Warm-blooded Fish? 342
DIY News writes "Scientists now have direct evidence that the north Pacific salmon shark maintains its red muscle at 68-86 degrees Fahrenheit, much warmer than the 47 F water in which it lives. The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive the cold waters of the north Pacific and take advantage of the abundant food supply there. The heat also appears to factor into the fish's impressive swimming ability."
I knew it! (Score:4, Funny)
The next round of global warming is going to see warm blooded land-dinosaurs roaming the tropical forests of the North American continent. We'll all be sorry then!
Re:I knew it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Moreover, from a cladistic [wikipedia.org] point of view, all reptiles are fish (and so are all humans ;-).
Fish != fish !? (Score:3, Interesting)
Shark != Bony Fish, Sharks = Cartilaginous fish
The distinction is important, because taxonomy-wise, that makes them as different from 'fish' (bony) as mammals, amphibians, reptiles or avians. It's a split at the class level. A warm blooded shark is not as impressive as a warm blooded bony fish would be.
Of course, since chondrichythes (cartilaginous fish) and osteichythes (bony fish) still contain the word chythes (fish), sharks are still refered to as 'fish' but biolog
Re:Fish != fish !? (Score:3, Interesting)
So you reject outright the entire concept of cladistics?
That's your right, of course. But it does rather put you outside the main branch of evolutionary biology these days. (Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Mammal (i.e. dolphins) = tail moves up and down
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Re:Syntax Nazi (Score:2)
Anyway, it's moot. In c if you assign the value of fish to the container fish, it'll still return true since the assignment will be successful and the value of fish will essencially not be changed.
Re:I knew it! (Score:4, Informative)
These findings just confirm the "above ambient temp" findings that have been known for quite a while with bluefin tuna, other big sharks, etc.
Re:I knew it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I knew it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
I personally hate fish. Problem solved.
Re:I knew it! (Score:3, Funny)
The sharks evolved heaters to move into colder waters for more prey. The humans evolved fishing boats and nets to move into damned near any water for more prey. What the sharks need to do is evolve torpedoes as a defensive mechanism
Re:I knew it! (Score:3, Funny)
The humans evolved fishing boats and nets to move into damned near any water for more prey.
I was wondering why that boat was growing on my left foot. I guess random genetic mutation caused it to be there.
Re:I knew it! (Score:2)
Obviously, plenty of fish in this area are cold blooded and OK with it. Cold water of course can hold higher levels of O2 than warm water, and so you have more animal activity in the cold oceans. However, as I am thinking about it cold blooded animals (reptiles, insects) get sluggish at lower temperatures, so maybe the main advantage here is that the shark can move faster in cold water and thus is a more effective hunter.
Re:I knew it! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a reptile. (Score:2, Informative)
Big Question... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big Question... (Score:5, Funny)
"maintains its red muscle"... (Score:5, Funny)
8-PP
Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (Score:5, Interesting)
For example. Honeybees generate heat in the winter to keep the hive warm and use heat to kill predatory wasps [sciencenews.org] -- surrounding the wasp, heating up to 45 C (113 F) and killing the attacker.
Re:Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (Score:3, Interesting)
You did. Thermodynamically, extra effort is extra effort, even if that extra effort involves burning calories to produce a special behavior rather than burning calories to feed a special organ. Evolutionarily, it doesn't really matter--in fact it makes sense--that many different mechanisms evolved toward the same general end. A species that already accomplishes a particular goal in one manner probably won't evolve toward a different method unless some other advantage comes with it
Re:Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (Score:2)
probably with giant pumping eyes
What will the intelligent design crowd make of that !!
Re:Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (Score:2)
Vehicle knowledge and more. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast because of the need for food and for some really stupid/ignorant [oceansonline.com] reasons. It would be great if more folks would see this as more reasons for onservation and the repeal of the "tragedy of the commons"... I know, in my fucking dreams.
Re:Vehicle knowledge and more. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Vehicle knowledge ... You an environmentalist? (Score:2)
1) How does knowledge of shark muscle performance in low temp give us insight into vehicle technology? Sharks = organic. Vehicles != organic. You can even argue that the hydrodynamics of sharks aren't particularly relevant since they are necessarily adapted to: eating, hunting, and swinging a tail back and forth. (But you'd be partially wrong because the streamlining does work to some extent even if you replace the tail with a prop.
But... (Score:3, Funny)
Not surprising, and not really "warm-blooded" (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, practically every poikilotherm that's been studied actually thermoregulates in some ways. Very few of them truly assume the temperature of their environment.
On the other hand, "maintaining" temperature at "68-86 degrees Fahrenheit" -- 77 degrees plus or minus 9--is far from comparable to the degree of thermoregulation shown by mammals. Nine degrees too high or too low is enough to kill you, and most mammals.
It's interesting to learn how another kind of poikilotherm performs a crude kind of thermoregulation, but by no means earthshaking.
My thoughts exactly (Score:2)
It's silly to argue that warm-blooded organisms are "more advanced". It simply makes more sense in the context of their habitat, food source, and so on. Stayin
I thought there were a bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I thought there were a bunch (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I thought there were a bunch (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been well-studied that some of the larger species of tuna direct blood that's been heated by the action of their largest swimming muscles to their brain... which helps keep their super-fast twitch-reactions humming. Swordfish use the warm blood to improve their eyesight.
Mind you, these are some enormous fish. [mbayaq.org]
m-
Re:I thought there were a bunch (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/CurrentI ssue;jsessionid=baadyy7MHypG0u [americanscientist.org] (subscription required)
It talks about how and why tuna and lamnid sharks have elevated muscle temperatures. Has to do with the way they swim. The neat thing is it explains why tuna and these sharks have that stiff-bodied way of swimming. The warm muscles are deep in the body along the spine, but pull tendons that move the airleron-like tail to prop
Working muscles give off heat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Working muscles give off heat? (Score:2)
If you even read the summary, you can see it's not about salmon.
It's about the salmon shark.
Re:Working muscles give off heat? (Score:2)
Re:Working muscles give off heat? (Score:3, Informative)
Rattlesnakes also warm blooded (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rattlesnakes also warm blooded (Score:2, Informative)
Metric system? (Score:5, Insightful)
tuna also (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, not sure why it is news that some fish are warm-blooded.
The warm-bloodedness of tuna also makes allows them to be very good swimmers even in cold water.
Re:tuna also (Score:2)
ID vs Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ID vs Evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Fahrenheit?!? (Score:2)
How many roods to the hogshead is that anyway?
Metric countertranslation (Score:3, Informative)
47F = 8.3C
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?
[/offtopic]
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whackos (Score:2)
Re:Whackos (Score:2, Insightful)
satirists?
Re:Whackos (Score:2)
>What term should FSM'ers use?
How about noodleists, or nudists, for short? I believe that Pastafarians is acceptable, but it doesn't have that -ist ending.Re:So... (Score:2)
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?
How about: religious zealots and scientists. Just calling them as I see them... show me someone who believes "Intelligent Design" should be taught in schools, and I'll show you a religious zealot. Zealots aren't necessarily whackos, but they absoultely DO have an agenda, and that agenda is to get THEIR religion into public schools. Wheth
Re:So... (Score:2)
They intentionally represent proponents of science, so I think calling them whackos is fully justified.
So OT... (Score:2)
No, rather: "Intelligent Design proponents or Scientists".
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
ID isn't theory, it's a belief.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting...
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution fits all these parameters. ID fits none.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Slate.com has a good writeup to this effect, drawing a parallel between Intelligent Design "Theory" and Monty Python's "Brontosaurus Theory" ("... This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.")
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755 [slate.com]
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution - theorized, tested. directly observable in organisms with short life spans (bacteria, small insects). indirectly observable with long-lifespan organisms (fossil record)
ID - theorized, untestable. impossible to prove on ANY level.
Based on this score, why does ID get argued as if it's an entirely equal theory to evolution? The media feels the need to cover both sides of the issue, why must both sides be considered equal? As scientific theories go there is no comparing the two. One is a scientific theory. One is not. Why is the nonscientific theory given equal weight?
We call gravity a theory but you don't see people in legislatures trying to get 'both sides of the controvery' tought. I can't say gravity has been proven 100% but I can say there's a damn lot of testable evidence.
I know your point, you are playing the Devil's Advocate. You don't like seeing scientific theory getting called 'fact'. I can accept that. What bothers me is this equal weighting. Evolution has a damn lot of testable evidence on it's side, just like gravity, just like a huge number of scientific 'theories' that are accepted by many people on the basis of that testable evidence.
Fine, don't call it 'fact', but don't act so damn surprised when most of the scientific world looks at you funny for giving equal weight to ID and evolution. Simply claiming that evolution has to be 'believed in' is foolish too, as you can go test the published theories on your own.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
The complication comes in that scientific laws are almost universally expressable as a simple equation, devoid of units and specifics. F=M*A is a law.
Evolution will *never* be a law, because it cannot be expressed in a one-liner. Biological systems are infinately more complex than anything we have quantified and reduced to a scientific law.
However, as you said in your post, "Scientific Theory" doesn't mean what the Religious ID proponants think it means. A scientific theory has been tested and, to the ex
Re:So... (Score:2)
Well, how about more accurately, an ideal scientific law would be simply expressable and universally applicable.
The ones we have are close... F=MA is almost universal, for observable common instances of mass and acceleration. Evolution will never fit into this ideal. "Biological organisms change from generation to generation depending on a mix of random phenomina and environmental pressures" is kind of decidedly more vague than F=MA*
*in almost all cases you're likely to personally encounter
Re:So... (Score:2)
Funny you should mention that. Maybe IF (Intelligent Falling) [theonion.com] could be the next alternative we'll see in science education.
Aw hell. My tounge is stuck in my cheek again.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
It also matters because ID is not science. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It isn't even a theory save in the most general and non-specific meaning of the word. More importantly however, is that public schools in the US are not supposed to be places of religious indoctrination, and ID is formulated as a legalistic scam to sneak Creationism past the 1st Amendment.
Evolution is not a religion. It is not a bit of wild-ass speculation. Not all ideas are created equal, and in the world of science there is no debate. Any theory that seeks to replace evolution is going to have to explain the evidence, and DesignerDidIt explains nothing whatsoever.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Does science have to provide religious evidence to prove religion wrong?
No, of course not. Because science is right, and therefore the only evidence of any kind that can be used to refute anything, whether science or religion, must be scientific evidence.
Sure, it's a strawman, but that's pretty much the argument in a nutshell every time this comes up.
Frankly, I have no problem with science. I don't think that science will ever prove there is a God, since science has prett
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
I hear this one a lot, but I don't think it is valid. Since we are talking about a large number of random events that just happen to randomly occur in one organism to produce a useful trait, I compare it to asking somebody to pick a number from one to infinity. The odds of picking the number 1,234,543 are ess
Re:So... (Score:2)
Evolutionary theory does not state that any complex s
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Think of populations isolated on two islands.
Evolution takes lots of time and lots of mutations.
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is only a theory in the loosest sense of the word.
Perhaps you could explain what there is to scrutinize in ID. It amounts to nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument with the premise "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution". Heck, g
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a start. Tell me
Re:So... (Score:2)
NO, it can't. Evolution has PREDICTIVE ability, and is FALSIFIABLE. If you understand what that means, then you know I'm right, and why evolution is a theory while ID is not.
If you don't know what I mean, look it up, and keep your mouth shut until you bother to learn what makes a theory a theory.
Just because there are people claiming something, that does not make it so. You would claim you're intellignet, but your post i
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
All I can say, is that I foe everybody that has "free stuff" in their signatures or their "homepage" here on slashdot, and it really increases the signal to noi
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2)
I beg to differ. I believe the flat earth theory is much more compelling.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. In order for evolution to remain a contendor, there are other testable things which must hold true. So far, each prediction that has been tested has supported the theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has yet to be falsified.
One of these things is not like the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just point out one of ways they are different since you were pointing out how they are the same. Fair's fair.
Re:One of these things is not like the other... (Score:2)
J.
Re:One of these things is not like the other... (Score:2)
I'm pro-science as well, and am quite shocked that religion is considered as factual in a Western civilazation...
Just want to point out your argument is flawed as "Christianity has been around for over 2 milleniums" (look at the date, it's a painful reminder.), a creationism is dated even further back.
Also, "cause most scientist say so" sounds like "cause I've been told so" or even "I read that somewhere" or why not "I believe so". With the last you engage in a "my belief is superiour to your belief ca
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
But anyway, all those discussion about ID vs. evolutionism are ridiculous: what can a professor say in a class for more than 5 minutes about ID?
Re:So... (Score:2)
Parser error - I can't make heads or tails of that. It doesn't make any sense.
> Since it has not been disproven, it's at worst a viable hypothesis.
The "herds of invisible pink unicorns" and "flying spaghetti monster" have not been disproven, nor can be, either. I guess, by your logic, that makes them "viable hypotheses" as well.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
Worse yet, AFAIK most Western Christians also believe the theory of evolution is broadly correct - i.e. that anything it has wrong is detail, like having the sequence of ancestry a bit off here or there, or having some missing fossils, but the overall principle being sound. What does that do to 'Made In God's Image'? What becomes of the Fall, and hence of Original Sin, and hence of the need for Christ's salvation?
Certainly it's possible to overcome all these problems and accommodate modern biology and cosmology within a Christian worldview, but it requires a good deal of mental flexibility, a rather different mindset to the absolutist fundamentalist.
It's interesting to notice that the Vatican has already come pretty much to terms with evolution and modern cosmology - indeed, they were said to be quite delighted with the Big Bang model, since the alternative was Steady State and a universe with nothing for a creator to do at all!
Basically what it boils down to is: if evolution is taught, then some of those kids will realise that God is an unnecessary addition to their worldview and will drop him into the same bin where they already put Santa Claus. If it is not taught, then some of them will continue to believe in God. That's enough for the fundamentalist. That's a soul saved from hell. Perhaps introducing intelligent design will save a few kids from this insidious atheist menace. Perhaps then, bit by bit, it might be possible to expand on intelligent design and introduce creationism proper, and from there roll back the whole materialist worldview...
There was a very good investigation into the fundamentalist agenda here in the New Scientist [newscientist.com] a few weeks ago. It was the 8th October 2005 issue, if you want to track it down at your library. Interesting stuff.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing. These three concepts are absolutely not mutually exclusive with the idea that evolution was the process God used to create Man.
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
You're 100% correct about this. However 'religious establishments' oftentimes have little to do with what they supposedly represent. Too often they are only interested in shoring up their numbers instead of practicing what they preach.
Having something in place that 'allows people to be atheists', as you put it, is a good thing. God doesn't want people who want nothing to do with him. Better to have people as being outright atheists than fake Christians. Lord knows there's enough of those running around...
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
There is no scientific debate.
There is a philosophical debate by those who can't understand what "God of the gaps" means.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:Fat (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I cast my vote for evolution (Score:2)
Yeah! Way to nail the really interesting question!
And besides -- how do they taste?
Re:I cast my vote for evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
While I understand your interest in the evolutionary mechanism, I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. I don't think any
Re:I cast my vote for evolution (Score:2)
That's not Ironic. Irony is a use of words to imply other than their literal interpretation.
Re:I cast my vote for evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
irony Audio pronunciation of "irony" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies
1.
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Re:Fahrenheit? (Score:2)
Re:More to being a mammal than warm blooded bodies (Score:2, Funny)
Mammaries vs. tits (Score:2)
So there.
Re:Sharks are not fish (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'd write a longer post, but.... (Score:2)
Re:Disadvantage too? (Score:2)
In theory yes. In reality, it's probably not enough to make any noticeable difference. The problem is that the volume of water grows cubicly with distance from the fish. A calorie is also quite a small unit of energy -- only enough to raise the temperature of one gram of (distilled) water one degree C (and ocean water is denser than distilled water, so it most likely has a higher specific heat). To
Re:Disadvantage too? (Score:2)
This is a shark.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Sa