Scientists discover the world's first known warm-blooded fis

[Audie]

The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie,

There you go again with your derogatory terms for Japanese.

Its descriptive of the knee jerks.

[jlay]

The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie,

There you go again with your derogatory terms for Japanese.

Its descriptive of the knee jerks.

Pot meet kettle. My snarky response was in fact calling out knee jerk responses, when bold, unverified claims of 'proof' come pouring out. My point is when there is some peer-reviewed research, then we can start asking whether this supports Darwinism.

[jlay]

I am interested to hear what members here think of biologos.org, who promote evolution and Christianity together and evolution doesn't disprove Christianity nor creation.

Evolution doesn't 'disprove' Christianity. Christianity isn't founded on scientific theories being true or untrue.
I think the term 'theistic evolution' is a logical absurdity. I'm not saying whether evolution (the theory of) is valid or not. What I'm saying is that I don't see some divine hand guiding. However, it is reasonable under Thomism that evolution can 'fit' God's causal plans.

When we discuss evolution, many in the Christian faith are trying to catch up and understand the terms. The area that concerns me is the issue of cloaking naturalism/materialism, which are world-views, under the guise of 'science.' Identifying the mechanisms (mutation, NS, etc.) in nature isn't really the question. The real issue is that body plans require data, and this data just happens to resemble things like binary code. Even if we assume the chemicals, which evolution must, how do we account for language/data, which is really metaphysical in nature? You simply cannot have body plans without this data. None of the known mechanisms can account for this. Those mechanisms can only act upon the data. Unless someone has some empirical (not speculation) data showing how a body plan or system can appear in nature.

[Audie]

The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie,

There you go again with your derogatory terms for Japanese.

Its descriptive of the knee jerks.

Pot meet kettle. My snarky response was in fact calling out knee jerk responses, when bold, unverified claims of 'proof' come pouring out. My point is when there is some peer-reviewed research, then we can start asking whether this supports Darwinism.

Show me someone who claims "proof" of a theory, and I will show you an idiot. Show us someone making this claim or accept that you are the one with unverified claims.


"Darwinism" btw is such a quaint term. Is that why you use it?

[jlay]

The headline is a bit misleading as endothermy has long been known in a variety of fish.

Such as is of interest and value in the article is in any case lost on those whose best response is some crude jape.

Audie,

There you go again with your derogatory terms for Japanese.

Its descriptive of the knee jerks.

Pot meet kettle. My snarky response was in fact calling out knee jerk responses, when bold, unverified claims of 'proof' come pouring out. My point is when there is some peer-reviewed research, then we can start asking whether this supports Darwinism.

Show me someone who claims "proof" of a theory, and I will show you an idiot. Show us someone making this claim or accept that you are the one with unverified claims.


"Darwinism" btw is such a quaint term. Is that why you use it?

It's one thing to mock or antagonize an article or idea. It is another to do so to a person. Perhaps you need to reevaluate why you are here.

FWIW, I'm well aware that science doesn't offer 'proofs.' I'm only using the term in a general sense, so perhaps you should take it up with those who rush to those conclusions and not the one who is pointing this out.

Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism is the term I use to make sure there is no doubt what I'm referring to. For example, I accept evolution; that being change in allele frequency in a population over time.

[Audie]

Show me who I "mocked" or an article I "antagonized". Show me someone rushing to a conclusion about this bit of fish news.

In the evaluation dept, figure if you have any reason to post something to me other than to express hostility.

I didnt think you could back up your claim about people claiming proof. Nor can you about "rushing to conclusions". Why say "proof" if you mean something else?

"Darwinism"..misuse of an obsolete term of dubious meaning is an odd way to clarify.

Lewis Carrol..

"When I sue a word, it means precisely what I say it means, neither more nor less".

[jlay]

Feel better?

[Audie]

Feel better?

My arent you clever. Hide your failure to deliver behind a snark about my emotional condition.

[PaulSacramento]

Would this support evolution or no since it's still a fish?

probably the source of the quote: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1046464 - added by a moderator

The opah, or moonfish, is an oval-shaped denizen of the deep that would appear to be sluggish, given its cold-water habitat and ungainly body design.

But new research by NOAA Fisheries reveals this beautifully colored creature to be “the first fully warm-blooded fish that circulates heated blood throughout its body much like mammals and birds, giving it a competitive advantage in the cold ocean depths.”

“Before this discovery I was under the impression that this was a slow-moving fish, like most other in the cold environments,” Nicholas Wegner, of NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Science Center in San Diego, said in a news release. “But because it can warm its body, it turns out to be a very active predator that chases down agile prey like squid, and can migrate long distances.”

Then opah’s unique gill design allows for a phenomenon known as “counter-current heat exchange,” which essentially involves warm blood leaving the body core to warm cold blood returning from the respiratory surface of the gills, where oxygen is absorbed.

If it can be shown that this fish evolved from another fish that did not have this ability then yes, this would prove A PART of evolution, that random mutations that are beneficial are passed on to the next generation and then, somehow, that generation or subsequent ones use that mutation to their benefit.
Unless of course it can be proved that it was NOT a random change but something else.
Of course this species may have been around for millions of years already and we have just discovered it now.