Should we cry or laugh? (not for weak stomachs)

Kimberely

Kimberely

Airship Passenger
Adventurer
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
197
Location
Blackburn Science Building
Linkshell
CK ^.~
I am doing a research project on one of the most commonly used herbicides and if it has an affect on amphibians in my area.

Well, I have to give an oral report on Saturday at a conference...and I was wanting pictures of deformed frogs to go along with my talk.

I was expecting this to be kinda hard to do.... boy was I wrong... If you can't take the picture below then you definitely don't wanna click on the link...

This is the picture I like the most and I am trying to get permission to use...hope they dont mind me using it here XD But some times I don't know if I should laugh or cry. These are real frogs! And amphibians are a great indicator of how healthy an ecosystem is. I am just glad that I didn't see any frogs that were this grossly malformed.

http://images.google.com/images?q=deformed+frog&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

Deformed_frog_assorted_RASY.jpg
 
it isn't if we should cry or laugh. IT IS if you want me to cry or laugh... So which is it? =p
 
I think its scary. There's numerous reports with frogs with 3 eyes, legs like the ones pictured above, then even frogs that demasculinize. If I was a kid this would have made me laugh like hell...I wouldn't have understood that this was really caused by things that man does to his environment.

I really ment to say that we should laugh because we are next in this cycle. I took this biogeochemistry class last semester that makes you not want to eat, drink, or even breath. Sorry I was vague ><; just "excited" about things that I found and wanted to share with the masses... >.>;;

I am a geek... please forgive me. XD
 
Hardly evolution I would think.

Evolution, if you believe in the theory, is intended to allow the species to survive in circumstances that require new ability. Frogs, or even other animals, that develop these mutations do not have the same chance of survival due to predators or other set backs. In this case, I'd be thinking poisons or toxins as the set backs. It is sad, yet somewhat unavoidable.
 
Arctyrael said:
Hardly evolution I would think.

Evolution, if you believe in the theory, is intended to allow the species to survive in circumstances that require new ability. Frogs, or even other animals, that develop these mutations do not have the same chance of survival due to predators or other set backs. In this case, I'd be thinking poisons or toxins as the set backs. It is sad, yet somewhat unavoidable.
Click to expand...
Evolution is the process of random mutations entering the gene pool (not necessarily based on a need). Beneficial mutations survive and outperform the origonal form, thus evolving the species. Deteremental mutations die out and have no effect except a small cost of the creature population. Most mutations are determintal now as most species on Earth have already evolved greatly, so the chance of an improvement are lower. However, not all mutations are bad. Evolution also functions as creating variations in animals that protects against extinction caused by disease.

In this case, it appears the herbacide is causing mutations to happen more frequently. Mutations are a part of the evolutionary process. Thus, evolution at light speed.
 
I think it is more like chemical warfare on an undeclared opponent. I don't think things have a chance to evolve if they are all sick and dying.
 
Arctyrael said:
I think it is more like chemical warfare on an undeclared opponent. I don't think things have a chance to evolve if they are all sick and dying.
Click to expand...
OP didn't mention anything about it causing them to be sick and dying. Appears to only cause genetic mutations. Sure, if the mutation is detrimental, they will likely die. However, that's a necessary evil for the evolutionary process.
 
No, they don't have a chance to evolve at all. Especially since we are loosing our frogs at an alarming rate (part of the reason I got the EPA to sponser my research XD).

I know that there's been over 100 species that are now extict within the past century (very conservative and will find the exact numbers later this isn't research directly related to my study so I don't have it at hand). Because the frogs have a complex life cycle (they spend part in water and part on land) and because of their ability to absorb moisture through the skin they make wonderful indicators of contamination levels for a broad range of chemicals. A graduate student presents his defense tomorrow on standardizing a procedure for compounds such as DDT, PCB, and other dioxin like compounds in frogs....the same grad student I am "upset" with because he used all of the only deformed frog that we found. >.>


Edit:
Atrazine is noted to cause accumulation in tissue, developmental problems, genetic mutations, endocrine disruption, and reproduction problems in amphibians. So in a way this is chemcial warfare on frogs... Atrazine is used mostly for agricultural needs on corn, sugarcane, soy beans, macadamia nuts, and industrially on golf courses and other general places you wouldn't want weeds to grow. I think 122 different products on the market contain atrazine in them. I dont know the amount that is applied annually in the United States but here in Kentucky about 1 million pounds is applied every year.
 
Last edited:
lol, sounds interesting. See - there you have it. call it 'natural selection' but natural selection != evolution.
 
Mutations = 1st part of evolution. Natural Selection = 2nd part of evolution. I doubt the mutations are causing the population decline. If they were, it would be easy to find some of those mutated frogs that seem to be in a shortage. A few mutations don't hurt frogs much because they produce in such vast numbers. A single female frog can lay up to 30,000 eggs in one shot. You couldn't kill off all the frogs even if you wanted to.
 
oh I think I could.

A barbecue pit, and forgive the terrible allusion, a tribe of hungry Ethiopians and those forgs are toast.

Good Game.

*edit* the mistype on 'frogs' was too funny to change. But 'forgs' should be 'frogs.'
 
Last edited:
But the frogs actually pass the chemicals down into the eggs. Because the eggs are exposed to toxic chemicals during gestation (in the sac containing the eggs) more of the tadpoles come out deformed and fewer make it to adult hood. We aren't talking about simple mutations. These are frogs with 4 back legs which does inhibit the frogs ability to escape from preditors and general motion. If they were simple mutations there wouldn't be a need for research into it. Also if atrazine does cause frogs to turn hermaphorditic at a very low concentration as one study suggested (search Hayes Atrazine American Leopard frogs and you should find it pretty easy) then fewer numbers of frogs would be capable of reproducing.
 
Unless you have over a 10% mutated population, it really isn't going to hurt. Like I said, not all mutations are beneficial. However, that doesn't remove the chance of their being a beneficial mutation. Its the genetic slot machine. Mutations would be happening without the chemicals too, just not as this rate most likely. Unless these chemicals are straight out killing and sickening them, there isn't much to complain about. This reminds of the Simpsons episode and Blinky the fish. All you see are extra legs. What if one develops a longer tongue or two tongues and becomes a better hunter of insects.

My point Arcytrel is they are much harder to kill off than you think. Australia did have an invasion from a foreign frog once (bull frog I think?) that messed up their eco system some. They tried to kill it off, but they couldn't.
 
i have sympathy for the eco-system but hate frogs, they give me the creeps, nm a deformed one. ill stick to normal pets. i see frogs outside and kick them to the trees as hard as i can. haha. j/k.though i still love you kimberely.
 
Lol you do that cus frogs are fun to punt, they fly so far and look so funny when they fly.

But to the point. How can you be so sure this is a bad thing? A frog with 3 or 4 legs may be able to actually escape predatores more easily then one with 2. Theres more power per jump, they can swim faster with more legs. Take this for example. A human running vs a dog running. A dog kicks your ass cus they can push off the ground twice as many times as you do, resulting in more power and greater speed. Where im going is, perhams these mutations continue b/c the deformed frogs survive longer and more easily then the non deformed?

Just a thought.
 
Rones said:
Evolution is the process of random mutations entering the gene pool (not necessarily based on a need). Beneficial mutations survive and outperform the origonal form, thus evolving the species. Deteremental mutations die out and have no effect except a small cost of the creature population. Most mutations are determintal now as most species on Earth have already evolved greatly, so the chance of an improvement are lower. However, not all mutations are bad. Evolution also functions as creating variations in animals that protects against extinction caused by disease.

In this case, it appears the herbacide is causing mutations to happen more frequently. Mutations are a part of the evolutionary process. Thus, evolution at light speed.
Click to expand...

Goddamn you're smart ._.;;
 
It's like that Three-Eyed Fish from the Simpsons was no less a joke than a prophecy...
 
fukkin h4x!

I want 4 arms!

Goro wins!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top