What is Digg?103 Comments
- adlep, on 12/19/2008, -1/+34This is a very well written and interesting article. Thanks for your submission!
- JasPruett, on 12/19/2008, -0/+18It's a magical liopleurodon Charlie!
- Subacious, on 12/19/2008, -0/+13Uh, it's a fish, why would it need to be saved from flooding?
- asgardshill, on 12/19/2008, -3/+14Pass the tartar sauce, please.
- nitsuj, on 12/19/2008, -2/+12Not at all. If a life form is suited to it's environment, and the environment doesn't change much, why would it's form change much via natural selection? It wouldn't change much of course.
You see this in other lifeforms such as turtles, crocodiles and sharks. These creatures have changed in minor ways over many millions of years but the basic forms are so effective and efficient that the changes are subtle. - SQLserver, on 12/19/2008, -1/+11Jesus Christ, you are stupid!
- lostarchitect, on 12/19/2008, -0/+9you'd know if you'd read the article.
- h4k0r, on 12/19/2008, -0/+9"Imagine that somehow a dinosaur pops out of nowhere?"
That would probably scare the ***** out of me...... - sgvprelude, on 12/19/2008, -1/+10Well if it isn't extinct...we humans can fix that!
- AmyVernon, on 12/19/2008, -2/+10That is a fabulous story. I read it from start to finish; I had absolutely no idea this fish had ever been found.
- tellner, on 12/19/2008, -1/+9The really interesting thing is that the coelacanth wasn't "unknown". Fisherman in Southern Africa had known about it since forever.
But since the fish has an incredibly foul taste that can't be fixed with cooking or seasoning they weren't very interested in it. And they couldn't understand why Europeans wanted the nasty thing. - firecow, on 12/19/2008, -1/+8More like dontcoelacanth
- kleptomaniac, on 12/19/2008, -1/+8There are many organisms alive today that are physically very similar to their ancestral forms such as alligators and horseshoe crabs. When comparing genetic variability between the different species that bear a resemblance to their ancestors it has been observed that even though they are physically very similar, genetically they are just as variable as very different looking relatives. In evolution it's the genotype that's important, not just the phenotype. Anyways, the theory of evolution doesn't state that a creature can no longer exist because some of it's populations can no longer breed with others, making what you're suggesting completely irrelevant, unless you're a troll. In which case, well done.
- imasuperDOTcom, on 12/19/2008, -0/+7That's what she said!
- imasuperDOTcom, on 12/19/2008, -0/+7....?
- AmazingA, on 12/19/2008, -1/+7The same could be said about monkeys, based on your logic. Just because part of a species "evolves" doesn't mean that the rest of the species just magically disappears. That's why they say evolution is much more like a bush than a stick.
- breetah, on 12/19/2008, -0/+6Anyone interested in learning more about the discovery of the Coelacanth, check out "A Fish Caught in Time" by Samantha Weinberg. Easy and engaging read.
- r3bol, on 12/19/2008, -0/+6...but will it guide our way to Candy mountain?
- SirChasm, on 12/19/2008, -2/+8Umm no. You don't understand evolutionary theory. There are plenty of other species that are around today that have existed for millions of years (see: alligators).
- matrim2217, on 12/19/2008, -0/+6Charlie!! Charlie!! We're on a bridge Charlie!!
- MonkeyFit, on 12/20/2008, -1/+6Expelled. lol
- Hetman, on 12/19/2008, -1/+6First off you are taking quotes out of context when you talk about darwin. Secondly your understanding of evolution is junior high level at best. Third thing expelled is a horrible movie that offers no facts. Finally we have uncovered so much more information since Darwin that it is really silly to think the theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin first wrote the origing of species.
- doremon313, on 12/19/2008, -1/+6it doesn't actually exist silly, god put it there to test your faith
- Adamlite, on 12/19/2008, -1/+5The fish had no "unfavorable heritable traits" for its environment. It was probably advantageous for its brothers and sisters to evolve different traits for their different environment, chump.
That's right... ad hominem attack, dumbass! - TheLastEskimo, on 12/19/2008, -0/+4I think it was either Nature or Nova that had a whole show on this story. I love PBS.
- AndrewLeon, on 12/19/2008, -1/+5Amazing...
- Adamlite, on 12/19/2008, -0/+3Lazarus taxons aren't that uncommon. We can't observe all environments, so some will slip through the cracks, though it is impressive to disappear from the fossil record for so long without actually becoming extinct.
- TheStooge1, on 12/19/2008, -0/+3What was that all about???
- tehchicken, on 12/19/2008, -0/+3The things you learn actually reading the article!
- Niedin, on 12/19/2008, -0/+3As easily as they explain anything else until we manage to capture one on land.
- ChileanGoD, on 12/19/2008, -2/+5What's with all the moronic comments? This is frikking awesome.A fossil that comes alive. For biologist and paleontologists this is like a dream. Imagine that somehow a dinosaur pops out of nowhere? The level of awe and amazement would be a lot different and the comments would be a lot more interesting.
- feignNU, on 12/19/2008, -0/+3Yes. And the article is the story of how we came to know that over a period of decades. Imagine that.
- UncleCrapper, on 12/19/2008, -1/+4Why? There are many organisms that have changed very little or essentially not at all in millions of years. That does not discount evolution, rather it is an indication that an organism has not undergone selective pressures. Your question betrays a common misunderstanding of evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. Evolution does not posit that organisms must change -- there is no destination on the road map of life that organisms are rushing to reach -- only that when they do this is the mechanism by which that process operates.
- inactive, on 12/19/2008, -1/+4It hasn't evolved because it never needed to. Natural pressures said: "hey your design is fine as it is, don't mind us u guys, as you were"
Evolution does not = improvement. Evolution is just change due to outside environmental factors. The nevironment this fish has survived in for so long hasn't changed enough to instigate the evolutionary process.
This fish may outlive humans, now who's the superior species? Hmmmm? - scarwars, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2sorry man, that belong to Fred Fish (RIP)
- Cerebron, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Sounds like it would make a good movie!
- Cerebron, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Quite a few concepts are being conflated here.
Random mutations do not rely on environmental pressures to occur, mutations happen fairly randomly, the environment filters out the bad ones, and may trigger a few necessary ones.
So, hypothetically, if the coelacanths that left the environment underwent enough mutations to walk on land, then the ones that remained in the unchanged environment should have undergone a fairly similar number of mutations, many of them beneficial. - Cerebron, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Appeal to authority.
- TheStooge1, on 12/19/2008, -1/+3@Hetman
So... asking a question = wanting to disprove evolution? - idontlikeyou2, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Who said it hasn't evloved or changed in 65 million years. The current fish belongs to the one of the "oldest living lineage of gnathostomata known to date" (look it up in wikipeida), thats what makes it so fascinating. The linage itself presents changes from era to era.
And we do know by fossil that it descendants, have walked onto the beach. - sporad1c, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2SirChasm has it right. The Coelacanth has remained in an unchanged environment for the entirety of its existence. coelacanth's that moved to another location adapted over millions of years to, in theory, become the creatures that inhabit land now. As UncleCrapper pointed out evolution only occurs when species are "forced" to evolve. This can happen very rapidly. two such examples are us who are evolving to fit the new environment we created and house spiders, which have existed only as long as people have had permanent dwellings. Evolution occurs on the time line it chooses. this time line is specified only by urgency, ie evolve or die. I could site a hundred more examples of genetic mutations proving so beneficial to a species that the species then flourishes, but thats what google is for.
- Jeusek, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2no, the question is, what does it taste like?!
- republicker, on 12/19/2008, -2/+4I agree
- jaasum, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2Careful. He bites.
- Hetman, on 12/19/2008, -1/+3Please research evolution and you will find the answer to that question.
- matrim2217, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2Big deal, I caught tons of these....
...in Animal Crossing. - Seapheous, on 12/19/2008, -0/+2If it tasted awesome there would be fish farms of Coelacanths. If cows didn't taste good and produced a foul, sour liquid they would be extinct.
- Suilenroc, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Well, some people like that. If you want a purely scientific article on the Coelacanth, I can assure you that there's hundreds around the internet. This article is written to show people that science can inspire and awe in both a persons' heart and mind, while simultaneously elucidating facts that were previously unknown.
- Cerebron, on 12/20/2008, -0/+2Evolution is based on a lot of factors, natural pressure is one of them, but certainly not the only one. While it is plausible (I guess) that the environment factor remained constant over millions of years, it seems questionable that there should be so little in the way of the genetic factor.
- idontlikeyou2, on 12/20/2008, -1/+3Ben Stein, dumbass
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is