Fisherman catches 'living fossil'

[soblessed53]

'Scientists' previously thought the fish group had died out about 70 million years ago, but were shocked when in 1938 a species was caught in a fishing net off the east coast of Africa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6925784.stm

 

[Billnew]

That is one ugly fish.
But I guess I won't look to good when I am 70
milllllion years old.

 

[TheReasoner]

Fascinating.

Why the ' s?

 

[Billnew]

Fascinating.

Why the ' s?

Is that why the L's?

To emphasize the long time ago.
(NEC believer)
But lets just stay on the topic of this ugly fish.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Living fossil is an oxymoron

 

[TheReasoner]

Is that why the L's?

To emphasize the long time ago.
(NEC believer)
But lets just stay on the topic of this ugly fish.

she wrote 'scientists'. Why the ' s?

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

she wrote 'scientists'. Why the ' s?

because it was the view held by multiple scientists?

 

[TheReasoner]

because it was the view held by multiple scientists?

It seems more like "scientists" to me.

 

[trunks2k]

Why is this news? The Coelacanth has been known to still exist for a while now, even if they are very rare. But still the modern day Coelacanth is not the same as the ones 70million years ago. It's no more a "living fossil" than a crocodile or a shark.

 

[Sphere]

if Australians and Americans came from Europe, why are Europeans still around?

 

[Billnew]

if Australians and Americans came from Europe, why are Europeans still around?

Not sure of what your asking, but how about:
So we can see how much better we are?

We migrated from Europe, we didn't evolve.
Is that your comparison?

 

[Lynden1000]

she wrote 'scientists'. Why the ' s?

The obvious implication is that because the scientists were previously incorrect, they must not have been real scientists, hence the use of quotation marks around "scientists."

 

[Dannager]

Yes, because real scientists are faultless and never make mistakes and any scientists who have to change their conclusions later are worthless, right?

 

[platzapS]

This was just the biggest one yet found. It's been known that coelocanths aren't extinct since the first ones were caught in the 1930s, I think.

 

[soblessed53]

she wrote 'scientists'. Why the ' s?

because it was the view held by multiple scientists?

It seems more like "scientists" to me.

The obvious implication is that because the scientists were previously incorrect, they must not have been real scientists, hence the use of quotation marks around "scientists."

Yes, because real scientists are faultless and never make mistakes and any scientists who have to change their conclusions later are worthless, right?

ROTFL, I just thought it was hilarious that these brains as usual, were wrong again,by 70 MILLION years,ROTFL!

Since then, more than 300 of the modern coelacanth species (Latimeria chalumnae) have been found in the waters around the Comoros Islands, which are situated in the Western Indian Ocean, and the eastern coast of Africa.

However, scientists were surprised once again when a coelacanth was discovered thousands of kilometres away in Indonesia in 1998.

It looked similar to the coelacanths found near Africa, but genetic analysis revealed that the genomes differed by about 3.5%, and it was described as a new species called Latimeria menadoensis.

Scientists are as credible as politicians!

 

[Carbon 5]

Scientists are as credible as politicians!

Given your distrust in scientists, I'm sure you are following suit and ceasing to utilize those items and processes based off of their research? That should include just about, oh,...everything?

 

[RacismIsBad]

The ignorance in this thread is baffling. The ocean is vast and much of it is still unexplored. New things are being discovered all the time and as time goes on, this will increase more.

Scientists used to think protons, neutrons, and electrons were the smallest particles. As time went on, they learned that there are subatomic particles. The old scientists were "wrong," but that doesn't negate their study.

Before the 1930's coelacanths were thought to be extinct until one was caught. This is understandable considering the lack of deep sea expeditions. Now over 300 species have been found in specific regions of the ocean and sea. Consequently, it was thought that these species of fish lived in these regions. When you find another species of this fish in a new region, that is a new and astounding discovery. What's wrong with that?

Please tell me why are scientists put in quotes for gaining knowledge? This is one of those threads that make you go . I don't understand the point trying to be made. Are all new discoveries suddenly a bad thing? Is Isaac Newton a "scientist" because Newtonian physics fails in some cases?

 

[Dannager]

ROTFL, I just thought it was hilarious that these brains as usual, were wrong again,by 70 MILLION years,ROTFL!

Since then, more than 300 of the modern coelacanth species (Latimeria chalumnae) have been found in the waters around the Comoros Islands, which are situated in the Western Indian Ocean, and the eastern coast of Africa.

However, scientists were surprised once again when a coelacanth was discovered thousands of kilometres away in Indonesia in 1998.

It looked similar to the coelacanths found near Africa, but genetic analysis revealed that the genomes differed by about 3.5%, and it was described as a new species called Latimeria menadoensis.

Scientists are as credible as politicians!

Stop it.

Get off your anti-intellectual high horse.

You're not a scientist. You wouldn't last five minutes in any of those fields.

You have no idea of the rigors required of the scientific community for anything published to be considered credible.

Saying they were off by 70 million years is framing it in the worst way possible solely for the sake of making scientists look bad.

It's disingenuous and really, really not the sort of thing I would expect from someone making an attempt to display intellectual honesty.

If you hate scientists because they shot your dog or something, then tell us and then get off the computer those scientists gave you. But if this sort of ridiculous vitriol is based off nothing more than a desire to smear anyone who disagrees with you, then cut it out. It's transparent and petty.

 

[CGL]

Quite the oxymoron.

 

[TheReasoner]

The ignorance in this thread is baffling. The ocean is vast and much of it is still unexplored. New things are being discovered all the time and as time goes on, this will increase more.

Scientists used to think protons, neutrons, and electrons were the smallest particles. As time went on, they learned that there are subatomic particles. The old scientists were "wrong," but that doesn't negate their study.

Before the 1930's coelacanths were thought to be extinct until one was caught. This is understandable considering the lack of deep sea expeditions. Now over 300 species have been found in specific regions of the ocean and sea. Consequently, it was thought that these species of fish lived in these regions. When you find another species of this fish in a new region, that is a new and astounding discovery. What's wrong with that?

Please tell me why are scientists put in quotes for gaining knowledge? This is one of those threads that make you go . I don't understand the point trying to be made. Are all new discoveries suddenly a bad thing? Is Isaac Newton a "scientist" because Newtonian physics fails in some cases?

REPS!