Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

[Foster Zygote]

.
The design of anything is -adequate- for the environment.
Hardly perfect!
Their eyes have been said to be far superior to the human eye, for instance.
Yet have it and we don't.
Nature doesn't strive toward perfection in anything, just a "design" that can cope with the current environment.
When that changes beyond the capability of the organism to adapt, the organism goes extinct.
Apparently the environment for the octopus, if if challenges the animal, doesn't do it too rapidly for it to cope.

Other factors come into consideration too. If a type of organism is spread widely across the globe this increases its chances of having at least some species survive a severe extinction event. If the type of organism has less of an energy requirement it is more likely to survive. Crocodilians meet both of these criteria: They are fairly well distributed and they have a slow metabolism allowing them to survive long periods without eating.

 

[yy2bggggs]

.Apparently the environment for the octopus, if if challenges the animal, doesn't do it too rapidly for it to cope.

Species don't evolve because they can't cope though. They evolve because they are outcompeted by slightly different variations.

 

[fromdownunder]

Not sure so perhaps I read this wrong?

So had the original said:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed much for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

instead of:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

you would have been satisfied?

Norm

 

[Holler Hoojer]

If Evolution were true why are there still single cell organisms?

Shouldn't they have evolved?

They did. They used to be IDers.

 

[Neverfly]

I agree with TrueThat's premise. But many of the answers already given are good ones.

The point is valid: Claiming that they didn't need to change seems nonsensical. It almost sounds like it supports I.D.
It suggests that change only occurs when needed.
If no changes occur, it must have not been needed, right? That sounds very I.D.

Because much of what people understand about evolution describes it as a process in which genetic mutations - which occur all the time anyway- prove advantageous or disadvantageous.

In other words: Even if the environment changes little- the creature should change a lot in 95 million years simply because of mutations.

You can see how the sudden claim that no mutations were needed sounds very I.D.

This is likely not quite how evolution works, however. Mutations likely only play a small part in evolution. I don't personally understand epigenetics well enough to give a detailed explanation.
Let's let wiki give it a shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

So what you have is a creature, like the octopus or the shark, in which there IS genetic variation that results in much greater diversity. But gene don't just vanish unless all carriers of them are destroyed..

 

[Neverfly]

So had the original said:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed much for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

instead of:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

you would have been satisfied?

Norm

Read both of your statements and you will see that it strongly sounds as though you are making an I.D. argument. It's an easy trap to fall into and one we must all remain aware of.

Truethat's posts remind us that if we are going to counter a creationist claim, we must do so with sound and solid science.

 

[fromdownunder]

Read both of your statements and you will see that it strongly sounds as though you are making an I.D. argument. It's an easy trap to fall into and one we must all remain aware of.

Truethat's posts remind us that if we are going to counter a creationist claim, we must do so with sound and solid science.

That was not my statement. That was the statement from earlier in the thread that Truethat was objecting to. I added the word "much" because it appears that this was his only problem with the statement, and I was simply seeking clarification.

And as for countering creationists with science, I think that this has already been tried once or twice.


Norm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I stated several times now, because it suggests a static environment that stays the same for 82 million years. If an animal exists that is "perfectly suited to the environment" it would suggest that the environment would not have changed significantly in that time. Keep in mind we're not talking thousands of years. We're talking in some cases hundreds of millions of years.

Genetic variation actually continues to accumulate in a number of species that don't change much in appearance.

But even if that didn't occur, or you need too long of an explanation to understand it, consider that mutations occur coupled with selection pressures. A well adapted organism can just continue to be selected over the mutations. Even in the changed environment, there is no reason the existing organism could not be selected over newer ones.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Why are we even talking about this strawman. We don't have the DNA to compare so we can't even theorize anything other than some similarities in the organism. If you look at the DNA of modern octopus they still show drift in the junk dna as you would expect.

 

[normdoering]

From Fark.com:
'WND claims that 95 million year old octopus fossil disproves evolution because "It looks just like a modern-day octopus".'

Prepare to be dazzled by the logic...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92747

If you guys really want to see creationist logic at work, then you must check out Ray Comfort.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/03/ray-comforts-continuing-sex-problems.html

 

[qayak]

I agree with TrueThat's premise. But many of the answers already given are good ones.

The point is valid: Claiming that they didn't need to change seems nonsensical. It almost sounds like it supports I.D.
It suggests that change only occurs when needed.
If no changes occur, it must have not been needed, right? That sounds very I.D.

I think you and TT are putting the cart before the horse. The claim that octopi didn't change much in 95 million years is not evidence against evolution.

Most mutations result in the death of an individual before they can pass those mutations on.

Mutations do not happen as a result of a changing environment, that would be like someone falling out of an airplane sewing a parachute to aid their survival. The reality is just the opposite. Mutations that allow species to adapt to the environment happen before the environment changes or they are too late just like someone falling out of an airplane better have a parachute prior to the fall.

Having said this, it is probable that octopi were already prepared for any changes in environment and only slight changes occured because that is all that was allowed if they were to survive.

Lack of change alone is not evidence against evolution. The reason for that lack of change can be very strong evidence in support of evolution.

At least that is my highly uneducated perspective on the complex science that is Evolution.

 

[truethat]

So had the original said:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed much for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

instead of:

"The fact that the octopus hasn't changed for millions merely means that the design doesn't need changing. The octopus is superbly equiped for survival in a variety of undersea environments and apparently has been for tens of millions of years."

you would have been satisfied?

Norm

Yes.

 

[truethat]

I think you and TT are putting the cart before the horse. The claim that octopi didn't change much in 95 million years is not evidence against evolution.

Most mutations result in the death of an individual before they can pass those mutations on.

Mutations do not happen as a result of a changing environment, that would be like someone falling out of an airplane sewing a parachute to aid their survival. The reality is just the opposite. Mutations that allow species to adapt to the environment happen before the environment changes or they are too late just like someone falling out of an airplane better have a parachute prior to the fall.

Having said this, it is probable that octopi were already prepared for any changes in environment and only slight changes occured because that is all that was allowed if they were to survive.

Lack of change alone is not evidence against evolution. The reason for that lack of change can be very strong evidence in support of evolution.

At least that is my highly uneducated perspective on the complex science that is Evolution.

My premise was not debating the claim.

My premise was debating the fact that an important omission was ignored by a fellow scientist. And it annoys me the way mistakes on the science end are glossed over and mistakes on the ID end are zoomed in upon.

Then people wonder why people are confused about what constitutes SCIENCE.

 

[qayak]

Why are we even talking about this strawman. We don't have the DNA to compare so we can't even theorize anything other than some similarities in the organism. If you look at the DNA of modern octopus they still show drift in the junk dna as you would expect.

Actually, the basis of good science is to be able to theorize based on the evidence and then to make predictions based on the theories. How accurate those predictions turn out to be in the future is a pretty good indicator of the strength of the science.

 

[qayak]

My premise was not debating the claim.

My premise was debating the fact that an important omission was ignored by a fellow scientist. And it annoys me the way mistakes on the science end are glossed over and mistakes on the ID end are zoomed in upon.

Then people wonder why people are confused about what constitutes SCIENCE.

There was no mistake made. Lack of change is not evidence against the science of Evolution as you suggested.

 

[truethat]

There was no mistake made. Lack of change is not evidence against the science of Evolution as you suggested.

Yes there was. The fossil shows similarity but also much change. It was not identical. So to say that the reason the octopus never changed was because it was perfectly suited to the environment was a false statement.

A. The fossil reflected change. It was a transitional fossil.

B. The environment would certainly have changed in 92 million years? You suggest it didn't?

 

[Neverfly]

I think you and TT are putting the cart before the horse. The claim that octopi didn't change much in 95 million years is not evidence against evolution.

Neither one of us made that claim. Do not put words in my mouth.

Her complaint was against bonehead science and I agree with it.

Most mutations result in the death of an individual before they can pass those mutations on.

This statement is very unscientific and demonstratively false.

Having said this, it is probable that octopi were already prepared for any changes in environment and only slight changes occured because that is all that was allowed if they were to survive.

Allowed by what? This statement sounds like an I.D. claim.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes there was. The fossil shows similarity but also much change. It was not identical. So to say that the reason the octopus never changed was because it was perfectly suited to the environment was a false statement.

Sounds more like a straw man to me. Lack of change is obviously defined in terms of:

complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.

 

[Neverfly]

My premise was not debating the claim.

My premise was debating the fact that an important omission was ignored by a fellow scientist. And it annoys me the way mistakes on the science end are glossed over and mistakes on the ID end are zoomed in upon.

Then people wonder why people are confused about what constitutes SCIENCE.

Strongly agreed.

And it's even much more annoying to have these statements distorted into claims that you must be a creationist proponent or anti-evolution. "We'll label you something inapplicable if you dare to correct our ignorance."

 

[truethat]

Sounds more like a straw man to me. Lack of change is obviously defined in terms of:

Exactly, so why is it when the claim was made that no changes occurred because it was perfectly suited to the environment it wasn't called out as an error.

Btw I think you have completely misunderstood my point from the get go and have it backwards like I'm not accepting evolution or something. Go read what I actually have been saying.