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.


(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


The Intelligence of Mother Nature

Darwinists frequently engage in the personification of nature (i.e., they utilize language suggesting sentience).  In a recent press release, they do it again.(1)  There are a number of conceptual problems with the following statement:

He and his co-author, postdoctoral researcher Minglei Wang, were interested in tracing how proteins make use of their domains, or groups of domains, to accomplish various tasks. These domains or domain clusters can be thought of as “modules” that fit together in various ways to achieve different ends.

The attribution of accomplishing various tasks to molecules is problematic.  The molecules of course have no sentience, planning abilities, and so forth.  They are molecules and do not think, feel, or reason.  Yet, purpose and achievement are attributed to molecules.  This makes sense if you are working from an ID perspective, but the language is not appropriate to a non-design perspective.

They continue in a similar vein:

“As time progressed, these domains started to combine with others and they became very specialized,” Caetano-Anollés said. This eventually led to the big bang of protein architectures.

“Exactly at the time of the big bang,” many of the combined domains began to split apart, creating numerous single-domain modules again, he said. But these new modules were much more efficient and specialized than their ancient predecessors had been.

“This makes a lot of sense,” Caetano-Anollés said. “As you become more complex, you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”

As if the big bang materialist cosmology story were not enough, we now invoke it in biology.  It seemed to work fairly well for them in cosmology, why not try it in biology too?  But that’s beside the point.  So, we continue with the attribution of sentience to matter.    “…you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”  That’s what I would be thinking if I were a bacteria for certain, but this is a nonsensical way of describing material processes.

I think this goes to a deeper issue.  That is that biology does not make sense outside of the concept of design.  The language to understand and explore the functions of proteins does not exist in blind materialist terms.  The reason is that these things are designed, and must be understood from that conceptual framework.

Access Research Network also has a good post on the language problem faced by Darwinian evolutionists.(2)

(1). Study of protein structures reveals key events in evolutionary history
(2). Darwinists on Design: Jumping to Confusions

Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines