Fish Facts You Probably Didn't Know

[Owlman]

Found this article, and it fascinated me. Just thought I'd share.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10..._of100461.html

[Polenciusz]

I have just found this, brilliant! thanks

[Dad_Scaper]

Not a good necro.

The link in the OP is to some anti-science claptrap. It's not worth revisiting.

[wriggz]

This is dangerous waters, but before anyone pulls out the anti-religion pitch forks consider the following:

Science is a method not belief systems. When you apply that method incorrectly, you open yourself up to criticism and out right refusal. It is not that people aren't listening, it is that the methods and conclusions are false within the system. Using Science to prove religion is not how science works. Science does not prove your conclusions, Conclusions are drawn from observations (you might start with a hypothesis, but this is a question not an answer.

It would not be fair for anyone to use scripture to disprove existence of God. That is not how religion works. Belittling someone's beliefs is unfair, but calling out Scientific Crap is fair game.

That article is Scientific Crap. Spreading it is like spreading crap everywhere.

[marrowick]

Originally Posted by wriggz

This is dangerous waters, but before anyone pulls out the anti-religion pitch forks consider the following:

Science is a method not belief systems. When you apply that method incorrectly, you open yourself up to criticism and out right refusal. It is not that people aren't listening, it is that the methods and conclusions are false within the system. Using Science to prove religion is not how science works. Science does not prove your conclusions, Conclusions are drawn from observations (you might start with a hypothesis, but this is a question not an answer.

It would not be fair for anyone to use scripture to disprove existence of God. That is not how religion works. Belittling someone's beliefs is unfair, but calling out Scientific Crap is fair game.

That article is Scientific Crap. Spreading it is like spreading crap everywhere.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, just to clarify, are you saying science doesn't connect with religion, and that they're completely separate?

[wriggz]

You can be Religious and Scientific. I don't see anything directly contradictory about holding faith in what cannot be proven and applying the scientific method to what can be. It is when you try to apply one to the other that we get into problems.

What I was trying to say is that a "scientist" is not necessarily welcome to walk into a Church and attempt to prove God does not exist. In church the Faith Argument is paramount.

In the same vain, the religious person cannot walk into a Science lab and use anything related to faith as their premise. If they do, they deserve to have their conclusions ripped apart. It just seems that people take that as attacking their religion (which is unfair), not their methods (which is fair). If one of your premises is predicated on "It says so in the <insert religious text here>" or "because I have faith" then your scientific investigation has ended.

[Dad_Scaper]

Mayim Bialik, on reconciling her pursuit of science with her faith:

Every time I fall more and more in love with science; with a scientific principle, with the human brain and the human capacity for compassion, with the anatomy of the eye and the way babies exit your body and make you feel like you finally understand the meaning of our existence; with the way your heart feels like it gets put in a blender when the person you’re in love with kisses you and holds you close; with the way every time I have some 40-year-old person ailment like my knees feeling weak and I get to learn how intricate the knee is; all of that stuff makes me feel part of a big, big world of existence. And it strengthens my understanding that I couldn’t create any of it even if I tried forever and into infinity. I can’t turn the tides and I can’t make gravity stop working. I can’t control the movement of subatomic particles and I can’t make someone love me if they don’t. I have no power over this Universe and that makes me love all of the things in the Universe and the powerlessness at the same time. And that’s what a scientist of faith looks like.

LINK

edit: I probably should include her conclusion.

Do people kill in the name of religion? Yes. Is religion patriarchal? Absolutely. Do religious people sometimes lie, cheat, and steal by hiding behind their religiosity? Yup. People mess up religion all the time. But that doesn’t change the rainbow; the beauty of DNA replication; the presence of taste receptors on the feet of houseflies; the rush of oxytocin we get during orgasm that makes us bond to mates so that we can raise babies together…

God’s got it figured out. The Universe has it all figured out. We’re just trying to catch up.

And that catching up is what we call our existence. And you know what? Everything is awesome.

You don't need to abuse science to have faith.

[Tornado]

Very cool DS.

Go Blossom!

[White Knight]

@wriggz and @Dad_Scaper
Did you guys read the same article I read?

The major topics:

1) The "lateral line" on fish converts subtle changes in water pressure to electrical signals.

2) Fish have a lot of muscle mass and the muscles are arranged in a very unique way.

3) Fish are more effective at delivering oxygen throughout their bodies than other animals.

4) Fish can regrow their teeth.

5) Electric eels can locate prey with their electrical sense.

6) A simple filtration system can reduce or eliminate toxins in water.

7) A new "fish canon" might help salmon get over dams.

Which of those topics is "anti-science claptrap"?

[Dad_Scaper]

Well, the headline is a clue:

More "Design of Life" Evidence: Salmon and Other Fish

And within:

You can shrug off that fish story about how it evolved.

A simple glance at the top of the page tells you the website is advocacy for "intelligent design."

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Debate? What debate?

So, yeah, just keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter. Have your faith; there's no need to pretend that it's science. I don't need to go point for point through this article like an ichthyologist to see that it's published in "some anti-science claptrap," as I wrote above.

But go ahead and cite it in your research papers, I don't care. It's not my business.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Well, the headline is a clue:

And within:

A simple glance at the top of the page tells you the website is advocacy for "intelligent design."

Debate? What debate?

So, yeah, just keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter. Have your faith; there's no need to pretend that it's science. I don't need to go point for point through this article like an ichthyologist to see that it's published in "some anti-science claptrap," as I wrote above.

But go ahead and cite it in your research papers, I don't care. It's not my business.

I still don't understand. I didn't mention faith in my post at all. I listed 7 scientific topics. The headline and that one sentence have nothing to do with the scientific claims of the article. Take them out and you change none of the facts.

But it seems like you are suggesting that the scientific facts stated about those 7 topics I mentioned are incorrect. I'd like to ask you show me one topic from the article that gets the scientific facts wrong or is anti-science or bad science.

Or to put the question this way: If the title of the article were changed to "Facts about Fish" and that one sentence you mentioned was deleted, would it still "anti-science claptrap"?

[TREX]

Chocolate, and peanut butter, dang it. Thanks guys, now I want a Reese's. Carry on fellas.