I like the premise of this article about eco-friendly fisheries, but they said some pretty stupid things. Here’s the part that made me the angriest:
“It is also possible to select types of fish that provide much more food while consuming less. The catfish, for example, originally an African freshwater fish, provides one kilo of fish for every 800 grams of food it consumes. The rest of its growth comes from the warmth of the water in which it swims and the air it breathes. The catfish is a lungfish.”
OK, what? “The catfish” is orignally from Africa? Do they think there’s only one species of catfish? It occurred to me that maybe they meant that all catfish came from a common African ancestor, which radiated and spread throughout the world. But no, the earliest known catfish fossils are from Argentina. They have to be talking about one particular species of catfish, but it’s stated as though there is only one species. ARGHH THAT MAKES ME MAD!!
And then they say that catfish are lungfish? When I read that, I ran outside, approached the nearest, baddest, biggest, toughest looking dude, and said, “I SLEPT WITH YOUR WIFE!!” Why did I to this? It’s simple: I didn’t want to look like a complete idiot when I started crying blood.
Guys, lungfish are lungfish! I get that you’re trying to convey that some catfish can utilize atmospheric oxygen, but they are not lungfish!
But wait, there’s another article that upset me slightly less. It describes a study that proposes the idea that hiccups may be an evolutionary throwback to breathing with gills. Scope this out, bros:
“Such brotherly creatures would be, you guessed it, frogs (more specifically tadpoles or any gilled amphibian or lungfish). “
That sentence doesn’t quite make sense. Yeah, uh, my favorite food is Japanese food (more specifically, spaghetti and other kinds of desert).
And then they briefly describe the theory of evolution:
“As anyone who has taken basic high-school biology can tell you, Darwin’s theory of evolution states that the most complex of today’s life forms, like the human being, evolved from the most simplistic of life forms, like the tadpole, millions of years ago.”
Well, yeah…kinda…? I guess that is what someone who has only taken basic high school biology would tell you. Are humans the most complex of today’s life forms? I’m pretty sure that’s debatable. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. But tadpoles are definitely not the “most simplistic of life forms”, and we did not evolve from an animal like a tadpole. In fact, frogs and humans both share a common ancestor in the Devonian, around 375 million years ago. The lobe-finned fish whose lineage produced four legged animals produced both frogs and humans. Evolutionarily speaking, frogs and humans are equally advanced.
Anyway, blah blah blah go home.