3 ms·
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 inst
by 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 agoI'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 agoGood 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.