Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mystery of the 'Chupacabra' May Be Solved

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the letting-it-live-on-in-my-heart dept.

Australia 94

rhettb writes "The mystery of the legendary chupacabra, a beast said to drain the blood of domestic animals at night, has been solved, according to a University of Michigan scientist. Biologist Barry O'Connor says that most chupacabra sightings are probably linked to coyotes with mange, a disease caused by the same species of mite that triggers scabies in humans. Severe cases of mange cause hair loss and thickening of skin in wild dogs and can lead to bacterial skin infections that produce a foul odor characteristic of the 'chupacabra.' Wombats and squirrels are also susceptible to mange, suggesting that chupacabra are found in trees and Down Under."

cancel ×

94 comments

Does this mean? (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995346)

That Big Foot, flying saucers, and ghosts aren't real either? I'm so disappointed!

Re:Does this mean? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995470)

Well, you are right regarding bigfoot and ghosts

Re:Does this mean? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995770)

He's only right about ghosts.

Re:Does this mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995486)

It's moments like these that really, really make you want to hate science.

Re:Does this mean? (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995656)

That Big Foot, flying saucers, and ghosts aren't real either? I'm so disappointed!

Couldn't they have spent all this effort on trying to explain Snookie from 'Jersey Shore' instead? I'm confident we'd all be better off if they proved she didn't exist.

Re:Does this mean? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995888)

That Big Foot, flying saucers, and ghosts aren't real either? I'm so disappointed!

Couldn't they have spent all this effort on trying to explain Snookie from 'Jersey Shore' instead? I'm confident we'd all be better off if they proved she didn't exist.

I always giggle at her name.

Re:Does this mean? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996358)

That Big Foot, flying saucers, and ghosts aren't real either? I'm so disappointed!

Couldn't they have spent all this effort on trying to explain Snookie from 'Jersey Shore' instead? I'm confident we'd all be better off if they proved she didn't exist.

If you would RTFA, you'd see that these mites can infest humans, and can lead to bacterial infections, itching rashes, and thickening of the skin.

Re:Does this mean? (1)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997058)

scratch scratch scratch scratch

Re:Does this mean? (2, Funny)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001428)

Snookie has something alright but I doubt its as curable as scabies.

Re:Does this mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010332)

I'd still do her anyway....

Re:Curing scabies (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34024264)

Scabies is curable for humans, but not animals. Untreated, it's a serious illness. It can make a squirrel into a chupacabra, and it would do the same to a human.

Years ago I had a case of scabies, and the doctor gave me some (pyrethrin?) goop to rub all over from head to toe which cured it. I remember how god awful itchy I was, ( and for a few weeks after the cure as the dead mites and droppings imbedded in my skin slowly migrated toward the outer layers to be sloughed off. The alergic reaction continues making you not quite sure if the cure worked until about a month later.

If there had been no cure, I don't think I could have lived with it. I think I would have made the trip to Wal*Mart and bought a cheap 12 guage and ended my misery eventually.

Which got me to thinking... Scabies has been around forever. What did people do in the olden days to cure it? I can't envision people walking around madly scratching all day in say the 1800s. But wouldn't uncurable scabies tend to run rampant through the whole population? You'd think everyone would have it.

Book of Eli time: You come down with scabies, what do you do? The active ingredient in horse fly spray is the same as that in the goop I used. I'd see if I could find some in an old farm supply store and rub it from head to toe. I think it would probably work without killing me. I'd try RAID too and risk being poisoned if the choice was between that and living with scabies. But suppose there were no such thing, the shelves are bare and even RAID is not to be found.

Then what? The insecticide permethrin/pyrethrin, I believe is based on a chemical found in crythanthemums/geraniums/tansy plants. I'd crush up a bunch of tansies and try rubbing myself down with those.

Would that work? I dunno.. What did they do back in the olden days?

Re:Curing scabies (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34025368)

I meant to say that it's not curable in WILD animals since wild animals don't have access to vet care or medicines.

Re:Does this mean? (2, Funny)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001424)

Didn't you see the new South Park? Snookie is the chupacabra.

Re:Does this mean? (2, Insightful)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995670)

No. Each of those phenomena will have to be explained separately.

Dodgy university? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996550)

If a researcher at the University of Michigan is incapaple of recognising that wombats and squirrels are vegetarian, I wonder about that institution's selection processes. Neither beast is likely to "drain the blood" of any animal, for fun or otherwise. A mangy animal is just a mangy animal, which, while sad, does not mean they are vampires.

Re:Dodgy university? (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996912)

Where in the article does the researcher claim mangy animals drink blood?

Id thank you to learn how to read before taking shots at my alma mater. Thanks.

Re:Dodgy university? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997638)

Try line 1 of the submission:

"The mystery of the legendary chupacabra, a beast said to drain the blood of domestic animals at night..."

There's nothing wrong with my reading skills, but in true Slashdot tradition I didn't get as far as reading TFA before I saw that. I have no animus against your alma mater, so I'm sorry if I gave offence.

Re:Dodgy university? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33998748)

No, the poster is right; the article says that the myth involves an animal drinking blood, but does not claim that the disease which changes the physical appearance of the coyotes results in the coyote switching from eating meat to drinking blood.

Re:Does this mean? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998130)

That Big Foot

I'm pretty sure that the sasquatch [freewebs.com] isn't a mangy anything.

Hrmm (4, Funny)

acehole (174372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995354)

Perhaps they should investigate how it's related to the Australian Drop Bear.

(The Koala's distant carnivorous cousin who drops out of trees onto unsuspecting passers by)

Re:Hrmm (5, Informative)

aerthling (796790) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995452)

I'm far from unsuspecting, but I narrowly avoided a big female taking my ear off only a couple of months ago. I don't go camping or walking in the national park near my parents' house without my bearspike and/or a bottle of vinegar now.

Re:Hrmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995992)

If you carried a gun you would be safer, silly Australians surrendering your right to defend themselves.

Re:Hrmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996296)

What do you mean? prisoners never had the right to carry guns.....

Re:Hrmm (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997162)

And you think a gun would be any use against a drop bear???

Re:Hrmm (2, Interesting)

vortexau (471931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002362)

> > "If you carried a gun you would be safer, silly Australians surrendering your right to defend themselves."

Having to carry a gun for defense is only a requirement in a lawless society; as is the case in Somalia or similar places.
When it comes to Australian wildlife all one needs is venom-proof clothing, the sense not to swim with crocodiles, or a knife about which one can say: 'This is a knife!'

Re:Hrmm (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996586)

I don't go camping or walking in the national park near my parents' house without my bearspike and/or a bottle of vinegar now.

Spot the newbie.

I thought everybody knew that if you rub Vegemite behind your ears, the drop-bears will leave you alone.

Re:Hrmm (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996700)

I narrowly avoided a big female taking my ear off only a couple of months ago.

Some here would not be opposed to a big female nibbling on their ear.

Re:Hrmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34005330)

Did somebody say 'steak'? :)

Re:Hrmm (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998398)

I'm far from unsuspecting, but I narrowly avoided a big female taking my ear off only a couple of months ago.

You misspelled "talking" there.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995454)

Either the Drop Bears or the Bunyips. Clearly not a wombat, whose only super skill is being such a solid bastard that he can rip the underside out of a 4WD if you hit one at anything more than 20.

Re:Hrmm (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996652)

Clearly not a wombat, whose only super skill is being such a solid bastard...

Depends on what kind of wombat. If you're in Tasmania (IMO the unquestionable road-kill capital of the world), the wombats are mostly cute little things with button-noses that are intelligently designed [that's a joke, guys] to make you feel really guilty when you hit them with your car, leaving them on their backs with their round, cuddly tummies facing the sun. :-(

Re:Hrmm (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995832)

How come they didn't mention the Giant Vampire Bat like we have here in Africa?

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996438)

Aren't all (native) australian animals* marsupials, and are not closely related to any thing but other marsupials, Parallel evolution what with that island having been isolated for so long.

*Oh except the abo's of course, but they have only been there for 50,000 years or so, not millions.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997518)

I am fairly certain that none of the reptiles, fish, birds, amphibians or insects native to Australia are marsupials.

Re:Hrmm (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998704)

I thought the Drop Bear would tunnel from one computer to another. The name would make more sense your way, though.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34018402)

Wait, do you mean Pedobear?

Down Under (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995364)

We call them drop bears down here.

The cover-up conspiracy continus (1)

leswt (1807216) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995366)

It's clear that the author and poster are part of the Illuminati, trying to cover-up the existence of these mystical creatures

Re:The cover-up conspiracy continus (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997366)

Any Aussie can tell you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995372)

Wombats do not live in the trees. The drop bears would eat them!

From Chupacabras land (5, Informative)

turtleAJ (910000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995376)

I live in Puerto Rico, were a big part of the "Chupacabras" myth started.

1st, there are no coyotes in Puerto Rico.. so WTF.

2nd, this is just urban legend... crap you tell at 2 in the morning. Then the news pics up on it.

Years ago (1970s?) there was a local surgeon that "manufactured" these odd "Cara de Diablo" (Face of the Devil??) things. Nobody had ever seen such a thing.

He left them around for everybody's amusement (especially the media).
Big uproar about the Cara de Diablos and what they were.

When the guy came out of the woods, he explained: They were stingrays, he would cut-off the "wings" in a diamond pattern... then stitch them up with his superb abilities.

Chupacabras doesn't exist people.

Re:From Chupacabras land (4, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995404)

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

turtleAJ (910000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996936)

Thanks for the link!
Now I know more than before.
Very informative, and without a doubt, that's were the local surgeon copied his idea from.
Have a good day! =)

Re:From Chupacabras land (3, Informative)

AJ Mexico (732501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995604)

"Chupacabra" means different things to different people. Especially in Puerto Rico compared to the southwest USA and Mexico. In Mexico and the southwest we are talking about dog-like things. Puerto Rico had different ideas -- I think some of them were bipeds, and some were flying chupacabras.

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#34003060)

Chupacabra, slang, Spanish. Translation: "Goat Sucker". [everything2.com] The Chupacabra is a possibly/probably mythical creature which tends to only "appear" in areas with a large hispanic population, rumored to drink the blood of animals, especially/initially goats. (Hence the name.) It is rumored to be a medium-sized creature, similar to a cross between a dog and a lizard. It's said to be capable of walking bipedally. There are occasional reports of missing organs in (or more to the point, not in) the victims of its attacks, as well. There are no known/reported attacks on humans.

In 1995, the Chupacabra was blamed for the deaths of many turkeys, rabbits, goats, cats, dogs, horses, and cows in Puerto Rico. One resident claimed that they saw it, and that it resembled a tailless monkey. Then, on May 2, 1996, a goat was found in South Texas dead with "telltale marks of the Chupacabra". As the year continued, attacks were reported in both Mexico and Miami.

The Chupacabra has been believed both to be a unique creature, and only one of many. Rumors run the predictable gamut of possibilities from alien pet to failed experiment. Debunked sightings (complete with photographic evidence) have included a photo of an owl, and roadkill which was "a chow cross with mange". (Duane G. Ellen, duane@conterra.com)

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995910)

Sounds like a clever mixing of genre "swamp gas, move along, nothing to see here" and you are not going to trick me with it!

Re:From Chupacabras land (2, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996454)

Well it makes a lot more sense when you realize the high desert is actually covered in swampland.

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997244)

Well it makes a lot more sense when you realize the high desert is actually covered in swampland.

Exactly! These lame excuses by the government keeping the truth a secret (lol)

Re:From Chupacabras land (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996098)

You seem to be a bit confused, there, fella.

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997016)

Don't exist? Damn. That bites. Does that mean I have to quit scaring the pretty young lady at work? Her supervisor has often put her to operating Machine #1, which is right next to an outside door. So, all of 3rd shift, she is alone, next to a nice dark doorway. I wander by now and then, explaining that I'm making sure the chupacabra hasn't got her yet. So - if there's no chupacabra, I have to stop loitering in her work area to protect her? This just sucks . . .

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998076)

You might always protect her from some intrusive perverts, for example.

Re:From Chupacabras land (1)

bwanagary (522899) | more than 3 years ago | (#33999334)

I have three siblings, at least two of which are Chupacabras. They've been sucking the life out of me for years!

Re:From Chupacabras land (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000236)

And back atcha from Cigarette Smoking Man land...

"Thanks for completing your COUGH agreement ... Mr. turtleAJ COUGH ... Your check is COUGH ... hold on a minute (hmmm, gotta light another cigarette) ..COUGH. Where was I?"

"Oh, yes, your check is in the COUGH COUGH cough. mail..."

Wombats? (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995382)

I doubt it. Wombats live in holes. Sometimes at dusk you can catch them in the open and at those times they are pretty slow moving. Not the kind of animal which could drain the blood out of anything which moves at more than a metre a minute. A dingo on the other hand...

But this Chupacabra seems to be a US only myth. Let me tell you about this hoopsnake I saw just the other day. A real nasty bugger. One metre in diameter and 3.14 metres in length he was. I reckon he broke the new speed limit on Lygon street...

Re:Wombats? (1)

GoJays (1793832) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998680)

Wombats are also herbivores... so I don't think sucking blood is really of any interest to them.

Re:Wombats? (1)

AfroTrance (984230) | more than 3 years ago | (#33999068)

"When threatened, however, they can reach up to 40 km/h (25 mph) and maintain that speed for up to 90 seconds." Source [wikipedia.org]

The article also says that can bowl a human over. Now imagine a pack of wombats; one traps you in, another bowls you over, then while you are helpless on they ground they all rush in rip you to shreds. Once they have the taste of blood, there is no stopping them. But they definitely can't climb trees...

What about El Chupanibre? (2, Funny)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995442)

What about El Chupanibre?

Re:What about El Chupanibre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995466)

Oh please. That's just a a sub-urban legend.

Re:What about El Chupanibre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995718)

Anyway, it's the sub-mutants from the sub-sewer problem now.

Does this mean... (2, Funny)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995448)

that the street vendor in Mexico who sold me a Chupacabra burrito was lying? What did I eat?

Re:Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995564)

You. Don't. Want. To. Know.

Re:Does this mean... (2, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997362)

ground up hotdog.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998740)

You don't want to know...

Umm.. what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995450)

What does mange have to do with sucking the blood out of animals with fangs? Coyote's eat them. They don't suck them to death. Maybe the "researcher's" are confused about the crime scenes.

And how do you have coyote attacks where no coyote's exist? The places where this happens, coyote's aren't even in the same part of the continent.

How about they get some forensic data before they try pulling stupid out of their ass.

Re:Umm.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995484)

Chupacabra [wikipedia.org] means goat sucker you fool.
And don't be so confident about where certain species do not exist.
Living things have a way of showing up where they are not expected.

Idle... (4, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995480)

I honestly don't get how stories get listed/tagged Idle these days. Some of them are really of interest and bring new insight to previously discussed topics. Idle should be Idle... this is something else.

Re:Idle... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995652)

This may be interesting, but it seems to me more like normal news than news for nerds -- but then, it seems slashdot as a whole has forgotten about technology (as I speak, the entire front page is politics -- mostly politics of IT companies, sure, but there's nothing about the details of cool hardware or software :-( )

Shouldn't "Idle" mean "Uneventful"? (3, Insightful)

ericvids (227598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995658)

What's curious is the word "idle" here in Slashdot has been mangled to mean "weird stuff with some (or a lot of) idiocy involved", when it really ought to mean "this might be remotely interesting in an otherwise completely uneventful day."

Anyway, by either of those standards, this article is clearly not idle.

Re:Idle... (1)

Voltageaav (798022) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995696)

Weren't there reported chupacabra sightings that were proven to be coyotes with severe mange in 2004? It's even been listed in the wikipedia article for years. It must have taken a lot of work and quite a visionary leap for this biologist too look at wikipedia and come up with this "theory".

Re:Idle... (1)

emkyooess (1551693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996308)

I remember reading about this years ago, yes.

Art Bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995544)

doesn't not approve of your denial.

Scooby Snacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995606)

Call Scooby Doo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo_and_the_Monster_of_Mexico

Maybe? omg really!? (1)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995630)

And exactly how does a coyote drain its victim of all it's blood? Has no one thought to wonder why it would only consume the blood (if at all that's possible without sufficient time and victim-mutilation) and not the other tasty parts?

I'm sure there's a plausible explanation that we just have not figured out yet, but the mange-afflicted coyote theory was first proposed way back in 1995 [perhaps earlier (and numerous times hence!)] when I first began reading up on the phenomena.

This news is anything but new! :| What fun!

I thought so (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995784)

"Coyote with mange"?

I thought there might be some connection to Amy Winehouse.

Conspiracy theory (0)

robotito (460199) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995954)

NO! The chupacabras was a conspiracy theory from the Mexican government to distract our attention... from... err... can't remember (seriously)

Is not a coyote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33995960)

Call me crazy, but the chupacabras I saw was able to fly and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a bat. It bit one of my dogs one night.

Oblig: I think it looks more like a puma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996456)

Hey Griff, chupathingy how 'bout that?

Real explanation of the Chupacabra. (2, Informative)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996462)

Ok, i worked for a guy from mexico for a few years, and one day asked him what the heck the deal with chupacabra's was. He laughed, and explained to me that years ago, there was this big thing going on in the news in Mexico, detailing some government corruption scandal. It was at this time, that the Chupacabra legend appeared. All of a sudden, all the news reports where about these mysterious 'Goat Suckers' and the government corruption was quietly swept under the rug. Basically, it was a distraction manufactured by the government to draw attention away from the issue at hand.

Re:Real explanation of the Chupacabra. (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996510)

it was a distraction manufactured by the government to draw attention away from the issue at hand.

Kinda like the past 9 years in the US...

Re:Real explanation of the Chupacabra. (1)

DEmmons (1538383) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996800)

that might explain its arrival in Mexico, but the origin of the myth is in Puerto Rico, although it seems to be a modification of an old and less well-known Spanish myth about vampiric birds. This modern thing about dogs / coyotes with mange seems to be a result of someone seeing an ugly creature and calling it a 'Chupacabra' in south Texas, without having any idea what the original looked like - and the ensuing media frenzy picked that up and ran with it. It certainly didn't look like a canid, more like a short green humanoid alien with bright red eyes and spikes on its back, and one or two fangs for sucking blood.

Re:Real explanation of the Chupacabra. (1)

hound_doug (1202105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33999278)

...and they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.

X-files anyone ? (2, Funny)

Liquid Len (739188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996494)

Around 50 comments and still no mention of this great X-files episode (season 4, IIRC)... I guess Slashdot ain't what it used to be.

Re:X-files anyone ? (1)

Cornelius Crumb (1700136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997188)

Around 50 comments and still no mention of this great X-files episode (season 4, IIRC)... I guess Slashdot ain't what it used to be.

"great"? maybe in your universe

Not a new theory (1)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996620)

Where's the 'news' here? I recall an episode of Monster Hunters a few years back where they mentioned this as one of the likely explanations for some of the Chupacabra stories.

I think it's a good theory; it explains the second most common cause of misidentification. The first most common cause being tequila.

Re:Not a new theory (1)

Fizzol (598030) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997354)

You're right, there's no news here at all. Mangy canines have been identified as the source for the supposed Chupacabra images and videos all along. From the headline you'd think they actually caught a real-life Chupacabra sucking the blood out of a goat.

Lest we forget.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997476)

While the Chupacabra may not be an actually distinct lifeform, it is not to say that it may not one day be so. Mutations occur, the environment is stressed, and did you REALLY think evolution (assuming you believe in it, of course, I just happen to) just comes to a dead stop for the benefit of the press? A variety of diseases, retrovirii in particular, have the irritating habit of passing their genetic code into their hosts through generations, which can result in a change in genetic characteristics.

One proof of mutation having a beneficial effect would be malarial resistance conferred upon those with sickle cell traits. Granted, it is a short lived benefit, and it may eventually prove to be that branch of humanity's undoing, but it is only one example. There is also intentional genetic manipulation going on, both in the laboratories, and as a gradual process of breeding specific traits that has been undertaken by humanity for tens of thousands of years.

Bear in mind, new animal species are still being discovered, a mammalian predator was recently discovered in Haiti, of all places, relatively recently, if I recall correctly.

Bear in mind, also, that (assuming you believe there IS one) the Almighty has a sense of humor, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss God's evolutionary lottery from churning out some shocking developments in the near future.

Chupa-thingy? (2, Funny)

Libertarian001 (453712) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997668)

Why don't they just call it The Warthog?

Re:Chupa-thingy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997892)

didn't I tell you to stop making up names?

Re:Chupa-thingy? (1)

VatuLevu (1923418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34007626)

or just call it a puma

No coyotes in Puerto Rico (1)

joelito_pr (931211) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997768)

From TFA:

The myth of the chupacabra dates back to 1987 when Puerto Rican newspapers El Vocero and El Nuevo Dia reported on mysterious deaths of animals which were said to have been drained of blood. Its name, coined by Puerto Rican comedian Silverio Pérez, translates to "goat sucker." The creature is sometimes blamed for the disappearance and loss of goats, chickens and other farm animals. It is described as "dog-like, rodent-like or reptile-like, with long snouts, large fangs, leathery or scaly greenish-gray skin and a nasty odor."

As a Puertorrican I can confirm that we don't have any coyotes, so how do you explain that Chupacabra.

Re:No coyotes in Puerto Rico (1)

eriqk (1902450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33999512)

Well, then it obviously must be wombats.

Re:No coyotes in Puerto Rico (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000152)

You know, I learned that wombats existed from Drawn Together. Then again, English wasn't my first language. Cartoons are always filled with little tidbits of knowledge, and if you find yourself at the edge of a cliff, you can keep walking without looking down. It's the same thing with Snooki from Jersey Shore, just don't look at it and it will disappear. Jeeze, this really got off-topic and random quick. Well, it's the weekend and news is slow :)

2004 (1)

Dabido (802599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001530)

So, he's repeating what was said in 2004. How is this news?

news flash: Easter Bunny exposed-news at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34005400)

In this earth-shattering news expose, scientists have uncovered the genetic aberration behind the ' Easter Bunny' ! Kids the world over have reportedly been crying in their sleep, refusing to do homework or keep up with their household chores, as a result of this devastating report. The major news services carrying the story have refused to comment on their responsibility for repercussions from their handiwork, but have advised that it doesn't stop there. We have to ask, 'Who will be next, Santa Clause, (tooth fairy exempted from ridicule by federal law), maybe even Elmer Fudd? In a statement from the White House, presidential spokesperson said; 'The rabbit's white, right? Who cares!' Stand by for further developments.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...