What do they mean “ Recently, scientists in Japan were surprised to find a species of oval squid raised in captivity could change its coat, depending on whether its tank was clean or covered in algae.”…are they students, because I saw this described and demonstrated in 88 in my marine biology class in Hawaii….then we dissected it….then we cooked and ate it as a class. Interesting teacher.

Absolutely not the first time they’ve been “caught” doing this…maybe the first time with high definition cameras, in one specific laboratory condition, with that specific species, raised in captivity, but this is every day behavior for many cephalopods, including squid, and absolutely not a new discovery.

Let’s see them decipher the intense flashings, strobing, color waves, slow fades, etc that they use to communicate and hunt. That might be a first….but I doubt it. Others have studied their insane chromatophores and their amazingly mailable mantles and how they use them for decades if not longer.

This is a neat bit of biology, but to pretend they just discovered this is outrageously dishonest. Get real, people knew squid camouflaged themselves amazingly well long before that guy named Jesus was fathered by a forced pedophilic inception. Almost like saying scientists just discovered newts like it moist, or that water is wet.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

When I was in Marine Biology (for years) I always thought of nudibranchs as sea slugs with style. Some more than others.

I'm once again kicking myself for not sticking with marine biology.
Damn nature, you AWESOME!

In California we have a JR/community college system that transfers credits to 4 year colleges. You can take your first 2 years at a DRASTICALLY reduced expense, < $50 a credit the last time I went. You can also go there without a major or plan, just to learn. That's what I did for years and years, building up credits towards a degree without declaring one. It's really sad that that's not the norm, it seems like a great system. Not only does it make entry into 4 year colleges easier and cheaper, it also makes the 2/3 of students that drop out in the first 2 years have FAR less debt (if any) when they decide school is no longer the right option. It also opens higher education up to high school students with aptitude and older people who simply want to learn something new without breaking the bank to do so. This also makes for a better, more diverse student body.
Before someone who doesn't know makes the assumption that the level of education is lower than 4 year schools, you should know that many have been awarded 'best college' and 'best teacher' for the state repeatedly. True enough, there is an upper limit to the classes offered, but advanced molecular organic chemistry, offered and taken at Foothill college, was fairly advanced, as was advanced marine biology, taught by the repeated winner of 'best teacher' in the state. Each class cost about $250. WHAT A DEAL!

unexpectedly survived?

Ok, I dont know much about marine biology, what I mean is that most crabs lay MILLIONS of eggs, most of these are eaten by fish and other creatures, in reality they neither expect to survive or expect to be eaten, they are just eggs, after all, and the same is true for the adult crabs, they simply lay the eggs and dont expect much at all, I assume. When I used the word "unexpectedly" in this context I mean that we, as observers, should expect most of them will be eaten.

I am suggesting that eggs that "should" have been eaten, wasn't.

Its all speculation on my part, of course, I was just trying to suggest a more-likely-than-mutation-explanation for their sudden appearence. Mutation doesnt have this kind of impact over a year or two, for mutations to change the creatures enough to change the way they reproduce, where they live, what they look like etc, you need mutations in hundreds of generations with selection. A mutation causing a sudden appearence of millions of indiviual organisms isnt likely at all.

Mutations doesnt work like in freaking Ninja Turtles, they dont just "create new species" like that. for a new species to be created you need mutations creating variations that are selected over many generations in isolation from the original species.

>> ^critical_d:

Odd how the scientific community seems to have more enthusiasm for exploring the oceans of Titan than our own. I read somewhere that the technological aspects of a dive like Cameron performed are as complex as a moon landing. I guess the thinking was that if something went wrong seven miles below then you are just as screwed as if you were in the Frau Mora Highlands. If the ultimate goal is to setup a colony on Mars or our own Moon, then we should practice in our own backyard first.


Firstly you make the mistake of assuming that all scientists COULD be working on deep sea exploration. There wasn't a scientist working on it but then a bloke pulled him away and asked him to do space instead. Not all of them enjoy marine biology, not all of them work in the correct or an analogous field.

Secondly, there is always the argument AGAINST directed research. That is, most of our most amazing discoveries happened through studying something else and often enough by accident, so why would directed research be any better? The cosmic background radiation was discovered at bell laboratories and they thought it was due to pigeon shit at first. You may as well go back in time and tell einstein to stop pissing about with light and help solve real world problems like in-car navigation. Then suddenly 50 years down the line we have no state of the art GPS system because he didn't go into relativity.

Thirdly, exploring deep sea trenches is, i believe, an engineering problem rather than a theoretical problem. Why would a scientist need to stop working on discovering things to help to either build or generate money for something?

Fouthly, if you think there's interesting stuff in the tiny amount of water that exists on our planet, you should read up on space.

Finally, at least some of the software tools developed by computational astrophysicists have been used to solve earth-bound problems such as climate change and weather systems, so if you study something else you may end up killing two birds with one stone.

Why the hell would anyone rather look at the ocean which is right next to us over the deepest reaches of space anyway? But if we find the key to faster than light travel down there, i'll be looking sheepish

From <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vg.no/iphone/article.php?<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vg.no/iphone/article.php?artid=591795">http://www.vg.no/iphone/article.php?artid=591795">VGNett

Translation of the quotes from scientists:

"the only sensational thing about this case is that its presented as a sensation.." , "Jørgen Berge, professor in marine biology at UNIS, Svalbard.

"Norwegian scientists have been studying these animals for 30 years, and the idea that this is news probably stems from old beliefs about how nothing could live under the ice"

"- If they had turned the camera around and looked at the seafloor they would have found a rich community of animals. Even if this drill is done well into the ice(far from the open sea) there are under-ice paths out to the ocean"

I already knew that. Marine biology in high school. Barnacles are stuck to the rocks so they have long prehensile penises that can go off exploring for other barnacles.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
He's wrong about Tapirs. They may have the largest penis/body size ratio of any MAMMAL but barnicles have them beat hands down for ANIMALS.
"Barnacles have the largest penis to body size ratio of the animal kingdom" - Wikipedia

Why would you investigate that?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'giant, squid, attack, submarine, ROV, marine, biology' to 'giant, squid, attack, submarine, ROV, marine, biology, tentacle rape, tentacle' - edited by sometimes

My google-fu suggests that it may be from a phylum of marine worms Nemertean worm, which has puzzled people before. While 7 to 10 feet is long, Nemertean worms "range in length from 1 mm to as much as 30 metres (100 feet) in the case of the bootlace worm, Lineus longissimus. Some texts quote lengths of up to 60 m, in which case, L. longissimus would be the longest animal alive (female blue whales reach about 34 m)".

To be honest, this sounds like a bit of a media overhype, especially from what appears to be the original news article (which I just found), that says, "Friends of Jay who work at the Smithsonian say it may be some sort of Nemertean Worm, but they're puzzled by some of its characteristics. For now they're simply calling it "undescribed"." Compare this with the news article quoted in Neatorama, which looks to have ripped everything from the original except for that small yet very crucial bit of information.

Also, I'm not going to mess with your tags, but might you consider changing the cryptozoology tag? Cryptozoology specifically refers to the search for organisms rumored or believed to exist, but that have not been conclusively shown to have exist. This video is of a creature that has not been identified yet but whose existence is not currently in question, and whose existence had not been hypothesized previously, so it seems to fall well into the realm of marine biology, not cryptozoology.

A fascinating documentary studying the most un-explored/unknown areas of our world - the oceans. Dedicated to NickyP and his love of Marine Biology!

Part two: Seas Of Life
Part three: Open Ocean
Part four: Frozen Seas
Part five: Seasonal Seas
Part six: Coral Seas
Part seven: Tidal Seas
Part eight: Coasts

I started my degree in marine biology, it is one of the most amazing subjects. I'm now studying cellular and microbial biology............ I miss the sea.

for the marine biology sifter geeks