95M-Year-Old Octopus Fossils Discovered

mmmscience writes "A new study published in Paleontology is a truly terrific find. Not only did a group of European scientists find a fossilized octopus, they found five complete fossils that show all eight legs in great detail, including a ghost of the characteristic suckers. The discovery of the 95-million-year-old specimens was made in Lebanon. 'What is truly astonishing to the scientists is how similar these ancient creatures are to their modern-day counterparts. Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated, "These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species."'"

Comments

Dirk Fuchs?

[microbee]

Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated

How to pronounce his name? Anyone?

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[qoncept]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchs

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[areusche]

Well, I really think it is pronounced the way it looks.

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[Camann]

Fast forward to the answer: Like "Fox" or "Fooks" (think "books"), and not like the obvious.

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[commodore64_love]

Gaylord Focker

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[buchner.johannes]

Something like "deerk fooks", but with short vocals. And, depending on where in the german-speaking countries you are, you wouldn't use a k in Fuchs, but a ch. The English language doesn't have that, it is a x in IPA. Sounds like in this one, see here.

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[getagrip]

Yea, but that Fokker was a Messerschmitt

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[teko_teko]

Dirk Fuchs

If only his first name is Dick instead of Dirk...

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[Luxury P. Yacht]

It's spelled "Fuchs", but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove".

Re:Dirk Fuchs?

[RockDoctor]

It's spelled "Fuchs", but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove".

To rhyme with "Featherstonehaugh" or with "Fanshaw"?

Evolution

[VisceralLogic]

Apparently the octopus is the pinnacle of evolution! I for one welcome our new multipodal overlords!

Re:Evolution

[SIR_Taco]

Oh yea?!
Well if their so great...
Just a second I've a knock at the door, well eight knocks to be precise...
Oh, hello, well no I-

Re:Evolution

[commodore64_love]

No not really. It simply means that the octopus has not been "challenged" by its ocean environment or catastrophe, and therefore not forced into extinction or modification.

Turn the earth into a giant snowball, and then we'll see how quickly the octopus dies out. - http://nai.nasa.gov/newsletter/03182005/#9

Re:Evolution

[robinesque]

On a related note: http://www.vondanmcintyre.com/squids/Baxter-Sheena5.html A nice scifi story for every /. story.

Re:Evolution

[powerlord]

Turn the earth into a giant snowball, and then we'll see how quickly the octopus dies out.

Well, they're ok then. According to most people the world is going to be turned into a Giant Soggy Hothouse once global warming kicks in.

Man: 0, Octopi: 1

Re:Evolution

[conureman]

Oddly enough, each of the California-endemic conifers seem to only remain in a tiny pocket, geographically at the extreme limits of their adaptability range.

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to point out the actual evidence here, separated from any and all interpretations:

The first time an octopus appears in the fossil record, it appears fully-formed, identical to modern-day octopuses.

Any interpretation you put to that, whether in favor of Evolution or Creation or the FSM or little green aliens, is just that: "Interpretation".

It seems that if we're honest, and take this one case on its own merit without trying to fit it into an over-arching evolutionary paradigm, then this one specific case lends itself well to the so-called Creationist model, which predicts the sudden appearance of a fully-formed animal type.

Now, few of us will be willing to look at this evidence on its own merits, and will force-fit it into our evolutionary paradigm, and conclude that no matter how it may look like evidence for Creation, it simply can't be, and therefore is not. I don't know that there's anything wrong with doing that, but we need to recognize that's what we're doing. To fail to recognize that, is to fail to be honest with ourselves and with the data.

Re:Evolution

[gardyloo]

It seems that if we're honest, and take this one case on its own merit without trying to fit it into an over-arching evolutionary paradigm, then this one specific case lends itself well to the so-called Creationist model, which predicts the sudden appearance of a fully-formed animal type.

It seems that if we're honest, we'd certainly try to look for precursors to the octopoid fossil just found, and not go all Harun Yahya on everyone's ass.

Now, few of us will be willing to look at this evidence on its own merits [...]

*cough* Oh, good, this phrase usually indicates a straw-man argument, or a woe-are-we-the-set-upon argument. Go peddle this tripe elsewhere.

Re:Evolution

[Hucko]

Yet his hypothesis seems to be correct. How can we falsify this?

Re:Evolution

[smoker2]

His hypothesis doesn't take account of many factors. He just assumes that because they appear fully formed in the records we know about, then that's the way they started. Given the overbearing evidence provided by the rest of the natural world, Occam would have a word or two to say about it. I would start with the fact that octopuses are soft-bodied so would not leave much of a fossil anyway. As quoted in the linked article "the chances of an octopus corpse surviving long enough to be fossilized are so small that prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known, and from fewer specimens than octopuses have legs."

Also, they tend to hang around in rocky places so they are less likely to be buried in sediment if they die, and thirdly, we have only explored a minute percentage of the ocean floor. It's a bit early to be saying "Ok, the octopus proves it, God did it", especially as the specimens found are not all "identical" to modern species, merely surprisingly similar.

The coelacanth is almost identical to fossil records (that's why it was termed the fossil fish) and that's unchanged in roughly 400 million years.

All this discovery does is push back the earliest date that octopuses could have first appeared. If they appeared then much as they do now, then they must have already evolved by that time. They had plenty of time, 95 million years ago is nothing compared to billions of years of the ocean existing.

I smell a troll.

Re:Evolution

[prelelat]

Are you sure they would die out? I mean you would have to freeze the whole ocean from top to bottom to do that would probably wipe out most if not all life on earth. The octopus has survived at least one ice age that we know of. It seems like the animals that survive the longest without any kind of evolutionary change seem to be ocean life but that has no basis in science just my personal observation.

Re:Evolution

[RockDoctor]

No not really. It simply means that the octopus has not been "challenged" by its ocean environment or catastrophe, and therefore not forced into extinction or modification.

Considering the behavioural complexity and intelligence shown by modern octopii, wouldn't it be more likely that the challenges that octopii have been faced with in the last 95 million years have been ones that were most quickly and efficiently circumvented by behavioural changes. Behaviour doesn't fossilise terribly well. Hmmm, I wonder if there's any ichnotaxa assigned to octopus feeding traces. Google hints that there are : http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ichnotaxa+octopus&btnG=Search&meta= ... and - what a surprise - Darwin appears in the references. Along with, for example, "Bromley, R. G. 1993. Predation habits of octopus past and present and a new ichnospecies, Oichnus ovalis. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 40: 167-173."
Well, if the Library stocks Bull.Geol.Soc.Denmark, I'll maybe have a look at that.

Re:Evolution

[commodore64_love]

>>>According to most people the world is going to be turned into a Giant Soggy Hothouse

That's funny because when I went to Uncle Sam High School, they told us that excess smog from cars was going to envelop the whole planet and cause Global Cooling. I wish the government teachers would make-up their minds.

Re:Evolution

[commodore64_love]

>>>The octopus has survived at least one ice age

Technically we're in the middle of an ice age right now. It began 2.6 million years ago. Prior to that we were in a Tropical age, where there was no ice anywhere on the planet, and is the Earth's most common state (90% of the time). Having ice on the poles is rare.

The snowball earth was so cold nothing survived except a few single-celled organisms.

Re:Evolution

[powerlord]

Nah, it was "Nuclear Winter" that I remember being tied to cold. So, basically, anyone "lucky enough" to live through a nuclear war would probably die from starvation, even if they weren't directly affected by the radiation. ... joy

The smog was tied to Acid Rain.

Re:Evolution

[StikyPad]

Turn the earth into a giant snowball

Fine, but I swear to God, if you're just getting me to do this so you can throw it at me when I'm done, I'm going to be seriously pissed.

Re:Evolution

[StikyPad]

How does the discovery of 3 new species of octopus, none of which are known to exist today, lend itself to Creationism?

The article states that some of the features of modern octopuses are older than previously thought, not that octopuses haven't changed at all in 95M years.

Re:Evolution

[Hucko]

Now, few of us will be willing to look at this evidence on its own merits [...]

I was actually refering to this hypothesis

Re:Evolution

[gardyloo]

gardyloo says that we must certainly look for other evidence, and then he said that it's a strawman argument to claim that we won't look at this evidence on its own merits, which is of course, self-contradicting.

Logic fail.

Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[girlintraining]

These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.

It doesn't evolve for 95 million years? It could have been a government octopus.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[sakdoctor]

Which arm of government?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[cbiltcliffe]

It doesn't evolve for 95 million years? It could have been a government octopus.

Naah. Not possible.

It's not over budget.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[sexconker]

Lots of far reaching arms?
Vicious suckers to suck life from it's prey?
Able to change its colors to match the current environment, while still being the same beast?
Spraying ink everywhere when challenged?

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of government?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[SydShamino]

Maybe the budget was for six arms?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Red Flayer]

Who cares which arm?

They're all full of suckers.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It doesn't evolve for 95 million years?"

Easily and obviously explained due to the fact it is not a day past 6000-years old! And do I really need to explain why it was found in a desert?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[NotBornYesterday]

Government octopus? Hmm. Well, that would explain the lack of a backbone ...

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[TheABomb]

Actually, it was for legs, but arms were "close enough".

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[n3tcat]

And they all hide behind a lot of ink.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Miseph]

Question... if the earth has been clearly and decisively 6000 years old for about 50 years now... isn't it really 6050 years old?

It always fascinates me that people who are willing to ascertain such a lowball estimate are true can't get closer than the most significant digit. If the Bible is so clear and complete on geologic history, shouldn't we be able to at least get the hundreds place pinned down too?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its only 6000 years old, and there is no such thing as evolution.

I mean, this octopus proves that evolution was a lie, and that all species you can find on earth today have been around since they were put here 6000 years ago.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Darby]

If the Bible is so clear and complete on geologic history, shouldn't we be able to at least get the hundreds place pinned down too?

It was actually pinned down to the exact day:

James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581-21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625-1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding 27 October 4004 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar.

From here.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Hognoxious]

Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland

Well there you go, monkeys aren't very good at maths. Literature is more their thing.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some differences between these ones and extant ones, such as the occurrence of an internal shell. "Changed little" != "not changed". That's why they say "almost indistinguishable" from living species. These fossils were assigned to 3 new species and 2 new genera (Keuppia levante gen. nov., sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolaris gen. nov,. sp. nov. and Styletoctopus annae gen. nov, . sp. nov), rather than to modern species. That means the authors thought the specimens were different enough to warrant new names, but to a non-specialist they still look much like modern octopods. Change is a question of degree.

Octopods have evolved, but that doesn't mean they've changes in a huge way morphologically, and there isn't much evolutionary cause for change if a body plan works as it is. Selection tends to maintain something that works.

It's kind of like asking why hammers haven't changed much in the last 50 years (although perhaps to a carpenter they have).

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[noz]

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: How far up your arse do his eight tentacles have to get until you realise he's fucking you?

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[ConceptJunkie]

Well there you go, monkeys aren't very good at maths. Literature is more their thing.

If you call him a monkey, he's going to get very angry. You wouldn't believe how forcefully a peanut can be thrown. But, yes, literature is his thing.

OOK!

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[ConceptJunkie]

And who know how much their brains and nervous systems have evolved? Were these paleo-podes as smart as their modern brethren? Did they have all the camouflage and mimicry and other astounding talents that seem surprisingly sophisticated for something so squidgey and alien-looking?

I don't know whether scientists could possibly infer that kind of information from fossils (brain size, I suppose) but it's certainly possible that these animals evolved into a very optimal body form all those millions of years ago and have been perfecting more subtle aspects than their gross physiognomy.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[Chosen Reject]

I realize (perhaps just hope) the above was a joke, but some creationists will probably use this to say that evolution is a myth. Unfortunately for them, since they also say that any form of absolute dating (such as radiocarbon and potassium-argon) is unreliable and inadmissible, they are then saying that this find isn't that old and thus cannot be used by them to show that octopodes haven't changed, and thus this find cannot be used by them (logically anyway) to disprove evolution.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[bwcbwc]

And they get their fingers...err tentacles into everything.

Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump.

[RockDoctor]

It doesn't evolve for 95 million years?

There's little evidence that octopii haven't evolved in 95 million years. There's this collection of fossils that show that the gross morphology of some octopii 95 million years ago is very similar to the gross morphology of some present day octopii. It doesn't say anything about the fine morphology of these octopii ; it doesn't say anything about the molecular biochemistry of these octopii compared to present octopii ; and it doesn't actually say anything much about how these fossilised octopii are actually related to modern octopii. It's perfectly feasible that the closest descendants of these octopii have a very different morphology, and that a different family of octopii have convergently evolved a morphology very similar to these ancient octopii.

Compare this evidence with the similarity of a Jurassic ichthyosaur and a modern dolphin. Given only the ichthyosaur and the modern dolphin specimens, and only the skin outline of the ichthyosaur, you might as well conclude that the dolphin is descended from the ichthyosaur, and that it has evolved little in 95 million years.

As always, the call is for more fossils!

(BTW, I don't have access to the full paper, though I'm contemplating a wander down to the library. The authors may have been more detailed in their taxonomy than I am or the reporters. I'm not a palaeo-octopus-ologist, but I do have a geologist's working knowledge of the palaeontology of the rest of the Mollusca.)

Octopus

[Psychomax]

It looks like... some kind of Octopus. Tearing my shell apart, letting the sea get in, you make my insides outsiiiiide

Re:Octopus

[CarpetShark]

Actually, they're just scorch marks from Ancient drones.

Re:First Post

[cbiltcliffe]

The second first post.

Is that like the Fifth Third bank?

Lack of fossils

[Haoie]

Normally for animal life, anything that doesn't either have bones or some kind of shell won't leave a fossil. Nothing to calcify.

They can leave mud impressions though, which a lot of plants also leave.

Re:Lack of fossils

[Em Emalb]

They were able to determine it was an octopus by the 90 million year old fossilized ramekin of marinara sauce next to it.

Re:Lack of fossils

[jd]

True enough. Of course, there are freak exceptions, such as when the conditions make it difficult or impossible for bacteria to do a whole lot. Trees in coal mines are of this sort.

Another situation, which produces something analogous to a fossil but isn't really, is when you get a soft body forming an impression as a hollow. Again, this might happen if decomposition is extremely slow. If that hollow is then filled in at a subsequent time, you form something that looks like a fossil. (Really, it's casting from a mould, rather than a replacement process.)

Re:Lack of fossils

[RockDoctor]

Another situation, which produces something analogous to a fossil but isn't really, is when you get a soft body forming an impression as a hollow. Again, this might happen if decomposition is extremely slow. If that hollow is then filled in at a subsequent time, you form something that looks like a fossil. (Really, it's casting from a mould, rather than a replacement process.)

This would get you a pass mark (just) as a definition of a "trace fossil" or ichnofossil. More specifically, you're describing a "resting trace". There are a wide variety of other ichnofossil types.
The link I gave up-thread leads to mention if at least one modern trace fossil that is produced specifically by octopii.

They are octopus fossils...

[Jane Q. Public]

... and the lead author's name is "Dick Fuchs"??? Am I the only one to see the irony here?

When the stars are once again right:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[gijoel]

Ah, you speak Esperanto too!

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[__aasqbs9791]

It's the R'ylehean dialect if I'm not mistaken.

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[Hognoxious]

He's Welsh, you insensitive clod, isnit.

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[Ozlanthos]

Nay, tis something from the "Illuminatus Trilogy" if I am not mistaken. And H.P. Lovecraft.

Damned Discordians popping up everywhere now that Bob is gone.... All Hail Discordia!

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[gknoy]

I'm most amused that that was marked insightful. I really really really hope that it isn't. ;)

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Accept Cthulhu now while there is still time.

Re:When the stars are once again right:

[bwcbwc]

Hmm, it makes more sense as ROT13..."Cu'atyhv ztyj'ansu P'guhyuh E'ylru jtnu'anty sugnta"

ok slashdot

[circletimessquare]

i want 10 cthulhu jokes moderated +5 funny, now

i'll be back in 3 hours, don't let me down

Re:ok slashdot

[VickiM]

You must not have seen the researcher's name. You'd better make it four hours.

Re:ok slashdot

[Red Flayer]

Well, as Old Castro said, (emphasis mine),

They all lay in stone houses in Their great city of R'lyeh, preserved by the spells of mighty Cthulhu for a glorious resurrection when the stars and the earth might once more be ready for Them

I knew it! I knew it! Cloning advocates are members of the Cult of Cthulhu! They are perfecting their methods so that they can clone The Great Old Ones from their "stone houses" (fossils) and bring us all to lamentation and ruin!

I never thought I'd side with the fundies, but it's become quite clear to me that the Clonist Cult of Cthulhu must be stopped. Cloning is an abomination that will drive us all to madness, when the stars and Earth are ready... and the pevalence of cloning research tells us that the time is nigh!

Re:ok slashdot

[oldhack]

So this cthulhu walks into a bar, right, and...

Hey, anyone remember how this one goes? Damn, this over-22 thing is a drag...

Re:ok slashdot

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>I knew it! I knew it! Cloning advocates are members of the Cult of Cthulhu! They are perfecting their methods so that they can clone The Great Old Ones from their "stone houses" (fossils) and bring us all to lamentation and ruin!

Not all of us. It's you unbelievers that will be eaten first.

C'thulhu fhtagn.

Re:ok slashdot

[jonaskoelker]

So this cthulhu walks into a bar, right, and... Hey, anyone remember how this one goes?

Maybe something like this: http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/09mar/xuf012518.gif

:)

selection pressures

[jollyreaper]

It's funny how some creatures are under such pressures they rapidly develop and others have settled into their niche so well there's been little change, thus the living fossils. It's amazing to think that the ancestors of today's megafauna were little shrew-like nothings back then and were able to progress from that to elephants and rhinos and, hell, human beings while octopi and sharks are just tooling around looking pretty much the same.

I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution, it is an impersonal process of optimization for a set of conditions and there's no selection bias for complexity, as we humans would view such things. It seems like the living fossils are stuck in a rut but as far as evolution is concerned, it's not concerned. There's no personified mind involved, nature is not a guiding intelligence, it's just genes playing along according to rules, rules. Still, I can't help feeling octopi's wife is nagging him "For crimminy's sake, just look at you! 95 million years and you're still mucking about on the ocean floor! There's an entire world out there of land dwellers! Those little shrews went and developed opposable thumbs and they're running the place! And just what have you accomplished, Mr. Eight Arms and no Endo-Skeleton? You just float around and let them turn you into seafood. I'm leaving you for squid! He's got backbone for an invertebrate! At least he's capable of taking out some air-breathers every now and then!"

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.

I know! It's the same thing with those poor, downtrodden flat earthers. Damn scientists and their bigoted "facts" and "scientific method" things. How dare they come out and criticise magical thinking posing as science simply because magic has no, uhh... you know, that stuff... err... evidence! Yeah, that stuff.

Re:selection pressures

[Reality Master 101]

How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?

How can we know if pink elephants are molding magic clay behind the scenes and waving their magic snouts over them to give them life? That exactly -- EXACTLY -- as probable as whatever 'intelligent design' you're advocating, whether it be the Egyption Ra controlling the universe, Zeus, or the Abrahamic God.

In other words, no one can be sure what's "really" going on. But what we do know is that evolution can actually be observed, has been observed, and will be observed again (including new species creation). The Christian God or Pink Elephants both have the same amount of observed evidence.

Re:selection pressures

[LandDolphin]

I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution

That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?

Re:selection pressures

[inviolet]

I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution

What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?

-5, Burden of Proof

Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.

-5, Argument From Intimidation

Which means that I get to do the same to you. Ready? Here goes...

Just look at your post -- "just have the balls"?! If you want to ridicule the "scientists" and "rational thought" proponents, just have the salt to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your sexism to yourself.

Wow, you're right. That was tons easier than composing a rational rebuttal. I think I'll run for public office.

Re:selection pressures

[Reality Master 101]

Any proof better then that of those that say there is?

Yes. Evolution can be observed to follow patterns not requiring intelligent design (e.g., Darwin's Finches and the observed instances of new species creation). All God speculations have exactly the same amount of observable evidence: zero.

Re:selection pressures

[jollyreaper]

What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?

Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.

Please provide a theory explaining the existence of a creator god or gods and the methods used by them in the creation of the earth and the means to prove such a theory and the scientific community will be forever in your debt.

Barring such evidence, we are left with saying "we see no evidence for an external creator, no evidence of a guiding intelligence in evolution; what we can observe can be explained by evolutionary theory and any gaps currently present in our knowledge are avenues for further research." Science looks for the best theory at hand, not the perfect one that explains every little detail since such a perfect theory is hard to come by. We may not know everything there is to know about electro-magnetism but what we do know of it allows us to make computers work which is somewhat better than the view the ancients had of lightning, i.e. thunderbolts thrown by the Zeus.

Science cannot definitively prove something does not exist but it can at least reduce the question to an irrelevance. Consider Russell's Teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

But since you think I'm being clever, here's another one: Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.

Re:selection pressures

[Sabz5150]

That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?

We can control it. We can manipulate it. We can make it do things it's really not supposed to.

Re:selection pressures

[samkass]

That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?

Merely that since it all can be explained without intelligent motive, that instead of Einstein's assertion that "God doesn't play dice with the universe", to the contrary if He's out there that's ALL he does with the universe.

Re:selection pressures

[sorak]

Don't forgot ad-hominem. GP described GGP as a bigot with no balls. Well, he could be a eunuch in a Klan uniform, but that wouldn't have any bearing on the truth or falsehood of anything he says.

Of course, his bigotry was that he is biased against people who try to pass off untestable hypotheses as science. It's not too damning an accusation.

Re:selection pressures

[INeededALogin]

Yes. Evolution can be observed to follow patterns not requiring intelligent design

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

Re:selection pressures

[spacefiddle]

a eunuch in a Klan uniform

You, sir or madam, owe me a new keyboard.

Re:selection pressures

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah its like crocodiles. As long as we keep feeding children to them they stay cosy in their niche.

Re:selection pressures

[spacefiddle]

I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution

What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?

-5, Burden of Proof

Please explain why the burden of proof doesn't fall on the person claiming knowledge.

Do you claim to know that it does?

Re:selection pressures

[DMUTPeregrine]

There is no evidence of intelligent motivation for evolution. The burden of proof is on those trying to show that it exists, not the other way around.

Re:selection pressures

[init100]

By Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Introducing a deity adds unnecessary complexity with no gain, and is thus unlikely the correct explanation.

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

I'm sorry, I must have missed your point amongst the sarcasm.

I understand. All the magical thinking must make it difficult to understand things like "facts" and "theories". Here, let me explain for you the nuances of my post as simply as I can:

1) Attacking magical thinking (intelligent design, etc) as being unscientific is not bigoted. It's simply the truth. Live with it.

2) Christians, Flat-Earthers, the poor Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents, none of them are downtrodden minorities being attacked by an evil establishment. Ditch the victim complex and move on.

Additional points that I didn't make, but seem worth mentioning now, include:

3) Hypothesis that can never be disproven are unscientific, are not theories, and are of precisely zero (0) value. If the hypothesis can't be tested in the real world, then it can't affect the real world, and so it is useless.

4) Russell's Teapot. It's not my job to disprove your outlandish claims. It's your job to provide evidence to support them.

5) As a corollary to #4, given no one has demonstrated evidence of "intelligent motivation behind evolution", it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Similarly, I don't believe aliens have abducted humans, that homeopathic therapy is anything but a fancy placebo, or that thimerosol causes autism.

Is there anything else I can clear up for you, or does that answer your question?

Re:selection pressures

[maxume]

He better not say that out loud though.

Logic and smoke or something, and then whatnot.

Re:selection pressures

[maxume]

Yeah, but this find only shows that the outside bits are pretty similar, present day octopi may be far smarter or whatever, you would need DNA to start talking about anything in depth.

Re:selection pressures

[serviscope_minor]

Do you know that the tooth fairy does not exist? In as far as you can know anything you know that the tooth fairy does not exist. Same with this.

Re:selection pressures

[E 99]

I understand. All the magical thinking must make it difficult to understand things like "facts" and "theories". Here, let me explain for you the nuances of my post as simply as I can:

1) Attacking magical thinking (intelligent design, etc) as being unscientific is not bigoted. It's simply the truth. Live with it.

2) Christians, Flat-Earthers, the poor Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents, none of them are downtrodden minorities being attacked by an evil establishment. Ditch the victim complex and move on.

Additional points that I didn't make, but seem worth mentioning now, include:

3) Hypothesis that can never be disproven are unscientific, are not theories, and are of precisely zero (0) value. If the hypothesis can't be tested in the real world, then it can't affect the real world, and so it is useless.

4) Russell's Teapot. It's not my job to disprove your outlandish claims. It's your job to provide evidence to support them.

5) As a corollary to #4, given no one has demonstrated evidence of "intelligent motivation behind evolution", it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Similarly, I don't believe aliens have abducted humans, that homeopathic therapy is anything but a fancy placebo, or that thimerosol causes autism.

Is there anything else I can clear up for you, or does that answer your question?

1) What is "magical" about intelligent design? Who brought up intelligent design? The claimed knowledge was the absence of "intelligent motivation" is what was claimed.

2) I didn't claim association with any of those people. I only asked what the source of the claimed knowledge is.

3) This is my point exactly. That is why the claimed knowledge deserved to be questioned as unscientific and lacking in value.

4) It is the job of the person claiming knowledge to justify their claim. Period.

5) "No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

"No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Fair enough. The OPs phrasing was poor. He should've said "there is no evidence for intelligent motivation behind evolution".

That said, God in the Gaps is not a theory. The statement "there is no evidence for the lack of intelligent motivation behind evolution", which is what you're advocating, is silly and pointless. There's also no evidence for the lack of a teapot orbiting between earth and mars, but I don't believe in that, either. It's nothing more than magical thinking. And that's what the AC I was responding to was defending, and what I strenuously object to.

Re:selection pressures

[E 99]

Fair enough. The OPs phrasing was poor. He should've said "there is no evidence for intelligent motivation behind evolution".

That said, God in the Gaps is not a theory. The statement "there is no evidence for the lack of intelligent motivation behind evolution", which is what you're advocating, is silly and pointless. There's also no evidence for the lack of a teapot orbiting between earth and mars, but I don't believe in that, either. It's nothing more than magical thinking. And that's what the AC I was responding to was defending, and what I strenuously object to.

I am not trying to present a theory of God. An intelligent motivation behind evolution doesn't even necessarily have to be from God. All I am trying to do is defend the idea that we should distinguish what we know from what we are ignorant of.

As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing. The analogy would be to say, "I know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars, but there is a giant shadow of a teapot crossing mars at the moment." The rational next question should be, "well how do you know there is no giant teapot orbiting mars?" If there is evidence for the teapot, it should then be weight against the evidence against it. At the very least, a person shouldn't restrain their thinking because of knowledge they only imagine themselves to have.

As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary. Claiming a belief in a teapot orbiting mars would not be "magical thinking", it would just be an unfounded belief. Claiming that events occurring on the surface of mars caused it to rain in New York today would be "magical thinking", because it claims a causal relationship without any sort of intermediary interaction between the two.

Re:selection pressures

[gardyloo]

Most mathematicians think new species evolution is bunk, the number just DONT ADD UP.

Oh, good. Someone who's drunk the I.D. Kool-Aid. Cite that source (and not Demski, please; if he produces any valid mathematics I'll be wonderfully surprised given his history) or shut the hell up.

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

What is the point of having evidence if people are either going to interpret it wrong by accident or interpret it with purposeful bias which helps them accomplish their agenda?

Because then other scientists can go and verify your results, and contradict you if you're wrong? See, that's one of the key differences between magic and science. The latter is actually verifiable (and falsifiable).

I hope you realize how many assumptions and faith go into many scientific theories, including evolution, because by definition the evidence for many theories, including evolution, is not complete, and assumptions are made to fill in the gaps.

Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

I generally agree with the overall tenor of your post, but there's some things that puzzle me:

As for lack of evidence, the whole point of the OP making the statement was to preface what at least appeared to be indicative of that very thing.

Uhh... no he didn't. He started with:

I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution, it is an impersonal process of optimization for a set of conditions and there's no selection bias for complexity, as we humans would view such things

He then said:

There's no personified mind involved, nature is not a guiding intelligence

Which supports his previous statement. Then he goes on to imagine the octopus' wife nagging him to get out of his rut. Are you saying his wife is the intelligent designer he previously stated didn't exist? :)

Or are you saying that the lack of evolution in the octopus is somehow evidence of intelligent design (ie, the lack of evolution is the teapot's shadow)? Because *that* is simply ridiculous. It just demonstrates an organism where either no significant new pressures have forced a change in the organism, or where conversely, pressures on the organism are such that any variation results in a disadvantage.

As for the term "magical thinking", I do not think that means what you think it means. It generally means applying causation without an intermediary

Really! I suppose you have a source for your apparently authoritative definition? I tend to use the term "magical thinking" when referring to *any* belief that's irrational, and that applies both to beliefs that aren't grounded in fact, and those that are flat out unverifiable. Whether or not that's an appropriate use of the term is, I think, a matter of opinion more than anything else. But, I admit I may be wrong... *shrug*

Re:selection pressures

[glitch23]

Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).

Note that when I said there is faith involved in many scientific theories I meant that scientists have faith that it works in one or more situations, not that it is "faith-based" in the sense there is a tie to religion. There is no guarantee that there isn't a situation where it will be proven false. Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.

Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense. The only problem is that there are many ways that those missing still frames of the movie could be filled in to make a different movie. Scientists assume they know what the missing frames are and make assumptions in order to fill in the missing frames of the fossil record. This is despite not having lived during the time when the frames they are trying to fill in actually took place chronologically. Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution? I'm sure proponents will spin it so that evolution comes out looking even better, otherwise their "perfect" theory could be called out. When you assume evolution is true you base your assumptions on that premise to further the premise, never realizing your premise could be wrong in the first place. If Creationsists are wrong for having faith and not all the answers then it should work both ways.

By the way, I picked evolution because that is very close to the topic of the submission. Also, as for another assumption, many cosmologists assume there is a black hole in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, albeit based on observations. There is no direct proof there is a black hole there though but the assumption makes other observations (why the galaxy doesn't fly apart and why objects move faster than they are expected to near the center of the galaxy) make sense. Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?

As far as the scientific process is concerned, I know that a theory is supposed to be able to predict observations much like relativity theory did. Actually seeing those observations reinforces the theory. The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything, or at least anything we can prove in our lifetime or even in a hundred lifetimes because it conveniently takes too long to show changes on the scale that the "evidence" has already shown us. Every day mutations don't count because they don't change species or at least on time scales we need to make predictions similar to what we've supposedly already seen evolution do. So what is my uneducated mind missing that your elitist mind already knows?

Re:selection pressures

[Abcd1234]

Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.

Umm... there is no such faith. Only a layman believes that relativity is believed "true for all situations". At the very small, relativity breaks down, which is why quantum theory exists, and why there's an effort to reconcile the two.

But more fundamentally, the only reason, say, an engineer will "assume" relativity works is because, in general, it's predictions match expectations, and so it acts as a reasonable approximation of how the universe works. But if it turned out to be wrong? Big deal. It gets replaced, much like Newton's Laws, and we all move on.

Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense.

Also wrong. Evolution has been observed happening in the frickin' wild. No "faith" or "assumptions" required.

Of course, perhaps your complaint is with "macroevolution"? Also silly. Macroevolution is just microevolution in the large. Change an organism over millions and millions of generations, and yeah, believe it or not, it could become something completely different.

Maybe just go read this.

Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution?

Umm... why would it say anything? Evolution doesn't preclude organisms remain unchanged. Here, let me describe, very simply, the theory of evolution:

1) Each generation, individuals may experience random mutations.
2) Evolutionary pressures then act as a fitness function, giving some individuals a higher or lower probability of reproducing.
3) The fit traits, based on the aforementioned fitness function, are thus passed on.

In this case, the explanation is simple: either the Octopus hasn't experienced any new, significant evolutionary pressures to warrant dominance of new mutations (because it's already very well adapted), or the pressures applied to it continually select for the current form of Octopus.

Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?

Because they aren't "assumptions and faith". They're hypothesis backed by, and this is the most vital bit, *evidence*. Further, those hypothesis predict things, and we can test for them. And any new observations must fit in with said hypothesis. If predictions fail to manifest, or evidence arises that cannot be explain by the hypothesis, then scientists alter or replace the hypothesis in order to fit the new body of evidence.

How you can't see that this is *completely* different from "assumptions and faith", I honestly do not understand.

The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything

Here. Go get your learn on. Not that I expect you to actually believe any of that... after all, it doesn't fit with your worldview, and an echo chamber combined with a heavy dose of confirmation bias is ever so comforting...

Re:selection pressures

[pkphilip]

The other alternative is to consider the possibility that evolution doesn't quite explain how octopuses came about.

Octopuses have eyes very similar to human eyes but even better suited to low light conditions and this despite the fact that the Octopuses and humans have no common ancestors who also had eyes.

Re:selection pressures

[pkphilip]

It appears that scientists have reserved the right to make absolute statements without the requirement to provide the evidence to support the statements.

Re:selection pressures

[smoker2]

s/scientists/creationists/g .

Re:selection pressures

[steelfood]

Science looks for the best theory at hand, not the perfect one that explains every little detail since such a perfect theory is hard to come by.

It's neigh impossible, I would say. The perfect theory can only exist if our knowledge is complete. It'll take us an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of resources to get there. We can get pretty close though.

Re:selection pressures

[RockDoctor]

Those little shrews went and developed opposable thumbs and they're running the place!

Some of those little shrews with the opposable thumbs think that they run the place, but in reality it's still the bacteria that are in control. Always have been, and most likely always will be.

Re:selection pressures

[RockDoctor]

Octopuses have eyes very similar to human eyes

Octopii have complex eyes with a superficial similarity to vertebrate eyes (not just humans, and for that matter, not all vertebrate eyes). But some of the details of the structure are tellingly different - for example, the nerve wiring in vertebrate eyes lay between the lens and the light receptors, while in the octopus eye the order is the much more sensible lens-receptor-wiring. When you look in detail, they're very different though. Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" will tell you a good deal more than you likely wish to know about the diversity of vision systems across the animal kingdom.

but even better suited to low light conditions and this despite the fact that the Octopuses and humans have no common ancestors who also had eyes.

... which would be as expected given the disparity between vertebrate and cephalopod optical systems. However, in exactly the same batch of evidence is evidence of the common molecular mechanisms underlying sight. Both vertebrate and cephalopod eyes use molecules based on the retinol/ retinal core as the light-sensitive element of their eyes, and this is a molecule found in essentially all eukaryotes, and in no small number of prokaryotes. Similarly I think that the basic molecular biology of nerves are very similar.

Re:selection pressures

[Yunzil]

But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.

Um, no. Theories don't get upgraded to laws. When people talk about things like the "law of gravity", they are either speaking figuratively or they are referring to the equation for gravitational force between two masses.

Scientists assume they know what the missing frames are and make assumptions in order to fill in the missing frames of the fossil record. This is despite not having lived during the time when the frames they are trying to fill in actually took place chronologically.

Did you ever meet your great great great great great grandfather? Is it too much of an assumption to think that he existed?

Also, as for another assumption, many cosmologists assume there is a black hole in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, albeit based on observations. There is no direct proof there is a black hole there though but the assumption makes other observations (why the galaxy doesn't fly apart and why objects move faster than they are expected to near the center of the galaxy) make sense.

What the hell? There's no direct proof of anything in science. We've never seen an electron, but we've observed effects that we ascribe to particles with certain properties that we call electrons. I'm not sure what you want. If you're looking for "proof", then take a geometry class and you will prove things all day long.

The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything

Sure it does. We should never find modern mammal fossils in Precambrian strata. We should never find T-Rex fossils in recent strata. Changes in the environment should result in changes in species to adapt to the environment. DNA of related species should be similar. Etc, etc, etc.

Every day mutations don't count because they don't change species or at least on time scales we need to make predictions similar to what we've supposedly already seen evolution do.

Huh? "Every day mutations", whatever they are, have already resulted in speciation being observed.

So what is my uneducated mind missing that your elitist mind already knows?

Everything on talkorigins.org, I guess.

Re:selection pressures

[LandDolphin]

You can make it do things. But how do you know it was no designed that way. I can control and manipulate my computer and I can make my computer to unintended things, but it was certainly designed by someone.

I was just trying to point out hat proof does not exist to say ID is untrue. Sure, there may be no evidence to suggest it exist either, but that is not proof that it does not exist. Without a way to test the theory, it's best left alone until there is a way to test it. but to say that you know it is wrong is inaccurate.

Re:selection pressures

[LandDolphin]

While I agree with your statement, I do not believe that it counts towards proof.

You could say, "It's believed that..." or "It's suggested that", but not "I know that there's no" because you don't. To make that statement, one has to make a leap of faith. Is that really the path one wants to go down?

Re:selection pressures

[StikyPad]

Hmm.. how do you disprove evolution? It seems to be more of a self-defined characteristic than a theory. Disproving evolution would be like "disproving" that heat is hot.

Re:selection pressures

[Sinner-Saint]

What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?

Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.

Please provide a theory explaining the existence of a creator god or gods and the methods used by them in the creation of the earth and the means to prove such a theory and the scientific community will be forever in your debt.

Barring such evidence, we are left with saying "we see no evidence for an external creator, no evidence of a guiding intelligence in evolution; what we can observe can be explained by evolutionary theory and any gaps currently present in our knowledge are avenues for further research." Science looks for the best theory at hand, not the perfect one that explains every little detail since such a perfect theory is hard to come by. We may not know everything there is to know about electro-magnetism but what we do know of it allows us to make computers work which is somewhat better than the view the ancients had of lightning, i.e. thunderbolts thrown by the Zeus.

Science cannot definitively prove something does not exist but it can at least reduce the question to an irrelevance. Consider Russell's Teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

But since you think I'm being clever, here's another one: Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.

Check this out: http://everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html?gclid=CMOzptftrZkCFQienAodx0b2IQ Also read Rom. 1:16-23

Re:selection pressures

[E 99]

That is knowledge from observation.

Re:selection pressures

[init100]

It was not meant to be a proof, but rather a justification for the idea that the existence of a deity is extremely improbable. By the way, where did I state that I know that there exists no deity?

Re:selection pressures

[LandDolphin]

You did not explicitly state that you know there are no Deities. However, my initial post was asking for proof of the statement, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution". You replying to my comment, I assumed that you were replying to my comment.

As for "the existence of a deity is extremely improbable", I agree. However, that does not justify one to say, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution", because you don't know. You have a justifiable reason to believe such is true, but you don't know.

I see... Dirk.

[Jane Q. Public]

Never mind. :o)

Re:I see... Dirk.

[StikyPad]

Apparently you were seeing what you wanted to see.. =O

Creationism rules

[tsa]

This fossil proves that evolution can never be the way species appear. We have so many animals that haven't evolved at all in millions of years: crocodiles, sharks, turtles, octopusses... I tell you, all these animals have been put on the Earth by the great Spaghetti Monster (hallowed be its name) and have proven worthy of staying. That's why they haven't become extinct.

Re:Creationism rules

[rleibman]

Ramen!

Re:Creationism rules

[arekusu_ou]

I know you're being funny but just because they haven't evolved recently doesn't mean they didn't or still couldn't.

Re:Creationism rules

[Red Flayer]

According to the Second Holy Doctrine of the FSM, animals that are tasty with pasta were allowed to remain unevolved. Untasty animals are in the process of being intelligently evolved by touches of His Noodly Appendage until they assume a tasty form. Thus we can reconcile the evidence of evolution with the wisdom of the FSM.

Such early examples of perfect tastiness with pasta should be eaten with reverence for the wise benevolence of His Noodliness's early omnipotence. Rejoice in your Polpi e Calamari Fettucine, for it is given by the grace of He of the Tangled Forkful.

Ramen.

Re:Creationism rules

[DarthVain]

Pffft Horseshoe crab been around for 300-450 million years, kicks old octo's ass!

While trying to figure out exactly how long the fossil record is for it I came across this:

http://creationwiki.org/Horseshoe_crab#Horseshoe_Crab_and_Evolution

I am not sure what it says about me, but I can't tell if this is supposed to be serious or just satire...

Also apparently this is not a new conversation as I also ran across this wonderful yahoo forum on the debate...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090310061347AAXFTt1

Funtimes Friday I tell you!

Re:Creationism rules

[Calithulu]

Sadly, it is not a joke. Just read the "living fossil" entry for the justification:

http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil

I'm not sure when naturalist became synonymous with "believes in evolution" but that seems to be the usage at creationwiki.

The real irony here is that some people will probably reference the wiki as if it were accurate and factual and treat the articles as if they received some sort of peer review from people knowledgeable in the field... too soon?

Re:Creationism rules

[Hognoxious]

animals that are tasty with pasta were allowed to remain unevolved

Are sharks tasty with pasta?

Re:Creationism rules

[init100]

Pffft Horseshoe crab been around for 300-450 million years, kicks old octo's ass!

Orthoceras, which are closely related to octopuses, lived in the Ordovician period, which makes them contemporary with the Horseshoe crab. Thus, octopus-like creatures have been around for a very long time, much longer than 95 million years.

Re:Creationism rules

[RockDoctor]

animals that are tasty with pasta were allowed to remain unevolved

Are sharks tasty with pasta?

If they've not evolved over X million years, then they must be (though I don't recall the mentioned verse in my copy of the FSM Gospel - but I'll just have to re-read it until I am touched again!). For, of course, certain values of "shark" and "tasty".

Actually, there's been a good degree of evolution going on in the sharks over the last few hundred million years. The elaborate rostra of some families have gone, and body sizes have varied drastically. But the general body plan hasn't changed significantly, because it works well.

Don't f--- with Octopus's

[tjstork]

The moral of the story is, until recently, Octopuses were one of the dominant species of the planet. At least until man came around. Now, we eat them.

Haha, our 8 tentacled friends... two hands with opposing thumbs have you beat!

Land vs. Sea evolution

[Saffaya]

The remark about sharks and octopods not having evolved in millions of years, compared to all the evolutions witnessed on land, make me wonder if it is caused by the oceans being a more stable environment across the eons than land ?

I mean, look at the coelancanth : living fossil. Do we have anything as ancient on solid ground ?
Or is land intrisincally a much more dynamic/chaotic/subject to wild changes ecosystem ?

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Opyros]

Dragonflies and crocodiles are very similar to their ancestors of many millions of years ago.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[NeoSkandranon]

there's a shitload more sea for things to find a niche in where competitive pressure lets them get by as opposed to on land

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Sabz5150]

Well, I would imagine that the general environment above water changes much more and much more drastically than the one below. Things such as Ice Ages and volcanic eruptions aren't going to have a profound effect on a lifeform that lives hundreds of feet (or even several miles) below the surface of the water.

Evolution requires environmental pressure in order to allow changes to be selected. If there isn't much of an environmental pressure outside of being faster than what's trying to eat you or smarter than what you're trying to eat, there won't be much evolution except to these ends.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

cockroaches, ants?

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[digitig]

Both aquatic (the major part of the dragonfly's life is as a nymph).

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[jd]

Bear in mind that the total inhabitable volume of the land is roughly equal to the total inhabitable surface area * 1 (to convert area to volume), and the total area of land (inhabitable or not) is less than a third of the total surface area.

The oceans are staggeringly deep in places, virtually everything can be occupied by something (right down to the deepest of the oceanic trenches), and the range in which an organism can survive is often beyond comprehension (some whales dive to below 10,000 feet). This greatly increases the range an animal can thrive in, and thus reduces pressure from any given competing species.

However, evolution does happen in the oceans. I, for one, am rather glad that one specific beastie that had an estimated bite of 45 tonnes per square inch is not in circulation at the moment. Although it might make a cool monster in a horror flick! Being able to bite clean through an armoured car in one go has to be worth some decent SFX.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[jd]

And politicians. Don't forget them.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[powerlord]

Or is land intrisincally a much more dynamic/chaotic/subject to wild changes ecosystem ?

Well ... land does have this really aggressive predator that tends to wipe out lots of creatures, and influence their environment to such a degree that it affects even creatures that aren't directly impacted.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Saffaya]

I am no entomologist, but didn't ants evolved from wasps/bees ?
Finding new ways of subsisting on land, and keeping the usage of wings only for the reproducive period ? (male and female ants mating in-fly and founding a new colony thereafter)

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Hognoxious]

More? I heard it was only 47%.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Hognoxious]

Parent is correct. Some say that even humans aren't safe from them.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[DMUTPeregrine]

More. Land is effectively 2-dimensional. The sea has quite a bit of depth.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[init100]

Ocean covers some 70% of the surface of the Earth.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[g00nsquad]

Tuatara. Also, "living fossil" is something of a misnomer. In the case of both the Coelacanth and Tuatara, the modern animals just bear a very strong resemblence to their fossil counterparts.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[RockDoctor]

Things such as Ice Ages and volcanic eruptions aren't going to have a profound effect on a lifeform that lives hundreds of feet (or even several miles) below the surface of the water.

Mr Blobby, the indeterminate lifeform spends generations blobbing about 2 miles deep in the ocean. Some mad fool on the surface starts an ice age. Surface temperatures drop, though not enough to freeze the water. Just enough to cut primary photosynthetic production by 90% overall, with a very brief bloom in "high summer". Mr Blobby now has to deal with an environment where, instead of a steady rain of "marine snow" coming down all year round, there is severe seasonality and only a very brief season of relative abundance.
Enter, from stage right, Mr Darwin with his wonderful "Natural Selection", with which he will proceed to remodel the entire species from the bones (if Mr Blobby has any) out.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[RockDoctor]

In the case of both the Coelacanth and Tuatara, the modern animals just bear a very strong resemblence to their fossil counterparts.

I've never got up-close and personal with a tuatara, but I did specially go to the NHM a couple of years ago to look at coelacanths. Now, I don't claim to be an ichthyologist (why do you think I went to the NHM, which does house and feed real ichthyologists?), but even I could see the differences between late Jurassic coelacanths in the specimen cabinets in the back room (well, East wing) and the Recent one stuffed in the hallway.
Yes, Latimeria is indubitably a coelacanth. But it isn't particularly similar to the last of the fossil coelacanths (Macropoma, for example); it's more similar to some coelacanths from the Permian.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[omnichad]

And trees are staggeringly tall in other places. No, not at the scale of the ocean - but it's not all flat.

Re:Land vs. Sea evolution

[Hognoxious]

Well thanks for pointing that out. Now since you're such a genius, answer me this: what (other than sky) is above your head right now?

How does evolution detract from God?

[tjstork]

I'm a fairly deep believer in God and it always puzzled me why someone would have a problem with evolution.

I'm not asking you to believe in God if you don't, I honestly don't care. What I am saying is that those who believe in God and doubt the science should look at the story science teaches us for what it is and see the grandeur in it. Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.

We always ask, believer or no, could God make a stone so large that He cannot move it? Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[virtue3]

I spent years trying to figure out this whole "fundie" mentality of religion myself. I think it just really stems from who is teaching and who is learning. I learned everything about Christianity and God from my grandmother (Wiccan/Catholic nun) and the jesuits at my private school in highschool. It's... very very different from everything else I've heard of.

I mean, in all seriousness, my Bible study teacher flat out said that the reason there is a creation myth in the Bible is because all the other religions had one as well. However, he did ad, that if you don't take it too literally it can work with our current understanding. None of my teachers ever once even hinted that science and religion could not get along nor go hand in hand.

Topics like Abortion were always met with a very hard handed "evil", however, well, aside from my Grandmother, who very strongly believes that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body (and that ultimately it is between her and God and no one else) and I very strongly agree with her.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[ThisIsAnonymous]

Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.

Have you confirmed this with a deity somewhere? How exactly do you know that this is what a God would make or are you assuming that this is what your conception of a God would make?

On second thought, I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time replying to this. I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand this sentence:

Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.

Why exactly is free will even mentioned? Is this the age old argument that this is the best of all possible universes and that in order to be the best of all possible universes, it required free will. I won't even get into discussing that one -- it's been discredited by far brighter minds numerous times.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Sabz5150]

The problem that cdesign proponentists have with evolution (and subsequently, abiogenesis) is that it doesn't need a god. Everything in science has and must have a natural explanation. Moreso, science as a whole deals with physical evidence and testable predictions, of which there are none for the existence of a god.

Sure, you can multi-class and be both scientific and still hold faith in a higher power, but that does not change the fact that science will never point to a deity. By its very nature, a supernatural being cannot be tested and no direct physical evidence can be brought forth to validate its existence.

The only reason you can mix your faith with science is because your faith is a premade conclusion... to you there is no question of this being's existence, regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for it. It is like building a house upside down: you are starting with a conclusion... science ends with one.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[robinesque]

Here here! I am not religious but when I was younger and did go to church with my parents, the church always supported that very view point. Evolution, physics, they're all just God's way of doing things.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Hatta]

What makes you think we have free will? Our bodies are entirely bound by the laws of physics. There's no room for free will.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[digitig]

Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.

Wow. A sensible Christian! Perhaps they're evolving....

No, both sorts seem to go back all the way to the emergence of Christianity. I sometimes wonder whether they're different species of Christian.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[radtea]

I'm a fairly deep believer in God and it always puzzled me why someone would have a problem with evolution.

You have to distinguish between religion as an individual belief in GOD and religion as a socially organized set of beliefs that that is built primarily around SCRIPTURE.

We use the same term, "religious" to describe believers who think that in general terms there is something going on behind the scenes of reality that might reasonably be labelled "God", AND to describe people who think they know in detail what God wants, especially visa vis the sacrificing of virgins, the stoning of infidels, etc.

The former people generally have no problem with evolution. The latter people do, because their belief is primarily focused on scripture, which generally has a creation story that can't be made consistent with evolution (and in the Christian case can't even be made consistent with itself!)

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Darby]

By its very nature, a supernatural being cannot be tested and no direct physical evidence can be brought forth to validate its existence.

That's not true. If there such an entity then it could easily directly validate its existence absolutely positively and universally.

Heck, that's one of the clearest and most obvious bits of proof that if such an entity existed it's never even tried to make itself known to humans. Anything worthy of the name god would have been capable of delivering a simple message. That complete and total failure isn't proof that there is no god, just that if there is one it can't possibly be any of the ones there are books about.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[maxume]

You probably don't view your religion as a bargain.

If you did, there is a pretty good chance that you would be more opposed to ideas that implied that you are getting the short end of the stick.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Sabz5150]

NO, we will all find out for ourselves when we die. Either there will be black and nothing, as our brain shuts down, or there will be some sort of a spirit moving onwards. If you want to know right away, if there is a God, shoot yourself. I just don't need that verification right now!

Have you, or anyone you know, been able to verify what you have stated? Moreso, why is death the ONLY way to verify this "God"? How do you even know that death is the proper avenue to gain access to this deity? You have no evidence, no data, no way to test this prediction. Thus your argument is not scientific.

That's actually not true either. It's not how people work. Everyone that invents some theory has a preconceived vision of how the universe works and they put out there vision bolstered by some experiment or set of experiments. It's only the notion of test that gives us a winner and validates a given model and then only for a particular domain.

Incorrect. Theories aren't "invented", nor does it start with a preconceived vision. Theories start with observations and measurements. From these, predictions are made. These predictions are then validated or invalidated via additional observations and measurements. If validated, a theory is created. If not, the predictions are altered. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Charles Darwin didn't say "Hey, I think life alters itself slightly through reproduction and variation... let me set sail on a boat and find out!". He observed various lifeforms and their environment, and through these observations, made a prediction that species arise via descent with modification. Scientists have since validated this prediction with additional observations and measurements which are used to make additional predictions, such as exactly which species are descended from which ancestor.

But the larger point is that science itself, despite its falsifiability, still requires a faith. The minimum notion of science is that if someone else does something, you can do that thing yourself. It is this and this alone that makes science fact.

Science is fact through observation, testability and falsifiability. Not only can you do this thing yourself, you can predict the results of future experiments using this data and utilize it for practical purposes.

While this may be theoretically true, its certainly not practically true for most people. If the LHC people come out tomorrow and say they found the Higgs, how could I, myself, ever test that? The Higgs could have just about any number put to it and it would not make any difference to me as I could never know the absolute truth firsthand.

Peer review.

The results are verified by people who do have the ability to reproduce and test these results. Measurements are double checked, data is poured through. Even you can participate in this... if you see an error in a result, point it out.

Let's ask this: How do you know electrons exist? You don't have the ability to directly observe them, you can't test the exact measurements used to determine their existence... they could have just about any number attached to them and you wouldn't know. How could you possibly know the absolute truth firsthand?

Oh, that "computer" thing in front of you? Really... you don't say? THAT is how you know the "absolute truth". We have learned enough about them to utilize them in a productive manner.

The only thing you need is the education to be able to interpret the data.

You have to have faith in the process and the people and the institutions and the education, all that somehow its not being made up. For a lot of inquiry, you can assume that this is not the case. But, for some things, where there is big money involved, political preference, then we cannot be so sure, and those that are, doing so out of faith.

Again, peer review. Read up on the 80's cold fu

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Sabz5150]

That's not true. If there such an entity then it could easily directly validate its existence absolutely positively and universally.

Heck, that's one of the clearest and most obvious bits of proof that if such an entity existed it's never even tried to make itself known to humans. Anything worthy of the name god would have been capable of delivering a simple message. That complete and total failure isn't proof that there is no god, just that if there is one it can't possibly be any of the ones there are books about.

Really? Test this.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[tjstork]

You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Science requires solid fact and the data to back it up.

I certainly do understand the scientific method and what you are doing is undermining it. By leaving out the idea of a control, you are lowering the bar to what constitutes science so that you can have more people with Phds pretend to be scientists, and they are not. Smart people yes, researchers, yes, curious yes, producers of facts, no, and in doing that you have let faith creep back in.

The only way for a fact to be genuinely assertable is if it is repeatable and with a control. For classic physics and chemistry problems where the conclusions are simply drawn, and the cost of the experiment is not so great, science works really well. But the gray areas come because some other experiments are not so repeatable. The inclusion of other kinds of knowledge as science are not so hard of a fact as, you say, the computer that sits before me...

Like, let's take global warming, for example. Right now, the informed opinion is that CO2 contribution is raising the temperature of the earth. It follows that we ought to be able to prove this. To prove this, we need to lower the CO2 and see what happens. How fast will temperatures lower? Some say 50 years, some say 1000 years. What will be the effects if we don't? And, what's the actual probability of actually being right. Bottom line is, we don't know what will happen and the lack of a suitable control, that is, another earth, makes it impossible for us to credibly put climatologists into the same category as the guy shooting particles at a thin strip of gold in order to discover that atoms do not have a uniform density. It's not the same. Physicists are scientists. Chemists are scientists. But climatologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists, etc, all these other people, that's not science. Good stories, sometimes useful information, but you can't repeat climate, can't repeat psychology, and you certainly cannot repeat or predict evolution. It's not because they are less well meaning or that there is somehow a God making things. It is because the nature of the thing being studied means that experiments cannot be performed that satisfy the basic requirements need to claim something as a fact. It is only because of social pressures at a university that these sorts of researchers are even called scientists at all.

It's all not science, and sitting there and claiming that those branches of inquiry belong on the same lofty perch is simply undermining the good facts that we have. Is the evolutionary biologist better than the creationist? Yeah, because he's got some provable consistency to his arguments. But are they absolutely facts. No, they are not, because you can't test them.

Now, to bring me back to the point. You argue that there is no faith required to have science. That argument stands only so long as you can show that your facts are absolute. For physics, chemistry, the hard sciences, you are right. Those things can be tested, repeated and shared and they are hard fact. Cold Fusion, as you pointed out, was quickly found, well, because, if it was a miracle in a jar, we wouldn't be worrying about windmills now, would we? But you see you've included other disciplines into "science", and that's the hole I'm driving my faith through. When we say that CO2 will do this or that, or the dinosaurs died from this or that... that's a certain amount of faith involved. You really can't know... because you didn't see the dinosaurs die, have woefully little data compared to the data that is possible, and so any claim is a good tale, interesting, fits the pieces of puzzle together based upon what we know... but its not absolutely fact, and never can be. WE can't go back in time, or see every detail of the climate...

Have you, or anyone you know, been able to verify what you have stated? Moreso, why is death the ONLY way to verify this "God"?

It may not be the only way, but, it is a way. But it is based on the "theory" that there is some sort of afterlife governed by some God, and the only way to really know about it is to get there.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Kjella]

Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety

Because in that universe earth and humans are nothing special, not more so than any other creatures anyway. Religion is just as much as about what humans are to God as God is to humans.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

We think that we're created in the image of God himself.
We think we have dominion over all other living things.
We think God sent his son to die for our sins.
We think God will grant us life eternal in Paradise.

Now if I said that I think I've been put in this awesome position and is so utterly special outside any religion, you'd probably think I was rather arrogant and presumptious. But if you write it down in a book and say "God told me Im all these things" then no critical consideration is required.

That is why the fundies can't accept science. That the one "created in God's image" is 99% genetically the same as the "wild animals" that we've been given dominion over. That in fact humans didn't exist for 99%+ of history. That we're one among endless stars in the sky. It doesn't destroy God's greatness. But it destroy's Man's greatness.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[Darby]

Really? Test this.

Huh?

Go read it again. You clearly missed the point.

If you are incapable of accurately delivering a simple message, then omnipotent is obviously not a word that could be used to describe you.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[omnichad]

I'll respond to the "best of all possible universes" idea, because I'm bored. Wouldn't said Deity be giving up perfection of the universe in order to allow our free will?

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[RockDoctor]

Here here! I am not religious but when I was younger and did go to church with my parents, the church always supported that very view point. Evolution, physics, they're all just God's way of doing things.

You will spend eternity in hell, burning and suffering the most unspeakable of torments, for thinking that. If it is any consolation, your parents and the other parishioners of your former congregation will be suffering those same torments. (Since it might be a consolation, you won't be allowed to know this, I'm sure. But since you're obviously a heretical unbeliever (you yourself say that you no longer attend church, damn you [and I mean that literally, not metaphorically]), you'll be getting the hellish tortures (again, literally, not metaphorically) specific for recidivists like yourself.

Evolution, physics, they're all just God's way of doing things.

That may or may not be true - God seems to be silent on all matters (fuelling debate over whether or not this "god" thing actually exists). However, the above promise of utter torture is definitely how God's people, priests and supporters behave. Just to add to the terror inspired by these promises, please put yourself into the mind of a child when considering how your tiniest doubts will lead to an eternity of torture.

Yeah, yeah ; your god is a god of love, not the god who will inflict punishment seven generations after the transgression. Obviously not the god of the Bible. Whatever. They're all the same animal.

Re:How does evolution detract from God?

[RockDoctor]

[SNIP] AND to describe people who think they know in detail what God wants, especially visa vis the sacrificing of virgins, the stoning of infidels, etc.

Don't forget the sacrificing of your first-born son too. The Bible wasn't always about killing off the daughters ; sometimes the daughters were to be given to a crowd of angry perverts intent on sodomising someone that night (as intended by that upstanding citizen, Lot [Genesis, 19:8], praise to the prophet). The Bible is pretty even-handed in thinking of nasty things to do to people.

Phenotype!=genotype

[Taibhsear]

Just because their outward appearance hasn't changed in millions of years doesn't mean they have not evolved. Heat shock proteins, enzymes, internal organs, nerve systems, skin coloration, mating habits, immune cells, surface proteins, antibodies, etc. These are all things that may have changed through evolution that you might not notice by analyzing fossils. To say that these creatures have not evolved over millions of years is rather naive or ignorant.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[robinesque]

IANAB but it seems unlikely that all of these internal things would be changing while the outside stays practically identical. Someone correct me!

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[radtea]

Someone correct me!

Ok. The internals the GP mentions are plausibly independent of the overall body plan, which is adapted to a life on rocky ocean bottoms eating molluscs. So long as those basic features of the world stay the same you would expect the overall body plan to stay the same, and since oceans are pretty stable environments (and allow free migration to other places when the local environment changes) it is plausible that the basic body plan could stay the same for tens of millions of years.

Internally, though, the population will be subject to diseases and parasites, and running a constant biomolecular race to keep ahead of them.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[turing_m]

IANAB but it seems unlikely that all of these internal things would be changing while the outside stays practically identical. Someone correct me!

Sensory and intelligence apparatus can change a great deal while a creature superficially remains the same. There may be others (e.g. efficiency), but those are the ones I immediately think of. I suspect those things are harder to get right, so they take longer for natural selection to do its thing.

Consider a mould of Isaac Newton versus early man. Newton's head was a bit bigger and his body a bit weedier, but all in all, pretty similar. Or perhaps more to the point, consider a WWII or 1950s submarine versus the latest iterations of US submarines, or an F-22A versus an F-15 or F-18. Superficially they are very similar, because an object that spends all its time in a fluid will need to be designed (or will converge on a "design" through natural selection) to move efficiently in that fluid.

However, the power plant, avionics, stealthiness of later iterations of military vehicles are going to outclass earlier vehicles by a huge degree. Pitted head to head, the former submarines and aircraft will only be capable of lucky kills. Getting back to the example of the octopus, we have no way of knowing whether the earlier version of octopus could change color at will, spurt ink, or figure out how to get food out of a bottle with a cork in the top.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[robinesque]

Thank you, that does make a lot of sense. I vote we replace car analogies with submarine analogies.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[nitro77]

Or perhaps more to the point, consider a WWII or 1950s submarine versus the latest iterations of US submarines

This is a poor analogy. Most WWII and 1950s submarines had v-shaped displacement type hulls which are optimized for surface operations. They were not streamlined for submerged operations.

Most, if not all modern submarines have tear drop shaped hulls that are optimized for submerged operations. They are very poor at surface operations.

Trust me on this. Being in the North Atlantic in a winter storm on a round hull boat is not fun. I would much rather be in an older style v-hull shape boat.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[NemoinSpace]

Being in the North Atlantic in a winter storm on a round hull boat is not fun. I would much rather be in an older style v-hull shape boat.

Suit yourself, I would have much rather stayed home that day.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[nitro77]

Being in the North Atlantic in a winter storm on a round hull boat is not fun. I would much rather be in an older style v-hull shape boat.

Suit yourself, I would have much rather stayed home that day.

I would like to say I would have much rather stayed home also. It is one of the many joys of signing your life away by joining the military. I enjoyed it very much. I met many people and visited many countries during my time. Small price to pay.

Re:Phenotype!=genotype

[RockDoctor]

Getting back to the example of the octopus, we have no way of knowing whether the earlier version of octopus could change color at will, spurt ink, or figure out how to get food out of a bottle with a cork in the top.

Ink sacs have been known to fossilize for a long time. This one was a commercial sale ; a whole batch reported from Charmouth ...

But yeah - there's a lot to an organism that doesn't fossilise. I'm just watching the BBC wildlife unit's film of orcas playing rugby with a seal. Incredible behaviour, negligible fossilisation potential.

Oh, I didn't know that : "But the ink of modern squids paralyzes the organs of smell."You learn something every day. Well, I do. Every day that I'm not actually dead.

You guys are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

It's identical to a living octopus because that's how it was created!

further reading

[ovu]

If you like physics, I can recommend a book which offers a ton of insight into the concepts you're mentioning, from a physicist/philosopher perspective.

Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos

He addresses and dispels popular, but outmoded concepts such as cosmic heat death. He also proposes ingenious ideas about why universal constants have the values they do, and why life appears in the universe. While sidestepping religious implications as much as possible, the perspective he offers into these topics seems to refine our insight into the creative powers of the universe, which some term God. It is dense with insight and worth reading.

Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial

[geoffrobinson]

Why is this remarkable? This is what Darwinism or even neo-Darwinism predicts: survivors survive.

There, that's it.

Re:Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial

[radtea]

There, that's it.

Hardly.

Darwinian evolution is a process in which successive generations differ cumulatively from preceding generations due to the differential reproductive success conferred on individuals by imperfectly heritable traits.

There is no possible way that the ontological commitments inherent in that statement can be reduced to "survivors survive", which says nothing about Darwinian evolution at all.

As usual, the opponents of evolution first have to completely misrepresent it before mounting arguments against their own misrepresentations. I love the smell of burning straw people in the morning...

Re:Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial

[geoffrobinson]

They differ, except when they don't differ. It makes no predictions.

Re:Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial

[ardle]

Darwinian evolution is a process in which successive generations differ cumulatively from preceding generations due to the differential reproductive success conferred on individuals by imperfectly heritable traits.

Problems with this definition (for me):

• Evolution isn't a natural process, it is a term invented by humans to describe changes observed over generations (for want of a better word). Individual life forms don't have an "evolution system" (maybe we could say that a species is an evolution system) or "evolution gene"
• Evolution cannot be invoked to predict the changes a species will undergo in future: these are determined by the species' environment, for the most part (a species obviously being part of its own environment)
• Your definition suggests that evolution occurs only because of imperfect inheritance of traits, in which case a species would continue to evolve even if it didn't need to (contrary to Darwin's own observations)

If I recall correctly (I wasn't there, I read it somewhere ;-), Darwin was more interested in Natural Selection than "evolution".
How about looking at it another way?
If species A has developed the capability to "evolve" quickly (it generates more deviations than "average" from its "core" genome, so hopefully there is an above-average chance that one of the variations will survive some disaster that destroys other variations) and species B somehow developed the ability to withstand all possible disasters in its environment 1 million years ago and does not need to change, which species is "fitter"?

Re:Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial

[radtea]

It makes no predictions.

What does plate tectonics predict?

Re:Darwin was wrong!

[digitig]

"These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species."'"

Hah. Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong!

Frequently, presumably. But not, so far as we can tell, in this case.

German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

is actually really easy and has only two really simple rules:

• Everything is spelled as it is pronounced.
• Everything is pronounced as it is spelled.

How can you beat that? If you can hear it, you can spell it, and if you can spell it you can speak it. I am fluent in German, although it is a foreign language for me. I never make a spelling mistake in German, but in English, my native language, I am error prone.

And folks wonder why they can build such great cars.

And you can build great sentences, with the same word six times in a row:

"Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fleigen, Fliegen fliegen Fliegen nach." (When flies fly behind flies, flies fly after flies)

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[Plunky]

And you can build great sentences, with the same word six times in a row:

"Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fleigen, Fliegen fliegen Fliegen nach." (When flies fly behind flies, flies fly after flies)

Sure, and you can do that in english too:

Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and and and and and Chips in my 'Fish and Chips' sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[Hercynium]

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

Did I ever mention that the slashdot posting filter is retarded?

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[BluBrick]

German's spelling and grammar regularity is what they're really mean when they say "Ve haff vays of making you talk!"

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[naglep]

Brown, where Briggs had had had, had had had had. Had had had had the editor's approval!!

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[beav007]

You're doing it wrong. It's actually "Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Mushroom Mushroom"

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[gbutler69]

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[Hurricane78]

I got a better one: You can make huge words out of everything. No spaces needed.

Rhabarberbarbarabarbarenbartbarbierbierbarbärbel. (Bärbel [a girl] of the bar of the beer of the barber of the beards of the barbarians of the bar of Barbara of the rhubarb.)

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[Smoke2Joints]

it gets far worse in chinese..

Re:German spelling and pronunciation . . .

[kkazakov]

Or maybe ... "fischers fritze fischt frische fische, frische fische fischt fischers fritz"

It's dead

[Tubal-Cain]

These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.

Except, you know, for the fact that one is a rock and the other can only imitate the appearance of a rock.

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[conureman]

God put these "fossils" in the desert to test the faith of his followers. Ask not. Amen.

I can't wait

[AJWM]

I can't wait to see the reconstructed skeletons of these things.

Oh, wait..

End result?

[Anachragnome]

Maybe Octopii are the apogee of biological advancement, and all species, despite genetic drift and mutation, all end up evolving into Octopii.

It will sure come in handy for multi-tasking (think circular desks!), but then again, all those Octopii species seem to have given up on technology.

Re:End result?

[maxume]

Do you hear them when you sleep?

They murmur to me.

Re:Timetravel rules

[iamcadaver]

No, this is proof of time traveling will arrive in the near future!

Bald assertions hold little merit.

[Ozlanthos]

I don't know where to start honestly. I won't attack your "intelligent Design" or whatever, However, I find your statement, "I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution, it is an impersonal process of optimization for a set of conditions and there's no selection bias for complexity" to be patently false none the less. To me it seems that you are suggesting that individual behavior and genetic memory have nothing to do with the evolution of a species.

-Oz

Dragonflies

[smellsofbikes]

There are excellent 155 million year old dragonfly fossils and other less beautiful ones that are roughly 300 million years old.
There are a lot of very ancient insect orders. Mammals and birds are newcomers, and still changing a lot, but there have been animals pretty similar to turtles and crocodiles for millions of years, too.

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[phillips321]

I'm the only one that read this as a 1 year old 95m long octopus????

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[Mahalalel]

I don't know which "God" you are referring to, but the Bible actually explains this with the Great Flood. I personally have found sand dollar and clamshells on the top of a mountain I was hiking. These got there somehow. Only some cataclysmic event would seem to explain it.

Re:after a nuclear war

[Hurricane78]

Nah. Scorpions can stand a nuclear war pretty well. If you expose them to a nuclear bomb, and they survive, their kids become 400 times more resistent. This also works on later generations, (Dunno how many though)

I don't know if they still do, but when I read about it, some scientists tried to find out, how to modify human genetics to let them have the same metabolism. For soldiers, you know...

I always have to think of Hulk or some other "super hero" when I think of this.

Re:after a nuclear war

[Niris]

Bane of my existence at work. At least it hasn't evolved yet to be able to withstand zapnotes and deleting C:\Program Files\Notes and the Userdata file.

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[Vectronic]

Nope.

Found: Cthulhu's minions

[bwcbwc]

Yet another god from the holy land?

The origin of Japanese tentacle porn?

Or just another plate of calamari?

Lebanon has no desert

[PtrToNull]

Actually, Lebanon is the only Arab country that has NO desert at all. Lebanon's Geography

Because evolution doesn't need a god.

[jotaeleemeese]

Evolution by natural selection explains how life transforms and adapts.

Most importantly it follows mathematical formulas that predict how traits change in populations, this means no god is required.

That you don't feel your faith threatened by this is most unusual, since Evolution removes from the hands of gods any involvement about how life changes.

Evolution negates divinity. Darwin knew this, most biologists know this, heck, most religious people know this, which is why they struggle to divide the material from the spiritual in a bane attempt to keep an important role for gods as drivers of things.

Re:Because evolution doesn't need a god.

[tjstork]

Most importantly it follows mathematical formulas that predict how traits change in populations,

We're a little ways from that...

Evolution negates divinity

But it doesn't, you see, at least not for me. The thing is, the simpler our universe is, when all the rules are discovered, the more likely it seems that it was designed by a genius. Science has this faith that the rules of the universe are essentially simple but undiscovered... and one has to ask, why should the universe be simple?

I see our universe as a giant screen saver... asking us to prove God would be like asking a pixel to prove its in a computer.

Re:Because evolution doesn't need a god.

[RockDoctor]

The thing is, the simpler our universe is, when all the rules are discovered, the more likely it seems that it was designed by a genius.

Every time I'm standing shivering at the bus stop, waiting for the bus that's always late (except when it's early), I think to myself that it there were a god responsible for designing a universe like this, it must be a god that's a sadistic retard. Come to think of it - the more I think about it, the more evidence I see to support this hypothesis. After all, who but a retard would deliberately accept responsibility for all evil?

You are correct.

[jotaeleemeese]

Catholicism does not accept other beliefs.

Particular priests or regional dioceses are more pragmatic of course, and turn a blind eye to what is seen in the general Church as pagan rituals.

It appears similar, but is it really similar?

[master_p]

Are its functions similar to the modern octopus? perhaps the evolution is internal. The fact that the ancient octopus looks like the modern one is not very relevant to science. It is only a clue.

Re:evolution be damned

[gx5000]

The creationists will never win for they believe in the static writings of Prophets.
Science (as in evolutionary sciences) evolves.

But it is far too early for us amateurs to come to any conclusions...
It takes years of analysis to actually get at any "hard" data.

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[katarac]

Only if you assume that those mountains have been mountains since the beginning of time.

Re:almost indistinguishable from living species

[omnichad]

Even if dating on radioactive materials sucks, carbon doesn't go back 95 million years no matter who you ask.

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

The Great Flood is one of the stupider parts of the bible, the volume of water required to cover the entire surface of the earth up to the highest mountains would be beyond enormous. It would be on the order of a planetary body the size our moon, made of water.

If such a huge volume of water existed on the earth fairly recently, where did it go? Did it drain into the earth? Do you also believe the earth is hollow?

Re:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know

[Mahalalel]

This topic isn't about the Flood so I hesitate to reply here, but in case you are actually interested:

1. The Bible does not go into technical details but it is not inconceivable to imagine that at one point the earth did not have such high mountains. The point of mentioning that the mountains were covered was not to show the amount of water, but to show that no one could have survived.

2. I'm also told that there is a huge amount of water underground these days. Possibly there was not so before the Flood.

3. Shortly after the Flood account there is mentioned a man named "Peleg because in his days the earth was divided." This could possibly be a reference to violent upheavals when earth's plates actually shifted considerably. This could have given some of the high mountains we see today.

4. Nearly every major civilization has a "flood" account somewhere, perhaps as legend or on a cave wall or something. This would be expected if these races actually did all descend from the Ark's survivors, as the Bible claims.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion