4 ms·

But in this case, the leap in complexity is so obvious we can tell it's alien (they say.)

jonny_eh 8y ago
That argument sounds awfully similar to that of Intelligent Design. I imagine that Punctuated Equilibrium is a far simpler explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  If you find a watch on a beach... was the old argument. The argument in the paper is that the Octopi change is so fast and so immense it leaves every known instance of PE, including human evolution, far behind along with every other known leap forward. I'm not endorsing that view, just retailing it.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    I'm wondering if the fossil record supports the conclusion that octopuses actually got all the claimed features at once? How does a fossil (of a soft creature, notoriously rare to fossilize at all) indicate the presence of color change, large eye and so on. Or is it a DNA argument. Then I'm back to why DNA at all unless everything is alien. In which case, why the article. Its like "there's this one alien guy in Idaho..." instead of "There's other intelligent life in the universe!!!"
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Good point, re soft bodies fossilizing more rarely - because what may have happened is the squids just didn't show up in the fossil record for a very long time, nor the proto-squids. Ocean acidification at various periods (say due to CO2 variations at different periods, which were large) would be a factor. I'm not saying the 33 scientists weren't well aware of these considerations, though.
foo101 8y ago
I think JoeAltmaier (your parent commenter) still has a point. If the leap in complexity of octopuses is so obvious that we can tell it's an alien, do you mean other earlier life in our planet was not alien? That would not make sense because it would be hard to imagine that two independent evolutions of life led to the same protein-based, DNA-based life. So the only reasonable theory is that both the earlier life in our planet as well as octopuses are aliens which is JoeAltmaier's point.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  The 33 scientists do not mean that. I think, in fact, to make their argument go forward, you pretty much have to assume that squid arrived earlier from a different branch of the same alien lineage, but were quickly - so quickly - followed by vasty more complex octopi, that we know that octopi didn't evolve here. The authors aren't anti-panspermists. JoeAltmaier's wasn't the one introducing the idea of panspermia. His point was, instead: "why even write this paper focusing on octopi if all life is alien" and my answer was, 'cause this is the one time you can really prove that (according to the authors.)
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    But it also then supports the much larger issue of Panspermia. That should have been the title/main point then? Yes this is quite a strange article.

That argument sounds awfully similar to that of Intelligent Design. I imagine that Punctuated Equilibrium is a far simpler explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Nomentatus 8y ago
If you find a watch on a beach... was the old argument. The argument in the paper is that the Octopi change is so fast and so immense it leaves every known instance of PE, including human evolution, far behind along with every other known leap forward. I'm not endorsing that view, just retailing it.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I'm wondering if the fossil record supports the conclusion that octopuses actually got all the claimed features at once? How does a fossil (of a soft creature, notoriously rare to fossilize at all) indicate the presence of color change, large eye and so on. Or is it a DNA argument. Then I'm back to why DNA at all unless everything is alien. In which case, why the article. Its like "there's this one alien guy in Idaho..." instead of "There's other intelligent life in the universe!!!"
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Good point, re soft bodies fossilizing more rarely - because what may have happened is the squids just didn't show up in the fossil record for a very long time, nor the proto-squids. Ocean acidification at various periods (say due to CO2 variations at different periods, which were large) would be a factor. I'm not saying the 33 scientists weren't well aware of these considerations, though.

foo101 8y ago

I think JoeAltmaier (your parent commenter) still has a point. If the leap in complexity of octopuses is so obvious that we can tell it's an alien, do you mean other earlier life in our planet was not alien? That would not make sense because it would be hard to imagine that two independent evolutions of life led to the same protein-based, DNA-based life. So the only reasonable theory is that both the earlier life in our planet as well as octopuses are aliens which is JoeAltmaier's point.

Nomentatus 8y ago
The 33 scientists do not mean that. I think, in fact, to make their argument go forward, you pretty much have to assume that squid arrived earlier from a different branch of the same alien lineage, but were quickly - so quickly - followed by vasty more complex octopi, that we know that octopi didn't evolve here. The authors aren't anti-panspermists. JoeAltmaier's wasn't the one introducing the idea of panspermia. His point was, instead: "why even write this paper focusing on octopi if all life is alien" and my answer was, 'cause this is the one time you can really prove that (according to the authors.)
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  But it also then supports the much larger issue of Panspermia. That should have been the title/main point then? Yes this is quite a strange article.