Evolution: A Theory of Change? The Case of the Octopus.

Octopus fossil with modern comparison

Octopus fossil with modern comparison

Paleontologists recently discovered a fossil of an octopus and attributed an age of 95 million years (late Cretaceous) to the specimen.(1) They noted that:

“These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.” [EurekAlert] The fossils provide an extraordinary glimpse into the evolutionary history of the creatures, pushing back the birth of the modern octopus millions of years.

The fact that these fossils exist is a small miracle of science and a big victory for paleontologists and evolutionist alike.

Well, praise Science. It’s not quite a bunny in the Cambrian, but it would seem to me to be problematic at best for a theory of change. I suppose we are to believe that the right mix of blind processes and necessity were somehow kept at bay for this creature, or that it is a perfect adesign.(2) In other words, this creature has been in the punctuated stage of punctuated equilibrium for 95 million years.

What’s also interesting about the octopus is that Darwinists have claimed that the eyes of the octopus and human eyes evolved

Human to Octopus Eye Comparison

Human to Octopus Eye Comparison

independently.(3) They even go so far to note that the octopus eye shows that the human eye is poorly designed, as I’ve noted previously, despite obvious problems with that explanation.(4) The assertion is that a completely different set of blind circumstances results in technology with all the major functional parts in common.  What makes a great deal more sense is common design by a single Designer. Either that, or mother nature is smarter than you are.  Or as the old saying goes, “Evolution is smarter than you are.”(5)

Interestingly, the phrase is intended to be a rejoinder to the purported logical problem often attributed to IDists and Creationists who claim that blind processes are incapable of producing things of such complexity (i.e., argument from lack of imagination).  The trouble is, that it’s the same old attribution of sentience to blind processes, and the fact of the matter is, some things do not occur through blind processes.  Car parts in a junkyard will not assemble into a brand new car no matter what natural forces act upon those parts regardless of the number of billions of years given to do so.  Similarly, blind processes cannot lead to sentience or sight, but Darwinists will continue to follow that blind watchmaker no matter how incapable she may be.  All the while, they will marvel at her creativity and astounding abilities to create everything from nothing.

    References

(1). Against the odds ancient octopus fossils discovered
(2). Darwinists on Design: Jumping to Confusions
(3). Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
(4). An eye for creation
(5). Orgel’s rule

Other Interesting Reads:
Octopus–Beautiful AND Intelligent

Advertisements

17 Responses

  1. How come no evolutionist ever says that human brains are poorly designed? I guess they know they would just be calling themselves stupid in that case. Or maybe they don’t realize that, in which case they really are stupid 😉

  2. That is interesting Mike. I don’t think I’ve heard them use that one either!

  3. Man Shrink, you produce a lot of quality posts based on new knowledge. I would use the word “science” instead of knowledge but it’s beginning to have a lot of baggage given how charlatans use it as a magic word.

    On a side note, you could probably start a collection for “earlier than previously thought,” as that is the sort of anomalous pattern that creationism predicts. From this article, “….pushing back the birth of the modern octopus millions of years.” Despite the claims that some make about falsification/verification with respect to hypotheses of evolution (falsely called the “theory of evolution”) that’s all that would happen to bunnies in the Cambrian too. They would be discarded if possible and if not then way that evolutionists imagine things about the past would evolve. This type of thing already happens because “evolution” is rooted more in unfalsifiable hypothetical goo than verifiable theoretical logic.

    (Another side note, the link for “Octopus–Beautiful AND Intelligent” doesn’t seem to work.)

  4. Or how about this one in typical circular fashion:

    Human brains are poorly designed because they compel some believe in nonsense like a Designer. Therefore there is no designer.

    Or this gem of logic:

    Human brains are poorly designed because they can’t control another brain’s thoughts. Therefore there is no designer (and if there was, then somebody must be making me say this!)

  5. Originally Posted By mynymOn a side note, you could probably start a collection for “earlier than previously thought,” as that is the sort of anomalous pattern that creationism predicts. From this article, “….pushing back the birth of the modern octopus millions of years.” Despite the claims that some make about falsification/verification with respect to hypotheses of evolution (falsely called the “theory of evolution”) that’s all that would happen to bunnies in the Cambrian too. They would be discarded if possible and if not then way that evolutionists imagine things about the past would evolve. This type of thing already happens because “evolution” is rooted more in unfalsifiable hypothetical goo than verifiable theoretical logic.

    Of course. When your rug is billions of years long, it’s quite easy to find an empty spot to sweep things under.

  6. It’s interesting to note that this is just the physical substrate of existence and what we know of sentience, intelligence and what it is to see by experience may impact the physical or biological substrate of existence. In fact, all rational people already know it does.

    On the myth of the Blind Watchmaker creating sight and insight:

    Acts of awareness are not simple optical processes. Optical processes enable us to be aware, but to identify being aware with the operation of optical processes is like saying that the images on TV screens are to be identified entirely with electron guns and screens. The enabling structure is one thing and the enabled experience another. Awareness is an ontological reality as fundamental as matter itself.
    But so far our discussions have remained at the level of physical sight. Let me pass on to the equally important theme of seeing on a purely mental plane. Here we are talking of the mind’s capacity to grasp meaning that is the exact counterpart on the conceptual plane of what takes place during the act of seeing at the perceptual level. When we “see the point” or “see something to be the case” or “know what you mean” or “realize” or “understand” or “comprehend” or “visualize,” then we are performing acts that, again, cannot be described and explained in physical terms, let alone by reference to evolution. All of these acts presuppose the mind coming to grips with something. When we say that a sense of integrity should prohibit us from taking a bribe, we’re not talking simply of physical actions but of irreducible ideas. When our reading of Mahatma Gandhi’s My Experiments With Truth moves us, it’s not the print marks on paper that stir our emotions. Our mind sees something that can’t be expressed in terms of molecules and particles.
    (The Wonder of the World by Roy Abraham Varghese :164)

    He goes on to note:

    You can’t be convinced of something by the action of certain physical causes in your central nervous system. You’re convinced by reasons. You disagree with me because you haven’t seen enough reason to agree. Meaning is all about reasons and not causes. If I say a poem is beautiful, neither my message nor its truth is reducible to neuronal excitement in given regions of the cerebral cortex. It’s all about concepts, reasons and meanings, not causes and effects. I cannot see how you can dispute any of this without blatant self-contradiction.
    (Ib. :166)

    This is something that I often point out to those who support philosophic naturalism because they tend to lose their minds and then begin imagining things, naturally.

  7. “Car parts in a junkyard will not assemble into a brand new car”

    And I know of a very large number of people who think that that might happen given a quadrillion junkyards, a quadrillion tornadoes, and a quadrillion years to keep trying – not.

    Why do you bother to type such silly things? Don’t you realize that setting up such a silly strawman and knocking it down is crazy?

  8. What Shrink said was: Car parts in a junkyard will not assemble into a brand new car no matter what natural forces act upon those parts regardless of the number of billions of years given to do so.

    The belief in mythological narratives of naturalism said to explain things with much more integrated and functional complexity than a car is actually more unreasonable than the strawman that you just invented from what Shrink actually said. A blind faith in pure chance has an element of mysticism to it, especially given that chance seems to be nothing but ignorance with respect to cause and effect. But that mystical view of chance at least provides some semblance of an explanation if one is willing to have a nihilistic faith in “chance”/nothing. In contrast, belief in mythological narratives of naturalism is undermined by a knowledge of natural processes like natural selection. Natural selection is preservative, not creative. As Darwin noted it is accurate to call it natural preservation. It generally prevents the emergence of higher levels of integrated, functional complexity and has little to do with their creation or origins.

    At any rate, apparently you need to try to read what Shrink writes, not what you think he’s writing simply because he’s a “crazy” creationist and so on.

  9. @mynym

    On a side note, you could probably start a collection for “earlier than previously thought,” as that is the sort of anomalous pattern that creationism predicts.

    Yes, that is a good idea. I think I will take your advice. Great quotes as well.

    I’ll sum up sixb’s arguments for future reference:
    1. “That’s a lie.”
    2. “That’s stupid.”
    3. “That’s crazy.”

    Did I miss anything? For future reference 6b, why don’t you just cut and paste the summary of your arguments.

  10. “The belief in mythological narratives of naturalism said to explain things with much more integrated and functional complexity than a car is actually more unreasonable”

    Your silly opinion is noted and disregarded as nonsense.

  11. Your silly opinion is noted and disregarded as nonsense.

    It is your own ignorant and stupid opinion that one ought to try to imagine blind processes creating sight and sense. That is the unreasonable opinion that nonsense makes sense.

    If imagining a naturalistic creation myth is the work of “science” then the scientific explanation for the integrated and functional complexity of the neural nets that cause you to make assertions about “reality” and “nonsense” may be similar to those said to explain walking:

    What might a non-locomotor benefit [for bipedality] look like? A stimulating suggestion is the sexual selection theory of Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, of the University of Oregon. She thinks we rose on our hind legs as a means of showing off our penises. Those of us that have penises, that is. Females, in her view, were doing it for the opposite reason: concealing their genitals which, in primates, are more prominently displayed on all fours. This is an appealing idea but I don’t carry a torch for it. I mention it only as an example of the kind of thing I mean by a non-locomotor theory.*
    (The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
    By Richard Dawkins :91)

    So it may be that no one needs to read what you believe yourself to be saying thanks to neural nets shaped by natural selection. If we really want to know what you mean then we should look to the conditions which produced whatever it is you feel you are saying. We should focus on the physical substrate of existence and do away with the illusion of possibly non-physical or transphysical things like sentience, intelligent agency or information.

    *A critical reader may note that hypothetical goo which comports with one imaginary event as well as its exact opposite is hardly a “theory,” even on its own imaginary terms and allowing for imaginary evidence of this sort. Yet this type of “reasoning” about imaginary events has been typical to Darwinism historically and continues to this day. It’s an abuse of science and a pollution of language to claim that you have a scientific theory (the so-called singular “theory of evolution) with general application if what you have is generally hypothetical goo that gives rise to unspecified notions about some vague form of “evolution”/change.

  12. “It is your own ignorant and stupid opinion that one ought to try to imagine blind processes creating sight and sense.”

    Google is your friend. The proper evolutionary explanations of sight and sense are explained out there on the web. That you continue in your ignorance is not my fault.

    “If we really want to know what you mean then we should look to the conditions which produced whatever it is you feel you are saying.”

    The “poodling of poseurs” will be ignored by adults.

  13. The proper evolutionary explanations of sight and sense are explained out there on the web. That you continue in your ignorance is not my fault.

    If by “sense” Mynym means “meaning,” let alone “rationally evaluable meaning,” I’m less sanguine than you are, 1in6billion, that “the proper evolutionary explanation” is available — much less that it can be found in a quick Google search.

  14. Google is your friend. The proper evolutionary explanations of sight and sense are explained out there on the web. That you continue in your ignorance is not my fault.

    Then cite what you consider to be a proper evolutionary explanation.

    The “poodling of poseurs” will be ignored by adults.

    Richard Dawkins seems to have quite a following among adolescent boys. Or perhaps he just has a following among those who tend toward shallow, puerile arguments. Many philosophers have noted this, so his claim about “…the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudo-philosophical [puerile] poseurs…” that you brought up seems quite ironic. In fact, Carl has mentioned his disagreement with Dawkins in the past, apparently due to Dawkins’ shallow, pseudo-philosophy. Perhaps you should debate things with Carl as it seems that you’re intent on calling theists ignorant idiots and so on instead of dealing with philosophical arguments, facts, logic or evidence.

    When you call me an idiot do you mean that my brain events have not unfolded by some happy happenstance of biological evolution to the correct understanding of things? Why would you blame me for that? You seem to be assuming what Varghese noted:

    You can’t be convinced of something by the action of certain physical causes in your central nervous system. You’re convinced by reasons. You disagree with me because you haven’t seen enough reason to agree. Meaning is all about reasons and not causes.

    Do you agree with this?

  15. fact, Carl has mentioned his disagreement with Dawkins in the past, apparently due to Dawkins’ shallow, pseudo-philosophy. Perhaps you should debate things with Carl as it seems that you’re intent on calling theists ignorant idiots and so on instead of dealing with philosophical arguments, facts, logic or evidence.

    But if I may: my disagreements with Dawkins are based on having some acquaintance with his views: I’ve read The Blind Watchmaker, A Devil’s Chaplain, and The God Delusion. So I have reasons for regarding Dawkins as a shallow thinker, in certain respects, though also a good scientist, in other respects.

  16. […] children with pagan and dehumanizing-materialistic “scientific” hypotheses such as evolution. You know what I mean, the evolutionary tale, or tail, that is able to wag the whole […]

  17. […] fotografía detallada del pulpo, con tentáculos, ventosas, y todo. Un sitio web dedicado al DI, Intelligent Design and More, analizaba las consecuencias de este fósil para la teoría de la […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: