iamzrad
Members
That is crazy and cool. Would def. like to see something like this in person.
Lively
Members
Half the fun of salt is inverts. I'm curious if they could survive it - but wouldn't do it myself. Too odd for me.
George
CCA Charter Member and person in charge of the we
Photoshop?
Lively
Members
I read the article - linked a couple of posts down on that forum. Said that Kordon invented some sort of special sugar water. I figure it is probably for real - I imagine it'd cost a fortune to keep a tank like that running.
http://www.aquavet.com/kordon/articles/wonder_water.htmhttp://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/auction.cgi?fwapisto&1245290603
http://www.aquavet.com/kordon/articles/wonder_water.htmhttp://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/auction.cgi?fwapisto&1245290603
DiscusnAfricans
Past President
It said the specific gravity was 1.006, so isn't it basically just acclimating both fish to brackish water?
Lively
Members
No, I don't think so. I think that if that were possible, someone would have done it before, it would just take a lot of time. My understanding of the slide further down - 5 minutes and you can plop any old fish in. Salt and fresh water have different properties.
The experiment was based on the premise that all fish lived in the same water at one time - seems like a faulty premise to me. I think it is safe to say it rained all those years ago, I've never heard of rain being salty.
UNCLERUCKUS
"THE ALL POWERFUL Q !!
i agree that and the fact that the give the water a electrolyte solution. think iv, gatorade, pedialyte type solution for your fish to swim in. i admit it does look cool but im wondering the cost to my fish.
DiscusnAfricans
Past President
Even if the premise is correct, the transition took millions of years. That rain was natures version of the drip method, certain populations got isolated from the main source, and so on. I loved studying evolution in school, which is one of the reasons why I love the Africans and how they evolved into their current selection. I'd love to see my discus swimming with clownfish, or my africans with tangs and groupers, but I don't think I'll ever try it. Water changes would get tricky.
Lively
Members
Hmm, treading in dangerous water here...(pun intended) but what the heck!
Even if you assume that evolution is a fact (I don't - I can't buy into the fact that you must accept that at the start some lifeform has to just "appear" on the scene - even the most simple lifeform is so complex that we have never been able to recreate that event) But - for arguements sake - lets assume that some form of evolution was at work. I find it impossible to believe that all the water on the world was salt. Aquafers, streams, pools, lakes and rivers by nature of natural filtration are fresh. By the time the "sludge" turned into a lifeform there should have been plenty of fresh water by then.
Even if you assume that evolution is a fact (I don't - I can't buy into the fact that you must accept that at the start some lifeform has to just "appear" on the scene - even the most simple lifeform is so complex that we have never been able to recreate that event) But - for arguements sake - lets assume that some form of evolution was at work. I find it impossible to believe that all the water on the world was salt. Aquafers, streams, pools, lakes and rivers by nature of natural filtration are fresh. By the time the "sludge" turned into a lifeform there should have been plenty of fresh water by then.
DiscusnAfricans
Past President
I'm not going to start the evolution vs. creation debate. I had to write several papers on both sides of the topic during college. I'd have to do more specific research before I had valid points to present, so we'll just say "Who knows?"
Lively
Members
I don't want to debate it, either. Setting aside what either of us (or anyone else for that matter) believes in - there is one fact that no one on either side of this debate can resolve - they actually agree. Either way, life "spontaniously" occured.
And, either way - I think there was fresh water on earth by the time fishies got here
And, either way - I think there was fresh water on earth by the time fishies got here
F8LBITE
Members
If theres no long term effects then this guy could be sitting on top of a gold mine.
Even if it had no ill effects on the fish long term I would still have no desire to do it. Id rather just do one or the other. I like all my tanks to look as "natural" as I can so maybe that side of me just says even if it works no thanks. Ill politely decline
And I wonder why they only show goldfish as the freshwater fish in the demos :unsure:......I know i know it does says discus and yada yada further down.
And I wonder why they only show goldfish as the freshwater fish in the demos :unsure:......I know i know it does says discus and yada yada further down.
George
CCA Charter Member and person in charge of the we
One does not have to make any assumptions about evolution. We are talking acclimation here. It is a fact that the Amazon used to flow into the PACIFIC, not the Atlantic. When the Andes rose up through plate movement things changed and salt/brackish water fish were trapped. Realize that this didn't happen overnight. It took awhile. Many fish must have died because they could not adjust, but some "acclimated. That is why we have dolphins and stingrays in the fresh water Amazon. This is far less difficult to grasp when you realize that many fish move between salt (not brackish) and fresh (not brackish) water, especially for the pupose of breeding.
There are articles in old TFH magazines about special powders and solutions that allowed you to mix salt and fresh water fish. This is not new. Most turned out to be either hoaxes or temporary conditions. Fish nuts have been trying to do this for ages. Maybe someone finally found one that really works. I doubt it though.
Kordon has done some strange stuff. Breather bags work and I still have a tough time grasping just how. I wouldn't bet on a long term method for keeping Apistos and clowns (Nemo) in the same tank.
George
Lively
Members
The assumption stated in the article was that all fish came from the same water - I just don't buy that. Even from an evolutionalist’s standpoint - I don't buy it. By the time evolution got to the point of fish - there should have been fresh water.
What I was responding to,
Acclimation to differing environments makes more sense, the fact that there are so many similar yet different fish in a single body of water and our ability to manipulate gene pools to get brighter than natural fish support that. But, my belief that not all fish evolved from one body of water explains why there are only a handful of fish that go between fresh and salt and a few that actually are found in both. It’s really not any different than the assumption that some organisms developed on land and some in water – just that they developed in both salt and fresh with a crossover in some areas.
Mainly, I was pointing out how this experiment was based on what I feel to be bad science – but I was trying to also make it clear that I wasn’t saying that the science of evolution is all bad – tricky thing with this subject. A faulty premise more often than not leads to faulty assumptions and/or conclusions. It’s darn near impossible to discuss this aspect of science without being drawn into the creation/evolution issue. I was trying to stave off that part of the discussion, but I probably should have made that more clear.
I hope that no one has taken offense to anything I’ve said – it’s not my intent to do so. In no way am I saying that one side is right or wrong in these posts.
What I was responding to,
Acclimation to differing environments makes more sense, the fact that there are so many similar yet different fish in a single body of water and our ability to manipulate gene pools to get brighter than natural fish support that. But, my belief that not all fish evolved from one body of water explains why there are only a handful of fish that go between fresh and salt and a few that actually are found in both. It’s really not any different than the assumption that some organisms developed on land and some in water – just that they developed in both salt and fresh with a crossover in some areas.
Mainly, I was pointing out how this experiment was based on what I feel to be bad science – but I was trying to also make it clear that I wasn’t saying that the science of evolution is all bad – tricky thing with this subject. A faulty premise more often than not leads to faulty assumptions and/or conclusions. It’s darn near impossible to discuss this aspect of science without being drawn into the creation/evolution issue. I was trying to stave off that part of the discussion, but I probably should have made that more clear.
I hope that no one has taken offense to anything I’ve said – it’s not my intent to do so. In no way am I saying that one side is right or wrong in these posts.
DiscusnAfricans
Past President
You'll never offend me without trying. I love the whole point/counterpoint conversations. Its not even a debate because we're just presenting opinions and not arguing to prove ourselves correct. Just a topic that leaves a lot open to interpretation, which will create varying opinions. Gotta love the ability to form your own opinion and be able to express it too!
Lively
Members
DiscusnAfricans
Past President
If you'd like. But it you do it because you're required to, then you're likening yourself to an old curmudgeon as you referred to George.*poke* can I try? :angry:
:jumping0045:
Sorry, couldn't resist.
