Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   Scientists did not kill the clam while looking at its age. We now return you back to the Daily Fail, where OhMaGerd is real news to them dammit   (news.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 12
    More: Followup, OhMaGerd, long-living organisms, James Scourse, Ming, Bangor University, Queen Elizabeth I, marine geologist  
•       •       •

8646 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2013 at 4:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-11-16 04:34:53 PM  
2 votes:
Oh good. The deniers are here.

You guys must have missed the part where they said that it was infinitesimally impossible for this particular clam to have been the oldest clam in the world.

But yes, this PROVES we should squeeze every last drop of oil out of the ground and burn it as fast as we possibly can... because reasons.
2013-11-16 04:28:27 PM  
2 votes:

BunkyBrewman: "This particular animal was..... collected live from the Icelandic shelf in 2006,"

So, in other words, they killed it.


Along with 199 others, for the purpose of studying 'AGW'.
2013-11-16 03:33:19 PM  
2 votes:
"This particular animal was..... collected live from the Icelandic shelf in 2006,"

So, in other words, they killed it.
2013-11-16 06:05:23 PM  
1 votes:
Scientists did not kill the clam while looking at its age.

Nope, they killed it when they captured it and froze it. Totally different.
2013-11-16 05:32:00 PM  
1 votes:

HotWingAgenda: All 200 clams were killed when they were frozen on board to take them home. They didn't find out how old Ming was until they were back in the lab and looked at its shell under a microscope.

"No u guyz, we're totes not to blame for this, we're jus like the guyz that cut down that redwood to cut its rings and then found out it was a hundred brazilian years old later."



If large redwoods were commonly used for firewood and no one cared, that might be analogous.
2013-11-16 05:24:33 PM  
1 votes:
Why does the headline mock the Daily Mail when TFA links to the Mirror?
2013-11-16 04:55:09 PM  
1 votes:

cretinbob: WTFDYW: Shell valves? WTF is that?

[visual.merriam-webster.com image 550x384]


files.sharenator.com
2013-11-16 04:51:48 PM  
1 votes:

here to help: Oh good. The deniers are here.

You guys must have missed the part where they said that it was infinitesimally impossible for this particular clam to have been the oldest clam in the world.

But yes, this PROVES we should squeeze every last drop of oil out of the ground and burn it as fast as we possibly can... because reasons.


Wow... a 3 sentence post, and being sarcastic about 3 things that no one is saying.
2013-11-16 04:50:03 PM  
1 votes:

here to help: Oh good. The deniers are here.

You guys must have missed the part where they said that it was infinitesimally impossible for this particular clam to have been the oldest clam in the world.

But yes, this PROVES we should squeeze every last drop of oil out of the ground and burn it as fast as we possibly can... because reasons.


you're a strange cat
2013-11-16 04:30:14 PM  
1 votes:

BunkyBrewman: "This particular animal was..... collected live from the Icelandic shelf in 2006,"

So, in other words, they killed it.


This
2013-11-16 04:28:03 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: BunkyBrewman: "This particular animal was..... collected live from the Icelandic shelf in 2006,"

So, in other words, they killed it.

From a 2007 story: The animal died when the researchers counted its rings.

So... yeah, I'd think so


Yeah, I can't find where N.G. explains how they did not kill the clam. Maybe they meant the freezing process was random so this was not a vendetta against elderly bivalves. But then isn't this a rather obvious example of how killing animals to study them is destructive? Not that, you know, a couple hundred years of killing animals to study them hasn't been proven to be a major (in many species of birds' cases the single), factor in human-caused extinctions before Global Warming was a thing.

I mean, I thought biologists are more enlightened and rational than this. I am disappointed.
2013-11-16 03:58:39 PM  
1 votes:

BunkyBrewman: "This particular animal was..... collected live from the Icelandic shelf in 2006,"

So, in other words, they killed it.


From a 2007 story: The animal died when the researchers counted its rings.

So... yeah, I'd think so
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report