Inflatable Shark Among 300 New Species Discovered in Philippines

[neshem]

---

A treasure trove of hundreds of new species may have been discovered in the Philippines, including a bizarre sea star that feeds exclusively on sunken driftwood and a deep-sea, shrimp-eating shark that swells up to scare off other predators.

In fact, the researchers suggest the waters of the Philippines may house more species than any other marine environment on Earth. The deep-water channel they sampled is nutrient-rich, allowing life to flourish, and has existed for about 60 million years, giving species a great deal of time to evolve. "All of those factors together have led to the high diversity," Gosliner told LiveScience.

Inflatable Shark Among 300 New Species Discovered in Philippines - Yahoo! News


maayo unta ma discover una before ma extinct..

[observer]

If you wear your science hat on, news like this asks a very fundamental question: What do we observe about the history of the living world, even as it unfolds within our own lifetimes? Do we see constancy or evolution?

I submit that the evidence points to the latter as being the case. The word "evolve" just means gradual change, as one adapts to (or gets whittled off) the demands of the environment. For example, we use the word "evolve" in this sentence: The business of Dell Computers evolved from a hobby to giant corporation. For the most part, "change" means taking on new traits/characteristics that's either "good" or "bad". "Bad" traits would make that entity unfit for the pressures applied to it, while "good" traits would make that entity thrive and thus continue. In Dell's case, it took on the rare trait (at least in the PC business at that time) of a direct seller (cutting off the middleman). They were a booming success then..of course, now, I'm not sure how they're doing as a business. In a fast changing environment, it's not very predictable how evolution would proceed.

Why do I say that the evidence points to evolution rather than the constancy of species? Well, for one, we don't observe constancy in the fossil record. The scientific consensus would state that species appear at different time frames in our geological history. Homo sapiens didn't roam with the dinosaurs. Kangaroos were not hopping around in the pre-Cambrian. And certainly, our pesky domestic cats weren't scrounging for leftovers during the Ice Age. Secondly, the power of artificial selection has shown us the diversity of breeds that can be derived from a single species. Think about the variety of domestic dogs we have available, from the tiny Chihuahua to the spotted Dalmatian to the huge Great Dane; all that variety can be traced to a single wolf ancestor and all happened within the time frame of a few hundred years. Natural selection is more uncontrolled and therefore can allow just about any variation.

The most difficult part in thinking about evolution is two-fold: one is about thinking in terms of billions of years and the other is about transforming from one species to another. It's the latter that seems unbelievable (or even laughable) to the uninitiated. But then again, nothing in science is intuitive or common sense. It was common sense that told us that the earth was flat and all celestial objects revolved around it. That fact by itself should tell you why one needs to wear a "science hat" on in order to understand what science posits.

In the evolution of the living world, the first thing to make clear is that evolution means change in a population's gene pool, not an individual's genetic lineage changing over time. And this population must be split and separated by geography, either by migration or environmental separation, in order to assure distinct gene flows and different selection pressures. Anyway, my point is not to go into academic detail on what evolution is but to get the mindset right when we try to understand these things. Otherwise, I'd have to copy-and-paste a whole book here.

Common objections you hear about evolution---"We don't see cats turning into dogs" or "If ever a monkey gives birth to a human, then we'll believe you"---are obviously scientifically flawed. It's like saying that "I'd believe a twig came from stem, if I'd see a twig become a stem." The common objection to evolution, I think, lies in the "unbelievability" of natural processes to produce variety in life, from plants to worms to insects to sea creatures to mammals. But that would be like saying that DNA cannot produce wings, teeth, hair, fins, fish scales, leaves, tree bark, bones, etc. Obviously, it's not in doubt that DNA processes operate in all living things.

What really nailed it for Evolution as the force driving the history of life is the evidence from genome sequencing. The existence of vestigial genes (de-activated genes that used to serve a purpose in our ancestors...like protein-smelling sensors that exists in reptiles are found in human genomes, indicating a relationship with common distant ancestor) sealed the deal for me...unless of course new evidence arises that will turn the paradigm upside down.

* My apologies if the stuff I posted is irrelevant. I hope it has some academic value to some readers, not to impose this view as a dogma or anything. I'd rather post this stuff in the Science section, to avoid needless and pointless arguments as it usually does.

[rodsky]

* My apologies if the stuff I posted is irrelevant. I hope it has some academic value to some readers, not to impose this view as a dogma or anything. I'd rather post this stuff in the Science section, to avoid needless and pointless arguments as it usually does.

On the contrary, these are the sort of discussions we need to see more in this section of iStorya.net. IMHO you should be writing for a journal on popular science, great stuff there. Thanks for sharing your insights.

And don't worry about the troublemakers--they will be dealt with accordingly.

-RODION

[neshem]

nice share observer..

"The scientific consensus would state that species appear at different time frames in our geological history."

[elvandesantos]

there you go. we need more intelligent comment once in a while sir O.]

if you dont mind sir O, if you have blogs or something can you give us links. love to read your work.

i wonder how those new species taste like

[juck401]

Another discovery.. I bet there are way more species yet to be discovered through the years..

[jangska]

daghan pa jud soon ma discover nga new species nya bago sa pananaw sa science.

[vladmire]

unsa kahay next sa inflatable shark? ,,, hmm.. basin balloon shark..

[AiRHeAd]

hahahaha. inflatable lagi. haha

[THE SKULLS]

breeding suguro ni sa botete ug iho..