Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#2Is that not a photoshop? The teeth look like they blur into the mouth
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#3Is that not a photoshop? The teeth look like they blur into the mouth
It’s real, but not sure why it’s news. It’s weird, but a known fish. There are a lot of photos if you Google sheepshead fish.
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#4This article is making it sound like this is some new amazing find. These fish are well known… there’s even a town named after them!
Yes, the teeth look human. Convergent evolution:
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#5All sheepshead I've ever caught (Galveston, TX) look like that. They regularly swim around below the piers and use those teeth to eat/bite off barnacles on the pilings. Not sure what's newsworthy here, BBC.
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#6This article is making it sound like this is some new amazing find. These fish are well known… there’s even a town named after them! Yes, the teeth look human. Convergent evolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
I'm conflicted when it comes to things being reposted and framed at new on the internet.
To many it is new. However, it's not new to me so it feels more click baity.
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#7Photoshop? Genetic modification experiment?
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#8This article is making it sound like this is some new amazing find. These fish are well known… there’s even a town named after them! Yes, the teeth look human. Convergent evolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
I'm conflicted when it comes to things being reposted and framed at new on the internet. To many it is new. However, it's not new to me so it feels more click baity.
What surprises me is that BBC is offloading content from FB and making it their 'articles'/'news'.
At the bottom of the 'article' there is a snippet:
> The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. View original post on Facebook
From top of the page it looks like standard news piece, filed under World / US & Canada. The 'article' does not mention that "it’s weird, but a known fish" as @aikinai stated in another comment. All of this is troubling.
Gee..., you can be on BBC, too!
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#9This article is making it sound like this is some new amazing find. These fish are well known… there’s even a town named after them! Yes, the teeth look human. Convergent evolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
I'm conflicted when it comes to things being reposted and framed at new on the internet. To many it is new. However, it's not new to me so it feels more click baity.
I’m all for introducing people to knew things, and reading about things I didn’t know about before, but this is just not honest reporting. It’s designed to get passed around on Facebook and if they make it seem ordinary, people won’t pass it around.
They’ve taken a Facebook post, and editorialized it specifically to make it sound very special.
If you wrote the same article about someone catching a salmon would you say “the fish was identified as a salmon”?
They also could have easily said “these fish are common in coastal waters, and caught and eaten all the time” but they purposefully left that out.
Re: Fish with 'human' teeth caught in North Carolina
#10Photoshop? Genetic modification experiment?