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."'"
Dirk Fuchs? (Score:4, Funny)
Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated
How to pronounce his name? Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Gaylord Focker
Re: (Score:2)
German spelling and pronunciation . . . (Score:5, Funny)
is actually really easy and has only two really simple rules:
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 . . . (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I got a better one: You can make huge words out of everything. No spaces needed.
Rhabarberbarbarabarbarenbartbarbierbierbarbärbel [youtube.com]. (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: (Score:2)
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 [wikimedia.org] one, see here [wikipedia.org].
Evolution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (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 cas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Retract the pods! Prepare to jump. (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Which arm of government?
Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump. (Score:5, Funny)
They're all full of suckers.
Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump. (Score:4, Funny)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe the budget was for six arms?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well there you go, monkeys aren't very good at maths. Literature is more their thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Retract the pods! Prepare to jump. (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 f
They are octopus fossils... (Score:3, Funny)
I see... Dirk. (Score:2)
When the stars are once again right: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm most amused that that was marked insightful. I really really really hope that it isn't. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
ok slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
i want 10 cthulhu jokes moderated +5 funny, now
i'll be back in 3 hours, don't let me down
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must not have seen the researcher's name. You'd better make it four hours.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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, bu
Re: (Score:2)
>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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] and the observed instances of new species creation). All God speculations have exactly the same amount of observable evidence: zero.
Re: (Score:2)
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 de
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
-5, Burden of Proof
Re: (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: (Score:2)
a eunuch in a Klan uniform
You, sir or madam, owe me a new keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Creationism rules (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Are sharks tasty with pasta?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [creationwiki.org]
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=2009031006134 [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft Horseshoe crab been around for 300-450 million years, kicks old octo's ass!
Orthoceras [wikipedia.org], which are closely related to octopuses, lived in the Ordovician [wikipedia.org] 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:Timetravel rules (Score:2)
No, this is proof of time traveling will arrive in the near future!
Don't f--- with Octopus's (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Dragonflies (Score:2)
There are excellent 155 million year old dragonfly fossils [berkeley.edu] 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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And politicians. Don't forget them.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean covers some 70% of the surface of the Earth.
How does evolution detract from God? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 rel
Re: (Score:2)
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 supe
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 det
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Phenotype!=genotype (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Inter
Re:Phenotype!=genotype (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
It's dead (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I can't wait (Score:2)
I can't wait to see the reconstructed skeletons of these things.
Oh, wait..
End result? (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
The second first post.
Is that like the Fifth Third bank?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they're just scorch marks from Ancient drones.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (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 argu