How the seahorse got its shape -- by Nature Video

[@godwin972]

Finally, the real questions are being answered.

[@theseahorsekeeper6502]

Awwwwww seahorses are cute

[@AlbertCanil]

Beautiful video in its simplicity, further enhanced by a great VO that accompanies the images without becoming overbearing. A small jewel indeed. Thank you so much for posting!

[@NJgateway]

Seahorses are magical, just like humingbirds on land.

[@2kiara28]

im learning to scuba dive right now and this is why. Ever since I was a kid i wanted to see one and one day help them not go extinct . They are so awesome

[@ChromicQuanta]

Is that dream going strong 10 years later?

[@SeaWorldMommy]

Quite interesting! I enjoy watching them at the Manta Aquarium at SeaWorld. It's one of my favorite spots to sit and enjoy them. Thanks for the video!

[@aaronsippion1840]

Incredible footage if you ask me, Nat Geo always aims to impress!

[@ahmdf]

It's fascinating how such a hard-to-see subtle advantage can be sufficient to give rise to such a curious, unique shape over the years.. This is the significance of slow but sure accumulation of tiny effects that tip the scale.

[@shokochai]

we will see in a few years if its only this single reason...thats what makes science so cool

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

We don't have fins and flippers because that ancestor lived much longer before mammals even existed. We kind of have thumbs on our feet (it's called your big toe), although functionally different, the bones are similar. We actually do have pretty long arms, our other body proportions have changed because we became more bipedal over time.

[@dringsong]

LOL at comment below- couldn't agree more. talk about losing it. Off to London Aquarium soon to see these little guys.

[@Tecolote41]

Seahorses grab onto seaweed to keep them from drifting off into the current also... -_-

[@arthurfleck8681]

seahorse look so cool

[@Zetek04]

Found a seahorse when I were a kid in Norway. Pretty rare sight...

[@afhdfh]

I highly doubt that this is the only reason for having an s-shaped body...

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I just explained something similar. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean you'll lose it. The selection pressure isn't there not favoring sharp teeth. Besides differentiated teeth is a characteristic of many mammals. And besides the length of time they've been fed dog food hasn't been all that long, even if that is how it worked (the don't use it and lose it idea).

[@NaruTheWeaveSnatcher]

Got to love them

[@dpoppop6091]

Correction. Tetrapods transition to man didn't happen at all. So, let me get this right - you are saying that fish developed legs BEFORE leaving water? What pressures would there have been to do so? Fins and flippers are infinitely more suited to the water than legs.and you did say it was environmental pressure to adapt that brought about evolutionary changes. Why were legs grown at all?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I said Nature can do what it wants, you're right I was speaking colloquially. Here's how it works, we have nature, and we try to explain it, we explain it through science and experiments, logically sound experiments that isolate variables and give us evidence for things. YES we have seen observable evolution since humans have been in existence (if you remember our bacteria conversation). They've witnessed evolutionary events in a lab using bacteria. Evolution has not turned off the tap.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

dogs still need those senses, just because they go into a domestic environment doesn't mean they'll lose their sense of smell. They still rely on that to identify other animals, people, territories etc...

[@nambinhvu]

It looks like they stretch their tail out to build negative pressure in their bodies, and then open their mouths to relieve the pressure, causing their food to be suck in. what do you think of my theory?

[@SuperZippyzippy]

Seahorses are so wierd.. looks like a chess piece

[@MikeStarKaraokeUK]

Looks like a mini pony 🐎

[@dpoppop6091]

I just did a quick search on how long humans have domesticated dogs, and came across and article that said there was evidence for domesticated dogs from 33 thousand years ago.

[@dpoppop6091]

Whats in a name? Would a rose by any other name still smell as sweet? Would a C Major chord, without its name, still sound the same? Yes. Theory is the codification that comes AFTER the fact. The music is there regardless of the theory that is formulated behind it.

[@dpoppop6091]

In other words, it would be conveniently long enough to avoid being outright disproven, or conveniently long enough to make the very notion of it defensible against the need for absolute proof.

[@RandomnessTube.]

thumbs up for longest youtube argument ever below LOL

[@dpoppop6091]

Then lets stop putting the cart before the horse shall we?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Ok I see some of what you're saying, but this doesn't mean that something like evolution is wrong, it's the foundation of all of biology. there is quite a bit of evidence supporting evolution (when I say quite a bit, I mean thousand of papers and studies). I still think you're grouping science into one huge thing. There are core ideas that won't go away (again, natural laws and principles). It's not like everything we say today is going to be wrong in 100 years, that's not true.

[@dpoppop6091]

I know all I need to know. I never said there was one athletic gene, but natural athleticism is to be found in the genes.

[@dpoppop6091]

I never said they fabricated. I said they used their imagination to create a story or hypothesis of how all their observations may have come to be - like a detective who sees the clues left behind at the crime scene and then tries to piece it all together coherently.

[@dpoppop6091]

In our bacteria conversation, you said that scientists were able to witness evolutionary changes in a lab setting in as little as a few generations, to which I replied in which case, how come we haven't bore witness to any evolutionary process in all the time that we have been observing nature, and you replied because it takes longer than that. You can't have your cake AND eat it, you know - try though you may.

[@Markeerouz]

I came here to see seahorses, not a fuckin' religious debate

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

so one thing to test is to see who else was at the scene, DNA is easily placed in a location, he could've bee set up.. I don't see how this applies.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I don't know the specifics behind those aspects of human evolution so I cannot comment, but I can surely look it up. I'm sure its part of the suite of characters that have changed as we became biped. Evolution occurs whether you believe in it or not. It's like the weather, it happens, and as people we study it to explain it. I'm not really sure our arms became 'shorter' I think some of our limb proportions have changed, but I know that's part of what changed as our shoulder joints changed ...

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Plus...'who's calling the whistle'? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[@dannibalthecannibal-2]

wow. that only explained that the seahorse and pipefish have something in common. nothing more, nothing less.

[@0myjoe]

Lol thanks, i'll just keep spreading the word of the unicorns!! ;)

[@MuhammadHussain-nv5mz]

I love it

[@54upaliwicky]

thank you

[@subairkalayil6960]

Super

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

You say that dogs don't need for canine teeth but like I said (but refuse to listen) that's not how it works. Just because some domestic dogs (not all btw, I used to feed mine meat) eat dog food doesn't mean they'll lose their canine teeth. And technically humans are omnivorous. Wait this 30,000 number keeps popping up, where are you getting that? or are you making that number up?

[@dpoppop6091]

Why don't you read your own comment, to which I replied. It should make clear that my response "They are exactly the same thing" was in relation to your previous comment "Those are two very different things"

[@dpoppop6091]

That's my point. Taking a snapshot of current scientific opinion, that is to say putting a frame around something that is constantly in flux, is surely erroneous. The very moment after you have taken your snapshot, stuck your frame around it, it is out of date because time and discoveries flow on and wait for no one. Knowing that the nature of science is change, you'd be wiser not to try to call the final whistle after each scientific assertion.

[@NaruTheWeaveSnatcher]

I want to ride a seahorse

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

what's exactly the same thing?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Well those are good questions. These are matters of constraints. Also you're assuming that having an opposable thumb is beneficial for ALL animals (it's not). Evolution is not guided. There is no 'perfect' animals, just those suited for their environments. And you're right there are no 'submarine fish.' But there are fish that are evolved for long distance swimming, short burst swimming, maneuverability etc. Also, depending on the species you're talking about 70 years may not be enough for

[@0myjoe]

Other hominids couldn't compete with us because we had the brain best adapted to adapting to new environments e.g. we wiped out the neanderthals and all other hominids that once walked the earth.

[@dpoppop6091]

Haven't been able to? Was I ever asked to provide a source for anything? What would I be providing a source for? Are you sure you pressed send on that message which asked for one, because I can't recall seeing it.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

So what? 'we' as in our ancestor (which was non-mammalian at this point) emerged BECAUSE of some trait that allowed it to. Where did you get the 30,000 years number? Tetrapod transition to land happened many years longer than 30,000 years. How do you kno that transition would've taken such a short amount of time such as 30,000 years?

[@ysobullied7445]

hai im kawii and i love anime :3

[@dpoppop6091]

So there are facts. There are things that cannot be denied. Then there is speculation as to how these facts link up and how they came to be. This speculation, based entirely on the facts, is a theory. It is not like music theory, it is an educated guess.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

be a really slow process (millions of years even). I think that's what people struggle with the most, is imagining the time it takes to evolve. Don't forget not all evolutions are 'seen.' Depending on the character there could be genetic changes in the organism that don't result in morphological changes.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

to my knowledge there isn't one 'athletic gene' but there are suites of characteristics that can make an animal athletic. I wish I had more space in these stupid boxes to explain natural selection to you, but I really encourage you to read some science studies or secondary sources. You may have a better fundamental grasp about evolution which can aide you in understanding the process as a whole.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

also, evolution doesn't say anything. this is not an oversight of the evolutionary process. I just explained to you why they probably didn''t lose their fur.

[@dpoppop6091]

In a human environment, living indoors in heated homes, why have dogs and cats not shed their fur?

[@dpoppop6091]

You can't explain it, so lets not behaving you trying to pull the wool over both our eyes, hmm?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I don't know what you mean by that question, it's not worded clearly. The fact that you don't have sources gives you no argument whatsoever. Just letting you know you can't just make up stuff, you need to back it up with REAL information. Evolution didn't forget about domestic animals, I already explained how that works. Evolution is not a conscious (

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Yes I am perfectly comfortable making that statement. You don't even need genetic engineering, I'm talking actually observing evolution over a few generations. Replication is the key to science. Results aren't meaningful or don't hold as much clout without replication. What do you mean 'replicate deep sea creatures'? Our smarts are the result of us evolving and learning over time. I really suggest you read some scientific studies to see what is going on.

[@meuwtwo]

E word! 🤣

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

That paragraph doesn't make sense. I don't know what you mean here.

[@petete21521]

How do they bahave as pets... Good or bad? I'm thinking about buying a few as pets....

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

No, you're understand of evolution is incorrect. You wrongly assume that if they don't need fur that they will lose it. I just told you why they don't shed their fur, because the selection pressure is relaxed, it is a characteristic that doesn't need to change in order for the animal to survive. I'm not an apologist, I'm trying to explain and educate you about how evolution works. I'm still waiting on your sources. I've provided you with one website to read.

[@dpoppop6091]

It is you who aren't understanding. The speculation comes from looking at the facts and surmising how they all interrelate, how they came to be. The theory seeks to describe the invisible web that links the facts together. Clear?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Again see my comment about how scientists don't claim their hypotheses as fact....that's not how it works

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

pressures I would imagined are relaxed. I don't know what genes are responsible for fur and skin but if an animal doesn't use it it doesn't mean it will lose it. You have to think in terms of what pressures are placed on certain characteristics. Fur is still useful in domestic environments (don't you wear clothes around the house? Especially when it's cold?). A thousand or even two thousand years may not be enough time (with a given selective pressure) to have an animal evolve. Evolution can...

[@dpoppop6091]

Why did that produce shorter arms and render our foot thumb in opposable? If there is a rule here that says you don't necessarily lose it, just because you don't use (a la dogs canine teeth), then why did our limbs shorten and our foot thumbs turn into big toes? Surely there was no discernible pressure to make those changes?

[@arnisss]

basically, everything is evolving to become more and more lazy :) just dont move and wait for food to come hehe

[@dpoppop6091]

Exactly, so you would keep going looking for clues. What would you do when you had collected all the clues you were able to, but had no conclusive, definitive, red-handed proof?

[@dpoppop6091]

But music isn't confined to the theory.

[@dpoppop6091]

That's rather my point. If science is forever admitting itself to be wrong as new evidence comes to light, if a science textbook has a definite shelf life, if a scientific belief will go out of date when new evidence is discovered to the contrary, then why should anybody be so certain as what scientists CURRENTLY believe? If the hallmark of science is its flexibility/adaptability to new evidence, then in the grand scheme of things throwing your lot in with current scientific opinion is moot.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I know english is hard, but you're using the meaning of these words (theory, speculation etc) incorrectly. But yes evolutionary theory can be used to explain how species or features came about as we know them today (and how they will continue to change in the future). But this 'invisible web' thing is interesting to me, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I don't think there is a web, but again thats probably not testable (unless you're talking about quantum mechanics??)

[@dpoppop6091]

Doesn't make it a fact though does it? It takes facts that are known and seeks to link the up coherently to propose a explanation of how all living organisms came to be.

[@dpoppop6091]

And musical notes did not all start out as a middle C

[@dpoppop6091]

They are exactly the same thing. Athleticism is in the genes.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

It's nature, it can do what it wants. Stop thinking of evolution as conscious process, it's not. Evolution never turned off the tap, I don't know that that means. I also already explained it to you, it didn't forget about dogs and cats. Some animals haven't evolved for thousands of years because the pressure wasn't there to change the organism. What do you mean by '...what mind of evolution has decided that those changes will be the sole preserve of organisms from pre-recorded history?"

[@dpoppop6091]

The theory is not the rule. The theory is impotent, passive, malleable. It isn't THEE word, it has the word spoken to it, and duly records what is said. Mistaking theory for music itself is what I meant by putting the cart before the horse.

[@dpoppop6091]

What you call real information, I call you just repeating what someone else has said, someone else's opinions. In fact, that is how you arrived at your own conclusions - everything you are saying, you are merely repeating, no? Having another human being, just like you or I, say the same thing doesn't substantiate anything. What question wasn't clear to you? You responded to your own comment there, so I'm unsure which part to clarify...

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

You're confusing what a fact is and what a theory is etc.. You're argument for 'its a theory' is invalid because a theory is something that has evidence supporting it and is generally accepted by a community of people. It's not a weak proposition. The big bang is a difficult thing to tackle, I'm no physicist so I can't speak about how they test ideas for the big bang.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Well science isn't forever admitting itself to be wrong. It depends on your example. Scientists currently believe things because of the evidence that is available right now. think of science not as right or wrong, but as a cloud of ideas that are constantly being shaped and morphed by new research/ discoveries. There are many scientific principles that probably won't change ever (a lot of our physical 'laws' and such.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

right...just like evolution is still occurring even though we didn't have a name for it..

[@ONFIREYO]

then why do we still have pipefish?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Yes, until evidence suggests something else, the one common ancestor idea is what biology is going with. Yea, from what I have read big bang theory is pretty sound, but like I said that sort of stuff isn't my field, besides basic physics knowledge I can't comment on how they test things. I do know they are teasing these ideas apart using the LHC and such. There are a few ideas on how the big bang happened. But yea when you 'follow' the events after the big bang, it makes sense.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

there could still be dimensions... who said there was nothing?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Yes I do.

[@dpoppop6091]

So what are you saying, that big animals ate all their existing food supply and then just starved to death? That they just emptied the pantry and couldn't restock it? And that is why they went extinct? What competition does a panda have for bamboo? Why don't they mate with each other? Sabretooth tigers died out because they were just too insatiable? Doesn't sound likely to me. If life is constantly adapting, then they would surely adapt their diet to what's available. That would be evolution.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

right and evolution occurred before we could give it a name. It wasn't until a few people started studying the patterns of life we observe and came up with an idea that could explain how these animals came about. Again, your point is lost here

[@dpoppop6091]

Only up to a point. It's not like one day there were single celled organisms and then the next day, there were reptiles, mammals, birds, fish etc. at some point, a point would have been reached where further diversity became biologically impossible, and it would have been reached pretty darn quickly. Too quickly to produce the panoply of life we see before us.

[@Colorhersunshine]

Awww (:

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

I'm not comfortable calling artificial breeding genetic engineering. Those are two very different things. Genetic engineering is when you physically alter genes, which is not the same as breeding two race horses because they are very athletic. But yes biologically it does work. You have to think of time frame here. Our ancient ancestors (millions and millions of years ago) were much different organisms than now...

[@dpoppop6091]

Perhaps it was the canines question. Why do domestic dogs still have big sharp canine teeth? Those teeth are clearly built for killing and tearing flesh, yet, dogs have been domesticated for over 30 millennia. They are fed by humans. They are fed soft food, in bite sized chunks, and it is served right up to them in a bowl. No hunting, no killing and yet they still have hunting and killing tools as part of their biology. Why haven't they lost them?

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Well who says the arms do get shorter? give me a source. You literally haven't said one legitimate argument here because I still haven't seen sources from you. I gave you a website fully explaining evolution and processes...I fail to see where you're coming from.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

REAL scientists, reputable ones. Do not fabricate things. Yes scientists in the past have been caught doing this, but that doesn't apply here. When I sit down and talk to my professor we never just 'make things up' we look at the evidence in the literature and in our case, physical laws that we know of and try to formulate hypotheses.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

Yes they use their imagination, but they have to base their hypotheses from data and studies that have been done in the field already. Hypotheses are carefully thought out using pre-existing scientific knowledge.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

And just because I'm restating information from scientific studies doesn't make what I say wrong. They're NOT opinions. What part of scientific study did you not understand? Scientists can only speak from their data and what their data supports. They don't just make stuff up.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

observable evolution. Also, some animals may not be evolving, it depends on the selective pressures placed upon them. Domestic animals are a poor example because of all the artificial breeding we do with them. The ability to walk upright is not advantageous/ possible in certain animals, you're speaking from an anthromorphic view in which you're assuming humans are the ideal.

[@dpoppop6091]

Actually, they DO make stuff up. That's a big, huge, fundamental part of scientific theory. It's not all data you know. There's quite a large element of imagination and creativity involved in the formulation of a scientific theory.

[@MrNicholaslarghi]

What do you mean 'it all.' No reputable biologist argues if evolution is real. There are arguments about how different processes of evolution occur (things like sympatric speciation). And evolution isn't explained by logic, it's explained by evidence, scientists can even observe evolution occurring under laboratory settings using bacteria. Seriously, do a google scholar search for evolution or speciation. Just because it's a theory doesn't make it untrue and it doesn't weaken it's existence.

[@dpoppop6091]

Oh dear, are you attempting to diverge from your own data-centric scientific method by fishing for clues about me personally? Of course you could always formulate a hypothesis about it and claim it as fact - that, in fact, would be in keeping with the scientific method.

[@dpoppop6091]

Or, lets look at it another way. There is music, and there is music theory. Music theory didnt give birth to different notes and different sounds. Music wasn't born of music theory. Music theory comes after the fact. It seeks to codify and compartmentalise things that are naturally occurring. For example a C, E and G played simultaneously gives a C Major chord, however, prior to those pitches being given their nomenclature, it still would have sounded the same and harmonious.