Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Frog with no lungs found in Indonesian wild

MICHAEL CASEY

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 8:59 PM EDT 19/04/08

Joins a short list of amphibians with unusual trait of breathing through its skin ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brook Tyler from Mississauga, Canada writes: Absence of lungs is hardly support for evolution. Lacking parts is simply the result of a mutation where information (how to grow lungs) has been lost.

    B. Tyler
  2. David Spaetzel from Port Elgin, Canada writes: Mr Tyler, this is part of how evolution occurs. The genetic mutation you speak of results in a change in the physical makeup of the animal. In most cases, this results in the death of the individual, as the lack of lungs would in a human. In rare cases, such as we see here, the result proves to be an advantage. The resulting individual survives, and passes the mutation along to its offspring. At this point, we may call the mutation an adaptation. It is good to see that you are beginning to understand how this works.
  3. Carly Blackwell from Toronto, Canada writes: Mr. Spaetzel, you seem to know your stuff. Are you a member of the scientific community, or working toward it? Thanks for the comments!
  4. David Harrison from Canada writes: To Brook Tyler, please don't assume that "evolution" = "progress". Evolution is the process of animals becoming increasingly adapted to their environment via mutation and natural selection. Sometimes that results in something that looks like progress to our biased eyes, sometimes it doesn't. It's still evolution regardless. And this frog seems well adapted, or it would not survive without lungs, would it not?

    The loss of the lungs may well have been a random mutation, but why did this survive and spread through the species? The answer can only be that it was a positive adaption, possibly because it reduced development or maintenance energy costs for a body feature that was not needed, thus giving frogs without lungs a slight advantage over frogs with lungs.

    This* is why it is proof of evolution. Loss of lungs in *one frog is a mutation, but the spread of that through an entire species requires natural selection to select frogs without lungs over frogs with lungs.
  5. Tim Fromhere from Cd. del Carmen, Mexico writes: I don't suppose this frog can croak without any lungs. (I mean croak as in make vocal noise, not as in die.) Most species emit some sounds to send messages to friend or foe. They don't mention anything about this aspect of having no lungs. Just curious, that's all.
  6. David Spaetzel from Port Elgin, Canada writes: Thanks, Carly. I did study to be a biologist, but ended up being a banker. Right now, I'm a mortgage broker. No, not that kind.
  7. James Knowles from Edmonton, Canada writes: Note to Globe and Mail: breathing through the skin is not an unusual trait for amphibians - all amphibians exhibit epidermal respiration to some degree. It's the absence of lungs that is the rarity.

    Brook Tyler: You are hardly qualified to judge what is or is not evidence of evolution. There is plenty of good evidence of evolution that has been around for many years, and has been thoroughly accepted by the scientific community. If you are not convinced as of yet, another piece of evidence is unlikely to convince you either. Why not leave it up to the people that actually study this stuff for a living to decide what is evidence of evolution?
  8. foo bar from Canada writes: I think sometimes my life would be better if my wife didn't have lungs ;)
  9. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I'm glad they found this frog in time, for us to watch it become extinct: The way its habitat seems to be going.
  10. Bill H from London, Canada writes: David Harrison from Canada writes: To Brook Tyler, please don't assume that "evolution" = "progress". Evolution is the process of animals becoming increasingly adapted to their environment via mutation and natural selection.
    ...........................
    Au contraire: Evolution simply means a change in gene frequency within a breeding population. The change may or may not be beneficial. It is most commonly those changes that improve fitness and allow a species to adapt that we are most aware of. Other changes may not necessarily improve fitness but may persist only because they have no negative effect.
  11. D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: If anyone would like to see a good explanation of evolution, check out a PBS Nova documentary called Judgement Day. The program's website is here:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

    and there is a version available from Google here:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911

    It mostly covers the recent court case in Dover but has a really good explanation of evolution.
  12. leo bloom from radisson, sask, canada, Canada writes: Hummm, frogs without lungs, eh? That's a new one. I've heard tell of humans without brains in the parliamentary rainforests of Ottawa and humans without hearts in the wilderness of Washington, but I've never heard of frogs without lungs. Oh, what surprises are next...
  13. Howard Citrin from Canada writes: Let's the arguments straight for Mr. Tyler:

    - It is considered a fact (proven), that species to change traits over time. That means evolution is a fact.
    - What is in debate is the mechanism by which evolution takes place.

    This article makes no attempt to explain the mechanism of evolution.

    Similarly, it is a fact that the earth is warming. What is being debated is the mechanism by which this is happening.
  14. Mr. Reilly from Canukistan, writes: So What: Here in Canada we hve politicians with no hearts, some have no brains, some have no ethics and the two who are left over have no clue.
  15. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Yourname 2 from Canada writes: IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS??

    ============================================

    Awww, I cant resist this one..........
    No one ever said we evolved from monkeys.

    Monkeys and humans share a distant, common ancestry (as do all things, ultimately) but both have evolved as SEPARATE branches of the evolutionary tree.

    See? Simple really.
  16. David Harrison from Canada writes: Bill H: Your point about evolution being fundamentally a change in gene frequency over time is absolutely true, but I was trying to focus on a simpler point than getting into population genetics. For the vast majority of cases, gene frequency change is linked to natural or other forms of selection and represents increasing adaption, rather than increasing "progress" or "complexity" or other biased terms.

    The key point is that an entire species of "frogs without lungs" is a likely indicator that there was a benefit to the change, or it was relatively neutral and linked to a beneficial change. It therefore is absolutely something that is an indicator of evolutionary change.
  17. Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: Kinda like Bart's three eyed fish?
  18. JC perfide from Paris, France writes:

    I am glad to get lungs with no frogs in them..
  19. D D from Ottawa, Canada writes: If the picture provided by G&M is accurate, it is interesting that the little fella still has nostrils. One might speculate that those would close up also. Interesting stuff!
  20. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Yourname 2 from Canada writes: IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS??

    ============================================

    Awww, I cant resist this one..........
    No one ever said we evolved from monkeys.

    Monkeys and humans share a distant, common ancestry (as do all things, ultimately) but both have evolved as SEPARATE branches of the evolutionary tree.

    See? Simple really.

    Just to add to what you have mentioned it is easy to see in dogs.
    All dogs have evolved from wolves ( common ancestor ).
    Selective breeding depending on the enviornment has led to all different species we see today.
    Dogs are great example of evolution through breeding as one can see the differences in a breed such as the Bulldog just over the course of the last few hundred years.
    Interesting always to see that we don't know as much as we think and that new species are still out there undiscovered.
  21. Ronald Needmayer from Canada writes: Very interesting frog.

    Steve Just Steve, are you employed in the area of special education? You seem to have a knack for speaking with the mentally challenged!
  22. boom boom from Canada writes: Hmm, a mammal without lungs. Maybe should go to Parliament Hill to join those without brains.
  23. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    Brook Tyler from Mississauga, Canada writes: Absence of lungs is hardly support for evolution.

    No one actually said it was.
  24. W J from Canada writes: To me, this just is another example of flaws in evolution THEORY. If a mutation caused a frog to lose its lungs, it dies. Period. It will not have time to gain another mutation to somehow magically gain the ability to breathe through its skin. Even if it did by some MIRACLE, what's the chance of there being another frog with the same mutations? Even if there was, what's the chance of those 2 frogs being in the geographic and chronologic proximity to finding each other to mate to start a new species.
  25. Mungo Mungo from Canada writes: To W J from Canada...

    When we are talking about mutations in evolutionary biology, we are talking about genetic mutations, not 3 arms, 2 heads, etc.

    These mutations occur over time, it's not like a frog appeared one day with no lungs and bingo, met another frog with no lungs and had lungless baby frogs together... which is what your post implied.

    Also, who said it evolved from a frog that even had lungs? We don't know.

    Oh, and a theory isn't lower than a law in science fyi.

    This article doesn't show a flaw in evolutionary biology, it shows a flaw in the Canadian educational system.
  26. Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: WJ, you seem hung up on the word "theory".

    In science, "theory" does not mean what it means when we use it in casual conversation. Roughly it would translate to "law".

    So evolution is a theory, but there's still museums full of dinosaur bones. Gravity is a theory as well, but when I drop my cat he still lands on his feet.
  27. The Real PS from Canada writes: Sure hope those weren't the last 8 in the world....
  28. Anton Berger from Kelowna, Canada writes: politicians without brains found throughout North America. news at eleven...
  29. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: As long as religious nutbars continue to misrepresent evolution, they will continue to "win" debates about it.

    Perhaps we should be grateful that they -- well, MOST of them, anyway -- have given up fighting the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, contrary to what any version of the Bible teaches.
  30. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: Why are we surprised at this discovery? Ottawa is full of politicians with no hearts and Toronto with business types with no balls.
  31. W J from Canada writes: To Mr. Justice from Canada who wrote: As long as religious nutbars continue to misrepresent evolution, they will continue to "win" debates about it.

    Maybe the "religious nutbars" are "winning" the detates because evolution has no legs to stand on....
  32. W J from Canada writes: To Snowed in in Barrie who wrote: ... So evolution is a theory, but there's still museums full of dinosaur bones. Gravity is a theory as well, but when I drop my cat he still lands on his feet.

    When I attended high school, things like "2nd law of thermodynamics" is taught as a law, not theory! Things like "theory of relativity" is taught as theories. Law is usually observed and accepted as a rule. Theory is a proposed explanation as an attempt to explain those laws & other things.
  33. W J from Canada writes: To Mungo who wrote: This article doesn't show a flaw in evolutionary biology, it shows a flaw in the Canadian educational system.

    Yes, it teaches only the theory of evolution which has so many flaws when put to the test. The education system teaches it as if it's the "law", which probably caused a confusion in the minds of people like "Snowed in Barrie".
  34. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Brook Tyler from Mississauga, Canada writes: Absence of lungs is hardly support for evolution. Lacking parts is simply the result of a mutation where information (how to grow lungs) has been lost.
    *****************************************************
    Noah had two members of that species on the Ark. It says so in the bible. You had to hand it to that guy going all the way to Indonesia for a couple of frogs. He probably went there on his way to Australia for the duck billed platypus and and the kangaroo. Absence of brains is no argument against evolution either.
    CYMRO
  35. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Better to light: Here's an even better question. How exactly did those two little lungless frogs -- who depend on high-oxygen freshwater streams to survive -- get from the Turkish mountains where the Ark landed to Indonesia? Brook's point about lungless frogs not proving evolution is valid, it doesn't. But nobody cares, since evolution of species by means of natural selection is already proven by other evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. So putting the discovery in its evolutionary context is not about trying to prove something, it's about using science to make inferences about reality.
  36. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: W J: The 'law vs theory' thing is a creationist canard. Creationists are probably capable of understanding the difference between the two, but have no interest because it wouldn't support their superstition-based assumptions that are contradicted by plain science.

    A law is a specific formulation. It describes a relationship between preconditions and consequence.

    A theory is an explanation or a model, incorporating all current knowledge about a particular phenomenon.

    Consider the the law of gravity (sometimes call the inverse square law, or Newton's law of universal gravitation): it has been thrown out in the context of serious physics, because the theory of general relativity supersedes it. The theory of gravity, on the other hand, continues to develop as we further our understanding of gravitation.

    Many theories are proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is one such theory.
  37. Cliff Pallette from Kearney ON, Canada writes: WJ, WJ, WJ. " If a mutation caused a frog to lose its lungs, it dies. Period."

    Evolution is not like Biblical Shazzam! where things happen out of a cloud and horses, trumpets and angels. When ostriches needed their wings less and their legs more, those changes didn't occur in one generation. Several hundred years ago, a tall male human being was under 5 ft. Humans are still evolving.
  38. Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: K McIntyre, nicely put.
  39. Ronald Needmayer from Canada writes: This thread makes me wonder: why do those who don't believe in science even read the science section of the Globe and Mail?
  40. W J from Canada writes: To K McIntyre: There are constantly new "theories" being proposed to throw out the theory of relativity. If you read the physics journals of recent years, there are a number of new theories that contradict the "theory of relativities". Most physicists now think Einstein was wrong about not being able to go faster than the speed of light. The newest in the news is that they are going to find "God particles" that make up energy and masses in a few years. A theory can always be thrown out by new and better theories or be challenged by new phenomena. On the other hand, if you want to challenge the Law of Gravity, you are welcome to test it anytime - I think there are some tall enough building in Ottawa.
  41. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Ronald Needmayer asks: "why do those who don't believe in science even read the science section of the Globe and Mail? "

    I wonder if people who don't believe in science ever board airplanes.
  42. W J from Canada writes: To Ronald Needmayer who wrote: This thread makes me wonder: why do those who don't believe in science even read the science section of the Globe and Mail?

    People who "believe in evolution" do so with blind faith as if it's a cult! Open your eyes and examine evidence scientifically.

    Many scientists (not just creationists or "religious nutbars") now don't believe in evolution. Some don't know what else to believe in, others believe in "Intelligent Design" without making conclusions as to who that Intelligence is.

    Antony Flew used to be a poster boy for atheists. Now he is a theist and part of the reason he turned to theism is that intelligent design makes a whole lot more sense than evolution.
  43. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: W J: The law of gravity states that the force of attraction between two objcets due to gravity is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

    That is the law of gravity. It was formulated by Sir Isaac Newton. It has been used for centuries. And it is also wrong.

    That fact has been known for a long time, even while still calling it a law. This is because there have been observations that don't agree with the simple formulation.

    Relativity explains the observations that contradict the law of gravity.

    The point here being: The difference between a law and a theory has nothing to do with whether one or the other is 'proven'. This is the way creationist's prefer to see it, so they can try to imply that evolution is unproven based on a word used to describe our understanding of it, but there is not a single scientist in the world who uses the terms that way.
  44. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes:
    How exactly did those two little lungless frogs -- who depend on high-oxygen freshwater streams to survive -- get from the Turkish mountains where the Ark landed to Indonesia?

    ***

    Interesting question. To bad it got ignored by W J et al.
    Does anyone have an answer? I would except laws, theories, ideas... even possibilities.
  45. Scott Anderson from London, Canada writes: evolution exactly, Just as we people having different blood types will helpprove evolution some day. The question is of blood types which is the older and which is the newer? O maybe?
  46. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Type O came first. Type A and Type B blood arose from mutations that created genes that encode specific enzymes. These enzymes create A and B antigens, respectively. It is the presence of one or both of these antigens in your blood that designates you as Type A, Type B, or Type AB.
  47. B L from Canada writes: W J said: People who "believe in evolution" do so with blind faith as if it's a cult! Open your eyes and examine evidence scientifically.

    Ever heard of Gregor Mendel?

    In answer to Ross H, about how the frog got so far from the ark..... easy, God just picked them up and moved them. See? An answer for everything!!
  48. W J from Canada writes: Re: Ross H: How exactly did those two little lungless frogs -- who depend on high-oxygen freshwater streams to survive -- get from the Turkish mountains where the Ark landed to Indonesia? ....
    Interesting question. To bad it got ignored by W J et al.
    Does anyone have an answer? I would except laws, theories, ideas... even possibilities.

    I don't claim to know everything thing since I'm not Omniscient (know -it-all) and I wasn't there at the flood. But it would make sense that the Ark would be made for those animals who would have drowned in the water. These frogs are aquatic animals. They don't have to be on the ark. In fact, it would have killed them to stay on the ark for that long, don't you think? I would think the frogs would have been happy in the flood water. Genesis chapter 7 seems to suggest Noah got land-dwelling air-breathing animals onto the ark, not just any animals (which makes sense). You don't think Noah was stupid enough to get fish into the ark too, do you? Also, frogs lay eggs in the water. They didn't have to survive as adults. All they needed were 2 eggs to survive the flood. So I don' think they had to travel from Mount Ararat to Indonesia. They would have survived the flood without getting on the ark, in Indonesia or wherever else they were.

    By the way, nobody actually knows where the Biblical Mount Ararat is. There are some people who think Mt. Ararat is Mt. Agri Dagi in Turkey (hence it's called Mt. Ararat in English), but it's just a theory. For all we know, it could have been in Indonesia.

    As to your insinuation that I (and others) are keeping silent for lack of an answer,

    a) I got other things to do.

    b) Now that I answered it, it was kind of a silly question to begin with, don't you think?
  49. W J from Canada writes: Re: B L from Canada writes: ... Ever heard of Gregor Mendel?

    What's your point? If you are trying to use Mendel as an example of a true scientist who is also an evolutionist, you are way off base.

    1) Most evidences suggest that he was a Creationist.

    2) Darwin & his theory of evolution believed in Pangenesis, and rejected Medelian inheritance.

    Mendel seems to be an example that creationists are true scientists and evolutionists are lousy ones.
  50. W J from Canada writes: Re: Cliff Pallette from Kearney who wrote: .... Several hundred years ago, a tall male human being was under 5 ft. Humans are still evolving.

    I hadn't answered this because it's just too dumb, and it's a waste of time. But since I can't sleep at the moment, I'll indulge. What you are describing is not an evolution. It's just a variation / adaptation. Since evolution does not have any example to show for, evolutionist steal from other phenomena and try to pass it on as an evolution.

    By the way, you also insulted all the short people of the world too. Maybe some short people will call you "less evolved" than they are since you don't seem to possess the same intellectual capacity as they do. Maybe somebody like Hitler will come along again and decide to kill all the short people and all dumb people (this may include you) and "help out the evolution / natural selection process".

    Did you know Hitler was a big believer in Darwinism which enabled him to do the horrible things he did? Evolution has to be one of the most successful worst lies from Satan.
  51. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: W J wrote: "In fact, it would have killed them to stay on the ark for that long, don't you think?"
    _________

    Yes, it would have. It would also have killed them to be in salt water. Or warm water. In fact they are adapted to live exclusively in their current environment: cold, fast-moving, high oxygen streams. They would not have survived in an ocean.

    Noah's flood provides an immense barrier for those wishing to take the Bible literally. Aside from these frogs, we also have to ask how exactly all the large marsupials got to Australia, and how penguins got to Antarctica (a location to which, as it happens, they are uniquely suited for survival). There are no plausible explanations, so creationists have to make up absurd stories (fresh water frogs' eggs lying at the bottom of the ocean?) or else simply shrug and ignore the problem saying some circular claim like 'It must have happened somehow, because the Bible says there was a flood.'

    This is a perfect example of the anti-scientific thinking engendered by creationism. Science starts with evidence and reason, and uses them to form conclusions. Creationism starts with a conclusion, and then tries to contort evidence and reason to fit it.
  52. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: W J: "Darwin & his theory of evolution believed in Pangenesis, and rejected Medelian inheritance."

    Why do you suppose that, over time, evolution became entirely accepted, and pangenesis entirely rejected by the scientific community, WJ?

    It's because the former was continually supported by increasing weight of evidence, and the latter was refuted by evidence.

    Mendel's genetics, however, was accepted because there was strong evidence that he was right. I'd like to note that the existence of genes was known even before we had any mechanism to see them. Contrary to the claims of creationists, you don't have to see something to know it exists. Do creationists reject the existence of atoms because we've never seen them? (We can't, they are smaller than the wavelength of visible light.)

    In any case, we have seen evolution and speciation, both in nature and in laboratories.

    Eventually DNA was discovered, which confirmed predictions made by both Darwin and Mendel. Mendel's theory predicted allele redundancy (what turned out to be the double-helix), and Darwin's theory predicted capability for hereditary mutation (what turned out to be errors in self-replication). By that time there was no room for doubt that either of those theories were essentially correct.
  53. W J from Canada writes: Re: K McIntyre from Oshawa:

    Like I said, we are treading into a lot of hypothetical grounds there. But how do you know if the water in the flood was salty? How do you know what temperature or salinity the flood water was? How do you know what speed the water was moving? Do you know if this frog actually has to live in that exact condition? Do you know if it has wider range of habitat than you know? Have you seen this frog and put it in another environment? Do you know if this frog can adapt to different environment with gradual change?

    Also, I pointed out the possibility of eggs surviving through the flood too.

    Your second comment also shows how blind the religion of evolution is to logic and truth.
  54. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: "Do you know if it has wider range of habitat than you know? Have you seen this frog and put it in another environment?"

    We're talking about physiological capability. It has no lungs, and no gills. When the researchers put one in a bucket of water, it died.

    Based on what we know of these amphibians, it seems extremely unlikely they or thier could have survived in an ocean for an hour, never mind several weeks. Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But, and here's the thing about using science, if you want to assert something extremely unlikely is true, you have to find some form of evidence.

    "Your second comment also shows how blind the religion of evolution is to logic and truth."

    It often ends up like that. We have a fact that is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it conflicts with somebody's religious beliefs, which that person holds as part of their personal identity. Usually the end result is to try as hard as possible to find an excuse to dismiss the evidence, shrug off reason as it is presented, and find some blanket arguments (like 'evolution is religion') to avoid actually having to confront the contradictions between the evidence and their beliefs.
  55. Ronald Needmayer from Canada writes: These threads are hilarious. I can't believe you guys are arguing over evolution on a comment thread! If you feel strongly about the subject, why not present some research papers to the academic community? There are biologists in universities all over the world who know far more about this topic than us; they study this subject and debate the results professionally. I'm sure they'd be happy to review any serious work you put toward it. I wonder what most of them believe?
  56. K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Welcome to the Internet, Ronald. You must be new here.

    :)

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top