They are still just frogs. Different colors. Different life styles. Different diets. Still just frogs. People who need to classify everything need to get a life.

I know right it's, just like birds.....Different colors. Different life styles. Different diets. Still just birds. Stupid scientist.....and...yes, this is sarcasm because jacks comment is f'ing retarded!!!

A lot like humans, huh Jack? Oh, but not you...you're different, right?

What do those highfalutin' scientists know with all their schoolin' and book-learnin' anyway? Why does they think they's understand biology better jus' because they's got PHDs and careers dedicated to studying biology?

Hahaha. You are funny. Another "ingenious" Newsviner atheist, who managed to get creationism and religion into this. Hahaha.

You do know of course that it is possible to believe in God and believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

david

You are absolutely correct. Most people who believe in God do not hold the fundamentalist view that in order to believe in God or even to have any personal morals you must believe that every word in the Bible is the "word of God."

The problem with the creation story in the Bible is that there is not one but at least 2 stories saying different things. There is also another story not written in the Bible regarding a women named Lilith. The idea that man is created last is so that man can name the creatures of the earth. In this way man set himself as dominion of the animals of the earth.

In any case the Genesis story is only one point in time. If you are telling me that God cannot add to or change the number of species on earth you are limiting God. I'm sure that they are not telling me that they can set limits on God.

If you believe as I do that God has set up nature in such a way that different species can adapt to different changes in the environment. If you believe that way no such limit would be possible.

anybody else have a clue what david is talking about?

We were not created last. We evolved from common ancestors just like every other species on our planet. Also, if I had to suggest a species with dominance it would be those of the single celled variety. They was here first and likely will be last and is our most dangerous predator.

Jack doesn't understand why people waste their time with all of this science stuff. According to Jack "a frog is a frog." So I guess "a fish is a fish" too. The difference between a shark and a goldfish is so minor that we should not waste our time thinking about it. This lack of curiosity and rejection of science is very sad.

It does matter and the really sad part is that you - Jack - in 2011, don't have a clue why.

Yeah, Jack, frogs do nothing but bump their asses every time they hop. Other than that they have no use. I mean it's not like we've made any sort of pain meds from the secretion on their skins. Or they help to control insect populations like the mosquito's that carry malaria. Stupid frogs!

With Jack's logic he could jump into the goldfish bowl with a pound of liver around his waist ..... oh can't fit ..... OFF to the BEACH with you, then!

Of course all frogs are frogs. If some weren't then they wouldn't be called frogs.

But consider another order of vertebrates: primates. You might say a primate is just a primate. Why do we care that some scurry around at night, some swing through trees, some roam the savannas in family groups, and some walk upright and invented computers? They're all just hairy milk producers with good eyesight and big brains. Who cares about differences?? They're still primates, for cryin' out loud!

Some frogs (but certainly not all frogs) produce medically important chemicals in their skin. These include antifungal, antibiotic, and even cancer-suppressing compounds. There are hundreds of potent compounds from frogs. Even if 2 frogs species look very similar, they may have been genetically separate for millions of years, and have evolved unique traits. For purely selfish reasons alone, people should be excited when new species are discovered, for it means potentially new drugs, medicines, and bio-materials to improve the quality of human life.

Then again, some people just like knowing what lives on Earth.

Check out AmphibiaWeb and see if a frog is just "simply" a frog. Did you know toads are frogs?

p.s. there are more species of frogs than all known mammals combined.

SC

And your wacko conspiracy is that scientists who have no connection with energy companies are willing to sacrifice their professional integrity for the energy companies. And you think other people are believing in conspiracy theories????????? Interesting.

From another MSNBC news story today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44564317/ns/us_news-life/#.TnXd3NQyGuI

The found the bitcher - those are the 20 somethings in the photo that don't pay a penny in income taxes but want everyone else to pay more for them.

The moaner- that's the lady on the right with the flat a**. She's upset that they are talking about she's going to have to go to work and pay for the 4 kids that she's had. When asked she gave 36 names as potential fathers for the kids.

and then last but not least - the whiner. He's the guy on the left that looks like he doesn't have a clue. Which he doesn't he just joins any protest and makes up the facts as they go along!

conservation has basically focused on the two most charismatic animals — the elephant and the tiger

I'm with you, dman. Frogs got just as much charisma as those, for my money

For pratical reasons it does matter especially with frogs. Frogs are a marker species to an environment, because suttle changes in the environment can have noticable impacts on them. And it's not just about flashy colors and it's not just that every frog eats the same bugs either. Their diet and the way they behave in their environment is just as varied as the species themselves. Say we find a huge population of frogs that evolved to blind in with a certain type of tree. If we find these frogs in areas were we don't find the tree that protect them there could be a population boom in the species or a decline in those trees. Either way we can determine that they are finding new habitates and it could be bad for us if that habitate is in agricultural areas. Some frogs don't need to blend in though. In fact they stand out and it usually means they are very poisonies. The fact that these kind of frogs still thrive, even though they don't hide, means they have very little predators willing to mess with them. So, if we see a decline in these kind of frogs we might be seeing a spread of an infection and could be very general with its targets. We would have an early warning and try to prevent the spread before it moves on to other frog species. There is also medicinal purposes we can get from finding certain frogs. Than it's just the fact that knowledge is indeed power. What might seem moot now may be of great importance latter. But, then we are talking about people who take great concern in our future. You know those that really do care about our children.

Keystone species not marker species. Sorry.

so there are a couple of minor variations on a particular type of frog living deep in the bush somewhere....in the big scheme of things, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference, does it?

Imagine these were 12 new species of snakes discovered. Now say one of them bit you, or your best friend, on a vacation to India. Might it be important to know something about that snake?

Ya but global warming isn't all non-man-made

Aaaah, got it. Yes I have to agree, unfortunately there are MANY 'Jacks' in the world.