LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Science: Behold the Mother Fish

Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:14:33 pm PDT

An extraordinary fossil discovery in Australia reveals a fish with live offspring attached by an umbilical cord—dating to 380 million years ago, making it the oldest example of vertebrate live birth on record. Scientists at the Museum of Victoria have dubbed her Materpiscis attenboroughi, or “mother fish.”

Here’s the Museum Victoria news release page on this discovery, with some interesting videos.

Today the team announced its latest discovery: a remarkable 380 million year old fossil placoderm fish with intact embryo and mineralised umbilical cord.

The discovery, published in Nature and one of the most significant ever made by Australian scientists, makes the fossil the world’s oldest known vertebrate mother. It also provides the earliest evidence of vertebrate sexual reproduction, wherein the males (which possessed clasping organs similar to modern sharks and rays) internally fertilised females.

This fossil has been named Materpiscis attenboroughi, meaning ‘mother fish’, in honour of Sir David Attenborough, who first drew attention to the significance of the Gogo sites in his 1979 series Life on Earth.

Armour-plated shark-like fishes with no modern relatives, a second placoderm specimen containing three embryos was found earlier in 1986 and only recently recognised. These embryos also provided the first data on their developmental biology, indicating the early sequence of bone formation in the placoderm’s growth stages.

Studied using an ultra-fine CT scanner at the Australian National University in Canberra, such extraordinary preservation in such an old fossil is unprecedented. The team had also previously announced the first 3-D preserved muscle, nerve and circulatory tissues in a Devonian age (380 million year old) fish in 2007 paper in Biology Letters.

Advertisement

160 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 goddessoftheclassroom  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:16:18pm

That is so cool.

2 EC Marm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:16:35pm

380 million year old fossil?
That's like 5,800 years ago, right?
/YEC mode off

3 hermeneutics  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:16:57pm

How do they date something so old? That's amazing.

4 Bob in Breckenridge  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:17:51pm

re: #3 hermeneutics

How do they date something so old? That's amazing.

/Reminds me of my ex...

5 Sizzlack  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:02pm

That is rather freaky I must say.

6 Lucius Septimius  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:21pm

Way cool!

7 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:22pm

"wherein the males (which possessed clasping organs similar to modern sharks and rays) internally fertilised females"

Wow, I wish we never lost this trait.

8 ointmentfly  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:22pm

Any freakin' oil underneath it?

9 FrogMarch  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:34pm
10 hermeneutics  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:47pm

re: #4 Bob in Breckenridge

/Reminds me of my ex...

Ha ha ha ha ... too funny. No wonder you live in Breckenridge where at least a few of the women are attractive.

11 nihilist  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:18:55pm

Further evidence of intelligent design.

12 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:19:41pm
13 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:21:11pm
14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:21:18pm

OH COME ON NOW!

That picture is obviously a photoshop.

Wheres the math?

/

15 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:21:19pm

re: #2 EC Marm

380 million year old fossil?
That's like 5,800 years ago, right?
/YEC mode off


More like 54 years ago of you do the math.

16 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:21:27pm

Charles,

Can I get 1/2 tip for the other link?

17 Cartman  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:21:52pm

I wonder how it would have tasted on the grill.

18 WhiteRasta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:22:03pm

Wow! Gotta love science!

19 littleoldlady  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:22:05pm

WOW! An attached umbilical cord, just like me and meannastyteenager.

/we haven't been doing it for 380 millions years, of course.
//it just feels that way.

;-)

20 Lucius Septimius  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:22:25pm
The team had also previously announced the first 3-D preserved muscle, nerve and circulatory tissues in a Devonian age (380 million year old) fish in 2007 paper in Biology Letters.

This part is really fascinating -- for years we had no way of examining or even recognizing in most cases the remnants of soft tissues.

21 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:22:34pm
22 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:22:50pm

re: #17 Cartman

I wonder how it would have tasted on the grill.

Mom's kinda tough and stringy, the baby is tender if marinated in lemon. Grandpa told me.
/

23 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:23:44pm

re: #16 NonNativeTexan

Charles,

Can I get 1/2 tip for the other link?

Shave and a haircut...2 bits.

24 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:23:50pm
25 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:24:59pm

re: #23 ted

Shave and a haircut...2 bits.


1 bit. (not much hair on top) But I'll take the shave

26 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:25:42pm
27 kevinmumaw  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:25:53pm

I think I saw this fish somewhere before...one of Zombie's exposes. It was wearing pink.

28 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:26:20pm

re: #24 taxfreekiller

Why do rabbits evolve with two big ears when one real big one would save space.

Think stereo.... You lose depth perception with one eye ...same with hearing.

29 nextstopmars  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:26:30pm

What, no abortion clinics back then? Didn't she have the right to choose?

/duck!

30 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:26:33pm
31 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:27:16pm
32 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:27:19pm

re: #29 nextstopmars

/duck!

No, its a fish

33 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:27:31pm
34 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:27:35pm

re: #24 taxfreekiller

Why do rabbits evolve with two big ears when one real big one would save space.

Because Playboy Bunnies would look silly with only one big ear on their heads.

35 jaunte  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:28:02pm

re: #34 MandyManners

Leela in Futurama comes to mind.

36 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:28:24pm

re: #34 MandyManners

Because Playboy Bunnies would look silly with only one big ear on their heads.

Playboy bunnies have ears?

37 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:28:49pm
38 yochanan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:28:59pm

no comment yet

39 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:00pm

re: #36 NonNativeTexan

Playboy bunnies have ears?

And eyes.

40 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:03pm

re: #34 MandyManners

Because Playboy Bunnies would look silly with only one big ear on their heads.

Right..that too.

41 mbruce  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:13pm

re: #17 Cartman

I wonder how it would have tasted on the grill.

Sushify it !

42 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:23pm

re: #35 jaunte

Leela in Futurama comes to mind.

I've seen enough of that to know that The Kid shouldn't watch it.

43 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:23pm

New fossils seem to keep being discovered, regularly. I've seen a few people try to argue that the fossil record has "missing" pieces and it doesn't really show what it shows - well, new discoveries will fill in those missing pieces, I'm sure.

44 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:46pm

re: #39 MandyManners

And eyes.

And reproductive organs.

45 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:29:54pm
46 NoSpam  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:08pm

I saw this. It reminds me of the fossilized dinosaur that was found inside the remains of another, larger dinosaur.

/mmm...dinosaur....

47 MandyManners  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:44pm

re: #40 ted

Yours makes more sense.

48 itellu3times  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:47pm

In the late Devouring period, fish became obnoxious.

49 Cartman  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:51pm

Speaking of science:

"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual," Hansen continues. "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

- Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Sheesh.

50 asshander  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:56pm

re: #34 MandyManners

Because Playboy Bunnies would look silly with only one big ear on their heads.

After much consideration...no they would not.

51 jaunte  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:30:59pm

re: #42 MandyManners

Yes, it's not really a kid's show.

52 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:31:15pm

re: #46 NoSpam

I saw this. It reminds me of the fossilized dinosaur that was found inside the remains of another, larger dinosaur.

/mmm...dinosaur....

Sorta like a Turdunken.

53 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:31:44pm

re: #47 MandyManners

Yours makes more sense.

True.

54 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:31:51pm
55 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:32:09pm

re: #43 reine.de.tout

New fossils seem to keep being discovered, regularly. I've seen a few people try to argue that the fossil record has "missing" pieces and it doesn't really show what it shows - well, new discoveries will fill in those missing pieces, I'm sure.

Indeed- I was just thinking along those lines. Instead of "filling a gap", the YEC will simply claim there are two new gaps. Sad.

56 looking closely  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:32:25pm

re: #43 reine.de.tout

New fossils seem to keep being discovered, regularly. I've seen a few people try to argue that the fossil record has "missing" pieces and it doesn't really show what it shows - well, new discoveries will fill in those missing pieces, I'm sure.


Probably not.

Since fossilization can only occur under certain non-constant circumstances, the the fossil record is necessarily incomplete.

There will always be gaps.

57 ted  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:32:31pm

re: #49 Cartman

Speaking of science:

- Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Sheesh.

What a schmuck.

58 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:32:40pm

MOAF

59 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:33:30pm
60 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:33:35pm

re: #36 NonNativeTexan

Playboy bunnies have ears?

What have you been looking at young man?

61 Lucius Septimius  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:33:41pm

Time to start wrangling the younglings into bed. Later, all.

62 ceemack  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:13pm

re: #34 MandyManners

Because Playboy Bunnies would look silly with only one big ear on their heads.


Yeah, right...as if we ever even notice the ears.

63 NoSpam  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:21pm

re: #49 Cartman


I'm constantly surrounded by PhD's and I've always had a feeling that if you were to somehow plot the number of degrees a person has versus their common sense, there would be an inverse correlation.

There are plenty of brilliant PhD's who are completly awesome, but there are far too many who say things like this...And unfortunately, because they are PhD's and are therefore 'Smart,' nobody tries to smack some sense into them.

64 gopninja  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:22pm

you left out the part that its 380 million years in discovery time, which makes it officially 10,000 years old

65 jaunte  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:25pm

1,000th of a mm CT slices is pretty fine. Have to throw out the frog hair metaphor.

66 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:42pm

re: #60 jcm

What have you been looking at young man?

Obviously, not the ears

67 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:34:54pm
68 NoSpam  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:35:01pm

re: #52 ted

Sorta like a Turdunken.


I didn't think of it that way, but that makes it even cooler.

69 Wendya  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:35:06pm

Cries of anti-Christian bigotry in 10...9...8...7...

70 ceemack  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:35:13pm

re: #39 MandyManners

And eyes.


No i's...mostly c's and d's.

71 itellu3times  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:36:07pm

Natural Selection
First published Sat 7 Jun, 2008

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provided the first, and only, causal-mechanistic account of the existence of adaptations in nature. As such, it provided the first, and only, scientific alternative to the “argument from design”. That alone would account for its philosophical significance. But the theory also raises other philosophical questions not encountered in the study of the theories of physics. Unfortunately the concept of natural selection is intimately intertwined with the other basic concepts of evolutionary theory—such as the concepts of fitness and adaptation—that are themselves philosophically controversial. Fortunately we can make considerable headway in getting clear on natural selection without solving all of those outstanding problems.
...

72 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:36:47pm
73 irongrampa  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:37:26pm

Fascinating . several years ago, i spent some time cleaning the spinal vertebrae of a Stegosaurus while on a vacation in Colorado.

Dinos have always been a point of interest, how neat it would be to observe them in their natural habitta (from a safe distance, of course).

74 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:37:35pm
75 reine.de.tout  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:38:31pm

re: #56 looking closely

Probably not.

Since fossilization can only occur under certain non-constant circumstances, the the fossil record is necessarily incomplete.

There will always be gaps.

Yes, of course. When one gap is filled, it leaves 2 gaps.
See:
:re: #55 Sharmuta

Indeed- I was just thinking along those lines. Instead of "filling a gap", the YEC will simply claim there are two new gaps. Sad.

My comment was directed to a few folks who have tried to claim that the fossil record is not evidence that life has evolved BECAUSE it contains gaps. New things are being found all the time, but there will always be, as you say, gaps.

76 kansas  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:16pm

I'm guessing this thread will get over 1000 reponses before it starts to wear down. The IDers will be all worked up.

77 me  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:21pm

next thing you know someone will claim that the fossil actually spells alaah or mahomud.

78 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:26pm
79 jaunte  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:38pm

re: #72 taxfreekiller

Maybe, not enough room for processing?
[Link: www.skidmore.edu...]

80 Syrah  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:41pm

re: #72 taxfreekiller

So, as the ambush is a human deal from the dark time,

why are there no eyes in the back of our f'n heads yet?

More important than the eyes is the wit to not get ambushed in the first place.

The dumb ones died. Failed to reproduce.

The smart ones eventually ran out of easy targets to ambush.

81 asshander  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:39:54pm

re: #71 itellu3times

re: #71 itellu3times

Natural Selection
First published Sat 7 Jun, 2008

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provided the first, and only, causal-mechanistic account of the existence of adaptations in nature. As such, it provided the first, and only, scientific alternative to the “argument from design”. That alone would account for its philosophical significance. But the theory also raises other philosophical questions not encountered in the study of the theories of physics. Unfortunately the concept of natural selection is intimately intertwined with the other basic concepts of evolutionary theory—such as the concepts of fitness and adaptation—that are themselves philosophically controversial. Fortunately we can make considerable headway in getting clear on natural selection without solving all of those outstanding problems.
...

Please explain for a simple guy like me what you are trying to say.

82 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:40:13pm
83 nyc redneck  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:40:39pm

some of those fish from the devonian were 30 ft. long and armored like a tank. they ruled the seas for millions of yrs. how interesting to think that some gave birth to live young. and could have ventured onto land.
i love fossils.

84 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:42:10pm
85 irongrampa  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:43:38pm

Great place to visit, if you're near enough is the Chicago Museum of Natural History. We saw the T-Rex Sue there in her debut--what an awesome, terrifying creature.

86 Muadib  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:43:40pm

re: #72 taxfreekiller

So, as the ambush is a human deal from the dark time,

why are there no eyes in the back of our f'n heads yet?

Give it time. See what happens.

87 asshander  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:44:36pm

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

Shout out to all the creationoids lurking:

G-d created fossilization to show us the true extent of the wonders of His creation, and left the gaps in the fossil record open to permit both faith and knowledge to work in harmony.

Those of you who refuse to see and understand the true wonder of the divine process are blaspheming against faith, and against the intelligence G-d gave you.


Thanks for your MERE opinion....

88 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:45:17pm
89 Purple Prose  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:47:12pm

Materpiscis attenboroughi could eat a dozen Vero possumus for breakfast and think nothing of it.

90 pygmalienation  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:47:39pm

Wow! Really cool discovery. Lessee, 380 mya would be early Devonian--about the time sharks were getting going and the sharks were definately an intelligent design in that they have'nt changed much since then.
OT-
Gotta love those Aussies! Got tix to see Tommy Emmanuel. Thanks for tipping me off to THAT guy, Charles!

91 moonstone  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:48:48pm

My basic problem with this -- with many scientific discoveries -- is that I no longer trust "scientists." They all have an agenda, even if it's just further grant dollars. There have been so many "studies" and "discoveries" and outright lies by scientists; e.g. Jim Hanson, that were later questioned, amended or disproven outright that I now take it all with a large grain of salt.

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

92 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:49:22pm

re: #89 Purple Prose

Materpiscis attenboroughi could eat a dozen Vero possumus for breakfast and think nothing of it.

But it got severe indigestion when it did.

93 itellu3times  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:52:19pm

re: #81 asshander

re: #71 itellu3times
Please explain for a simple guy like me what you are trying to say.

Just citing a technical article that shows what a full-on academic debate about the ins and outs of evolution looks like.

Pretty good reason to avoid such discussions, unless you're seriously into it.

Near the end:

Change in evolution is a heterogeneous category.

Well then!

I've only scanned the article, I'm not sure it really *says* anything new, it's an encyclopedia article that just tries to recite stuff in good order.

94 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:53:06pm

Which wallet is his?
-- The one that has Bad Mother Fish on it

95 Wm T Sherman  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 5:58:49pm

re: #3 hermeneutics

How do they date something so old? That's amazing.


Radioisotope decay is one way. Different radioisotopes are used for different timescales. Potassium-argon could be used for something that old. I'm not an expert -- it's not necessarily straightforward, since the argon isotope accumulation occurs in rocks, and accumulation begins with solidification of melted rock. If there is no solidified rock near the fossil, additional measures are needed. Strata can be matched at different locations on earth - solidified lava somewhere on earth in a matching stratum can date the layer. There are events such as large meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions that have periodically left distinctive layers of dust over the entire earth at known dates in the past (rock was melted and dispersed at the time of the event, allowing isotope dating). There is also an accumulation of knowledge about when particular species of plants and animals existed, from cases where successful direct rock dating of fossils was possible.

96 Wendya  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:00:27pm

re: #91 moonstone

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

You look at the evidence.

You also take a close look at dissenting opinions.

Unfortunately, it takes a person willing to invest the time it takes to understand the subject being studied.

Global warming was a big eye opener for me. I no longer trust the media to accurately report ANY scientific studies. Especially in the field of health. The evidence presented doesn't always match the conclusions that are reported.

97 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:01:33pm

re: #91 moonstone

My basic problem with this -- with many scientific discoveries -- is that I no longer trust "scientists." They all have an agenda, even if it's just further grant dollars. There have been so many "studies" and "discoveries" and outright lies by scientists; e.g. Jim Hanson, that were later questioned, amended or disproven outright that I now take it all with a large grain of salt.

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

Fossil = hard evidence
Unlike computer models and position papers

98 arminiusteuton  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:03:56pm

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...

[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison:
...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]

Ms. Garrison:
Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

99 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:04:15pm

re: #91 moonstone

My basic problem with this -- with many scientific discoveries -- is that I no longer trust "scientists." They all have an agenda, even if it's just further grant dollars. There have been so many "studies" and "discoveries" and outright lies by scientists; e.g. Jim Hanson, that were later questioned, amended or disproven outright that I now take it all with a large grain of salt.

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

One the first thing I look at is where is the material released? If it is in a reputable peer review journal it's pretty reliable. Unlike many of the "science in the public interest" type groups who release their work via press release.

The other thing is it something new. Has it been replicated, and verified independently. That more important with process type science, remember cold fusion? With a discovery of this type is easily, they have the fossil which on first pass is pretty solid. Since Plitdown, fabricated fossil evidence is less likely. If you skeptical wait a couple years and a follow up article will further discuss the findings.

GW is the same way, the hard science is there, just the media chooses not to report it. Like the simple fact that Al Gore lied in his movie, CO2 does not lead temperature, it follows. It right their in the papers of the Vostock Ice core, but does anyone look it up and challenge him?

100 grumpy old codger  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:04:55pm

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "That's one ugly mother...."

101 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:05:51pm

re: #98 arminiusteuton

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...

[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison:
...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]

Ms. Garrison:
Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

How many times do you feel you need to post this obnoxious piece?

102 rawmuse  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:07:42pm

I'd eat that.

103 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:08:01pm

re: #98 arminiusteuton

Go piss up a rope!

104 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:09:10pm

re: #101 The Shadow Do

How many times do you feel you need to post this obnoxious piece?

Duly reported Stinky...
Crap and run type.

arminiusteuton

Registered since: Dec 10, 2006 at 5:35 pm
No. of comments posted: 29
No. of links posted: 0

105 moonstone  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:09:22pm

re: #97 The Shadow Do

Right, but we're still depending on them to tell us that it is a fossil, and exactly what the fossil was and how long ago it lived.

Wendya is also correct; global warming and health are the main fields of study that have soured me on science in general and the motives of scientists.

I must admit that I don't honestly think that these scientists in Australia are trying to put something over on us. I just hate it that my instinctive response to any "new discovery" is that it's probably fake, or wrong. Especially from academia.

106 Muadib  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:10:21pm

re: #98 arminiusteuton

Fascinating.

107 Purple Prose  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:12:04pm

re: #105 moonstone

Right, but we're still depending on them to tell us that it is a fossil, and exactly what the fossil was and how long ago it lived.

Wendya is also correct; global warming and health are the main fields of study that have soured me on science in general and the motives of scientists.

I must admit that I don't honestly think that these scientists in Australia are trying to put something over on us. I just hate it that my instinctive response to any "new discovery" is that it's probably fake, or wrong. Especially from academia.

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

108 kansas  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:12:21pm

Barely 100 posts in 45 minutes. Gonna fade.

109 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:12:55pm

re: #91 moonstone

My basic problem with this -- with many scientific discoveries -- is that I no longer trust "scientists." They all have an agenda, even if it's just further grant dollars. There have been so many "studies" and "discoveries" and outright lies by scientists; e.g. Jim Hanson, that were later questioned, amended or disproven outright that I now take it all with a large grain of salt.

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

I can certainly understand that- I too am often leery of new medical and environmental science. However- I feel that bogus science in the end cannot withstand the truth- global warming being a prime example. In the end, science being wielded as propaganda will lose out to the truth. As for medical science- obviously there are amazing amounts of breakthroughs occurring every year. Where I start getting hesitant is at psychotropic drugs, and recent studies are showing that I'm not wrong for doing so.

All that being said- I would not toss out the baby with the bathwater. Because some scientists have allowed or shown themselves to be politicized, doesn't mean all scientists are or have been. Frankly- Paleontologists would be the last people I would suspect as displaying a political agenda.

110 The Shadow Do  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:13:47pm

re: #105 moonstone

Right, but we're still depending on them to tell us that it is a fossil, and exactly what the fossil was and how long ago it lived.

Wendya is also correct; global warming and health are the main fields of study that have soured me on science in general and the motives of scientists.

I must admit that I don't honestly think that these scientists in Australia are trying to put something over on us. I just hate it that my instinctive response to any "new discovery" is that it's probably fake, or wrong. Especially from academia.

Money certainly enters the equation, as does politics in the case of GW. However, science and its methods will win out. One can only hope that the frauds are ultimately called out. I believe they will.

111 hillbilly geek  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:15:07pm

Set the wayback machine, Wm T Sherman!

Dating anything by its decay products presupposes that you know what the original state was. An evolutionist assumes that it was x value, but we all know what assuming does....

If there happened to be a low amount of the isotope to begin with, the object would seem artificially old.

Since none of us were around to know what the conditions were in the Devonian.... of course, we could ask God ;-) but he ain't sayin'

112 moonstone  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:16:07pm

re: #107 Purple Prose

LOL. I went from believing anything anyone told me to not believing anyone about anything in the space of about 2 years. Have no idea why!

113 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:17:38pm

re: #112 moonstone

Perhaps you're a jaded moonstone. ;p

114 moonstone  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:23:11pm

re: #113 Sharmuta

I should probably change my nic to "Jade"! Can't even trust those duplicitous paleontologists! :)

You and jcm are probably correct to say just wait and see if something stands the test of time. How sad, though, that it's come to that.

115 jones  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:25:26pm

How is this George Bush's fault?

Set timer and - Go....

116 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:27:26pm

re: #114 moonstone

If you want to change nics- now's the time to do it- registration's open!

117 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:30:03pm

re: #116 Sharmuta

Spoke too soon late. Sorry.

118 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:34:38pm

re: #9 FrogMarch

stormtroopers are on the march.

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hate to break this to you, Hansen, but my doubt about AGW began back in the '80s with the environmentalists screeching about CFCs and the so called "hole" in the ozone layer.

119 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:40:14pm

re: #118 Slumbering Behemoth

Hate to break this to you, Hansen, but my doubt about AGW began back in the '80s with the environmentalists screeching about CFCs and the so called "hole" in the ozone layer.

In high school it was the coming ice age. When GW started my first was BS!

120 Josephine  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:40:44pm

re: #80 Syrah

More important than the eyes is the wit to not get ambushed in the first place.

The dumb ones died. Failed to reproduce.

The smart ones eventually ran out of easy targets to ambush.

My husband jokes that I must be Sicilian because I can't sit with my back to a door. I'll have to tell him I'm just more highly evolved. ; )

121 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:44:17pm

re: #119 jcm

I have no doubt that the planets in our solar system go through periods of cooling and warming due to the influence of our sun and it's solar cycles.

I find the notion of anthropogenic global warming to be bogus, though. We are pumping far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere today than we were a hundred years ago.

122 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:46:05pm

Charles' synopsis:

making it the oldest example of vertebrate live birth on record

...is actually better than some of the phrasing in the linked story:

...makes the fossil the world’s oldest known vertebrate mother. It also provides the earliest evidence of vertebrate sexual reproduction, wherein the males... internally fertilised females.

The linked story isn't wrong, however; just poorly copy-edited.

Lizards and birds who fertilize eggs internally, then lay the eggs so that they can hatch externally, are "vertebrate mothers"...

....as are snakes that fertilize and hatch their eggs internally so that the young emerge from Mom squirmin' and ready to go...

...as are Lady Fish that deposit their unfertilized eggs in the sand, so that their husbands can then proceed to do what Gentlemen Fish do (© 1958 Auntie Mame).

Incidentally, I think that the term "umbilical cord" is also perhaps misleading (though not incorrect), since it's normally used when talking about the cord connecting a mammalian embryo to the placenta. Vertebrate critters that hatch from eggs (whether inside or outside the mother) also have umbilical cords connecting the embryo to the egg's yolk, but a lot of readers may see "umbilical cord" and think that the prehistoric mom-fish had an actual womb.

Again, not an error -- just something the Victoria Museum site should've caught in copy-editing.

123 jcm  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:46:49pm

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

I have no doubt that the planets in our solar system go through periods of cooling and warming due to the influence of our sun and it's solar cycles.

I find the notion of anthropogenic global warming to be bogus, though. We are pumping far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere today than we were a hundred years ago.

Climate is cyclical. And we are just beginning to discover cycles that only last decades. AGW is a farce, and a power grab by watermelons.

124 Josephine  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:54:33pm

Now I'm going to have to Google "clasping organs". At least I'm not at work.

(No, dear lizards, please don't tell me what it means, I don't want to be embarrassed in front of anyone. I'll just do a little search and hope I click on the right synopsis. Maybe I'll add the word shark...)

(If I die before I finish googling, and my husband in his grief checks my internet history so he can know my last thoughts and interests, someone here will tell him the truth, right?)

125 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:57:20pm

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

I find the notion of anthropogenic global warming to be bogus, though. We are pumping far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere today than we were a hundred years ago.

"We" who? Modern Western industrialized nations may be powering their factories and generating electricity much more cleanly than Western industrialized nations did a century ago (that is, with far fewer pollutants per kilowatt output). But the whole world is more industrialized than it used to be, many nations still use older, dirtier technologies, and the human population is a lot bigger. So I would assume that as worldwide matter, the problem of atmospheric pollution is overall worse than it was in 1908, even if cleaner technologies have led to localized improvements.

None of which means that AGW is true -- let alone that AGW, if it's occurring to any degree at all, is an impending irreversible catastrophe that we have to solve with drastic measures while Al Gore is still around to lead the way.

126 moonstone  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:58:32pm

re: #124 Josephine

RE: Josephine's scientific research on the clasping organs of sharks
(that's for your husband, just in case..)

It sounds like something I don't want to know too much about, except to thank Heaven that mammals did not evolve with that particular trait! :)

127 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:58:58pm
128 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 6:59:05pm

re: #122 Throbert McGee

Oh, dingleberries -- forgot to close the blockquote! At least it didn't affect every comment downstream.

129 Josephine  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:01:19pm

re: #126 moonstone

Thank you, moonstone. ; )

Nothing interesting in the images section so far... But it's for science: I won't give up so easily!

130 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:07:17pm

re: #127 buzzsawmonkey

I wish we had more vertebrate moms in my neighborhood. Most of the moms don't stand up to their children.

So the problem is not that your neighborhood needs more vertebrate moms, but that the neighborhood's moms need more (and stronger) vertebrae.

P.S. May I be the first to suggest "VMILF" for any horny teenage Materpiscis attenboroughi dudes who might be happen to be reading?

P.P.S. Not that I endorse teen sex, even for prehistoric fish. My advice is that they just log on to Xtube or whatever and polish their own clasping organs -- at least until college, if they can't wait for marriage.

131 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:10:25pm

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

You know what I've been saying to people lately about global warming-

"Ever hear of the Ice Age?"

It's actually been highly effective.

132 Josephine  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:22:00pm

Oh, I give up. I guess I'll have to check our 50+ years of National Geographic magazines for articles about sharks. At least they've got an online index.

This is an amazing discovery and I appreciate being able to learn about it. I wish we could send a team of scientists back in time so we could have all of the answers right now.

(And maybe future parents will be spared the awful singing in those "Land Before Time" videos.)

133 Slumbering Behemoth  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:22:02pm

re: #125 Throbert McGee

You make a very solid point.

/also, I should have used "I" instead of "we". I smoke many fewer cigars than I did a hundred years ago, and have long since mothballed the 12 mile per redwood forest Behemoth I used to travel around in...

134 Maleficia  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:37:16pm

re: #127 buzzsawmonkey

I just wish here in Illinois we had more vertebrates. I could drive for miles and not see a spine.

135 justadot  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 7:41:44pm

From the Nature pdf:
Live birth in the Devonian period
John A. Long, Kate Trinajstic, Gavin C. Young & Tim Senden:

Here we document the oldest record of a live-bearing vertebrate in a new ptyctodontid placoderm, Materpiscis attenboroughi gen. et sp. nov., from the Late Devonian Gogo Formation of Australia (approximately 380 million years ago)6. The new specimen, remarkably preserved in three dimensions, contains a single, intra-uterine embryo connected by a permineralized umbilical cord. An amorphous crystalline mass near the umbilical cord possibly represents the recrystallized yolk sac. Another ptyctodont from the Gogo Formation, Austroptyctodus gardineri 7, also shows three small embryos inside it in the same position. Ptyctodontids have already provided the oldest definite evidence for vertebrate copulation8, and the new specimens confirm that some placoderms had a remarkably advanced reproductive biology, comparable to that of some modern sharks and rays. The new discovery points to internal fertilization and viviparity in vertebrates as originating earliest within placoderms.

Don't know if that clarifies things, but it's always good to look at the author's work. (I think it's still open to the public. Download it while you can.)

136 nadadhimmi  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 8:06:18pm

re: #33 buzzsawmonkey

Unless there were loaves fossilized with it, the ID proponents will reject it.

The Catholics can teach you poor things something. I went to Catholic school for 12 yrs thru the 60's and early 70's. Their stance was that God created the universe, the natural evolutionary process was initiated by God and followed His plan. The Bible stories are not to be taken literally, but as parables, teaching tools.. Now if you're an atheist, just what are the odds that billions of mutations occured in precisely the right order over billions of yrs. Take a trip to Vegas my friend, you will soon receive a costly lesson in odds. If you have an atheistic ax to grind, fine, but don't hand me that horseshit that evolution is chance. You can hate religion, that's your right. The religious thinkers think you're full of shit too. I think the Catholics got it right and I didn't see anything in my 22 yrs of schooling to contradict that. ... Rant over.

137 Sharmuta  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 8:08:33pm

re: #136 nadadhimmi

I think you're confused- perhaps you should read some of buzzsaw's posts on this topic before you go off on him.

138 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 8:33:46pm

re: #135 justadot

The new discovery points to internal fertilization and viviparity in vertebrates as originating earliest within placoderms.

"Viviparity" is one of the key terms here -- but I don't see how they can be 100% sure that the fossils actually point to it.

Here are three good biological words to keep handy in case anyone is ever a contestant on Jeopardy!:

oviparous (oh-VIP-uh-russ): laying self-contained eggs in which the embryos are nourished by the egg's yolk rather than by mom's blood, until the squirmy little babies are ready to hatch out

viviparous (vigh-VIP-uh-russ): giving birth to squirmy little babies after the embryos have been sufficiently nourished by mom's blood, rather than by the yolk in a self-contained egg

ovoviviparous (OH-voh-vigh-VIP-uh-russ): forming self-contained eggs internally but not laying them -- instead letting the squirmy little babies hatch from the eggs inside mom, and then make their squirmy little exit from her hoo-hah

So it's just not totally clear to me why they have ruled out "ovoviviparity" to describe how this fish reproduced. Not saying that they're wrong; only that they've kinda underexplained things, even though they're using precise technical phraseology like "viviparity."

139 justadot  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 9:16:24pm

re: #138 Throbert McGee

I understand. I'm trying to look at the Supplemental Information now.

I think the second and third paragraphs are key, although the first four paragraphs are important. If you'll look, they don't see signs of intra-uterine predation with these, whereas with sharks… different story.

The remainder deals with internal fertilization.

I can't pull up the citations right now, but I would like to read the rest.

140 justadot  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 10:01:50pm

re: #139 justadot

Apologies, Throbert. The supplemental info page is here. I got too many things going at once…

141 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 10:27:43pm
Now if you're an atheist, just what are the odds that billions of mutations occured in precisely the right order over billions of yrs. Take a trip to Vegas my friend, you will soon receive a costly lesson in odds.

The thing is, though -- once in a long while, people DO hit the giganto-jackpot at the Vegas slots, or win big cash by getting a royal flush in p0ker. Now, the odds of a royal flush are said to be 649,739 : 1, and to my understanding, the odds of an enormous slot-machine payout are even more slender.

But does anyone say, "Ah, only divine intervention can explain this!" whenever someone becomes an instant millionaire in Vegas, or playing Powerball Lotto?

142 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 10:28:10pm

And, thanks, smalldot -- I will check those links out tomorrow.

143 Throbert McGee  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 10:28:28pm

Oops, sorry -- justadot!

144 MacBoy  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 11:42:23pm

That can only have been designed by some quasi-legal-personality-perhaps-not-exactly-God-as -we-might-know-him-per-se-today-but-something-just -vague-enough-to-be-able-to-teach-religious-hocus- pocus-instead-of-science-to-impressionable-kids'. Can't it?

a.k.a. Piscis Inflightrefuelus

145 justadot  Mon, Jun 23, 2008 11:47:03pm

re: #143 Throbert McGee

Haha. No problem.

If for whatever reason you can't access the PDFs, let me know. I can send them to you via LGF SafeMail as attachments.

Even though it's a short article, I still haven't finished it. Checking the citations is just as important as reading the original work, and I'm not a biologist. (I do work with them a lot, but that's not the same thing.)

They might have included more information, but it's Nature. It's hard as hell to get papers in Nature (or Science or Cell or you get the picture.) You have to jump through many hoops, often to be shot down by one lone reviewer. Some of the best work I've seen may be limited in length — total syntheses easily spanning over 100 linear steps crammed into a few short pages. The devil's in the details supporting information. The other paper may be better, but I haven't been able to access it right now.

Skepticism is healthy.

146 A. van Hilten  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 3:27:22am

I guess this makes the Materpiscis attenboroughi the new proverbial Darwin fish...

Hey, someone pass the evo-lutefisk!

(I’m more of a Pastafarian myself, but if it pisses off the IDiots, I’m willing to give it a try.)

147 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 6:26:43am

re: #134 Maleficia

I just wish here in Illinois we had more vertebrates. I could drive for miles and not see a spine.

And the problem is most acute in the Chicago City Council and down in Springfield.

We need to stop electing jellyfish to do a vertebrate's job.

148 Dave_Da_Kid  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 6:31:31am

Just read #74 and snotted my keyboard with coffee laughing.. Good going BuzzsawMonkey... Now where'd I leave those towels?

149 Boston Patriot  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 6:37:57am

Science and reason are a farce...the Bible says the Earth isn't that old. And everyone knows the Bible should be accepted on faith. Don't question! Just believe! Why? Because!

150 Charles  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 7:00:14am

re: #98 arminiusteuton

Being offensive and stupid is a great way to lose your LGF account.

151 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 8:13:49am

re: #91 moonstone

My basic problem with this -- with many scientific discoveries -- is that I no longer trust "scientists." They all have an agenda, even if it's just further grant dollars. There have been so many "studies" and "discoveries" and outright lies by scientists; e.g. Jim Hanson, that were later questioned, amended or disproven outright that I now take it all with a large grain of salt.

I realize it's only a small percentage, and most of the work is honestly done by wonderful people trying to advance our knowledge. But the question is how do you tell the difference?

The scientist has to give evidence and reasons. If the logic or the facts are shaky, another scientist can count coup by noticing and pointing out the error. Being ornery, argumentative cusses, scientists do this with glee given an opening.

Arguments in science aren't long drawn out things for the most part. The Piltdown Man hoax gets unhoaxed, the faker is exposed. The atomic theory of matter is confirmed. Quantum theory is confirmed, and even Einstein's authority cannot gainsay the evidence. Liars get caught. More commonly, ordinary mortal errors get shown up. Science is difficult, and it's easy to make a mistake. Being right is tough. And that's how you tell the difference.

Hanson has projected that the Arctic Ocean will be free of sea ice within at most ten years. Ten years from now, he'll be a hero or a goat. That's how you tell the difference. A theory, to even count as a theory, must be falsifiable. There must be predictions that differ from the prevailing wisdom. If the prediction comes true, and the prevailing wisdom flunks, the scientist has to be credited with being on to something. That's how you tell the difference.

152 Charles  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 8:26:50am

re: #98 arminiusteuton

It was pointed out to me that this is a quote from South Park (I missed that episode) - so I restored your account. Didn't mean to jump the gun, but I've had to ban people recently for posting things like that in all seriousness.

153 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 8:30:33am

re: #150 Charles

Being offensive and stupid is a great way to lose your LGF account.

Chances are you are aware of this, but just in case: arminiusteuton was just reproducing a piece of dialogue from South Park verbatim (Mr.Garrison, the gay ID proponent teaching evolution in class).

Here is the clip:

Now perhaps it was stupid to reproduce that piece of monologue without the necessary prep/context, but it is certainly different from him/her coming up with the rant and spouting it off here as if it were his/her genuine opinion. The South Park clip was after all making fun of ID, and/or fundamentalist science teachers contorting the teaching of evolution. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate in the thread about the cross-engraving lunatic science teacher.

So I wasn't 100% sure whether you knew this before you banned him/her, and thought it might make a difference.

154 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 8:31:05am

errr,...

OK someone beat me to it.

155 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 10:10:16am

re: #136 nadadhimmi

You are being confused by "observation selection effect':

"Now, it might be thought an amazing coincidence if Earth were the only planet in the galaxy on which intelligent life evolved. If it happened here, the one planet we have studied closely, surely one would expect it to have happened on a lot of other planets in the galaxy--planets we have not yet had the chance to examine. This objection, however, rests on a fallacy: it overlooks what is known as an "observation selection effect." Whether intelligent life is common or rare, every observer is guaranteed to originate from a place where intelligent life did, in fact, arise. Since only the successes give rise to observers who can wonder about their existence, it would be a mistake to regard our planet as a randomly selected sample from all planets. (It would be closer to the mark to regard our planet as a random sample from the subset of planets that did engender intelligent life, this being a crude formulation of one of the saner ideas extractable from the motley ore referred to as the "anthropic principle.")"

"Since this point confuses many, it is worth expanding on it slightly. Consider two different hypotheses. One says that the evolution of intelligent life is a fairly straightforward process that happens on a significant fraction of all suitable planets. The other hypothesis says that the evolution of intelligent life is extremely complicated and happens perhaps on only one out of a million billion planets. To evaluate their plausibility in light of your evidence, you must ask yourself, "What do these hypotheses predict I should observe?" If you think about it, both hypotheses clearly predict that you should observe that your civilization originated in places where intelligent life evolved. All observers will share that observation, whether the evolution of intelligent life happened on a large or a small fraction of all planets. An observation-selection effect guarantees that whatever planet we call "ours" was a success story. And as long as the total number of planets in the universe is large enough to compensate for the low proba­bility of any given one of them giving rise to intelligent life, it is not a surprise that a few success stories exist."

Excerpted from:

Where Are They?
Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
By Nick Bostrom
[Link: www.technologyreview.com...]
(free registration required)

The entire article is well worth reading.

156 arminiusteuton  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 10:58:09am

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll provide the necessary context for all future inanities and will consider myself on double secret probation.

157 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 11:02:25am

re: #153 medaura18586

The South Park clip was after all making fun of ID, and/or fundamentalist science teachers contorting the teaching of evolution.

And the episode(s) -- it was a two-parter -- made fun of overbearing ultra-secularists like Richard Dawkins, too.

Basically, if you believe that "atheistic evolution" and "theistic evolution" can both be essentially rational positions (even though you personally favor one over the other as being the more probable), then the episodes spoke your language.

Plus, it's all done as a brilliantly detailed, smoke-a-bowl-and-sit-back parody of Buck Rogers -- namely the 1970s Gil Gerard version. A manatee-written show like Family Guy would've done JUST the Buck Rogers spoof without lampooning Creationists and atheist blowhards at the same time -- but that's why South Park pwns all challengers.

158 legalbgl  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 11:05:59am

wait, I am confused...how does this post help the Zionist right wing cause and disparage the left and the Islamic faith? Isnt that all LGF is good for?

159 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 11:12:27am

re: #139 justadot

they don't see signs of intra-uterine predation with these, whereas with sharks... different story.

Ah so! Yes, this is a key point that I was missing last night.

160 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 24, 2008 1:05:30pm

re: #157 Throbert McGee

The clip in question is only making fun of creationists, but the episode poops on both the former camp and die-hard atheists. In the end, doctrinaire atheism is just another religion. Humble agnosticism is the only sane position regarding such metaphysical issues.

Dawkins happens to annoy me just as much as it seems to annoy Parker and Stone with his inane zealous atheism (and I am an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes an atheist myself).

I didn't mean to get into a review of that great South Park episode, I would soon get way over my head. I merely wanted to let Charles know that 'the kid' was innocent (unless channeling South Park is a crime).

I like SP better than Family Guy for the same reasons you mentioned, btw.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Audiobook MP3s
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

It's not a bug, it's a filter.