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.

(LA Times)   Elephant shark beats out viewers of Duck Dynasty for "least evolved species"   (latimes.com) divider line 27
    More: Interesting, vertebrates, genomes, elephant shark, living fossils, base pairs, bony fishes, bone formation, Coelacanth  
•       •       •

3327 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jan 2014 at 10:27 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-10 08:34:43 AM  
Seems pretty advanced to me.

nb9.stumbleupon.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-01-10 10:34:29 AM  
The only thing worse than the viewers is the people who insist on bringing it up constantly in completely unrelated circumstances.
 
2014-01-10 10:38:49 AM  
No it was a tie. God made all creatures in their present form. None of them have ever evolved and evolution is a hoax pulled by the Debil to distract you from your God-given right to marry 14 year olds.
 
2014-01-10 10:40:35 AM  
This sentiment will likely fill the topic, but just to throw it out there:

There is no such thing as a "least evolved" species, because that suggests that evolution is a process with a path and direction. The article uses the more correct "slowly evolved" to describe elephant sharks.
 
2014-01-10 10:44:48 AM  
It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.
 
2014-01-10 10:45:35 AM  
But... but... but....

I don't evolve IRONICALLY.... so that actually makes it cool.
 
2014-01-10 10:49:58 AM  
You know, articles like this kind of annoy me. It's just as evolved as every other critter on the planet. It's just very well suited for its environment, and the design works, and has worked for millions of years. Evolution isn't a race, it's not a design contest, and articles like this only reinforce the idea that critters HAVE to change over time. The organisms that survive to pass on their genes is the only rule. Not "more advanced" or "less" but which critters and plants succeed. Worms today are the most badass, advanced, and successful multicelluar critters on the planet, and they haven't needed to change overly much for a long while. New species rise when mutations crop up and succeed, or traits form up, and give an edge to the competition, and those traits continue to give an edge so that succeeding generations pass those traits on.

Not every variation is a winner. Sometimes, and in fact, most times, being different than the rest is NOT advantageous for reproduction. Especially in species that reproduce sexually. Difference means something is not right, and that doesn't bode well for viability in the long term. There's a reason for all sorts of mating behaviors--and that is to pass a damn test to see if they're the right species, as well as being able to invest time and energy to mating behaviors that take time and effort to pull off which show viability--and most of that is to reinforce that the right critters will pass on those genes, and not some crazy quilt of variation that might possibly work, or very possibly not.

These sharks are still the most advanced of that design. They just well adapted to that environment, and those critters that varied enough and were viable evolved to new niches, and the original populations, they stayed fair the same, because there was no pressure to select any other traits. But they are still the most advanced of their design that have ever been. They've millions of years of evolution to back up the design, and if the design hasn't changed over much for that long, it's pretty well adapted to its role and environment.
 
2014-01-10 10:51:44 AM  

Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.


So there's no hope for DD Viewers. Got it.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:53 AM  

Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.


It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.
 
2014-01-10 11:30:28 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.


That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:48 AM  
Relevant for any Duck Dynasty thread:

Duck Decoy
 
2014-01-10 11:40:08 AM  
I put this to you:  the elephant shark is neither an elephant, nor is it a shark. It is a rat fish.

Actually, it is a sniveling little rat-faced fish that looks like somebody tore up a vinyl purse. Not one of God's greater ideas, which is probably why he never worked on it again.

See Oolon Colluphid's book Some More of God's Stupid Little Mistakes for the nasty details of other unevolved species such as the cockroach, the shark, and man.
 
2014-01-10 12:21:11 PM  

brantgoose: I put this to you:  the elephant shark is neither an elephant, nor is it a shark. It is a rat fish.

Actually, it is a sniveling little rat-faced fish that looks like somebody tore up a vinyl purse. Not one of God's greater ideas, which is probably why he never worked on it again.

See Oolon Colluphid's book Some More of God's Stupid Little Mistakes for the nasty details of other unevolved species such as the cockroach, the shark, and man.


Are you one of my alts?
 
2014-01-10 12:21:32 PM  

Diogenes: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.

That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.


You assume that we are the most highly evolved species.  As I recall, we're not.
 
2014-01-10 12:51:16 PM  
You saw what those viewers did to cracker barrell and A&E....  might want to hold your snark.

/ alot of them dont get snark.
 
2014-01-10 01:03:52 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.

That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.

You assume that we are the most highly evolved species.  As I recall, we're not.


I'm really deferring to the common assumption.

All I'm saying is that "more evolved" and "less evolved" are fine as measurements (although I don't know what you use as a baseline).  I just wouldn't ascribe any value to those measurements.
 
2014-01-10 01:03:58 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.

That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.

You assume that we are the most highly evolved species.  As I recall, we're not.


upload.wikimedia.org
This flower has the largest confirmed genome on Earth, roughly 50 times as large as our own.
 
2014-01-10 01:13:53 PM  
Aren't sharks in general millions of years old and just don't need to evolve anymore?
 
2014-01-10 01:14:48 PM  
Dang, I had money on Louie Gohmert.
 
2014-01-10 01:19:43 PM  

Grungehamster: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.

That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.

You assume that we are the most highly evolved species.  As I recall, we're not.


This flower has the largest confirmed genome on Earth, roughly 50 times as large as our own.


No fair with including plants, they can handle polyploid situations waaaay better than the other kingdoms.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:50 PM  

Grungehamster: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: Mr. Eugenides: Diogenes: It makes no sense to put a value judgement on stuff like this.

If a species perfects its adaptation to its environment early on in its development, it is not lesser evolved.

It does make perfect sense.  Less evolved simply means less adaptation and fewer changes/additions to DNA.  This is very useful from an analytical standpoint since the DNA hasn't changed significantly since it branched off from sister species giving insight into what DNA looked like in the distant past.

That seems like blaming the species for not needing to add further adaptations because the environment in which it exists doesn't present the challenges necessary.

And what does that say for species that are over-engineered?  Look at how much junk DNA we're carrying around.

You assume that we are the most highly evolved species.  As I recall, we're not.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]
This flower has the largest confirmed genome on Earth, roughly 50 times as large as our own.


I think DNA size and complexity needs to be measured against degree/range of adaptability.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:53 PM  

Bonzo_1116: No fair with including plants, they can handle polyploid situations waaaay better than the other kingdoms.


Fine. Behold the most evolved of the Animalia, the marbled lung fish!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_lungfish
 
2014-01-10 01:29:26 PM  
It just occurred to me that DNA size may itself be an adaptation.

/own mind, blown
 
2014-01-10 02:04:49 PM  

Diogenes: It just occurred to me that DNA size may itself be an adaptation.

/own mind, blown


Our own is remarkably tiny, compared to some ostensibly "simpler" organisms:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml

And ours keeps getting smaller:

http://www.businessinsider.com/humans-may-have-fewer-genes-than-worm s- 2014-1

All I know is that irrespective of our superficial differences, thanks to things like the Toba event, we may be all fifth cousins.
 
2014-01-10 07:37:45 PM  
It seems like the number of genomes is a really poor metric to gauge "complexity", especially in regard to things like necessary degree of need for adaptability. One fungus species branching off into a new one may not be a huge step, but if that new species gets the environmental pressures to start digesting wood, then it becomes a massive step (like what happened many hundreds of millions of years ago).

/Assuming, of course, that evolution isn't a trick by the devil
//Which is totally is
 
2014-01-10 08:14:24 PM  
Wouldn't the elephant shark be the most perfectly evolved animal on the planet instead of its least evolved?

It nailed its niche the first time around.
 
2014-01-11 01:43:26 PM  
I suppose we can put ol' Phil up on a cross now and stick a spear in him since he's the new martyr for the Christian Right.  Last year, it was the Chick-Fil-A Chicken being branded as the new saint of Christianity for standing up for all that is Holy Matrimony in the eyes of the Church.  These folks want to be on the wrong side of history with their public criticism of homosexuality but cry fowl (pardon the pun) when their own bigotry is examined in a public light.  Phil's licking his fingers at   http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cro s s-chick-fil.html
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report