Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:00 pm
Research: Fishing interfering with evolution
20/02/2005 - 12:17:18
Scientists say bad fishing practices are interfering with evolution.
American researchers are predicting the collapse of underwater ecosystems because of the changing genetic make-up of fish.
They've found they're getting smaller because fishermen are catching huge numbers of older fish as they're larger and more highly prized.
Natural selection is driving the underwater creatures to become smaller since these are the ones most likely to escape the nets........
:twisted: Quatermass or what :!: .............
Time to put them back :?: .........................
Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:37 pm
:? :? :? :? Quatermass :?: :?: :?: :?:
Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:39 pm
:? :? :? :? Quatermass :?: :?: :?: :?:
Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:50 pm
Scary,doomsday type science fiction programme from the 1970's.
Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:42 pm
You remember the 70's??
Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:55 pm
showing your age there shooky :D :D k2 was still an itch in his dads pants in the 70's
Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:24 pm
K2 may still be an itch in his da's pants,,,,,,,having to drive him evey where.
I hope K2 can take a joke :lol: :lol: or I am in big doggie do do's...
why OH why does that not surprise me about fish getting smaller,,,I think I would call it greed by the big boys.......
I want that fish today,,,,
may it be small
may it large
I still want that fish today
all togather "sing"
I want that fish today
I really want that fish today.....
full copy right of this song is minesssss :lol: :wink:
Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:45 am
shockleader50 wrote:Scary,doomsday type science fiction programme from the 1970's.
I think you'll find that "Quatermass and the Pit." The BBC production dates from c1959.................
Where's me bloody wheelchair :D :D :D :D :D
Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:27 pm
i'd be inclined to take many of these 'scientific reports' with a pinch of salt. evolution takes thousands and millions of years to take place. the huge commercial long liners, and trawlers we know, and despise have only some into existance in the past fifty years. evolution doesn't happen overnight, look how long it took for human civilasation to be born, and this took place in the blink of an eye with regards the lifetime of planet earth. a much more logical explanation is that all the big fish have been netted, and don't get a chance to grow to maturity. they simply didn't stop growing to avoid the nets......ignore the yanks, look at the state of the world at the moment coz of them!
Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:56 pm
sorry, i just reread my post there, i didn't mean to sound pretentious or anything, it's just alot of these reports are presented in a very biased way in order accredit the members of the group that compiled the report. there's no doubt fish sizes have collapsed, but evolution did not do it in fifty years
Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:05 pm
frodo baggins wrote:sorry, i just reread my post there, i didn't mean to sound pretentious or anything, it's just alot of these reports are presented in a very biased way in order accredit the members of the group that compiled the report. there's no doubt fish sizes have collapsed, but evolution did not do it in fifty years
frodo, Millions of years :?: . It's obvious you haven't seen the march of low lying Daisies and Dandelions hiding in the lawn. It's taken them appx,
120 years to learn to duck. Only 5 million for man to stop knuckle dragging and walk upright, (Castle Street on Saturday night is the exception that proves the rule). Fish must evolve faster than man....
ergo: If you ain't going to eat it put it BACK :wink: .
What happened to non collapsible NETS :idea:
PS, BBC Quatermass and the pit broadcast in 1958..........
Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:34 pm
Don't worry Dave, Joke well taken.
You gonna be down in the Rocks any night this week Ronald??
Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:04 am
you cannot compare the relatively simple structure of basic plant species that comprise of little more than phloem, and xylem cells, who's very structure have allowed for rapid adapabitilty, hence dandelions, and daisies being considered weeds, in comparison to the complex, and extremely fragile nature of many fish species, if anything at all is going to happen to fish stocks, is that they are simply going to become extinct....
no offence, but so called environmentalists, that have little qualifications other than a keen interest in nature often do more harm than good
incase you wonder who am i to critise, i am soon to hold a Bsc in environmental science. sorry for gettin so narky, but i can't stand these made up reposts that constantly appear.....look at cholesterol, 10 years ago, doctors said avoid everything so our levels would stay low, then within two years another major report claimed that we require a healthy level of the stuff.....it just depends what slant you want to take on an issue.
yes fish stocks have fallen through the floor, but fish haven't suddenly decidided to stop growing.
Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:24 pm
... i am soon to hold a Bsc in environmental science.
I hope you have already received your exam results or that you had your fingers firmly crossed when you wrote above :lol: . Though typing with crossed fingers might be a problem.
Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:53 pm
why what did i do? i'm confused!
Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:58 pm
oh you mean the Bsc?! that stands for Bachelor of Science!
i honestly didn't mean to come across all preachy, and trying to put people down, it's just alot of those reports lack credentials
Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:58 pm
Frodo get off your high horse and get a proper degree. You do not need to have any qualifications to be environmentally aware. Anybody with half a brain and the ability to read will be able to form their own opinions which will be as valid as a spotty teenager with a 'one for a pound' science degree. Just because you are soon to have your undergraduate degree doesnt make you a world expert.
Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:00 pm
i didn't claim to be! i'm just sayinfg fish don't stop growing in 50 years, that's all
Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:59 pm
Hello Jack the Fish,
Whether or not these scientists are right or wrong is not the point here lads. The point is simply one we are already aware of -> fish stocks are declining and need to be protected. If anything we should be supporting reports of this nature. Broadcast them, advertise them and let people know. The more people that know about these very important matters the better chance there is of someone being able to do something about them.
Thanks Jack the Fish :!: :D
Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:11 am
look i'm sorry, i can't help but beg to differ yet again. i'm totaly in support of conservation, but you can't support every report that is released, especially when they make these kind of claims. you need to be sure that these reports are 100% air tight, and the scientists who compiled it didn't choose to ignore certain aspects of the environment such as heavy metal traces in the water, a lack of certain food species for a number of years, the pH of the water, there are a million different factors that come into play, and by presenting data in certain ways you can make these reports prove anything, literally anything. take the anti fishing and hunting lobby, they're constantly cramming scientific reports in our faces, and telling us we're killing the planet. however, if you actually start to follow up on these reports alot is just nonsense. the best example is their insane claim that it is more environmentally sound to eat whales! i'm sure ye've all heard that one.......and i'm still waiting for flounder boy to get back to me to inform me of his qualifications in the envrionment. i never said i was a world expert, but i've put in 4 years in college, and in the eyes of any employer, that makes me an expert in my choosen field. which in turn makes my point far more valid than someone who read a report on page 10 of some newspaper(this is not a crack at you jack the fish).
just look at ALL the factors before jumping to conclusions
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.