Comments
21 - 40 of 74 Comments Last updated Dec 7, 2013

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

What creationists do not realize is that the "soft" walls of any definition that we observe in nature support the theory of evolution.

If you want to see even some weirder fish you should read up on lungfish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

Their swim bladder is a functioning lung.

The soft boundary problem that fish like these cause are predicted by evolution to a degree. Creationists can claim that "god designed it" but after too many such unsupported claims we tend to laugh.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
What creationists do not realize is that the "soft" walls of any definition that we observe in nature support the theory of evolution.
If you want to see even some weirder fish you should read up on lungfish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Their swim bladder is a functioning lung.
The soft boundary problem that fish like these cause are predicted by evolution to a degree. Creationists can claim that "god designed it" but after too many such unsupported claims we tend to laugh.
Flying fish are really going to send the fundie nuts over the edge.
muffy

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Reading the article would have answered your question.
From the article in MikeF's link:
"This terrestrial fish spends all of its adult life living on the rocks in the splash zone,.... <snip>
<snip>... In order to stay on land they have to stay moist as to breathe through the gills and skin.
So is it terrestrial or aquatic? If it's terrestrial, and a fish is defined as being aquatic, then this is not a fish. And if it's aquatic, what's the big deal about finding an aquatic fish?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
So is it terrestrial or aquatic? If it's terrestrial, and a fish is defined as being aquatic, then this is not a fish. And if it's aquatic, what's the big deal about finding an aquatic fish?
The majority of fish are marine or terrestrial aquatic, but there are a number of species in different families that can live for extended periods on land or in the case of species like the lung fish, they can exist buried in dried mud. Limiting fish to only those species that exist exclusively in water is overly simplistic and would exclude those valid species that can survive outside of it.
muffy

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The majority of fish are marine or terrestrial aquatic, but there are a number of species in different families that can live for extended periods on land or in the case of species like the lung fish, they can exist buried in dried mud. Limiting fish to only those species that exist exclusively in water is overly simplistic and would exclude those valid species that can survive outside of it.
What's wrong with excluding these land-living animals from "fish"? Plenty of other land-living animals are left out of that group even though they are closely related (more closely than other animals within that group). Why are sharks fish but newts not?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with excluding these land-living animals from "fish"? Plenty of other land-living animals are left out of that group even though they are closely related (more closely than other animals within that group). Why are sharks fish but newts not?
In a way newts are fish, and so are you. Newts are descended from fish that became land dwellers.

The fish mentioned by the OP are very very very closely related to other fish that still live in the water. Newts not so much.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with excluding these land-living animals from "fish"? Plenty of other land-living animals are left out of that group even though they are closely related (more closely than other animals within that group). Why are sharks fish but newts not?
Both sharks and newts are vertebrates and share a common ancestry with all vertebrates however the following characters separate them into the larger groups of amphibians (newts) and fish (sharks). Sharks: gills, fins, many with bodies covered in scales, largely obligate marine or terrestrial aqautic vertebrates with a few exceptions. Newts: Gills as adults, terrestrial as immature (eft), vertically expanded and flattened tail for swimming, body covered in skin, no toenails or claws, legs. The last character is why newts are not fish and fish are not amphibians. Some fish are amphibious, but that is not the defining character that makes them amphibians. Those species that are amphibious still retain the characters that mark them as fish.

Both amphibians and fish are cold blooded and have neither hair nor feathers, further separating them from the invertebrate groups of mammals and birds, but not reptiles.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
In a way newts are fish, and so are you. Newts are descended from fish that became land dwellers.
The fish mentioned by the OP are very very very closely related to other fish that still live in the water. Newts not so much.
Agreed. And legs that fish don't have and newts do, saved us all from swimming on dry ground.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with excluding these land-living animals from "fish"? Plenty of other land-living animals are left out of that group even though they are closely related (more closely than other animals within that group). Why are sharks fish but newts not?
Most of the amphibious species of fish are that far removed from the water as terrestrial animals are. Though, you are right that amphibians do maintain closer ties to water than most other vertebrates outside of fish.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Dec 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
So is it terrestrial or aquatic? If it's terrestrial, and a fish is defined as being aquatic, then this is not a fish. And if it's aquatic, what's the big deal about finding an aquatic fish?
Why don't you bother to read the article in the OP?

This is a fish that spends a large part of the time, particularly at low tide in the intertidal "splash" zone on rocks. It breathes through its skin and, like all fish, through gills. It has to keep its gills wet when above water to be able to continue to breathe. It is rather like mud-skippers, but lives in rocky areas rather than in mangrove swamps. No one is saying that it is exclusively on land, only that it it lives for a large part of the time on land.

There is a bit of a spectrum here. Normal fish live their entire lives in water. Living lung fish come in two main groups - the Australian lung fish lives entirely in water but can survive low oxygen environments by breathing air through its single primitive lung. Other lung fish are obligate air breathers with two lungs and some can survive for a considerable time (ie months) out of water in dried mud. Amphibians come in a number of flavours and generally start life purely aquatic with gills (tadpoles) and metamorphose into air breathing adults. Most frogs live their entire adult lives out of the water and only return to breed, but their lack of a water-proof skin and the lack of a shell on their eggs ties them forever to water. Reprtiles were the first group to make the break completely from an aquatic life with their impermeable skin and their eggs with shells.

This new animal simply fits in a part of the continuum that is close to the purely aquatic end of things, but is not purely water dwelling. It is still a fish and is still significantly tied to water. It would not survive if unable to keep moist and thus only ever stays close to the water when ashore, as you might expect a partly land dwelling fish to do, if you had even the most basic understanding of biology.

Oh, I see the problem...
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a fish that spends a large part of the time, particularly at low tide in the intertidal "splash" zone on rocks. It breathes through its skin and, like all fish, through gills.
Except you've pointed out that if most lungfish tried to breathe only through their gills they would die. Are they still fish? Newts breathe through their gills. Are they fish?
Bluenose wrote:
It has to keep its gills wet when above water to be able to continue to breathe. It is rather like mud-skippers, but lives in rocky areas rather than in mangrove swamps. No one is saying that it is exclusively on land, only that it it lives for a large part of the time on land.
So it's just like an amphibian? Which are not considered fish because...?
Bluenose wrote:
There is a bit of a spectrum here. Normal fish live their entire lives in water.
You mean "normal fish" like dogfish or "normal fish" like catfish? Catfish being more closely related to actual cats than to dogfish. Coelacanths are more closely related to dolphins than to most other fish but "scientists" complain when kids say that dolphins are fish.
Bluenose wrote:
This new animal simply fits in a part of the continuum that is close to the purely aquatic end of things, but is not purely water dwelling. It is still a fish and is still significantly tied to water. It would not survive if unable to keep moist and thus only ever stays close to the water when ashore, as you might expect a partly land dwelling fish to do, if you had even the most basic understanding of biology.
Oh, I see the problem...
No need for the insult. I'm sure you're smarter than me and know more so why don't we just agree on that. Ha ha, I'm dumber than you. Ok, so with that out of the way, what's the deal with fish? They don't seem to have a defining characteristic that they all share, or that other animals don't share. Any new species found, like this land-living one, seem to be called fish just because they look like one. I was hoping that maybe this was some evidence for evolution, that maybe an animal was found that had crossed the fish/non-fish divide, but I was obviously wrong. I've been told lots of times that this is still just a fish, so I don't see what the big deal is.

The bottom line is that I'm more confused than ever. I thought that maybe this was important evidence, I'd better understand why this is important, but now after much arguing I find out this is just a new fish. So what's the point?

I was hoping there would be some kind of consensus or helpful explanation but I've not read any yet. Ok, maybe I'm dumb and it's really obvious but am I alone in thinking this is why lots of people are turned off science?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
So is it terrestrial or aquatic? If it's terrestrial, and a fish is defined as being aquatic, then this is not a fish. And if it's aquatic, what's the big deal about finding an aquatic fish?
Doesn't matter what we call it. It shares characteristics with both aquatic fish and land creatures.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

muffy wrote:
The bottom line is that I'm more confused than ever.
You say that as if it's supposed to be somebody else's problem.(shrug)
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter what we call it. It shares characteristics with both aquatic fish and land creatures.
So do salamanders. Why is this news?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
So do salamanders. Why is this news?
Then it's further evidence of a prediction made by evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong with excluding these land-living animals from "fish"? Plenty of other land-living animals are left out of that group even though they are closely related (more closely than other animals within that group). Why are sharks fish but newts not?
If we are to use your reasoning, whales would be fish and bats would be birds. Clearly they are not, so your reasoning fails.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Dec 5, 2013
 
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping there would be some kind of consensus or helpful explanation but I've not read any yet. Ok, maybe I'm dumb and it's really obvious but am I alone in thinking this is why lots of people are turned off science?
These fish represent an evolutionary step between fully aquatic and fully terrestrial. They don't need to live completely in the water, but they still need to be wet to survive.

Scientific explanations are rarely, if ever, simple... which is probably why many, many people are turned off to science. They've been conditioned their whole lives to believe something completely ambiguous and unsupportable like "god-did-it", as an acceptable answer to the difficult questions. Doing that leads them to not want to bother to learn things (science) that actually require them to develop the knowledge. Just my opinion
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it's further evidence of a prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicted the discovery of yet another fish that has no new characteristics? Good job science! Whatever next? I predict that a new beetle will be discovered within the next two months.
muffy

Macclesfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Dec 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If we are to use your reasoning, whales would be fish and bats would be birds. Clearly they are not, so your reasoning fails.
Why are sharks fish but whales not?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Dec 5, 2013
 
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are sharks fish but whales not?
Instead of constantly asking stupid questions and getting answers that you do not understand why not try to learn a bit about biology? If you are willing to watch a few videos I am sure that we could recommend some so that you could figure out the answers to these questions yourself.

Isn't that what you really want anyway?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••