues", it's you. Your blatant misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolutionar
Holy wackos, Batman! (Score:2)
The rest of your post is confusing nonsense, but I'll try to adress what seem to be points. Yes, you don't have to understand change at every level to comment on or describe change at a given level. Again, Newtonian physics vs. mo
Re:Reminds me of wings (Score:1, Interesting)
The latest thinking is that there's wasn't a giant leap, but rather a series of gradual steps between limbs that didn't impart flying, but still had some use.
As far as I know, that's not "the latest thinking", but a concept that was established a long time ago. Even when I was a kid back in the 80s, I remember reading about how the origins of flight were thought to be lizards with ever-increasing flaps that allowed them to glide slightly (and, of course, the increased surface area helped them when "sun
Re:Reminds me of wings (Score:2)
I think it's a valid question, but I wonder if the problem is with classification, not that these intermediate animals exist or n
Re:Reminds me of wings (Score:2, Interesting)
Feathers don't fossilize well(lack of granularity in the surrounding matrix hides detail such as barbules), so many of the intermediate forms may also not have fossilized cleanly. Some birds who have been found without clear feather impressions have been mistaken for dinosaurs such as Compsognathus.
Lastly, there's a fe
Re:Reminds me of wings (Score:1)
I could see the use of arms to aid them in staying near the surface, you know, swinging amongst the kelp vines the way Tarzan swung through the jungle?
Next logical step was use the arms to crawl onto the shore.
Genetics (Score:2)
Re:Reminds me of wings (Score:3, Interesting)
Planned evolution? (Score:1)
And, to add to the whole difficulty of it all, fish can't plan for the future that way.
COMMON MISCONCEPTION (Score:4, Insightful)
People only talk about evolution as a "shaping force" figuratively. It's in fact nothing but an observation about consequence. It's not some insidious super-power you can will.
Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION (Score:1)
Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:COMMON MISCONCEPTION (Score:2)
That's all.
Any Creationist arguement based on any such thing like " evolution says we began in a goop and life spontaneously occured " is a straw man attack and is not worth a respose.
As for "Macroevolution" arguement, I don't know where you got the idea. There are 4 species of Orchid in Hawaii that are traced back to a single species. The only controversy in evolution is whether it occurs slowly and inc
Re:Planned evolution? (Score:2)
Re:Planned evolution? (Score:2)
Re:Planned evolution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, your question about whether living on land is beneficial is incorrectly framed. It's not a question of "benefit". The question is, "Will this mutation give the individual's descendants a reproductive edge, however slight?" In the case of moving into a ne
Re: Planned evolution? (Score:2)
> Out of thousands of specimen in a species, once in a while there will be born a mutant. In the great majority of the cases, this will be a harmful mutation and the mutant will die off.
Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral.
Of course, the resulting genetic diversity may help ensure that some members of some future generation survive a change to their environment.
> And if you're talking about a series of such "positive" gradual micromutations happening in a row, even millions of yea
Re:Planned evolution? (Score:1)
Not at all.
You can plan evolution. You put yourself, and thousands of like-minded individuals, in an environment which provides a concrete advantage to having a particular trait.
If the central asian tribes of 10000 years ago had _wanted_ to be shorter and stumpier, then they could have chosen to migrate further north, and then procreate sufficiently such that the
Such a positive, evolutionary response (Score:5, Funny)
Such a positive and evolutionary interpretation. It is far more likely that they used the arms to slug other fish.
Re:Such a positive, evolutionary response (Score:2)
Hey, that's what the limbs were really for. So fish could dial 911.
Alabama Lie Detector (Score:2)
Does it always regsiter a lie ? (Score:2)
that's quite the fish! (Score:4, Insightful)
an aquatic, salamander-like creature that would have pushed its arms downward to move through shallow rivers, and used them to prop itself up while waiting for prey or to get air.
sounds like a fish to me!Reminds me of... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/shark_
(scroll down)
It uses its limbs to "walk" around, and will even "walk" away when threatened rather than swimming (which would be faster, one thinks).
story (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh great. (Score:2, Funny)
Now it's fish with limbs.
Next they'll keep changing the channel and mucking with the volume.
kulakovich
Darwin fish (Score:2)
A minor nit... (Score:2, Informative)
Birds didn't evolve, to our knowledge, for a LOT more than 30 million years after the Devonian. Late Cretaceous, 65 million years or so.
(IANAPaleontologist, but I wanted to be one when I was a kid, heh)