What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
39 Comments
- TouchingWood, on 01/19/2009, -3/+15The only thing to do now is get Chuck Norris involved.
- MateoDemoni, on 01/19/2009, -0/+12Early reports that the newcomer got there fast and then it took things slow are unconfirmed.
- The2DQuartet, on 01/19/2009, -0/+11I do like the final comment from Lisa Mitchell on how to deal with the unwanted lionfish:
''They are delicious.'' - Raptaur, on 01/19/2009, -0/+10I'd bet the Lionfish thought being stood on also hurt a tad
- lololol1, on 01/19/2009, -0/+8Holy ***** its a lionfish, Get in the boat!
- WordsnCollision, on 01/19/2009, -2/+10OMG how will i start the car???
- asgardshill, on 01/19/2009, -0/+6This is probably the only topic where a Picard facepalm would be completely on-topic and be prone to being Dugg up.
I've stepped on a cone shell, a stingray and a lionfish in my travels. The lionfish definitely hurt the worst. - inactive, on 01/19/2009, -0/+6While in the USAF I did a lot of SCUBA diving around Okinawa, Japan. Lion fish are totally fearless. They would just come right up to you and stare at you, face to face, as if saying "Howdy." Cute little critters, but you probably should avoid petting them. Now I live in South Florida. We are getting more and more weird critters showing up. Monkeys, snakes, rats, bugs, New Yorkers, now Lion Fish. Hopefully we will get sea snakes soon. That would be just great. Swimming cobras. Yum.
- bonjourmr, on 01/19/2009, -0/+5Lionfish rock any aquarium, they are worth a mint too.
- Zervaman, on 01/19/2009, -0/+3Actually, evolution IS based around extinction. To say otherwise shows a gross lack of knowledge. Without extinction, there would be no evolution, plain and simple. Extinction allows for new species to fill niches when they out-compete less "fit" species. Didn't you take an evolution class in college?
Like I said, an estimated 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just the way it is.
You don't have to agree with me over whether or not to protect endangered species, but your assumption that extinction is not integral to evolution is "moronic."
I highly suggest doing some research before arguing about something which you clearly know nothing about.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11528.abst ...
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5393.abstract - badalchemist, on 01/19/2009, -1/+4"Why does everyone get upset when a non-native species threatens the local organisms?"
When that species delivers some of the most painful venom known to man. - Gikko, on 01/19/2009, -0/+3Biscuitz..biscuitz, biscuitz... you did read the entire thing did you? the lionfish specifically can and most likely will hurt the reefs, and kill many species oh fish there, sharks won't.
- Gikko, on 01/19/2009, -0/+3um..they don't want to lionfish there...if you read the article, you might have figured that out.
- joshuaer, on 01/19/2009, -0/+3Lionfish WTF i thought it was called LionSeaKitten!
- pp7k, on 01/19/2009, -1/+4What a terrible, inaccurate article! To read this lionfish are schooling by the millions and taking down divers with their lightning strike attacks. These fish are slow moving and any diver that is stung was asking for it by grabbing it, or not watching out where they're going.
And seriously, an economic threat to diving tourism?!? Divers love these fish; they're pretty and since they're not fearful, they're easy to photograph. If anything, they are an added draw.
Perhaps the environmental impact could be a concern but this article is so full of hyperbole that I can't really take any of it at face value. - nydwarf, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Just send the fishermen after them they will be extinct in no time.
- vizeroth, on 01/19/2009, -1/+3The only really valid reason for protecting species (other than the possible validity of just being a bleeding heart) is that it helps maintain the environment in which humanity has so far thrived. Further, the evolution that's leading to many of these extinctions is based on our own intervention, rather than a natural evolution of their environment, leading to faster changes than would be considered normal.
In this case specifically, the article mentions aquarium owners, stating the possible first introduction in the waters around Florida was due to an aquarium swept away in a hurricane, though it also notes that the fish is generally popular for aquariums, and owners may dump the fish when they get too big.
In other words, the normal passages from the Indian and Pacific oceans to the Atlantic which these fish would have to take without human intervention are too cold for the fish to survive the crossing. So, under normal conditions the fish would first have to evolve to handle the temperatures before being introduced into the Atlantic.
Of course, much of Florida is a wonderful example of the damage humans can do to the environment and native species, and tourism and the retirement population will continue to do so for the near future. - Lockhart1, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2I believe we have bacon today because someone said the same thing during "The Great Pig Uprising" of 1879.
- Shivan57, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2Dugg cause I hear its Good Eats! Send in Alton Brown!
- slapthemonkey, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2This would have been a great experience
- troyfoley, on 01/19/2009, -1/+2Lionfish : Ocean ecosystem :: Human : Land ecosystem
- Raptaur, on 01/19/2009, -0/+1They don't want to eh...
Well that makes it all the more clearer
...and for your own information i did read it hence the reason i knew they dissected it, now since they don't want them there, what they gonna do dissect them all?
So by your logic we should dissect every animal that turns up that we don’t want to get rid of them zzzzzzzzzz - jscnet, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1@Zervaman
So, if you want to connect Evolution and Extinction you can do so in the following way:
Evolution or Extinction are brought about by changes or stresses in the environment. An organism can adapt by change, or perish by an inability to adapt.
ENVIRONMENT (Stresses) = Evolution OR Extinction
Extinction of one species MAY come about after the evolution of that species simply because, for some reason, the older species cannot or could not adapt or maintain within it's environment. However, extinction does not come about as a RESULT of evolution. It's a separate event entirely. - FastZ, on 01/19/2009, -1/+2So putting two and two together, just from reading the title, I would have to guess that the Lionfish is new to the Keys AND is the Newcomer. Am I right?
- jscnet, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1@Zervaman
Actually, let me give you a better example. I'll use the Two Ponds example (something I created.)
Say we have two ponds next too each other. Each pond has identical species. For argument sake lets say that each pond contains only Carp. You go fishing in Pond A you catch Carp, you go fishing in Pond B you catch the same exact species of Carp. For millennia nothing has changed.
All of sudden an earth quake hits. The ground fissures and a new feed of salty water starts to slowly pour into Pond B. This new salt water feed is very slow, trickling as to not be significant enough to kill all the fish. Over time the salinity and Ph start to change. It's a slow process. The water becomes murkier, saltier, etc...
As a result and over (lets say) a thousand years, the Carp in Pond B adapted (evolved) and as a result, changed in nearly every visible way. Lets say this version of Carp is longer, has sharp teeth, bigger eyes, different skin colors, scales and fins which are more adaptive to salty environments.
From this, knowing the history you can conclude that the Carp evolved in Pond B, but not in Pond A. Although an evolution took place, the Carp have not gone extinct. We just now have two versions; a fresh water Carp and salt water Carp and they look different, but share the same genetic lineage.
Let's say another quake occurs. This time a fissure opens up that drains Pond A completely. All the fresh water Carp die. Lets say that these are the only two ponds on the planet that contained Carp.
From fossil records, if the history of the area isn't known -- one can logically, but erringly assume that the Carp evolved into this new species and the old species died away, or became extinct as a result.
That would be a total error.
For that same quake could have drained Pond B and the evolved Carp would have gone extinct.
The relationship between Evolution and Extinction is weak, at best. As a result, one cannot make any claim that Evolution happens as a result of Extinction. - Ica7us, on 01/19/2009, -0/+1by dissecting they meant wildly chopping it with a knife to make sure it was dead. Or they cut it up for dinner.
- jscnet, on 05/29/2009, -0/+1@Zervaman
Actually you're incorrect. Evolution is not based around Extinction. Evolution implies a change. That change does not imply Extinction. Let me give you a simple example:
Let's say all humans evolve tomorrow and grow a third arm. Does that mean that humans have gone extinct? No. It means they evolved (albeit, not what I'd like to see.)
Evolution means a species changes, but does not mean all related species change. They can branch, some may not, some might. In fact, one branch might evolve and then become extinct while the base branch (that did not evolve) continues on.
Therefore evolution does not equate to, or come from, extinction. Extinction is separate from and opposite to, evolution.
I have seen no evidence that one species went extinct because it evolved into another animal. Although I believe Darwin is correct -- the point at which a animal is THIS, and then changes to THAT AND as a result the THIS animal is all of a sudden no more. That evidence doesn't exist yet -- we have fossils, but no direct experiential evidence.
To make the outright claim that evolution only comes about because of extinction is an error. It's not correct thinking if you want to understand how evolution works. - carbonetc, on 01/19/2009, -0/+1It's not often you can go out and collect an animal valued in the pet trade without any fear of doing environmental damage (helping it, in fact). If I lived in Florida that's what I'd be doing.
- ZackRichington, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Made me laugh good sir.
- terinaxl, on 01/21/2009, -0/+1so is this why the local fisherman are barely surviving....is the major disturbance in the keys......the lack of lobster, etc...... due to the lionfish?
- sandiegodude, on 01/19/2009, -0/+1Dugg for "New Yorkers" as weird critters!
- SkaManTy, on 01/19/2009, -0/+0Greeeeeat. It's only just one, so there shouldn't be a reason to freak out. Yet.
And I was gonna say, the whole danger to divers thing? I'm fairly sure I've never heard of a fatal Lionfish Sting.
First time for everything I suppose. - CookieOfFortune, on 01/19/2009, -0/+0It's ok, we can always solve the problem the old fashioned way:
"If the lionfish multiply, Mitchell of REEF offers one possible remedy: Fishermen could start to catch them for commercial sale.
''They are delicious,'' she said. ``Kind of like hogfish, but not quite as mild.'' - Biscuitz, on 01/19/2009, -1/+1So wait a minute, they're not scared of diving in waters that are infested with sharks, but they're freaking out over a 4 inch fish?
And what was the deal with taking it, and dissecting it? Obviously they know enough about it. - getontop, on 01/19/2009, -2/+2Trying too hard.
- hulkhelton, on 01/19/2009, -1/+0all the arguements that say we are ***** up the natural way of things are stupid.
humans arent natural?
we are artificial?
im not against helping endangered species i just hate that to some people its okay for a species to go extinct but not by human hands.
its one or the other. - jscnet, on 01/19/2009, -4/+3I agree with you on your first point. But your second is purely moronic. Evolution is NOT based around extinction, Evolution is based around evolving (hence, the world Evolution.) When a species goes extinct, hence, its no longer living, it cannot evolve. We need to "protect" endangered species because we, the humans, have (in all likelihood and certainly in most cases) nearly farmed or otherwise destroyed the habitat of many to the point of their nearing extinction. Its is the only sane thing for an insane species to do... save the remaining species and hopefully reverse the damage we caused.
If we're to learn anything about ourselves it should be this; Evolution doesn't happen with the Human Race, Extinction does. This is true because the Human Race is profoundly immature, irresponsible and self centric. It is us that needs to evolve.
- Zervaman, on 01/19/2009, -10/+5Why does everyone get upset when a non-native species threatens the local organisms?
That's the way evolution works, folks. If this fish can thrive in this new location, then the existing organisms will adapt and the ecosystem will eventually reach equilibrium. This process has been going on for 3,800,000,000 years. Why get upset?
On that note, I find it sorta ridiculous that us humans feel the need to "protect" endangered species. It may sound harsh, but if organisms can't adapt to changing conditions (human caused or not) then I don't think its a good idea to tamper with evolution to promote them. Evolution is based around extinction. - Raptaur, on 01/19/2009, -7/+2Hey look the first ever Lionfish in our waters!
Now let’s fish it out and dissect it.... WTF?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is