The world's first hybrid sharks have been discovered in substantial numbers off the coast of Australia, and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change.
Australian researchers say they've found 57 animals that are a cross between the Australian blacktip shark and the common blacktip shark, two closely related but genetically distinct species.
"Hybridization could enable the sharks to adapt to environmental change as the smaller Australian black tip currently favors tropical waters in the north while the larger common black tip is more abundant in sub-tropical and temperate waters along the south-eastern Australian coastline," researcher Jennifer Ovenden of the University of Queensland said in a press release.
Ovenden said the discovery is a first for sharks, and it could indicate that other shark and ray species may interbreed in reaction to climate change.
The findings were confirmed using DNA testing and measurements. Scientists from the University of Queensland, James Cook University's Fishing and Fisheries Research Center, the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries will conduct further studies to determine the fitness of the new hybrids, according to the press release.
The hybrids were found along a 2,000-kilometer (1,243-mile) stretch of the eastern Australian coast from Queensland to New South Wales. The breadth of their distribution and their numbers impressed researchers.
"Wild hybrids are usually hard to find, so detecting hybrids and their offspring is extraordinary. To find 57 hybrids along 2,000 kilometers of coastline is unprecedented," Ovenden said.
Jess Morgan, another University of Queensland researcher, told The Australian newspaper that hybrid species are common in fish because their eggs are fertilized in the water.
"Sharks physically mate, which is usually a good way to make sure you don't hybridize with the wrong species," The Australian quoted him as saying.
"The results of this research show that we still have a lot to learn about these important ocean predators," Colin Simpfendorfer from James Cook University's Fishing and Fisheries Research Center said in the press release.
100 years from now the whole climate change c r a p will be nothing but a laughing stock.... No, wait, they won't even remember this stupid theory ever existed.
Do you not believe we have changed the composition of the atmosphere or not believe that CO2 absorbs heat?
i think co2 traps heat not absorb... i could be wrong.. how ever i have tried to dismiss the global warming theory but its fact. the thing is the guy up top is right eventually global warming will lead to an ice age!!! i know sound oxymoronic but use the net research and see!!!
Almost all climate scientists believe in climate change caused by mankind's activities. USA Politicians tend to not believe, but many foreign ones do. I myself side with the scientists.
That's right because the same people tell us we are all going to die on Dec 21, 2012.
Huh? I know of no scientist that claims the world will end on 12/21/2012. That's the domain of conspiracy theorists. This is just an interesting observation, that's all. It isn't proof of global warming, climate change, mayan calendar theories, or even evolution for that matter. Although it is one piece of the puzzle of evolution, taken alone it is only proof that the Austrailian Blacktip Shark can and does interbreed with the Common Blacktip Shark.
You have it backwards. Climate change is a fact – has been verified by virtually every scientist (don't you even wonder why the Northwest Passage now is navigable?). What is in doubt is whether man has contributed or if it is completely 'natural'. So the theory will still be debated in 100 years, but nobody will remember that *you* existed – and rightly so!
You kinda proved something...the Northwest PASSAGE. Used to be navigable hundreds of years ago, cause it was warmer then. Then it cooled (and historically speaking we're still in a relatively cool period of climate). Climate changes. It is the arrogance of man to think we can actually stop that. We can pollute, but we can't change something as massive as climate.
This is very true about the northern passage, what most of these people fail to understand that the passage has opened and closed over many many centuries, NOT within a human lifetime as things are progressing now.
On another note to contradict what some people are saying. there was a theory about whether or not we human can influence a planets atmosphere enough to change it, this theory is called Terra forming. From what we are seeing now, I would say it is less of a theory, we can change a planets climate and atmosphere, it is a very real possibility. If we can do it here, we can change another planet's climate.
I wish more people would not get so excited over weather or not human can cause change in anything in this physical world. The answer is absolutely yes, why would a mere planet's atmosphere be a problem? Now the question should be what are we going to do with it? or do we want to try to go back?
Don't post here with your propaganda about climate change not being real. It is real. The question is do we care to do anything about it. I sure don't want to spend money doing anything about it. Let our grandchildren worry about it. We will be dead before it does very serious damage, therefore, I don't care about climate change. However, to deny it is real means you are either a fool or a tool. It is real, but let's be honest – we don't care if it wipes out the human race eventually, because my generation will be long dead before that happens, so why should I care about it.
Thank you, person who knows nothing of the subject yet is vehemently opposed to it because it is popular for your party to do so. Ever so insightful, do tell us more about things which you know nothing about.
It doesn´t matter if global warming is real or a myth! What wrong can come from cleaning up the air, reducing deforestation, saving species from extinction, etc. Seriously, I will never understand why people need a reason NOT to do these things.
Huh what?!?!? Is this the thing those darn scientists call evolution! Blasphemy I say!!!! But seriously though for people who doubt evolution how could humans have created great Danes and Dobermans if evolution was not possible in the wild? ie. genetic mutation. Humans just took the years of natural selection out of the equation and kept on breeding the dogs with the desired traits they were looking for.
For people saying all dogs are of the same species, that is technically true but do to our generations of breeding it is impossible for a female Chihuahua and a male Lab to breed naturally. Which goes against the common definition of a species. Which is : "A species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." That being said those 2 dogs could never produce an offspring.
And about Al Gore, please for the love of whatever you believe in (God, science, flying spaghetti monster in the sky) stop bringing up that old fart. He was right on many things despite him having his other objectives.
They are idiots, there's no point trying to talk to them. That's right folks, you're all idiots...
Certainly not with intelligence and logic.
Evolution is not contrary to a Creator God Who creates ex nihilo...(out of nothing)...
The days of the creation in the Bible can run to a thousand years according to the Bible, and man has an effect on creation being made in the image of God...so creation is constantly evolving. Genetic mutations for the worse are the result of how the Bible describes a curse...The Bible for example, is specific about not being afraid, and science agrees today that many illnesses and diseases are caused by stress...
This is evolution – man is having a shorter life span than those who honored God thousands of years ago...The diseases that affect man have increased with new strains of viruses etc...yes there is creation and there is evolution...
Empirically show that god(s) exist(s) and we'll then argue your conception of their influence on evolution. Until then, you're wasting everyone's time.
Empirically show that the number 2 exists. See what I did there? Love the amateur logicians on here - cant believe you're trying to equate a concept such as God with fauna or natural mutative processes. Its called metaphysics.
Evolution is not contrary to there being a creator. I agree. But then everything else you said was nonsense. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, but one thing for certain is that God believes in evolution.
The only proof we have of lifespans a "thousand" years ago suggests an average human lifespan of 40 or so years.
1) this article has nothing to do with evolution. Crossbreeding is not evolution.
2) there is much evidence that proves that people that lived a thousand years ago had much shorter lifespans.
3) try reading a book other than the Bible once in a while and maybe you won't be so ignorant.
Right. An omnipotent "god" needs six days or six thousand years to do anything. What a joke. Better have some more koolaide.
Do us a favor. Look up the definition of crossbreading. Then look up the definition of evolution. Then read your post again so you can see how ignorant it was.
what does this have to do with climate change for christ's sakes?
They said what it has to do with climate change in the article. What is the mystery here?
I speculate that because of climate change the water temperature is changing. Causing the sharks to move into a more common shared territory which is allowing them to have more chances to be able to meet and breed together.
I wish CNN would do a better job in explaining its article though.
It has nothing to do with climate change. They think they have found something new and everything "new" must be the result of climate change to them.
Says random guy Bill, thanks random guy Bill. Who needs knowledge of the topic in order to critique it? Not you!
What is this article about – NO SPIN, NO POLITICS, NO RELIGION. Based on the article – we can get the following (WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUE SINCE MOST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCIENTISTS ARE TRYING TO TELL THEM). But from the article it appears: 1) There are two genetically distinct populations of sharks that have been monitored for a long time. Because there was no previous evidence of genetic exchange (mating) between the two populations, they were said to be different species. There are several different species concepts that can be used. The important thing is that there was no previous evidence for mating between the two populations. 2) There were 'hybrids' detected. There is proof of mating between the two populations now. You could say that they really weren't separate species after all, they were just two very diverged populations that did not mate for a long time, but now they are mating, so they are going back to be what we'll call just one species. 3) There was a barrier to mating before, but now that barrier is at least temporarily disrupted. It could be that the range of the animals is more overlapping now for some reason. Presumably they have measured water temperatures and have seen already that the temperature differential between the two geographic ranges is not as great as it once was (this piece of evidence is not stated in the article but if they don't know this is true, it certainly makes the temperature hypothesis a tenuous one). 4) What would cause a change in temperature? One possibility, an hypothesis, the most reasonable idea, but not the only idea, is that the temperature changes are a result of the overall rise in the global temperature. Hence, it is possible that global warming led to a decrease in the temperature differential. As to Southern waters get warmer (presumably) the Northern populations members might travel to regions that were uncomfortably cold in the past and they mated with members of the other population. 5) Alternate hypothesis exist. Maybe overfishing has reduced that food supply so that the populations have to travel outside their comfort zone (so to speak) to find food. You might be stressed moving outside your comfort zone, but if you are starving it makes sense you'd risk the temperature stress. Searching for food at the temperature extremes your normal range might lead you to have overlapping range and thus an opportunity for the two populations to interbreed. So, it might not be temperature at all, but temperature is a really good idea. Further studies WILL SHOW which is the case. So, this is an interesting story of biology that will be great to follow over the course of the next few decades.
Climate change causes a shift in an organism's environment which either benefits (increases range) or doesn't (decrease range). The one Shark was Tropical, meaning it lives closer to the equator and the other was Sub-Tropical to Temperate (ie. North American waters, except the South counterpart) which can be much cooler in temperature. It's likely that climate change increases the ocean's temperature which would allow the Tropical shark to expand into the other sharks environment. The other shark lives in Sub-Tropical and Temperate waters, suggesting it's more temperature tolerant, so it may move further South to escape the heat, or it may stay in the now warmer waters for other benefits. For example biodiversity of the Ocean decreases as you move further from the equator, so the closer they stay to the Tropical shark's environment, the more food sources and amount of food they have.
The same is seen with the Polar and Grizzly bear hybrid. Climate change is likely contributing to melting of arctic ice, forcing the Polar bear towards mainland to search for food (they need ice to hunt seals). This causes an overlap between the two species and an opportunity for mating.
I keep using the word likely for the shear fact that nothing is completely certain (yay statistics). Smoking likely causes cancer, as does uv rays, but the uncertainty doesn't prevent us from taking action. Why is climate change so different? Yes the statistical significance may be quite different, but if it's over 50%, what's the issue? Inconvenience? If you were told you had a mass somewhere in your body and there was a 50% chance it was cancerous, would you not remove it as a precaution? Most of you would.
The things that most of you people are saying are just...stupid. Leave the talk of science to the scientist you dimwits.
Also, it's hilarious to me how some of you are so vehemently against he idea of climate change. None of you can muster up anything resembling an explanation why you take that stance, but no explanation is required. It's some weird political anti-climate change stance which basically equates to "we don't like it because Al Gore said it and he's a democrat!". Really, it's a conspiracy? Really??? Find something else to be brainless about. When it comes to science, you simply just need to leave it to the scientist because no matter how loudly you yell your idiocy, nobody is going to care.
So, blaming this on "Climate Change"? Complete BS. How about the world wide slaughter of sharks by Asian countries for their fins? Sharks must be inter-breeding to simply survive a lack of their own specific kind to breed with.
Check out IUCN Red Lisdt assessment for these species. For the Australian Blacktip Shark:
fast growth rates, early maturity and relatively high fecundity suggests that it is more resilient to exploitation than many other shark species, and will already have recovered from depletion by this fishery in the 1980s. Currently, annual landings of sharks in Northern Australia (mainly C. tilstoni and C. sorrah) are significantly smaller than historical catches. Although there is a need to monitor catches in these fisheries, current catch rates are highly unlikely to threaten the population.
Globull Warming? Duh. Global Scam more like it. Sharks interbreed because that's what they tend to do if they dont find the right partner, mostly due to over fishing.
yeah but these species aren't overfished
I have a fish tank app on my ipone, i can breed different breeds of fish and get some crazy looking stuff!! isn't it possible that sharks procreate and have crazy offspring? just saying...it's not always Al Gore, global warming, government conspiracies and what not. and always remember, Jesus love you! 🙂
*GASP* You mean to tell me that something's been found which science had no idea existed????????? I'm shocked, chalk one up for those who don't claim to know it all.
yeah - these lazy scientists should of known about this before they knew about it.
Why are there so many smart asses with nothing more than to criticize any story that is printed. Sickening.
Algore invented the internet.
He said so.
Impossible. Can't happen. Two main reasons: 1. Evolution is just a theory (with a lot of holes in it). 2. Global climate change isn't happening. See, ran circles around you in logic! To anyone who believes the two items above, take a quick read through this article. And then next time you get a bacterial infection that will no longer respond to antibiotics, think about how many "holes" the "theory" of evolution has in it.
Yes... like gravity is only a theory... electricity... germs... hydraulics... and medicine are all only theories... do yourself a favor and open a dictionary... you just sound stupid
The probability that something can come from nothing is zero, which is where the theory of evolution ultimately takes us. Miraculous change and evolving (ie growth) obviously happens from birth to death. My hair is constantly evolving even turning some wierd gray color. However, that all these millions of events happened by chance in the perfect sequence does not even meet the requirements of simple statistics. Why is it that even though we have all this new technology, the best theory we can come up with has a statistical zero chance of being correct? But people say, even though the stats are against it a bezillion to one its the best theory out there. Unless you believe in a creator, which takes a whole lot less faith.
You know nothing of science,or reason. The current theory of the formation of the universe actually is that it came from nothing – and it is supported mathematically! Your hair color change has nothing at all to do with evolution. The problem is that you know nothing, and therefore have no business commenting on anything that people who spend time and effort researching and thinking about come up with. In other words, you are a waste of atoms and we all wish you would just go away.
But where did God come from? Talk about theories with low probability chances.
Very interesting – a "lot of holes" in the Theory of Evolution... There's fame and fortune for the scientist who debunks it, and yet none has so far managed to do so, in the 150 years or so since it was first published. And every new discovery appears to reinforce it – DNA, for instance, described by devout Catholic Francis Collins (he who headed up the Human Genome project) as "the language of God." Those holes must be vanishingly-small, I suppose.
We have had primate hybrids for some time now. If ever in doubt look at NBA
Really Jake31, that's your contribution. Your parents must be very proud.
That's so racist, Jake 31.
What's under the hood?
Ah, just another ignorant redneck.
How are people so politically correct, and void of humor?
I'm sure the majority of our colored cousins find humor in comedic stereotypes.
I think you mean "devoid" of humor.
That's what all racists hope.
it is racists like Jake that prevent jewish people from playing in the NBA. As our dominance in Nobel Prizes suggests, we can outsmart anyone, incuding racists like Jake. However, the NBA owners are anti semites who won't give our loong oppressed people a chance.
Brb, going to go mate with a shark.
Prepare to bow before the lethality and intelligence of my human/shark hybrid offspring, world!
Shuman or Humark?
We aren't far nature giving us the sharks with frickin' laser beams...excellent!
You can spot the hybrid shark easily: It has two orange stickers on the back that say it's okay to use the carpool lane.
Perfect response!! Finally some remnant of intelligence on earth!! I am with you Roger... (you forget its cousin the FlexFuel!)
Roger Ogilvy Thornhill
You can spot the hybrid shark easily: It has two orange stickers on the back that say it's okay to use the carpool lane.
Oh noz! Not evolution!
Yeah, would like to hear what the religious nutters have to say about this one.
My guess is they will sy – "so what, zebras, ponies, etc can be bred to produce hybrids now ... if the two species came from the same "parent" species, it isn't surprising at all that they can breed." Speciation and evolution aren't the same thing.
Nope. Not evolution. Do you even have a clue as to what evolution is?
I just heard the Al Gore claimed that he invented these Hybrids. Of course, the wacko liberal left will believe anything he says.
Try to stay on subject.
I believe the earth is round, the God of Tree Huggers, Al Gore, told me so...then he jumped in his 7 MPG SUV to the airport, hopped in his G5 and then went back home to his 35,000 square foot home and all year heated swimming pool....where two people and a dog live...
I know Gore chuckles every time you protest a pipeline, a coal mine and a spotted owl because every delay boosts his investments...the puppet master and his puppets. Sheeple.
Come up with a reference to someone from this decade
I believe Algore said it. He said he invented the internet and his mother sang him to sleep with the union label song - 20 years before it was written.
Sure. I believe Algore would say anything.
Al Gore *never* claimed to have invented the internet. He said he played a critical roll in the devlopment of the internet as we know it. That is entirely true – without his political support and the Information Superhighway Act he spearheaded its likely that the internet would still be a curiosity of university students. You may not remember the evolution of the intrenet but being that I was there in the midst of it helping develop it I can tell you Al Gore's roll mattered. Declan McCullough is the one who made that trope up and he's disavowed it since.
yeah we all know that Australian shark researchers are liberal leftists!!!! Look where they published this study "Conservation Biology" - need I say more? Obviously they science is liberal and Al Gore! Al Gore I said! Al Gore!!!
yep, all around the world you find green sheeple, and at the top of the hill...with helicopter waiting , s Al Gore, your puppet master.,,,
freehotdog, what does al gore have to do with this? IS Al gore anything more than a poltician? What is truly impressive is that mor ons, such as yourself, always bring up al gore when climate change is mentioned... and forget that 99% of real scientists around the world are the ones responsible for the research that would indicate the climate is in fact changing. Go back to your bible, you miserable derpshert.
Why so sensitive about a fool who said he invented the internet?
Al Gore ticked me off with some of what he said. He gave the naysayers the ammunition to dispute the fact of man-induced climate change. Further proof science should be left to scientists and politicians should stick to politics. Global climate change is real folks, in Albuquerque and the southwestern United States we see the effects first. Wacko snowstorms, drought and ever higher average summer temperatures are becoming commonplace. You live down here as long as I have and tell me it's not real.
Oh great, next thing you know sharks will be walking on land and snapping peoples heads off.
We got 'em already.
Just wait until the megalodons come back and start mating with the clownfish. Giant, lightning fast clown colored destruction. God help us.
I'd pay to see that hahaha
What a stupid article. The only science in it is the observation that they found 57 sharks that were hybrids. Maybe they were created in someones lab and dumped into the ocean. The article was written by some starry eyed journalist who thinks scientist is someone who knows something.
The interesting part that seems to have escaped you is that hybrid sharks have never been observed before. It would be like finding a colony of human / chimp hybrids in the wild, you know one of your cousins.
Hybrids automatically mean climate change. The tree huggers will connect everything to climate change and blame everything on George Bush...dolts.
automatically? you demonstrate your own close mindedness. go back to church. and you're far from free.
I'll take a tree hugger anytime over an ignorant, belligerent redneck.
Wait, that wasn't a good comment. Hey! I feel ripped off because your comment was beneath me, which I will now shout from the virtual rooftops because it makes me feel superior. HEY, SLOOP JOHN B'S COMMENT WAS A WASTE OF TIME! Of course I'm sitting here wasting more time responding to it, but that's because it feels so good to thump my chest and show everyone how above everything I am. Thank you for your stupid comment!! I feel much better about myself now.
Scientists may not know everything, but they sure know more than you.
Sloop, I totally agree with you. "Climate change" is becoming this generation's carpal tunnel syndrome. Back in the 90's, every wrist, hand, elbow, etc ailment was almost automatically labeled as CTS. They didn't bother finding the real reason. Same thing with climate change. While I don't doubt that climate change exists (it occurs naturally on its own, regardless of what we puny humans do), it's lazy on the part of "real" scientists to automatically ASSUME that these hybrids are the product of climate change. That's really all they're doing is assuming.
Could these hybrids be a product of climate change? Short answer, probably. However, they could ALSO be the product of (as you suggested), an ill-conceived breeding program. They could also be the product of "randier-than-normal" male Australian black tips that just happened to come across some willing females.....only they never bothered to ASK if the females were from Australia or not.
Just saying that "climate change" should NEVER become the default answer for everything happening in this world, but it increasingly seems to be doing just that.
Over Finning is likely the cause, Shark fining is wiping out the population of sharks, likely sharks are having a difficult time to find mates. hence hybrids can be a result. This is also happening to grey whales. I'm surprised the article did not mention this.
How dare you suggest any other conclusion than global warming! The thought police will be visiting you soon.
Exactly, Global Warming, I mean Climate Change is the cause of everything bad or presumed to be bad.
The article won't mention actual likely causes because the article is published ONLY to push the POLITICAL AGENDA of supposed man caused climate change.
Just wait until they have frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.
why is everything like this due to 'climate change' and then politics or religion has to be brought into it to bait other people? Not that i dont believe in God, because i do but in this case maybe, just maybe its a species that was just discovered or overlooked? i mean think about it, the ocean is huge and not every kind of living creature has been discovered in the world let alone all the oceans... Im sure somehow somewhere the issue of race will be brought into it also, come on now ya know you want to do it, someone pull the race card or somehow throw some kind of race baiting inciteful remark in here and keep in line with the true cnn traditions... I dont know, but what i do know is i learned of a species of shark not previously known of before... whatever...
I think about it more like this...... God just gave Black Tips the go ahead they have wanted for years. Every living thing wants to play in a larger circle. Besides if humans didn't want to live in a larger circle we wouldn't have global warming.
My guess is Henry Ford didn't see burning Fossil fuel to be a dangerous thing.....
I believe, and I could be totally ignorant because I'm basing my response on information supplied by the article, but the climate change suggestion comes from the fact that the two different sharks survive and live in different water temperatures. Additionally, the article mentions DNA testing confirmation. It seems to me that you are using your lack of scientific understanding to deny what is a pretty common phenomenon amongst fish. Sharks are fish so it's not that big of a stretch.
Hybrids are very easy to verify with genetic testing, just like paternity tests and dna tests used to convict criminals. Very simple to tell a hybrid from a unique species.
Yes! pretty soon we'll have the sharktopus the syfy channel promised us!
it's basic evolution. those who can't adapt to change are doomed to extinction.
not evolution, just standard procreation...because the end result is still a shark...(Genesis 1:24-25)
evolution would be if they found traces of, oh let's say giraffe...
what we have hear is the genetic equivalent of offspring produced from the the union between a white person and from Cleveland and one from Borneo...
Amazing how people who dispute evolution never understand how it works. Giraffes? But why?
Another anti-evolution comment from someone who has no clue about evolution. He's agin it cause he was told he should be agin it.
Why do you people with an anti science agenda insist on misrepresenting the theory of evolution. Your preposterous example shows only how ignorant you are. There is, of course, nothing in the theory of evolution that would result in giraffe's coming from sharks after one generation. The theory is simply that natural selection will result in genetic change over time.
Does your jesus ask you to lie?
Two shark species mating and producing another shark is not evolution...as the product is still a shark....
Evolution is the theory that all species (including us and the sharks) come from a common ancestor, except from a biochemical stand point there is absolutely no proof and no facts...
It's the same reason why humans produce humans... genetic mutations eventually cause disease and death, not
Actually it would be more like a human X chimp mating....
Why am I not surprised at your inane response... (insert bible verse for fact here). Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Ie: to slowly change in order to survive. Which is exactly what the article describes. No bible verse needed. You guys really should try reading books instead of banning them.
You are a moron.
All human beings are the same species, unlike these two sharks, so it really isn't the same at all. Also, there are actually white people living in Cleveland, too. But good job inserting a little racism into a thread about sharks.
humans and chimps cannot reproduce...this is because they are not of the same "kind"....dogs mate with dogs, cats w/ cats and so on and so forth and always the result is that the offspring is always the same "kind" as the parents.
There is not one example on the planet to speak otherwise.
Darwin even said of his theory- because when he elaborated on it in the 1800's before any knowledge of existence of the cell- that if any of it could be tested the whole thing would fall apart.
Awakeru is quite right. evolution only describes radical changes in the genetic makeup of an organism (i.e. a charmander EVOLVING into a charmeleon)
so you dont see how to species of shark mating with each other is not concurrent with evolution??
may i show you some of the heavenly light my friend.
the main focus for any species to evolve , including humans, is to adapt to changes in the environment and possibly even social structure of the species involved. although humans causing global warming is a crock, ( our planet has gone through this many a time before, Google earth climate history-ice core records)even if your religious reasons say we didnt come from ape's even christian and Muslim scientist cant deny the fact that evolution is happening today. it's fact. think of it as god playing his own version of the video game spore. and maby because evolution is not in the bible maby its because god knew that as a species that human being at the time where to stupid to understand the concept.
Jason, describe for the class from a biochemical stand point HOW something changes from one thing to another....include all the biochemical equations and processes...please.....
because just basing an argument on semantics doesn't make it so....tantamount to saying it "just grew fins" or it "just grew legs"... HOWWWWWW??????
Evolution is any process of formation or growth and/or development.
In biology it is defined as change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Like it or not... these sharks are a hybridization of two sharks and that is evolution.
So says I
Regardless if it's man made or natural this planet is heading towards, and needs a population correction. There are too many people and not enough resources to feed them all. Global warming and the ensuing ice age that would follow would probably do a nice job at making that correction. Get out the sun tan lotion to be followed by a gortex down jacket. 😉
We do NOT have too many people on Earth. Standing every human being breast-to-back and shoulder-to-shoulder would take up land mass less than the state of Rhode Island. Do your homework before spewing your silly, partisan, political talking points. And before you respond with negativity, do yourself a favor and check my math.
No need to check your math. Let's just use some common sense. If everyone was standing shoulder to shoulder we would all die. So, therefore, people do need some space. There's the space you move around in, the space taken up by making the food you eat, the space taken up by your waste, etc. Obviously we all need space. The question is how much? Your ludicrous "math" certainly does not contain the answer.
Yeah - the only effect a person has on the Earth is their squared area of their shoulders......
Hybrid Shark? I wonder how many miles per human it gets???
ha ha ha ha
almighty science itself regularly disproves its own facts. careful how much faith you assume."
That's the strength of science. Remember the Coelacanth was thought extinct until a small population was found. The science community changed to reflect the new evidence. Saying the Coelacanth was extinct was based on information at the time. When new info came in, they were able to disprove the old belief.
Religion tells you the sky is burnt orange, you accept it on faith. A scientist goes out and looks at the sky and confirms or rejects the burnt orange sky belief. That scientist reports what he sees, then other scientist tests his results by going out and looking at the sky under the same conditions of the first scientist's observation. If his observations check out, then other scientist accept his observations. They can also do the same experiment by looking at the sky at different times of day, during different weather conditions. They then report their findings to be reviewed by other scientist.
BTW, what is the evidence for creationism or intelligent design? Can that evidence be tested by the scientific community?
Religion doesn't need direct observation because you accept what you are told. Science, when told, says "prove it."
Does art exist? You can't measure it's length or width, you can't test for it; you can't scientifically prove that art exists. Yet it does. Same thing with beauty and truth. Simply because you cannot objectively prove God exists in a laboratory, does not mean the notion is impossible.
What about pre-Columbian transatlantic travel? When I was in school, the scientists said this was nothing more than some Scandinavian myth. Then some archeologists dug up a Viking village in Canada. What purported to be indisputable fact, turned out to have been nothing more than myth, itself.
Does art beauty and truth stand the test of mathematical probability
Well, John Doe, why don't you tell us: _does_ art exist, or is it in the mind of the viewer? How about beauty? Is that not also a creation in our minds? Fleming found beauty in a moldy old petrie dish – would +everyone+ define that as "beauty"? Along the highways of Spain, they do extraordinary things with rust, that some might call beauty or art, while others see it as detestable contamination of the landscape. The elegance of science is that "facts" are testable and hence falsifiable, even when nobody has found a way to prove them false. So, tell us, how does one design a test to prove the existence of "beauty" or "art", or "God", or even of mythical scientists reputedly misleading you about trans-Atlantic travel? Unless you attended school before 1947, when Thor Heyerdahl completed his epic 5000 mile voyage by raft, the entire scientific world would have been aware of the possibility of prehistoric transoceanic travel.
Actually, the spiritual beliefs of most Christians I know are based on empirical evidence that was shown to them. The Holy Spirit shows Himself to many people and convinces them to believe. Look at the testimonies of Ben Breedlove
From a scientific viewpoint, it is possible to prove the existence of God. It has been proven to some people. The view that God does not exist is a null hypothesis and as such, it cannot be proven. Atheists just have faith.
You really need to get yourself a dictionary and look up "empirical", "evidence", "scientific", "prove", and most especially "null hypothesis". Something being a null hypothesis isn't a flaw, it's a fundamental requirement of scientific experimentation. Your argument uses technical terms in a pseudo-scientific fashion, provides the excellent evidence of a dead kid who dreamt about a rapper, then suggests that atheists are wrong and that the null hypothesis should instead be "there is a god".
Unless I'm misunderstanding you and your argument is actually that Kid Cudi is the Holy Spirit...
Chris, the kid recounted himself in a white suit performing with his hero, Kid Cudi and a surrounding sense of peace. If anything, doesn't this simply validate the fact that as the brain shuts down, due to oxygen deprivation and the release of endorphins/chemicals such as DMT, we experience hallucinations and feelings of well-being as the brain's defense mechanism to counteract the trauma of death? Kid Cudi is alive and well and had no idea about Ben's brain hallucination until he was told after the fact. How are people so naive to think this settles the issue and gives some peace to the myth of god? This only validates that as we are dying, the brain survives slightly after the body shuts down and goes into an advanced dream-like hallucinatory state causing people to see what is personal to them. Some see Kid Cudi, some see Jesus or deceased relatives, and some even see the devil if they feel guilt on their death beds or have a "bad trip". And the "bright light" that some recall during NDEs is simply the brain's electrical stimuli going haywire, as is the prototypical flashing of life before peoples' eyes. Please explain to me how the Ben Breedlove video does anything other than validate that NDEs are products of a dying or stressed brain? Religious people, stop holding us back with your ignorance!
teabaggers probably think it's aliens
What a stupid statement. Don't you have a park to go occupy somewhere?
Could it be, because the sharks have found more fish in different parts of the ocean? Bullsharks changes themselves from salt water to freshwater in Australia to find new food sources. Perhaps we shouldn't jump on the "climate change" bandwagon so soon 🙂
Shark's behavior seems to have changed as the result of climate change. So, sharks are smarter than Republicans.
Well, they still feed off others...so they're still Democrats. Sorry.
Actually, to maintain current stereotypes, wouldn't the shark would be the Republican, and the remora attached to it be the Democrat?
No, remora are useful, or at least not harmful. Parasitic societal leeches are more like incurable cancer.
Typical Democrat, the media said it was linked to climate change, and without any challenge, you've swallowed their explanation HOOK LINE AND SINKER..lol. Dem's are sheeple and guess what buddy, climate change is caused, in large part from the Sun, not c02 as once thought..dummy.
freedog - can't wait to see your lecture "The sun affects the climate"
Jim, instead of keeping up with the new science, you've obviously continued to watch propaganda replays of the Inconvenient Truth...damn, you guys thought you were so RIGHT on this one...dammit.
where do you get this "new science" from anti-science blogs?
Jim, apparently you're one of those lazy OWS that doesn't make an effort to keep it real. I know, so much easier just to dig your heels in, even though your wrong. I bet your an a8hole to work with.
yeah - that's what people say when they look like idiots.
You missed the word "seems." That means the available evidence suggests climate change as one explanation.
I'm a Democrat and I find what they say as plausible, but will wait for more evidence before I accept it as truth or reject it as false.
Democrats tend to be anti authoritarian. We have the annoying habit of asking why.
On the contrary...that's what people say when they ARE IDIOTS....don't you have a tent to go back too, a rape, murder, bong hit, theft or maybe an overdose of Heroin to go back to?? You've drivelled, now go back to being an unproductive part of society.
Can you provide a reference from a refereed scientific journal to validate your comments.....Pat Robertson nor Palin count. We will be waiting for your reply..............
william branham followers plan on the rapture soon and will commit mass suicide like jim jones
"I don't think it's a result of climate change per se, but it could certainly give the sharks more genes to cope with change in the environment," – University of Queensland research scientist Jess Morgan
I check other sources before I jump to conclusions.
oh, just an innocent mistake that CNN left it out, but put the climate change in the first paragraph as the cause. I'm sure the editors are working on correcting it.
Why do the study's author's discuss environmental change related to temperature? And I don't think you know what "per se" means.
The C. limbatus–C. tilstoni species complex provides a unique opportunity to investigate the ability of sharks to adapt to environmental change, in particular, the impact of hybridization on species distributions which favour C. tilstoni along the north and C. limbatus along the south eastern Australian coastline.
for those who are arguing about climate change..... Climate change is a fact not a theory. The climate of the earth has changed many times over the corse of history and will continue to do so until the sun dies and relieves us of a climate. The only arguement is whether man has helped along any of that change. As for the shark finding, it is what it is. A new breed of shark or at least fairly new.
Whats wrong with theory? Theory is a pretty strong basis for understanding nature. I cringe when people say "But its just a theory", not understanding the difference in a scientific theory and a "theory"
And many theories have been proven wrong.
Theory is fine, except that it is all too often taken as fact...Darwin for example (DNA tracing continues to whittle away at that one.)
Fred, obviously you still do not understand the meaning of a "scientific" theory versus a layman's definition of a theory. Can you provide a reference for your comment that dna evidence whittles away at the theory of evolution? I work in genetics and the more molecular dna data we analize the more it confirms the beautiful fact of evolution.
Fred, scientist welcome the whittling away of prevailing thought. It is a strength, not a weakness. Scientist understand that Darwin was looking through the prism of prevailing thought, but they have tested his theories time and time again, and his theories have withstood their challenges. Because of the rigorous testing, his work is accepted as a truth.
In scientific terms, a theory is something that has withstood peer review (been tested) and found to be true. The creationist and other anti science groups know this, but continue to deceive their followers.
A hypothesis is an educated guess. It doesn't become theory until it is tested and found true. The anti science groups, have endeavored to confuse us by misstating the meaning of theory.
Global warming is a scientific theory. Green house gas effect is a scientific theory. But if anyone tells you they know how much impact man made emissions have on the climate are pulling your chain. That becomes their theory.
I would love to see people arguing that "music theory" is completely incorrect about music because "its just a theory not a fact"
And how do you think the climate changes? Zeus comes and changes it? Of course there's carbon, there has to be. Our "models" are mostly bases upon the last 20 years. Which means they are inaccurate. You would have to take millions of years worth for true accuracy. Look at the dinosaurs. They had a MUCH warmer climate then ours. Oh, and by the way, the same carbon that keeps heat trapped, also keeps heat OUT. Which means that the model doesn't make sense anyway.
Actually, that is exactly how it happens. Zeus is very powerful!
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".
Imagine THAT! A word with TWO meanings!
The term "music theory" is probably not a good term to use. Music theory is a set of rules we use to make music but one need not know the rules to make music. Certain scales use certain notes. Those scales, and therefore the notes, can change and be changed, at will. Notes are divided by cents. We tend to divide them up in 100 or 50 cent chunks, right? A, A#, B, B#...or if you will, A, Bb, B, Cb. We can even further divvy them up into double flats or double sharps. Thing is, we do this to make music make sense to US...our brains, our ears and our sensibilities. We could, if we wished, toss out the old theory and make a new one, less melodic perhaps, but just as valid. Chop those 100-cent blocks up into 100 and 10 cent block instead of 100 and 50 cent blocks. What's the mode of the week? We can make more of those as well.
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Theory is a system of principles to understand something that we cannot innately understand. No one is born with innate understand of music composition. Nor is anyone boen with an innate understanding of the global climate system. All we have is theory. Facts are for bar room trivia questions.
That is not the argument; it is about MAN MADE climate change (which, in fact, doesn't exist ) What the argument is is that global warming people say we are changing the climate, when in fact, it is entirely natural. What do people think happened between ice ages?
the predominant theory in climate science is that the increased concentration of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing the climate more rapidly than would happen naturally. Thats the theory and its based on measurements of gases in the atmosphere and changes in global temperatures from both empirical observation and climate modelling
And all of this data has been taken in a very short span of time. I will try to explain this to you Jim, The Earth has existed for over 4 billion years and the climate has changed much even before man came into existence. That is what Kude is trying to explain to you.
Thanks but I got it. but you need to listen to what I said - climate change is about increasing RATES of change, not simply change.
To say man has NO effect on the earth's climate would be pretty silly at best. But I do have to laugh at the self-righteous knuckleheads who blindly follow the Al Gore's of the world, corrupt scientists, and even our President, who tried to make a few million on a "carbon exchange". I wish they'd just shut up and work on real-life solutions that could actually improve our lives AND help the environment.
It's clear that the nay-sayers about global warming have not studied any of the scientific data. One of the most telling is the ice core samples that examines gas from the atmosphere as far back as 400,000 – yes four hundred thousand. It examines the gas trapped in ancient ice through the years. You can see the graphs of the cyclical nature of climate quite clearly. But NOW we are off the chart- beyond anything that has happened in the past 400,000. It would be extremely foolish to risk humanity by ignoring these data, and refuse to make any changes. Besides the fact that pollution is very clearly bad for our health!!
Al Gore didn't invent climate science
Lets set some things straight if you have too little information or knowledge on this topic. The scientific theory of global climate change caused by man (global warming is an inaccurate term) has been proven and declared true by any and all reputable scientiscts in the field of meteorology and other related fields. If you need the dictionary definition of a scientific theory it can be found here->"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." The current theory of global warming put together by the smartest people in their fields who have had far greater schooling with the access to the most accurate and up to date data they can possibly obtain. When a thousand of these people come together and review the same data all of them having comparable levels of expertise and 999 of them come to the conclusion that man is having a negative effect on the environment BUT only one of them comes to the opposite conclusion. Why exactly would you believe the on person instead of the other 999?
When I read the lead sentence, my first thought was, they're going to try to tie this to climate change." Yup. Big surprise. The only thing is that the water in the areas we're talking about haven't changed that much in temperature. We are seeing changes at the poles because they are more sensitive, but this conclusion is pure conjecture... and an attempt to cash in on a Sierra Club grant.
I remember in the mid 70's, scientists believed the world was going into an ice-age. Within a short span of time, we're now warming up. Reactive much?
Meh, when they find megaladon then I will worry
The did. Near the Fukushima nuclear plant.
So this means they're also much more smug than the average shark, right?
I love how they try to turn this into a global warming issue right off the bat. There are hundreds of thousands of creatures in the sea that we have never seen im sure. Surveying a tiny area, isnt going to show you whats in the other million miles of water.
So your last name is Cousteau is it?
Yes, my name is Clouseau. Cheif Inspector Clouseau of the Certea, you little yellow swine. Yes, yes. Does your dug bite?
Species are often separated by geograoraphy, climate and geography. When barriers that normally keep species separate begin to degrade then one of the first signs is hybridization. Sadly for your particular ignorance Phil is that climate change is a cogent reason for barriers between warm water and cold water species to begin to break down. Read a book instead of listening to your John Birch society rhetoric.
DAMN spell check anyway!.... GEOGRAPHY... lol
What book told you take a CNN article as science fact?
My comment was as to reasons interbreeding between species happens and shows no acceptance for either their methods and materials or conclusions. When you look at how species originate (answers found in books) and come back together (also books, but clearly not ones you read) you will find among other things mechanisms where populations long separated become commingled again. Try reading Dr.Peter Raven and any of the evolution books he has written for complete description of these mechanisms as well as other authors noted there for your advanced understanding of a very complex process. Simply let go your bigotry of these processes and go seek understanding of the natural processes around you.
It's called science, and based on things called "facts."
almighty science itself regularly disproves its own facts. careful how much faith you assume.
And 2,700 years ago, the Greeks had their own science. Look at it now. We laugh at them for their "science". People will do the same to us in three thousand years. Our understanding of everything is very basic, if it can even be counted as "understanding". Global warming was also "fact" until people decided to look to see if the think next to their thermostats were space heaters or not.
So Steve, lets assume the same "barrier" of water temp line at 70 degreees F moved 100 miles further north. What has really changed? So one species that likes warmer water gets to move 100 miles north.. the norher species does not go as far south.. where is the "barrier"? The rules have not changed, just more area with warmer water. but the rules of "mingling" did not change did they? You may try to sound intelligent, but the proof is in the critical thinking.
Your favorite published physicist.
Leave the fishes in the sea and the other creatures we eat to themselves! They have a higher intelligence (i.e. an ability to adapt to any given situation) than we can ever know or measure. What we imperatively need to do with all those research resources is to study how we humans must/can intuitively adapt (e.g. stop sucking all the oil out of the earth and thusly avoid warfare) so we can provide our progeny with a stable planet on which to live; otherwise, we'll all cease to be. Peace & Love.
I hate hippies like you so much. Animals are there to be made into food, nothing more.
Fultz, that is a very shortsighted view. They make some fine clothing as well.
;my buddy's step-sister makes $85 every hour on the internet. last month her pay was $7783 just working on the internet for a few hours.Read about it and Follow the instructions at Home Income System and set up your account... http://goo.gl/A0BQg
i'm sure it's ur own mother and she's just banging for cash $20 per mouthful. u spammer.
Give me ur access code for GDI
One thing I like about sharks... "Sharks physically mate!" 🙂
Why are people so stupid?
They read the Bible.
And you wrote this because ? just needed to troll a little ?
does this mean they run on gasoline and battery power?
Finally a gas/electric shark. Hopefully they figure out how to equip them with laser beams. Where are my frikken sharks with laser beams?
CNN Comment Writers wear me out.
Scientists discover that two species of shark, previously geographically separated, are now mating, and speculate that they may have been brought together because of climate change. And SOMEHOW this generates a firestorm of controversy among comment-writers about CNN's bias and Liberals and Conservatives and Evolution and God, etc. etc. etc.!
It really amazes me that people are able to come to verbal blows over absolutely EVERYTHING!
There's nothing like a science story to bring out al the uneducated trash in this country. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Its wonderful how post-normal science is making such advances. Just skip the whole design experiment, test results and analyze data and skip right to the conclusion. Its so much more efficient. Especially at getting additional government funding for yourself and the university. Well, as long as it supports the greeny leftist agenda.
Or better yet just ask "Jim", he seems to have all the answers.
my buddy's step-sister makes $85 every hour on the internet. last month her pay was $7783 just working on the internet for a few hours.Read about it and Follow the instructions at Home Income System and set up your account... http://goo.gl/A0BQg
she sells sharks?
She sells seashells by the seashore
24 hour news services are terrible at reporting on scientific articles. Find the original research if you are truly interested. Watch out for your own confirmation bias.
If you stay all wrapped around the axle about left/right conspiracies it just becomes a habit, and source of chronic unhappiness. I've been there. It did not make me happier.
We all precieve things differently. There are no "good guys/bad guys".
However, you are the captain of your ship. If it brings you happiness – have at.
CNN consistently dumbs down articles so it's easier for you to comprehend. If you want data and facts, go ahead and check out scientific journals.
I'm certain the scientists know more about this then me, but I have to agree that they may be getting ahead of themselves on their early conclusions. I'm sure everyone knows how some the " climate scientists" have gotten caught manipulating their tests to agree with their already drawn conclusions. It is interesting and I'll be on the look out for additional information as it becomes known. I hope they will explore the possibility that the difference between the 2 types of sharks may not be as distinct as they appear and the interbreeding is not such a new phenomenon.
Why do people turn everything into a political agenda. I suppose if we were talking about food someone would make it political...'Oh, that's something that a liberal or a conservative would eat'! "Greenish Left"? Please...GET A LIFE!
I imagine the scientists found something that was already there and has been there for some time. Just because we discover something today does not mean that it wasn't there yesterday. How many new insect species do we discover each day? Did all of those species come into existence the day we discovered them? Of course not.
Who knows how long these sharks have been inbreeding or what the true numbers are. The ocean is still a mystery. I wouldn't give any scientist an ounce of credibility for them to come out with theories as to why something exists when they don't know how it exists or in what numbers it exists. Whether you believe in climate change or not I would not be the one to point to shark inbreeding as evidence of it.
"I imagine" is correct.
What is that supposed to mean?
it means you imagin - while scientists collect data and evidence
Well until they have more evidence my hypothesis is just as valid as theirs. The point of my comment is that they do not have enough evidence. It is sad that I have to explain this to you especially when you make comments on here like you know more than every one else.
not saying who is right or wrong, but how do you know what evidence they have? Are you on the team that made the discovery? Most science only reports the findings based on evidence, not the evidence itself. Few people would understand DNA evidence or most of the rest of the evidence.
what do you think the word "inbreeding" means?
I see your posts on here, you act like you are some kind of know it all. Do you have something to offer or do you just go around making snide comments about other peoples posts?
If you had understood my post you would see that it is not about inbreeding it is about finding something that already exists.
No, I act like the scientists know more than you
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Newton didn't "discover" gravity – it existed, albeit not the downward force he thought it was and the Americas weren't "discovered". The Americas were home to indigenous peoples. All that changed was that other continents learned something different. The Americas didn't change, only that the European part of the world found something new to them.
Shark 'inbreeding'? It's more shark out-breeding, MP. They aren't breeding with their brothers, sisters and cousins, they're breeding outside their species.
The discovery of a new shark breed is fine. Assuming that the new breed or species has anything to do with climate change is a stretch of the imagination.
perhaps you should practice a touch before posting this. at least you should have mentioned something about sharks.
Really? I'll bet most sharks can play better!
Are we, and all animals, hybrids after all?
yes but try telling a human that they're a member of the animal kingdom and you'll get a reaction that's somewhere between rage and disbelief. 90% of the humans I meet don't like the reality that they're a member of the animal kingdom. Many prefer to think of themselves as above the animals. Of course most of those are the crazy religious types.
No worries until the Great Whites cross-breed with dingos. I don't want a pack of them sneaking up on me at the bill-a-bong.
No, they might eat your baby!
That dingo will get your baby.
Another thinly veiled promotion of evolution. It never has and never will happen at macro level. Scientists can't provide a single example. And they can't explain how intermediate creatures would survive as they morph into something entirely different. Nonsense masquerading as science. Simply a lame attempt by atheists to remove God from the equation.
Get a life.
You really need to learn some science.
You're an idiot
One word: Sharktopus!
another liar for jeebus.
you know the rest of the world is laughing at you, don't you?
You really have no grasp of the concept of evolution or science in general. That's what's lame.
This just in Blake, the earth is round and orbits the sun. But really, just keep clinging to your delusions.
For those of you convinced evolution is BS please explain pugs to me. Are you trying to tell me that wild packs of pug dogs existed in ancient times. When we look at different types of household pets (bred by humans to have certain traits) evolution as a concept becomes undeniable.
God should have never been put into the equation in the first place
if you're christian, you should know that if read carefully, the Bible describes evolution...
Ah, someone with a deeper understanding of inter-relating belief systems.
Actually, Blake, they just provided an example. You just can't see it with your blinders on.
His Holiness the Pope accepts evolution as the scientific explanation for the relationship between living organisms on Earth. Since the Pope speaks for God, we know that God accepts evolution as true. If God believes in evolution, why can't you?
Which part of your post is "science based"? There is absolutely no disagreement among reputable scientist and researchers that climate change is happening. The disagreement is over whether mankind is accelerating it.
Regarding evolution, the only group that still thinks it is a theory are conservative ev(il)angelicans. Considering that a chihuahua is descended from a wolf and lab experiments involving certain insects combined with genetic studies of human origins, evolution is no longer seen as a "theory".
Surprisingly mathematics is still a theory.
Do you truly believe these sharks are a scientific plot, devised to trick Christians into believing in evolution? Wow, paranoid much? Sharks are far too dangerous to work with to experiment with breeding programs, Blake.
Here's a handy example of evolution for you: bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics on a regular basis, requiring a Red Queen in pharmacology production drugs so we can keep even. When a bacterium carries several DNA strands for resistance we call it a Superbug, or a Multi Drug Resistant Bacterium, or a MDR. How do they attain this resistance? It's evolution in progress, Blake. Just because you don't know about it or don't accept it doesn't mean it isn't true. What it means is that you're either uneducated or that you deny the truth.
BTW, before you go off on a rant, I'm a Christian. I've just been to college. When I go to church I don't leave my brain at the door.
Edit: Above should be 'a Red Queen *game*
WOW- I didn't know that our species continues to include people that choose to believe children's books over science. Just because you have failed to evolve, doesn't mean that evolutionary science is not a COMPLETELY settled issue for the rest of us. That evolution is still being debated by people that believe in fairy tales like the bible, is so ridiculous that I hesitate to even comment on this tiny portion of society. We can see, and measure, evolutionary changes in just a few generations in many species. This debate has been settled so please stop posting your infantile religious nonsense on these boards.
So.. you are suggesting that God is not smart enough to invent a system to perpetually fill any vacant niche that warrants a special life form on the planet? In my mind if you prove that animals go extinct, you have proven evolution. You do not need a complete fossil record to prove evolution.. you simply need fossils of animals that no longer exist and do not exist before a certain dated layer in the rocks...... Plants alone can give you that. I feel sad for your children that will have to unlearn and disrespect you to function properly in their own generation.
Jay doesn't even understand the difference between macro and micro evolution but somehow Blake is the idiot? Who's really wearing blinders here????
Or ofc it could just be that it's been happening all along and we never knew about it.
I mean, those sharks can be pretty sneaky – diddling each other underwater at night when we can't spy on them!
But alas *that wouldn't fit in with this 'scientist's" climate change agenda, would it.
why would Australian shark researchers have a climate change agenda?
the scientist never said climate change. He said environmental change!
"and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change."
"He" - Jennifer - said environmental change relates to temperatures - what kind of environmental change is related to temperature? Hmmmm........ maybe changes in ....... CLIMATE!
Well this Australian scientist might have a so called "climate change agenda" for the same reason why NASA scientist fudged the numbers in their climate change research data "twice" and got caught.
Sorry J, Overden did say climate later in the article. I was wrong! have you ever heard anybody say that online before? I'm still curious about what they are eating because that has a lot to do with migratory paths...
Fairly simple concept here, surprised so many don't understand the simple logic that 2 types of shark that did not interbreed previously due to a physical separation based on their habitats being colder vs. warmer water are now mingling due to water temperature changes.
More like some scientists in the effort to prove global warming took these two shark species interbred them in the lab and then released them back into the ocean. I know a global warming hoax when I see one. Another effort of scientists to help the Fed take over the world.
That makes perfect sense! Oh wait, no it doesn't. Put your tin foil hat back on and go back to your mom's basement where it is safe.
Are you serious?? I hope this is sarcastic.... because I don't want to believe that someone can be so blinded by faith and resentment they would suggest such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The earth's climate is clearly changing!!!! It's 40 degrees Farenheit on Jan 2nd in Montreal, Canada!!! I've never seen it this mild in the past 30 years..... WAKE UP!!!!
Paranoid delusions? You need to find professional help, there are medications…
HE is just an angry liberal stirring the pot.
So are the cold sharks now burning up or are the warm sharks freezing? Maybe food brought them together.
Because while there is evidence supporting increased atmospheric temperatures, studies on water temperature have shown that they have remanded fairly constant, at least within error.
This is what i think of shark attacks
Probably some playa shark out there that just prefers the dark meat....
Whoa...black tipped sharks interbred with...other black tipped sharks?? What makes one a distinctive species rather than a sub-species? I'm sorry, but I'd be much more impressed with, say, a hammerhead interbreeding with a whale shark...now that's hybridization. Honestly, most cat breeds can intermingle, most dog breeds can...none of that has anything to do with specialization or climate change, so I'm unimpressed with the sharks just getting their freak on in the natural environment. Talk to me about actual implications for the ocean ecosystem, then I'll be concerned. Until then, I'd really like to know who decided to pay someone to write this up...I've got some stories to sell, too!
Domesticated cats - all the same species. Domesticated dogs all the same species. I'm not impressed with you not understanding this.
You are correct, all the same species. no climate change. When will they give up the lies.
The climate change implications is that these two different species of closely related sharks would not normally run into each other unless climate change shifted their geographical ranges. You're a moron
You are the moron. walking robot.
Then I guess the majority scientists are "morons" because they consider climate change very plausible phenomenon at work in the ecosystems they study. All morons right? Smarty pants.
I guess these Australian shark researchers are really working for Al Gore in his plot to take over the world.
I do wonder why the scientist would not have presented some basic data regarding water temps to bring some focus to the findings.
All domesticated cat breeds can interbreed. Same for domesticated dogs. .
"Same species" usually means "can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and generally choose to do so in the wild".
"Sub-species" means "same species, but some different populations have some observably different characteristics". Subspecies == breed (for artificially bred animals like pigeons, cattle, and dogs) == race (in humans). Subspecies that diverge geographically may become distinct species over time.
All dog breeds are the same species, and can interbreed successfully. In fact, they are often considered to be a subspecies of the wolf, since wolves and dogs can and do interbreed sometimes.
Horses and donkeys (and lions/tigers) are different species, as their offspring are almost always sterile. They are close enough genetically to produce viable offspring, but far apart enough that the offspring are sterile.
These two shark species are considered distinct as they have been geographically separate for a long time, but apparently can still interbreed successfully, so they haven't strayed too far from each other yet genetically. The news here is that these diverging populations have met again, possibly due to climate change.
"Hybridization" is in the eye of the beholder to some degree, as the borders of species are alway fuzzy. There is no clear and sensible answer as to when precisely two diverging subspecies become distinct species. So reasonable scientists might differ as to whether X and and Y are truly different species, and thus their interbreeding is hybridization.
One of the very best longitudinal studies of speciation and hybridization is among the Galapagos finches (originally studied by Darwin, of course), as studied by a married couple who are Yale researchers; read the book called The Beak of The Finch if you are interested.
Great post, Mikey. For those of you intent on being ignorant of science, evolution, climate change etc. and insisting on silly agendas and conspiracies, pay attention. Mikey summarizes perfectly what has happened regarding these sharks.
Scientifically ignorant people should consider refraining from commenting on scientific articles. That way, informed readers are spared having to read inane takes, other uninformed readers can avoid being confused by misinformation and can just learn from those who actually know what they're talking about, and the person in question would be able to dodge the embarrassment of demonstrating that they are not only ignorant, which is not in and of itself so bad, but that they arrogantly savor their lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand. Win-win-win situation.
Equally as impressive is that they have concluded without question that this is a result of climate change (ie...global warming)!!
I did not see a conclusion that global warming was responsible. It was hypothesized that rising temperatures allowed this to happen. If that is true, then one would like to know why temperatures may have risen. The global temperature has been rising, so global warming might be responsible for allowing temperature differences to lessen between the two geographical ranges of these populations, thus allowing interbreeding. So, there is a possibility that temperature changes led to the hybridization event(s). But that is a hypothesis and no where did a scientist say that they had proven global warming was responsible for this.
Google "breeding barriers" when you get a chance. Species are separate when nature provides a barrier to keep the two populations separate (a mountain range, a river, an ocean, warm vs cold, spring vs winter etc).. breeding barriers are evolved when the two species intermingle and the hybrid is a detriment to both species (among other reasons). So.. all north american deer can cross breed (Elk, Moose, Mule deer and white tails).. but they maintain clearly separate species.. but you can go to West Texas and see hybrid white tail and black tail deer and yet they do not simply return to one species from two. Natural hybrids are a very important indicator that something is different.
global warming???? you say??? I would call it shark inbreeding or evolution... but that is just crazy isn't it...
Why do you think animals evolve?
inbreeding????? You clearly have no idea at all, what so ever, about what this is about
yes - climate change - shifting the range of species so that two that normally would not co-occur do co-occur. Get it?
Ok Ok I'm not a scientist so I won't argue about climate change, but the australian researcher said that it may be due to some "environmental" change, not clarifying exactly what was meant by that. The article writer inserted the word "climate". The environmental change could have been that the sharks typical food source may have moved to where the species changed their migratory paths. The researcher also said hybrids are not uncommon just not to the extent. I would check the prey before the climate!
How many hybrid sharks were off Australia in the 1800's to late 1900's, before 1) anyone was looking for them, and 2) we had a way to easily check their DNA to verify they were hybrids? We've found a lot of extraterrestrial planets around other stars that we hadn't seen before 20 years ago. Does that mean they didn't exist before? This article takes a scientific observation of cross-breeding sharks and somehow segways it into more proof of climate change. Amazing.
Using your "logic" Sandman, there are extraterrestial beings, we just haven't found them yet. There is a cure for cancer, medicine just has not discovered it yet, You can rejoice, there is a cure for your stupidity, it just hasn't been discovered yet.
You may not believe in climate change, but your existence does prove morons exist.
Climate change is real. The earth's climate has been changing constantly. Mankind may very well be causing some or all of the current climate change. Real, unbiased science can support or disprove this theory. Garbage conclusions that this article leaps to only raise skepticism. Apparently man-made climate change is a religion for you, because you only have insults for those who question your beliefs. Your response and retort examples show the same lack of logical reasoning that the author of this article makes. Do yourself a favor and stick to the entertainment section. You obviously don't have the mind for scientific reasoning.
The fraction of hybrid sharks is much higher than it has been in previous years. To explain this, the scientists hypothesize that temperature differences between the two geographical regions may have lessened, thus increasing the likelihood of hybridization events. Perhaps this was just normal fluctuation in temperature differences that led to a blip. An alternate hypothesis is that this temperature difference is not a fluctuation but a new normal due to the global warming trend. If that is the case, the number of hybrids should remain high and continue to increase perhaps into the future. In 100 years or so, we'll see if they have gone back to two genetically separate populations, or if there is a predominant species perhaps unifying two different species back into a single species – that would be cool.
What you say makes sense, but I'm not convinced that this is a new phenomenom. The reason is that I doubt it is easy to identify a hybrid shark, or that anyone has been trying for very long to do it. I could be wrong, but scientific detection methods have been getting better and an increase in observations is probably attributable in part or all to an increase in looking and an increase in successful detection due to advances in DNA testing. The article just leaves us hanging on that point. Where is the baseline?
The world's first hybrid sharks? Considering they've been here for hundreds of millions of years, that's a pretty ballsy claim.
It's like looking at a border collie mating with a golden retriever and proclaiming 1) that the result is a hybrid *species* 2) that they mated because they noticed that the earth was getting warmer.
Agreed. This is the best comment ever.
Canus familiaris mated with Canus familiaris is not a hybrid. Its just Canus familiaris. And you're dumb.
"By mixing their DNA, the species considered more tropical has been able to extend its range into cooler waters."
Dogs all belong to the same species–these sharks do not. So, your analogy is wrong.
Sorry Ken, but you're incorrect. The two dogs you mentioned are of the same species, Canis lupus. This means that they are able to mate for genetic and physical reasons. The Australian black tip shark is the species Carcharhinus tilstoni, while the common black tip shark is the species Carcharhinus limbatus–two separate, but closely related species. You can Wikipedia speciation for a crash course in how new species are formed and why we classify them as separate species. It's pretty interesting stuff.
About as intelligent as a real Ken doll.
The change in water temps caused an overlap of ranges. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with. Early humans mated with Neanderthals. If their ranges didn't overlap, that would have never happened.
and they are producing what scientists call the Common Australian Blacktip Shark or the "Bruce Shark".
Can it shoot a laser beam from the top of its head?
Yeah it's hard to find a romance lover..If yo want discover the best approach to finding your perfect match and find compatible local singles in your area! –maybe you can try –
-M'arry"Millionaire.С ○m- ...You do not have to be rich or famous. ,but you can meet one , i saw the ads on TV maybe it's cool for us !
They are a cross breed between conservative Republicans and Tea Party activists ...... they snap their jaws, but have nothing to say.
And they look and sound scary, but they'll usually go away if you punch them right in the nose.
Did you say something? All I heard was nothing though your trap was flapping.
"Hybridization could enable the sharks to adapt to environmental change..."
-it COULD enable the sharks to adapt to increases in global food prices
-it COULD provide the sharks with a better resistance to H1N1 assuming it's transitioned to sharks
-it COULD be an adaptation to better fight the herds of zombies gathering on the ocean floor in preparation for Dec 21st 2012
OBVIOUSLY it's far more likely that it's the Zombie herds or H1N1 that are triggering the hybridization of sharks off the Australian coast....
When you start talking about what COULD be influencing things like it's gospel, it really makes you look like amateurs.
You're right, John. People shouldn't use the word "could" when they can instead be definitive. Example: You're definitely a jerk.
It seems more likely that it "COULD" be a GMO science experiment inadvertently or not, released into the ocean.
"Hybridization could enable the sharks to adapt to environmental change..."
-it COULD enable the sharks to adapt to increases in global food prices
-it COULD provide the sharks with a better resistance to H1N1 assuming it's transitioned to sharks
-it COULD be an adaptation to better fight the herds of zombies gathering on the ocean floor in preparation for Dec 21st 2012
OBVIOUSLY it's far more likely that it's the Zombie herds or H1N1 that are triggering the hybridization of sharks off the Australian coast....
When you start talking about what COULD be influencing things like it's gospel, it makes you look like amateurs.
COULD is a term used by scientists to hypothesize. Only religious zealots demand certainty.
And only voodoo scientists would accept "COULD" as a fact and proclaim that "climate change" is the REASON.
Sith only deal in absolutes!
you mean that some are h 0 m 0 and some are not
The most striking thing about these hybrid sharks is that they only seem to eat yuppies and Democrats.
But only after they have chewed up and spit out as poisonous all of the Republicans and Tea Party types who are venomous.
Jeff, mommy wants you back in the cage. Good boy.
Not sure either of you got the joke at all...
There's *yuppies down under??
omg they're everywhere!
I just hope they're not breeding with the zombies!
Correction "What" = "Why was"
Evolution has been taking place many millenia prior to humans or any of our carbon. IDIOTS
Ohhh side thought question. What was the Earth hotter during the Dinosaurs and colder during the Mammoth? Was it the humans and their evil oil/gas economy or was it natural earth cycles with curves longer than the human races pitiful existence?
I do find the jump between interbreeding sharks and climate change hilarious.
"The world's first hybrid sharks have been discovered in substantial numbers off the coast of Australia, and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change"
Really so the sharks decided since it's getting warmer lets shag our cousins who like warmth. Just seems flawed somehow to me.
Humans do it all the time. No suitable female shardk of your own race to breed with, well...just mingle with other races.
If global warming is the cause for the hybrid sharks – why are northerners not cross breading with southerners? After all humans are the smartest animals on earth.
Nobody said that Global Warming was something that never occurred in the past. What is being said is the natural cycle is being abnormally sped up, and that speeding up has everything to do with the pollutants we put into the atmosphere. Only about 500 years ago, there were only several 100 million people on the planet. Now we are over 7 billion. We added 700 million people since 2004,...you think all that food consumption, cars, farting doesn't have an effect on the environment?
sorry, this is not evolution, it is simply another variety of shark. Just like we have a variety of dogs, cats, etc. Until this shark becomes an elephant you are not correctly defining evolution. Please educate yourself.
It seems as though you are the one without an understanding of evolution. You say "variety", scientists say "hybrid" because they have a definition of what a hybrid means, evolutionarily speaking. Dogs are all the same species, with many different breeds of that species. Educate yourself, buddy.
sorry, variety is not evolution. Show me how how a shark turns into an elephant and I might buy your story, otherwise you might just be trying to sell me snake oil. So much for the education system if evolutionist can't agree!
There have been plenty of natural weather cycles in the past. Does not change the fact that human-induced climate change can be a very bad idea.
Think of it this way: Even as an alert pedestrian it is possible to be hit and killed by a car. Things happen. But, because it MIGHT happen by accident is not an excuse to try and play soccer in the middle of a dallas freeway.
yes, you are right. It is possible that this is due to a fluctuation, rather than a trend of increasing global temperature. So there are alternative hypotheses. But, it is possible to actually make the observations to determine if this is a fluctuation or due to global temperature increases. We will have to wait and see what happens to these populations over then next century or so to determine which hypothesis appears to be more likely.
We all agree that ice melts at 32 deg F. When the polar ice caps retreat and there is open water where there are hundreds of years of records of never being ice free, you got a warming trend. When Greenland is essentially melting where until recently it has been growing, you got a warming trend. Its clear to me that warming trend is global regardless of cause (natural or man made) and the proper response is "move away from the ocean". There is little chance people are going to stop polluting so... be among the survivors.. retreat.
I'm sorry that would mean evolution is occurring with these sharks and that's impossible. They need to reedit this article to reflect the Lord's views.
Praise the Lord
praiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise the lord!
God created everything, including evolution. It's not one or the other.
evolution is not possible according to god
you lunatics will change ur story to fit the news and science
science is the only real god
religious gods are for weak minded feeble idiots
Jim. I am sorry you don,t like it but evolution is a fact and has been considered as such for more than a century. your religious beliefs are not based on science. That said, Science is not antagonistic to religion. They are like planets in different orbits. They try to answer different questions. Science has been shown to be the best method to explain how the universe functions. Religion helps people to find meaning in their lives. Science is not used to understand God. God or religion cannot be used to explained science.
Jim, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Theories are supported by facts; they attempt to find a unifying explanation for facts, and they change over time.
In addition, I think Jim Tucker was joking, but I could be wrong...
Daniel, evolution is a fact. There are many hypotheses that are based on the fact that evolution occurs.
If evolution is a fact, then who created the first cell that evolved?
One could also ask that if God is real than who created God? Face it, evolution has much more evidence than God and denying evolution is just foolish.
One could also ask that if God is real than who created God? Face it, evolution has much more evidence than God and denying evolution is just foolish.
@ Daniel – Evolution is both fact and theory. We have millions of facts for evolution. We see it every day. The theory of evolution is the explaination for how evolution happens.
Jim Tucker, are you serious? Its people like you that will hold civilazation back from finding true answers. People like you are the ones with no faith at all because your too scared to believe that something other than religion has shaped our world. Evolution isnt only possible its understandable.
Don't feed the troll. This guy "Jim Tucker" is obviously just looking for replies.
I think Jim Tucker was being humorous.
Just another article to push for carbon tax and rob the population. I wonder how big a slice CNN gets ?
Conspiracies everywhere, bud?
typical american christian nut....full of conspiracies, ´little interest to understand maaters at hand....simply anti-science.
The hybrid shark now gets 50 miles to the gallon.
You try finding a place to plug it in though.
The only thing to take away from this article should be: the earths climate will always change... nothing can stop it...
adapt or die off...
Actually you're wrong. Changing ecosystems so rapidly that organisms don't have a chance to adapt themselves is a problem (well-evidenced by the large number of extinctions currently taking place). Earth's climate may always be changing, but the speed and scope of change are unprecedented.
Yes, let's ignore the mass extinctions that have occurred NATURALLY in the past. The only reason there could possibly be a mass extinction is mankind, right?
This is a natural cycle. Species emerge, species grow, species die. The world gets hotter or colder whether mankind is here or not. In fact, reputable scientists (not the ones who have been manipulating data to make their case for their "climate change" scam) have been successfully proving (with actual, real, verified scientific data) that much of the earth's climate change comes from...wait for it...the sun. Sun activity (here's a shocker) has a lot more to do with whether we're getting hotter or colder than any other agent.
I'm curious to know your reputable scientists source. Never heard of them.
As for me I hear that the action of sending billions of tons of man made pollutants like petrol, gas, coal, chemicals, etc in the atmosphere trigger...a reaction. To any action you get a reaction. Those action can be separated from a natural cause like more sun activity.
That pretty logical that the action of 7 Billions humans pumping whatever resource earth have and burning it and sending it into the air has a measurable effect on the climate. A reaction in short. Even without being a scientist anyone should understand that.
We already seen that with the Ozone layer being damaged by CFC chimicals leading to skin cancer. By removing the concerned CFC chimicals the situation improved. Action...reaction...
When 98% of the scientific community support climate change, we d'better take notice and hear what they say. In any case, using less of our finite resource and having cleaner air is a win for all. This is also pretty obvious.
Cheers from Switzerland
This temperature spike coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. It is also accelerating in line with our population.
Forget CO2 for a minute and, watch the methane levels as the permafrost thaws.
Like dandelions that grow short to avoid a lawnmowers blade, so too will sharks stops growing fins...
What does one say to such a comment?
Then my law mower will evolve shorter wheels
HURR EVOLUTION BAD MMKAY
The statement "Sharks physically mate, which is usually a good way to make sure you don't hybridize with the wrong species" makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole concept of hybridization stems from the fact that nature will make the determination as to what inter-species pairings are viable, not some Professor from down under. No matter how many Phd's these guys have, they'll never have all the variables accounted for.
I think it was only to compare the relation egg laying, how it naturally occurs more often when different species get intermixed within the fertilization process. No reason to get too deep into the meaning of this guys words. Perhaps the reason you don't have a PHD.
Presumptuous of you. I do have a Doctorate.
Words have meaning Mark. Perhaps you are casual in your use of language, but others are not.
Just because two species can mate doesn't mean it is likely. Special conditions have to arise, even if two species contact each other, there must be significant pressures on each population for inter species mating to occur. An animal of one species is much more likely to mate with a member of its own species given the choice.
The point I was making was his use of the term "wrong species" when discussing hybridization. Who is to determine what a "wrong species" is and who can say that a mutation could not spontaneously arise that eliminates the "physical barrier" characterizing what this Professor considers to be a "wrong species"?
The statement about physically mating has nothing to do with the professor's PhD. There are barriers in nature that prevent hybridization. Evolutionarily, hybridization is usually "bad" for the fitness of the offspring. However this is not always the case. "Physical mating" is a barrier because usually two individuals need specific cues/signals from the other individual for physical mating to occur. However hybridization does occur between closely related species that share the same geographic location.
The massive culling of Sharks for their shark fins (thanks asians!!!) is the reason for the shark decline, nothing else. Disgusting.
Thanks for the truth.
Indeed – which clearly explains why the two species are found in AUSTRALIA (note the names in the article). Asian fishing in waters around Australia has been extra heavy in the past few years, right genius?
yeah, because europeans havent destroyed all civilizations they have encountered.
We have a lot to learn from them all right. A species is a population which cannot interbreed with other species in nature. That is the biological definition of species. If these interbreed, they are the same species Therefore no hybrid in the inter species sense. . That is what has been learned, one species not two.. And, yes they may also be subspecies. Maybe ocean current changes are bringing them together.
You are using an outdated definition of what a species is; a definition that pre-dates the discovery of DNA.
Because horses and donkeys are clearly the same species, despite the fact that they can interbreed and produce mules. Thanks for clearing that up for me...
Untrue. Horses and donkeys are separate species, but one can interbreed them and get mules. Likewise lion + tiger = liger and zebra + horse = zorse. And recently polar bear + grizzly = big mean bear. The question becomes whether the hybrid creature is itself fertile and capable of reproduction with others like it or with either of its parent species. If not then it's a dead end. If it is capable of reproduction then what you probably have is s sub-species which raises a whole host of other questions involving genetic grouping which are too complex to go into here.
The last time I was in Australia I saw probably 50 or 60 women I'd like to have "cross breed" with while at the beach...so I don't know why this would be different for sharks.
Hey boys, where all the white tipped sharks?
Race Card Shark!! 🙂
Forget white tips, we have the Great White!
Given only the data presented in this short article, I do think it's a little bit spurious to make an assertion that the hybridization of these sharks is the result of global warming. Without indication that the hybrid animals are a new product of two previously absolutely separate gene pools this is just a discovery of something we didn't know existed before. If it could be proved that the warmer water shark were expanding its territory southward as the waters warmed, leading to an intermingling of the ranges of the two species of sharks, then the scientists might have something to go forward with. Without evidence like that this assertion kind of screams of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Everything negative is due to global warming. Anything that could be seen as counter to the proof of global warming is weather or an anomaly. The church of the holy computer model of long range forecasting will not tolerate any dissension in the ranks.
Oh, there's plenty of scientific evidence for global warming. I'm as convinced that it's happening, and that we're some portion of the cause, as I am of anything. I believe my colleagues are right about that. I'm just pretty unconvinced that this particular finding is as a result of climate change.
Whatever is causing it there is weather change. But of course there always has been weather change. Greenland once grew grapes and now people are terrified that all that ice will melt. We have a long way to go before we grow grapes in
Greenland again! And yes, large weather changes do bring large current changes, and ...
sorry bazoing but where are you getting this idea that they grew grapes in greenland? you able to cite a source?
Well, Cedar Rapids, I doubt they ever actually grew grapes there, but it's true to say that it was a good deal warmer in the 10th Century CE than it is now – although the ice-cap was still the dominant feature of the landscape. There's a passingly fair description of the climate-history available in wikipedia.
but it's grant-friendly. The climate and specie change over time, humans or not. Looks like what we actually see there is the hybrid of global warming and static bible-like model of the world.
Yeah, the assertion that the species are "adapting" to global warming is an awfully big stretch.
The case that they are not sharing territory again and thus mating hold water but they really just should have left the "global warming" angle there.
Seriously. How is it possible that anyone could link something like this to 'global warming'. One might as will say that the arab spring is caused by 'global warming'. Sheesh.
No, the Arab Spring was the result of oppressed populaces reaching their tolerance level with their corrupt, bloodthirsty leaders. Nothing to do with global warming. Biological mutations can be attributed to global warming because, as the article says, one shark prefers warmer tropical waters while the other prefers colder water.
There has always been a boundary between the warm and temeprate waters – why is breeding in that zone now global warming?? I think the article just wants to get posted all over the globe and nothing gets you cross links quite as fast as mentioning those magic, unproveble words – global warming.
nice username. if there is a supreme being, then logic dictates that this being is Satan. I mean a loving god doesnt jerk-off to watching child predators kill children.
So, IF the warmer-water sharks start wandering into cooler-water sharks' space because its warmer, why have the cooler-water sharks stuck around? Seems like they'd be off to cooler water. Unless ofc they have evolved and decided they *like warmer water.
It wasn't specified to global warming. Climate change does indeed change water temperatures. If it's warmer in an area for the last 10 years, then the water gets warmer. Not a hard concept.
The real funny thing is, "global warming" wasn't mentioned a single time!!
Actually, the Arab spring is indirectly caused by global warming. The Arab Spring started in Tunisia. The reason the Tunisians revolted against their government was due to rising food prices, which hurt the poorest the most. Food prices rose partly due to a lack of supply, which was due to massive droughts, floods and other "severe weather", which was due to global warming. The other reason food prices rose was because speculators pushed up the price of food futures on the assumption that these "severe weather" events would continue and food would continue to be scarce.
you write too logically. this post is for uneducated folks.
"scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change" ?????
sharks are millions of years old, lived through many ice ages..... dont push your luck
Isn't the fact that sharks are still here millions of years after the dinosaurs conclusive enough for this argument that sharks "intentionally" adapt (whatever that means) to their environment? How else would they have survived this long? Divine providence?
Just like they adapted over the last several millions of years... while the climate changed.
Climate change is a fact. It's happened before, it will happen again, and we are in a warming cycle. The only real controversy about that (for people who actually think) is whether humans are actually speeding it up or not.
so the individual sharks that are of distinct species "think" to themselves ... the climate seems to be changing, I better mate with a shark of a different species ... even though it won't help me with this climate change .... at least my offspring will have more flexibility to adapt.
More likely, it's overlapped habitats more than they previously were and the sharks merely think "Gee, I need a sharkwife/husband, oh look, that one looks mostly like me, they'll work" and make baby sharks with a different kind of shark.
yes....that's called evolution...the temp could change in the ocean .5 degrees and phisiology is going to start changing and adapting. Who cares whether man is contributing to premature "Global Warming" it's happening and life will have to adapt to it.
How bout dealing with a completely NOT NEEDED 7 billion humans...many of whom (including me) consume more than our Bio-Dirversity can cope with. Decrease the population to half a billion and there will be plenty of space and resource for all.
But, religion and greed would never let that happen...too bad...I am Bender...Please insert gurder!
I'm not breeding...part of the solution...vasectomy at 23...so I can rant...took myself out of the equasion...:)
sadly, for every 1 human born to better the earth, there are 10 born to uneducated poor people with no future who will takeaway recources and prevent humans from evolving for the better.
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
Who says ppl are not needed? They have evolved naturally over a billion years just like sharks. We belong here too.
Perhaps people are needed to produce Bruce Willis to prevent the next big meteor strike and extinction event and thus protect all the other species hereabouts.
Thinking has as much to do with it as it has to do with your post.
why everyone always have to blame blacks for everthing.
I too am a hybrid
Yea... what species is your mom? I mean, she's hot and all, but what is she??
"Production of Hybdrid Sharks are expected to grow by more than 20% in 2012. However, engineers are attempting to repair a short in the electrical system when exposes to water.
University researchers are not alarmed by the apparent design flaw. 'Early adopters of the electically power sharks always expect to work through a few problems in the beginning'."
What I really wanted to know is: how many MPG do these sharks get, and how does that compare with traditional small engine ICE powered sharks?
American neo-conservatives wants Congress to pass a law to ban shark inter-species mating.
OH No we got to stop those evil sharks! lol
No – we just don't want progressives to pass a law that gives the house away to a few sharks because they are not white sharks.
good one. it wouldn't surprise me
No, we WANT them to inter-breed. That's why are secretly heating up the atmosphere and denying it publicly. Shhhh....
Great news since the population of sharks is dwindling because Asians need their shark fin soup.
[html][b][i][u]Evolution is "just" a theory, right?[/u][/i][/b][/html]
We sure have a lot more data to support evolution than we do for a big old guy that's watchings us touch ourselves so he can send us to hell...BUT HE IS WATCHING!!! ALL OF THE DIRTY STUFF...doesn't that kinda make god a freakin' Pervert??? God needs to come out of the closet!!!
What's next... interspecies marriage with humans?
Doesn't that already occur in rural Louisiana??
Already happened. Somebody once tried to marry their horse in Boulder, Co.
Interspecies marriage among humans already exists. When I got divorced, I learned that I had married a shark.
They are called "Lawyers". And there are some things that even a shark will not do.
I'd be more worried about dolphins evolving opposable thumbs. They're highly intelligent and probably the only thing stopping them from eradicating the human race is lack of said appendage to fashion weaponry with which to kill us all.
...Fox News Channel and radical conservatives everywhere decried the assertion that sharks are adapting to global warming by pointing out that there is no such thing and that all science is junk science if it runs against what they believe; they also noted that, because 1.7" of moderately wet snow gently fell on Minnesota on Saturday, it was proof that there is no such thing as global warming.
Well they make a good point. If the globe was warming up then their couldn't possibly be snow because it has to be cold for snow.
Organisms don't breed "to adapt" intentionally. Adaptation is not an active process except within the life of a given organism. (e.g., a shark may adapt to a fish nearby by swallowing it). What we perceive as 'adaptation' is the passive result of unsuccessful traits leaving the environment. (through non-survival or non-breeding) In this case, the interbreeding is likely the result of thinning populations, as the 'desirable mate' is selected from available sharks, not a sought 'ideal' shark.
Interesting, but I'll listen to Ph.D.s who study sharks for a living over a CNN commentator. Thanks though.
Be skeptical of anyone, even an educated person, who has an agenda...
Someone with a phd would tell you the same thing if they thought you could understand it.
I would call the ability to eat a new fish an acclimation, but that is from a microbiological viewpoint. I like your idea of dwindling population numbers forcing habitat change and possible inter-subspecies mating. But climate change sells. 🙂
Why Satan, never studied biology?
Taking a class in biology does not mean you understand biology. LOL
All steven has stated is the fundamental premise of evolution through natural selection, as he correctly recasts the article's tone. Sharks that interbreed are leaving more successful progeny in the current climate-change conditions. It is not about arriving at a desired goal.
Perhaps Steven but it is more likely that the boundary of their natural habitat is thinning, thereby allowing the two species to interact more than they were able to previously. A shrinking population would make contact less likely but also when contact is established then it would make mating more likely, so it could go either way.
I agree with your hypothesis over Steven's, but Steven's idea certainly is worth investigating. Are the populations of the two shark species declining? If not, that would shoot down Steven's hypothesis. If they are dwindling, then that would support Steven's hypothesis that sharks are traveling over longer distances to try to find a mate. But of course, measurements of water temperatures over the years should have been explicitly mentioned in the article. Since one has to assume that temperatures have actually been measured and shown to have gone up in the Southern region in order for the temperature model to be so highly favored. Of course, news media would tend to favor the most controversial interpretation to gain readers/viewers, so one should really talk directly to the scientists conducting the work before concluding too much of anything.
I was with you until you on the adaptation comment but you completely lost me when you threw out the wild supposition about why the sharks are interbreeding. Tisk tisk.
Do they have frickin laser beams? Seriously though, sharks are one of the longest lived creatures on this planet, almost a form of living fossil ... they didn't last this long without stirring the genetic pot from time to time.
Oh no! Black tipped sharks mating with Australian black tipped sharks? What is this world coming too?
Answer: Too many people who cannot distinguish between to, two and too. Please, go join the Bachman Campaign, you'll fit right in.
Wear 2 ?
I'll bet you had to proof your miserable reply for 10 minutes to be sure you had it right. You are still an idiot though.
People like you Cybersharque should go swim with the Great Whites. Nothing to add but crap. Get a life.