Beta
×

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!

Warm-blooded Fish?

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the sounds-mighty-fishy-fishy-har-de-har dept.

Education 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."

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So... (-1, Flamebait)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915021)

Who's going to claim this as evidence first...?

Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

FST777 (913657) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915031)

name-calling. nice.

both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915046)

both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.

ID isn't theory, it's a belief.

Re:So... (1)

jdgreen7 (524066) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915134)

Didn't you guys JUST HAVE this debate [slashdot.org] ??? Some people aparently don't read weekend articles. :)

Re:So... (-1, Flamebait)

FST777 (913657) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915166)

and so is evolution, oftentimes.

again: both are theories, both are not provable (since we do not know the variables). Both have a different outcome. Period.

The evo-zealots who try to scrutinize ID are as much "religional" as their ID-counterparts.

I like to believe neither of them, and support both. Science has nothing to do with backing a theory as "the Truth (TM)". ID may not be the truth, Evolution may not be the truth. You seem to have to "believe" one of them these days, but I refuse to do that.

You might see me backing Evolution against an ID-zealot or the other way around.

Re:So... (3, Informative)

jx100 (453615) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915293)

A theory can predict. A theory has rules and models. A theory has mountains of evidence pointing towards its validity.

Evolution fits all these parameters. ID fits none.

Re:So... (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915732)

A theory can predict. A theory has rules and models. A theory has mountains of evidence pointing towards its validity. Evolution fits all these parameters. ID fits none.

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... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915310)

Bah, evolution is not 'provable'? It is testable, it has been tested. I am aware that said testing and verification prove no theory 100% (hence the name 'theory') but let's look at the score:

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... (1, Interesting)

thousandinone (918319) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915500)

Also playing Devil's Advocate, I can't put much stock in either as a scientific theory. I have my belief, but that is all it is; a belief, and whether my belief leans more towards evolution or intelligent design is immaterial as far as the discussion goes.

Both ideas have their downfalls and their merits. Your argument, however, is somewhat misleading.

What is observable and testable in said bacteria and insects is not, in fact, evolution, but rather natural selection and intra-species adaptation; the emphasis of "strong" traits in the gene pool as opposed to "weak" traits.

While it is certainly irrefutable that a species itself can change over the course of time, as this is observable, it is another thing entirely than to presume that, even given millions of years, one species becomes another entirely different species.

To put natural selection briefly: The cause of variations in the genetic code is a number of miniscule mutations, some of which are helpful, and some of which are harmful. Those individuals which receive 'helpful' mutations are more likely to pass on those mutations, as opposed to those who receive 'harmful' ones.

Many of the traits that give individual species their unique, niche ability to excel in their own habitat require far more than a slight mutation to actually give them an advantage.

As an example, the horned toad has the ability to literally squirt blood from its eyes in order to distract and startle predators.

One change, but requires various changes to the genetic code to be functional; the actual sac that the blood builds up in, the duct that the blood is projected through, the muscles around the sac that constrict to project the blood, the nerves that enable the muscle to contract, and the instinct to use this ability are all different parts of the genetic code, and without any one of these traits, the ability will not work, and the changes do not give the toad an advantage.

Mathematically, it's possible that all of these traits appeared simultaneously, but it's also an extremely minute chance.

Additionally, the 'jump' from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms is a bit of a stretch. What kind of a genetic change is required to make the difference between a 'colony' of individual unicellular organisms to become one single multicellular organism?

Furthermore, the mitochondria and chloroplats found in various cells are believed to have originited as parasites that eventually began to help their host. But these organelles are now a part of each cells genetic code. We already know that traits acquired through an organisms lifespan do not change their genetic code, and a parasitic organism is hardly a trait either.

There are myriad things like these that just don't stand up to the kind of scrutiny that science demands; all theories, scientifically, must be considered to be false until they can be proven; this is how the scientific method works.

Now, admittedly, none of this holds a candle in lack of credibility to the assumption that it was all done by some mythical, supernatural being... however, neither theory is sound enough to declare fact. I'm not willing to declare either as fact, and to cite either fact is belief, religion even. Not science. I find it ironic that so many atheists and agnostics are so religious in their belief in evolutionism, and so many theists try to support their unprovable belief and faith with science.

Science and Belief are two different things.

Remember the scientific method.

Re:So... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915718)

Mutations and natural selection are in fact parts of evolution. Descent with modification. A change in gene frequency for a population over time.

Also, biologists aren't just making shit up when it comes to new species descending from ancestors. There's plenty of evidence that suggests this is what has happened.

If you know of any specific barrier that prevents new species from descending from existing species, please describe it.

Re:So... (0)

utnow (808790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915674)

What's funny... is that you'd get those same silly looks from an educated church pastor if you started spouting evolutionist theories.

Both sides of this thing have a theory. That theory came from an idea, which came from a belief, which is rooted in a religion.

Lets take the obvious one first. Your average southern baptist has his or her religion. A life centered around worshiping God and Jesus (over simplified for the sake of my keyboard's wellbeing) and that the world is generally lying to them. This religion led to their belief in the bible, stone tablets, eternal hellfire, etc. This in turn led to an idea about how things began, leading to a theory, which in this case is ID.

Now the average science-minded individual. His religion is the science itself. The belief that all knowledge can be synthesized, tested, and 'proven' as much as possible. The idea that the origins and diversity of life on this planet needs to fit into the existing system led to the theory of Evolution.

I don't care which one is right. It makes no difference what-so-ever. If you know without a doubt that evolution took place... hurray. so what? Enjoy. Same goes for ID. If you already believed it yourself then it makes no difference to prove it. You already knew it was true and you can't convince anyone of anything by arguing about it.

Now this is the real problem... to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one, based on theological evidence, is to tell them that their life is worthless. It's telling them that their religion is simply a toy to be tinkered with as opposed to the 'real' religon.

On the other hand... to tell a baptist/catholic/etc that Intelligent Design is wrong, based on scientific evidence, does the very same thing. It strikes at the core of their beliefs. It tears the ground out from under them.

Both sides of this debate are going to respond violently because they're both trying to pull the foundation out from under the other.

I think that it's absolutely correct that ID is not science. It shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. It's a purely theological discussion that should be restricted to that playground.

But what I don't like is the mind-game that is played every time this fact is brought up. There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here". How about if we start saying that Evolution isn't Theology and shouldn't be taught in churches for a while just to make things fair. ;)

Re:So... (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915739)

Evolution does matter. On one hand it is the overarching and unifying theory of biology.

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... (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915477)

again: both are theories, both are not provable (since we do not know the variables). Both have a different outcome. Period.

Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is only a theory in the loosest sense of the word.

The evo-zealots who try to scrutinize ID are as much "religional" as their ID-counterparts.

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, guys like Michael Behe don't even deny that evolution happened, but ID is starving for substance that it can be adopted be Young Earth Creationists just as easily as by a theistic evolutionist. This is because it actually says nothing at all.

I like to believe neither of them, and support both. Science has nothing to do with backing a theory as "the Truth (TM)". ID may not be the truth, Evolution may not be the truth. You seem to have to "believe" one of them these days, but I refuse to do that.

You might see me backing Evolution against an ID-zealot or the other way around.

Science isn't about truth, but evolution is the best explanation for the data. ID explains nothing, and is specifically designed not to. It's a political ploy to sneak Creationism into the public school science class.

Re:So... (1, Insightful)

homerules (688184) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915205)

Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Zealots on both sides have arguments to discredit each other. A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong. Neither side of intelligent design or evolution can say 100% that the other side can not be proved.

Re:So... (1)

Joseph Hardin (849365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915276)

Before I start this, let me state that I am a proponent of Intelligent Design somewhat(read my other posts for more information). With that being said, ID is a belief, and not a theory. Religion lies outside of science. The two do not mix, but also do not contradict each other necessarily. Religion DOES NOT say evolution didn't happen, merely that God must have guided it. So the only issue that should be between ID and evolution, is belief in a higher power. I believe schools should teach evolution, but also teach that it is also a commonly held belief that religion comes into play here with the creation of man. Leave it at that, the kids can ask their parents about their specific religious beliefs. Other than that, teach evolution as it always has been taught. You should not have to teach kids about ID, just let them know it exists and they can explore it on their own. It's much too difficult an issue to leave in the hands of the school system to properly teach. Let school teach science, let the parents teach religion. And no, I do not believe ID is a theory, or a science. As has been stated many times before, theories must be disprovable in some way or another if they are wrong. If ID was actually wrong, it still would never be provable.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915527)

And where precisely did you learn about science? What's this about being proven 100% wrong. What a pack of BS. You seem to be evidence as to just how badly science education is fairing, because you appear to have no bloody idea what science is, how it functions, and what even constitutes a scientific theory. You're just an armchair pseudo-skeptic who thinks he's clever, without ever actually imagining that maybe you don't have the foggiest notion as to what you're talking about.

Here's a start. Tell me what constitutes a *scientific* theory?

Re:So... (0)

radja (58949) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915065)

ID is not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

frankly, I dont feel like this whole discussion.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915109)

ID is not a hypothesis, it's a wish.

Re:So... (1)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915669)

Not even, it's an appeal to ignorance.

Re:So... (1)

tgv (254536) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915122)

ID is evolution *plus* an "intelligent entity", so it's a worse theory.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915232)

Intelligent Design isn't a theory. Being non-falsifiable, it isn't even a model. Saying that it is "wrong" is being overly generous. Lamarck was wrong. ID doesn't even try to be right. The geocentric model of the solar system is a far more compelling idea, frankly. Perhaps fundamentalists should go back to touting that; after all, at least you can try to fudge things with epicycles and such in astronomy.

Re:So... (1)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915701)

The geocentric model of the solar system is a far more compelling idea, frankly.

I beg to differ. I believe the flat earth theory is much more compelling.

One of these things is not like the other... (4, Insightful)

ankarbass (882629) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915314)

You forgot, one of them has withstood scrutiny by the scientific community for over a century, one has not.

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... (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915491)

Ah but the other has withstood scrutiny by people who believe they will go to hell if they prove it wrong... ah. That may have been your point ;-)

J.

Re:One of these things is not like the other... (1)

VATechTigger (884976) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915631)

Funny how ID'ers want proof of Evolution. Biologists show them Data.

When Biologist ask for proof of ID, they are told to just have faith.

I wish I could tell my boss to just have faith when he demands proof of my progress on my TPS reports.

Re:So... (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915341)

I never understood why there's even a debate. Not the 'completely dismissing the possibility of God' sort of not understanding, but more of this: if you absolutely can't stand the idea of God /Nixon/etc, and you want to explain life, you've got evolution. Evolution is good, and really seems to be on track. If you do want to believe in God, and that God made life, that's even equally good. Isn't it obvious then (without inventing more stuff) that evolution is the method (the hand, the tool, the forge) of God? To me, the way things happen is the way things happen. Evolution is the way things happen. Whether God made it happen or the random belligerent awesomeness of existence made it happen is absolutely irrelevant; it still happened. It still happens. Anything that happens, happens. (1) So, if the existence of evolution is independent of the existence of God, why the debate about evolution? Couldn't we all just quietly admit that there is, in fact, evolution, and then get back to the root of the issue, which is attacking each other over the possibility that there is or isn't a God? (1) Blatantly stolen from Douglas Adams, and so as not to be totally removed from context is to be followed by two additional laws, then a corollary to all 3 (or just 2 and 3?), and then an unlikely 5th book of a trilogy, the latter of which I'll not attempt to recall and type below: [Law 2] Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. [Law 3] Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. [Corollary] Although not necessarily in chronological order.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915509)

I never understood why there's even a debate. Not the 'completely dismissing the possibility of God' sort of not understanding, but more of this: if you absolutely can't stand the idea of God /Nixon/etc, and you want to explain life, you've got evolution. Evolution is good, and really seems to be on track.

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... (-1, Offtopic)

ZakuSage (874456) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915041)

Neither, but environmentalists will name it as some result of global warming.

Re:So... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915179)

aye... now, instead of 'global warming', we have 'shark warming'. God helps us!

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915082)

Christians will probably claim that nothing but Jezus' love for the fish keeps it nice and warm...

What's next i wonder? A fish that roasts ITSELF?

Re:So... (-1, Offtopic)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915113)

if I had mod points, I'd mod this up delicious!

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

06metzp (713177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915185)

Who's going to claim this as evidence first...?
Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?


Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"? ...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
[/offtopic]

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915291)

Call a spade a spade. And he didn't mean evolutionist whackos.

Whackos (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915436)

Your point is well taken, but you should know that "evolutionist" is generally used only by creationists and has a pejorative flavor to it. Most supporters of evolution prefer the term "biologist."

Re:Whackos (0)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915525)

What term should FSM'ers use? Was the salmon shark touched by His Noodly Appendage?

Re:Whackos (1, Insightful)

russellh (547685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915709)

What term should FSM'ers use?

satirists?

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915452)

To paraphrase John Stewart, you, sir, are one of the idiots who's destroying civilization. Please stop.

Just because there are two sides to an issue does not mean that both have to be treated 'fairly' and 'evenly'. There are *wrong* positions to take, and just because twits take those wrong positions it doesn't mean we have to coddle them and seriously consider their opinions. They're just stupid and don't deserve any respect.

Creationism is impossible to prove experimentally (and don't give that political bullshit about creation myth and ID being different, I don't have space in this box for that), while natural selection is. Until someone comes up with an experiment that can prove creationism, instead of creation proponents just trying to look for flaws in evolution, they're not science. They don't deserve to be treated as anything except religion, and have no place in technology and scientific learning.

Therefore, those who support it as science are stupid, whackos, fanatics, ignorant, or a combination thereof. Grandparent's terminology is just fine.

Re:So... (1)

neurojab (15737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915611)


Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"? ...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?

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. Whether they masquerade religious precepts as science or just directly demand the indoctrination of students is largely irrelevant. It's still nothing but religious zealotry.

Re:So... (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915668)

or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?

With all due respect, no, that's a terrible idea.

The reason these IDiots got their IDiotic IDeas in the school is precisely the so called "courtesy". It's not courtesy to call a ridiculous idea ridiculous, and it's not courtesy to ignore mental illness, just because you think you're being sensitive.

Religion is a psychosis, with the only difference from other psychoses being that we have accepted religion for so long, no one will stand up against it. But that doesn't change what religion is fundamentally.

Re:So... (1)

qeveren (318805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915532)

Nonono, it's 'Intelligent Design moron whackos'.

And there's no such thing as an 'Evolutionist'. The term is a crass attempt by believers of Creationism to put the theory of evolution 'on the same ground' as their silly ideas.

Re:So... (1)

Alterion (925335) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915598)

i get so depressed by christians who bring up intelligent design who do you think wrote genesis? MOSES on mt sinai (you know who lived in ancient egypt?) .. they are friggin stories .. what is importrant is the messages and ideas behind them FFS

I knew it! (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915036)

Damn reptiles... always trying to copy us!

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! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915094)

The rest of the world won't

Re:I knew it! (5, Insightful)

Omega Leader-(P12) (240225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915098)

Fish != Reptiles; Fish = Fish

YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED!!! YOU HAVE LOST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915235)

Have a nice day :-)

Re:I knew it! (0, Offtopic)

VikingBerserker (546589) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915635)

Sharks != Fish; Sharks = Invertebrates

Re:I knew it! (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915713)

Fish = tail moves side to side

Mammal (i.e. dolphins) = tail moves up and down

Re:I knew it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915723)

Sharks are not equal to Invertebrates. Sharks are a (proper) subset of Invertebrates.

Re:I knew it! (0, Offtopic)

mcheu (646116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915653)

Well, if you want to nitpick, sharks aren't technically fish either as they don't have a bone skeleton.

Of course, if you nitpick enough, you'll probably find this isn't true either.

Re:I knew it! (1)

monkeydo (173558) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915719)

Sharks are absolutely fish, in the class Chondrichthyes, AKA cartilage-fish.

Re:I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915680)

Oh, yeah?
#include <stdio.h>
 
int main() {
    int Reptiles = 1;
    int Fish = Reptiles;
 
    if(Fish != Reptiles) printf("Fish are not the same as reptiles\n");
    else printf("R3p7i135 PwNz j00!!!11\n");
 
    return 0;
}
Compile that baby, and then we'll see who's right. Or maybe you meant to use the logical equals operator instead of the assignment operator.

Re:I knew it! (4, Informative)

caddisfly (722422) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915143)

"Damn reptiles... always trying to copy us!"

...and this is why we need to continue to teach *science* in science class 'cause last time I checked, salmon sharks were not reptiles.

These findings just confirm the "above ambient temp" findings that have been known for quite a while with bluefin tuna, other big sharks, etc.

...the evolutionary implications are that these "heater" systems allowed these predators to extend their hunting range and hunting efficiency by moving into and operating in colder waters and thus increasing the amount of food available to them --- presto, evolutionary success!

...that was until the commercial fishing and technology came along to start wiping them out

Re:I knew it! (3, Funny)

KrancHammer (416371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915289)

Along the discovery that salmon shark thermoregulate (duh), a more interesting discovery is the that of the fundamental division of Slashdot posters. No, not liberals and conservatives, not pro-Firefly and anti-Firefly, not religious and non-religious... no, the fundamental division are those with senses of humor and the psychological capability for detecting the same, and those without.

Re:I knew it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915576)

and i without modpoints to give you...

Re:I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915644)

...that was until the commercial fishing and technology came along to start wiping them out

Doesn't natural selection work both ways?

So now, those fish that can survive on lesser amounts of food will have an evolutionary advantage.

Re:I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915211)

always trying to copy us!

Ya, they never innovate...sheesh.

It's not a reptile. (2, Informative)

dangerweasel (576874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915284)

It is a cartilagenous fish. Common ancestor somewhere way back, but still different. This is also not localized to this fish. Tuna and other sharks exhibit this. It is called regional endothermy, or also heterothermy. We just learned about it in Vertebrate Zoology. It has been hypothesized it allows them a huge increase in swimming speed for attacking prey.

Re:I knew it! (0, Offtopic)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915518)

was that land-dinosaur of north america ? or lard-dinosaur of north america ?

Big Question... (3, Funny)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915062)

How to convince my mother-in-law to stop swimming. 8-)

Re:Big Question... (4, Funny)

LegendOfLink (574790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915161)

That's why we have harpooons.

Re:Big Question... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915622)

Seems to me that the better question would how to convince her to START swimming... let's say, for example, in the North Pacific.

The REAL Question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915664)

Wait, wait, wait, are you telling me YOUR MARRIED!?!?!?!?!?!

"maintains its red muscle"... (5, Funny)

PurplePhase (240281) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915083)

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

8-PP

Cold-blooded killers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915105)

So now there is a scientifical proof that they are not the cold-blooded killers as some of us may have thought.

Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (5, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915108)

Many insects also create intentionally elevated body temperatures (generally through shivering). Moths, bees, dung beetles all generate heat to enable greater activity under cold conditions.

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 (1)

Rinnt (917105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915182)

Not to play captian obvious, but I suppose the difference here maybe that the insects must generate the heat while the shark maintains it naturally (i.e. w/out extra effort)... Or did I miss something?

Re:Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (3, Interesting)

JasonKChapman (842766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915458)

Or did I miss something?

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.

More interesting than the sharks in the article, I think, is the eye-heating organs [nih.gov] that marlin and sailfish have evolved. The last theory I read is that helps them see more clearly, for hunting, in the deep cold water. They evolved just enough to accomplish the goal and no more. Give them a couple of centuries of much colder water, and I'm sure they'd end up heating their whole blood supply, too.

Re:Other warm-blooded "cold-blooded" creatures (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915746)

> I'm sure they'd end up heating their whole blood supply, too.

probably with giant pumping eyes

What will the intelligent design crowd make of that !!

I cast my vote for evolution (0, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915115)

It's a fairly significant mutation and well targeted to the environment in which it exists. God doesn't care about fish -- just people, since we're all made in his image and all that.
I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. -- Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics
How ironic that the 'thingy' at the bottom of my page reads as above...

In any case, a warm-blooded fish is... well interesting though somewhat worthless trivia in the grand scheme of things. Some interesting information would be in determining how long this change required and if there is indication that this change is not yet complete in that they will continue to get warmer or develop other features to aid in their survival in that environment.

Re:I cast my vote for evolution (1)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915358)

In any case, a warm-blooded fish is... well interesting though somewhat worthless trivia in the grand scheme of things. Some interesting information would be in determining how long this change required and if there is indication that this change is not yet complete in that they will continue to get warmer or develop other features to aid in their survival in that environment.
Yeah! Way to nail the really interesting question!

And besides -- how do they taste?

Re:I cast my vote for evolution (2, Interesting)

JasonKChapman (842766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915566)

In any case, a warm-blooded fish is... well interesting though somewhat worthless trivia in the grand scheme of things. Some interesting information would be in determining how long this change required and if there is indication that this change is not yet complete in that they will continue to get warmer or develop other features to aid in their survival in that environment.

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 creature is ever done. At best, a species achieves a relatively stable period where its configuration--for want of a better word--matches its current environmental conditions.

We like to think of species as something strictly-defined and set in stone, but they aren't, really. Not is the long term. In the long term, they're always somewhere between what they were and what they will become. At best, a species is a way of saying "from this time to that time, this organism had this configuration."

Re:I cast my vote for evolution (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915652)

I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. -- Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics
How ironic that the 'thingy' at the bottom of my page reads as above...

That's not Ironic. Irony is a use of words to imply other than their literal interpretation.

Vehicle knowledge and more. (5, Insightful)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915129)

"Knowing specific details about the anatomy and physiology of salmon sharks provides key insight into their ability to produce such power and speed during swimming. The knowledge could translate into better designs for underwater vehicles."

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. (1, Funny)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915503)

There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast
Son, I think you're confusing oceans with rain forests.

mar3 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915130)

learn what mist4kes users. BSD/OS gains market share

But... (3, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915133)

What advantege does it give for lasers?

Obvious ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915338)

What advantege does it give for lasers?

Use these sharks and they don't have to carry separate frickin power supplies for their frickin lasers. Power straight from the sharks themselves (kinda like geothermal).

obligatory red dwarf quote (0, Offtopic)

deathwombat (848460) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915150)

i am fish...
i am fish...
i am fish...

Not surprising, and not really "warm-blooded" (5, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915191)

The distinction is not between "cold-blooded" and "warm-blooded" animals but between poikilotherms, whose body temperature is the same as that of the environment, and homeotherms, whose body temperature is closely regulated and held within a normal range of a couple of degrees or less

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 (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915292)

Virtually every organism implements homeostasis to some degree. As evolution chugs along, certain mechanisms come into existance that allow them to alter their temperature and other factors as appropriate. The catch is that these mechanisms tend to be expensive (check your heating bill), so there has to be a significant benefit to the organism.

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. Staying warm in cold water is a tricky business too, one of the reasons large aquatic mammals have done fairly well in my opinion.

I thought there were a bunch (4, Interesting)

Nf1nk (443791) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915197)

As a long time deep sea fisherman I thought there were a bunch of fish who lived with an elivated core temperature. Many of the red meat fast swimming open ocean fish (such as tuna, dorado, baracuda, swordfish) are decidely warm when you pull them in and have a radicaly different muscle structure than what you see with slow moving cold fish. Also the tend to have many fewer visable internal parasites, which I always associated with having a much different metablism.

Re:I thought there were a bunch (2, Interesting)

hador_nyc (903322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915521)

Even great white sharks are. They aren't warm-blooded, but are able to maintain a temperature of ambient + a few degreees by recycling the warm blood from their muscles; like a car's supercharger in effect. Nature has lots of these "inbetweens" when it comes to the warm-blooded - cold-blooded animals. I like this ... not black or white world

I, for one (-1, Offtopic)

coolidk (920131) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915212)

welcome our new warm blooded... eh never mind

Fat (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915213)

Do any fish have an insulating layer of fat, like many mammals?

Re:Fat (1)

c_woolley (905087) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915319)

Some fish do contain amounts of fat, but I don't know of any that have enough to consider it insulating. I am not a marine biologist by ny means though. Please don't let someone point out that whales have layers of insulating fat (yeah, I see it coming)...they are not fish.

Re:Fat (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915320)

Only the ones around North America!

Re:Fat (1)

tpjunkie (911544) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915329)

there is some subcutaneous fat to fish, but not the layer of blubber that you're probably thinking about.

Working muscles give off heat? (3, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915269)

Since salmon's propulsion muscles are like heart muscles, they never get tired and are always working, doesn't it stand to reason that a muscle that's always working is always generating heat? Expending calories will always have some excess waste heat unless salmon have figured out how to have 100% efficient muscles. So then why is this a suprise?

Disadvantage too? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915274)

Wouldn't this also make it easier for predators to find them? How sensitive are marine predators to heat?

Sashimi (0)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915420)

Warm sashimi... mmmmm.... yummy!

Fahrenheit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915474)

Fahrenheit? What is this, the dark ages?

Rattlesnakes also warm blooded (2, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915524)

Or at least, can CHOOSE to be. Female rattlers incubating eggs will wrap themselves around the eggs, and 'shiver', to elevate their body temperature to keep the eggs warm.

Re:Rattlesnakes also warm blooded (1)

johnty (558523) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915607)

but do they shiver to produce frictional heat? or is it internally generated?

Great discovery, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915574)

A great discovery, but what amazes me is how come some people who make great discoveries like that have not yet discovered the metric system !

Intelligent design fallibility (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13915575)

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligent design.html [godandscience.org]

This web site makes claims on the fallibility of ID, I thought it would be intesting to have /.ers analize it.

I'd write a longer post, but.... (0)

Njoyda Sauce (211180) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915581)

I have to keep surfing or else I will cease to exist.

Just in case... (1)

B11 (894359) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915592)

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to destroy the robots [slashdot.org] . THe could prove useful against these highly evolved sharks.

I knew it... (-1, Offtopic)

Killer Instinct (851436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915672)

My ex-gf was a north Pacific salmon shark...somthing smelled fishy, thats for damn sure

Metric system? (5, Insightful)

kjetiln (729530) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915714)

Could you not use metric temperatures? Celcius is the norm for science. (Kelvin when it is about physics.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>