Why some fish are warm-blooded mystery solved

[Eldorado]

For over 50 years now, scientists have known that, despite their reputation, not all fish are cold-blooded. Some shark and tuna species, the white shark and the Atlantic bluefin tuna, have evolved the ability to warm parts of their bodies, such as their muscle, eyes and brain.

About 35 species of fishes – accounting for less than 0.1% of all described fishes – have this ability, which allows them to stay warmer than the water around them. Until recently, however, the reason this ability evolved was a mystery.

Full monty at Yahoo news: Link

Original article at the Conversation: Link

[Biggz]

And this is worth researching why?

[Still Waters]

1 hour ago, Biggz said:

And this is worth researching why?

The same reason anything is worth researching.

In this case it tells you in the article:

Quote

We hope that taking these findings into account could better inform future work on the conservation and protection of these unique but threatened animals.

 

[NCC1701]

3 hours ago, Biggz said:

And this is worth researching why?

Because climate change theory has highjacked science.

[Troublehalf]

1 hour ago, NCC1701 said:

Because climate change theory has highjacked science.

I mean, lets for a moment say that the temperatures of the oceans are not rising. How is finding out information about how fish work and the differences between cold-blooded and warm-blooded fish a bad thing? Why does expanding human knowledge have to have an 'agenda' beyond the desire to know something we did not already know? Finally, lets just say the temperatures are not rising, but could possibly rise in the future... knowing this information could assist organisations in preserving the species. So, better to know it now, eh? Also it is spelled hijacked, for future usage. See, you learned something new there! Fun!

5 hours ago, Biggz said:

And this is worth researching why?

As I said above, why is it a bad thing to learn something new? Plenty of interesting things have been created due to research into unrelated and 'useless' things. It's a really strange position to take unless it is your money they are directly using and if that's the case, perhaps you should be asking the team you gave the money to this question, rather than here :D. But to answer your question, the article explains why. It's not a very long article.

[Tatetopa]

If you fish for tuna you know they are wicked fast and hot blooded. If you like to eat them somebody has to catch them.  If we understand their life cycle we have a better chance of keeping them around as a healthy food source.  That is a selfish reason.  There are plenty of others.

[RAyMO]

7 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

If you fish for tuna you know they are wicked fast and hot blooded. If you like to eat them somebody has to catch them.  If we understand their life cycle we have a better chance of keeping them around as a healthy food source.  That is a selfish reason.  There are plenty of others.

I saw what you did there - well done. 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, NCC1701 said:

Because climate change theory has highjacked science.

Scientists are not generic nerds in white coats.  They specialize.  Some study climate science a lot don't.  You see a lot of research because the military, NASA and the weather service are interested, not to mention farmers and others that depend on temperature and water to produce their products. The DOD ponies up some of the research grants.