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?

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

[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.

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.

[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.

[n3tcat]

And they all hide behind a lot of ink.

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.

[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.

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.

When the stars are once again right:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

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

[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...

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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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 . . .

[beav007]

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

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.