95M-Year-Old Octopus Fossils Discovered 290
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."'"
When the stars are once again right: (Score:4, Insightful)
Creationism rules (Score:5, Insightful)
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:selection pressures (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Land vs. Sea evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
cockroaches, ants?
Re:selection pressures (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Re:selection pressures (Score:3, Insightful)
-5, Burden of Proof
-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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Darwinism Predicts Nothing Beyond the Trivial (Score:3, Insightful)
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:selection pressures (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Land vs. Sea evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
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:selection pressures (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Lebanon is a desert in case you didn't know (Score:2, Insightful)
Lebanon has no desert (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
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.