Talk:Cyclopteridae

Creationism

Do you believe it is appropriate to say that the Lumpsucker's pelvic fins ... "have evolved into adhesive discs" as opposed to that they were created with adhesive discs? I don't believe in evolution. Lizzy 03:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nearly the entire life sciences section of WP is based on the assumption that evolution is factual; why not get an agreement to change all of that first, and then we can get back to this article. Stan 04:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Should I delete these talk entries or just leave them? Lizzy 11:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Leave them please. It's very confusing to have a talk page exist but be empty! :-) Stan 15:04, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AKA

http://dict.die.net/cock-paddle/ Cock-paddle and sea owl could be added as other names.

Reference to the Lumpsucker's pelvic fins; 

"have evolved into adhesive discs"...why not "adapted" to adhesive discs? The ventral fins unite and form a ventral sucker for adhesion to stones and seaweeds. Evolution is a strong word without backing and 100% proof but a theroy. Sean Armstrong (P.G.Z.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.24.2 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the reason why not: a physical characteristic like a fin is not something which is "adapted to a disc." That's bad grammar to begin with and weak logic to follow it. The use of the word "evolution" is FAR less strong or controversial than the word "adapted" inasmuch as you mean the latter to suggest a non-evolutionary theory of life. The life sciences do not consider evolutionary theory at all controversial because the controversy ended about a hundred years ago, not long after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" and eventually convinced the remaining scientific skeptics that the "theory of evolution" was the best, most convincing, most efficient, and simplest explanation for the complex and incredibly varied patterns of life he had observed on his world journeys.

I find it not a little ironic that the Wikipedia talk page of the lumpfish is any kind of forum for such linguistic or conceptual parsing. No theory, no theory of anything (even the theory of relativity), can ever be "proven", as such: theories either "work well" or they do not (the theory of relativity happens to work very, very well, though even it has its limitations). You can derive a hypothesis from a theoretical perspective, you can set up a "test" of that "hypothesis" according to scientific principles, and then, depending on your results, you can either "reject" that hypothesis or "fail to reject" it with a certain degree of certainty. In this sense, nothing in the entire universe ever gets "proven" to be true, only failed to be proven false, and then only false with some degree of certainty. This is where science accepts a humility that religion and creationism do not: THERE ARE NO 100% CERTAINTIES IN SCIENCE! Expecting science to adhere to a principle of "100%" is to reject science as a discipline and to become religious. Religion is full of 100%... Many would call that hubris.

It happens that the theory of evolution works very, very well to explain the variation that we can observe in the forms of life on this planet, including the structure and apparent function of the fins of the lumpfish. Hypotheses derived from it have been proposed countless times, and those hypotheses have "failed critical rejection" so often that most scientists now treat evolution as a rather casual matter-of-fact state of affairs. They treat nuclear fusion the same way. And polio vaccines. And the cause and treatment of cystic fibrosis, and the periodic table of the elements. No, no, none of the theories related to these events or systems has ever been proven, certainly not. If you would like to operate in a world that insists that this 100% be achieved before accepting them as casual fact, you are not living in a world that accepts science on its own terms, terms which are testable but never certain.

Are there gaps in the theory of evolution? Of course. These gaps are fascinating, and yet they do not make the theory any less sound. If it did not work well as a theory, scientists would come to reject it like they have the theory of creationism and the theory of intelligent design. Those are not scientific theories because they do not accept a possibility of error and they do not produce hypotheses which are testable under scientific terms, under the terms of the lumpfish and its fins.

--KDS4444 05:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

KDS4444: Some popular scientists may have rejected Creationism and Intelligent Design, but its not because these fail to provide testable predictions of the natural world. Its because they choose to believe the paradigm that excludes a God. Fundamentally, the theory of evolution has no foundation; Its basic tenets have no evidence whatsoever to support them. (we're talking about the biggie - how by chance non-life became life; how new information is generated by random mutation, how a multitude of immensely complex and interdependent functions appeared simultaneously, all by chance, given that not one of them had any reason to exist alone; and that Natural Selection is the driving force of goo-to-you Evolution, which it patently isn't). It was formulated in the era that postulated the 'simple cell', which proved to be horrendously wrong: however, unwilling to relinquish the immensely popular theory, 'scientists' continue to heap incredible claim upon another, in order to justify it. The Theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, as at its heart it is based upon storytelling that has no basis in observable processes. As soon as one 'theory' is shown to be incorrect, a new one is invented to take its place, but the overall concept is never challenged. This is the 'science' that many in this world put their faith in. Yes faith. Evolution is a religion. I dont say that lightly, it happens to be the truth, if you are prepared to hear it. You are most welcome to believe it, far be it from me to tell you what to believe. Just dont call it science. 116.212.199.202 (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. It does not operationally require an account of non-life becoming life. That is the purview of abiogenesis. That is a separate but related endeavor. You repudiate the process of supplanting faulty scientific ideas with better ones. That process is the very basis of progress. Good ideas remain; bad ideas are relegated to history: all else is stagnation. But why post this on a lumpfish talk page? How obscure and strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.209.141 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

People that want to discuss creationism should add their comments at Talk:Creationism or the talk.origins page (link in red section on Talk:Creationism), not here. Until you have provided reliable published evidence over there (good luck with that), creationism remains a fringe theory with no valid position in a scientific article like Lumpsucker. 62.107.214.225 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Scandinavian names

There's some understandable confusion regarding names which in turn has led to missing links to pages that exist in Swedish and Norwegian. "Steinbider" is the danish name of Cyclopterus lumpus. "Steinbit" is the Swedish and Norwegian name for wolffish/Anarhichadidae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarhichadidae)

Cyclopterus lumpus is called "rognkjeks/rognkjekse" or "rognkall" in Norwegian: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rognkjeks_og_rognkall

and "sjurygg" in Swedish: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjurygg 84.208.103.235 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lumpsucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082414/http://www.sax.is/?gluggi=utgerd&id=3836 to http://www.sax.is/?gluggi=utgerd&id=3836

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

how to properly add references to 'lumpsucker roe production' section?

I changed some of the entry about lumpsucker roe production, in the section, "Fishers and the lumpsucker industry" (I suspect that section title should refer to Fisheries, not Fishers, or at least be somehow different/better?), to be this (minus italics): 'targeted primarily for its roe in Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway, and to a lesser extent in Denmark and Sweden.', adding the 'in' to the list of places, and moving Denmark and Sweden to lesser producers, the list change from the following reference, but I don't know how to properly reference my changes. The reference is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328601612_A_brief_history_of_lumpfishing_assessment_and_management_across_the_North_Atlantic , under the section "Fishery". UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)