Octopus And Squid Evolution Is Officially Stranger Than We Could Have Ever Imagined

[biometrics]

Just when we thought octopuses couldn't be any weirder, it turns out that they and their cephalopod brethren evolve differently from nearly every other organism on the planet.

In a surprising twist, in April 2017 scientists discovered that octopuses, along with some squid and cuttlefish species, routinely edit their RNA (ribonucleic acid) sequences to adapt to their environment.


This is weird because that's really not how adaptations usually happen in multicellular animals. When an organism changes in some fundamental way, it typically starts with a genetic mutation - a change to the DNA.

Those genetic changes are then translated into action by DNA's molecular sidekick, RNA. You can think of DNA instructions as a recipe, while RNA is the chef that orchestrates the cooking in the kitchen of each cell, producing necessary proteins that keep the whole organism going.

But RNA doesn't just blindly execute instructions - occasionally it improvises with some of the ingredients, changing which proteins are produced in the cell in a rare process called RNA editing.

Octopus And Squid Evolution Is Officially Stranger Than We Could Have Ever Imagined

Just when we thought octopuses couldn't be any weirder, it turns out that they and their cephalopod brethren evolve differently from nearly every other organism on the planet.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[SoldierMan]

Yes it's called Intelligent Design. They were designed that way.

 

[scudsucker]

Yes it's called Intelligent Design. They were designed that way.

By octopi

 

[SoldierMan]

Oh bugger off, this is a thread about science, not your imaginary friend the magic sky wizard

That's not very happy new years of you Sorry to intrude on your little paradigm. 'Front loading' is a thing, evolution has never proven it can work without it, (micro)evolution has only shown it can work with existing data (DNA).

 

[scudsucker]

That's not very happy new years of you Sorry to intrude on your little paradigm. 'Front loading' is a thing, evolution has never proven it can work without it, (micro)evolution has only shown it can work with existing data (DNA).

You talk complete nonsense at the best of times.

When you have scientific evidence for the existence of god, you can bring up intelligent design as a creation mechanism. Until then, stick to your own paradigm.

 

[SoldierMan]

You talk complete nonsense at the best of times.

When you have scientific evidence for the existence of god, you can bring up intelligent design as a creation mechanism. Until then, stick to your own paradigm.

Intelligent Design is a perfectly good scientific explanation. DNA and the information it contains and how it's translated is the perfect candidate. It's all the rage these days even amongst atheists. They say the aliens did it. Heck even Dawkins said we could have been created by aliens so I guess he's talking complete nonsense too......

Well if I have to prove God. Then you have to prove abiogenesis. Evolution is dead in the water without it. Can't have it both ways. But we all know that will never happen, so we both stick to our preferred paradigm instead of telling each other to shut up and stifle debate as you evolutionists so love to do.

 

[scudsucker]

Intelligent Design is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

No.

DNA and the information it contains and how it's translated is the perfect candidate.

Not for ID in the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer.

It's all the rage these days even amongst atheists.

Non sequitur.

They say the aliens did it.

Who is "they"?

Heck even Dawkins said we could have been created by aliens so I guess he's talking complete nonsense too......

Requires cite; this claim is only - as far as I can tell - being made on ID websites, and not quoting Dawkins' actual words in context.

Well if I have to prove God. Then you have to prove abiogenesis.

No.

Evolution is dead in the water without it.

No. Evolution is provably evident without needing any creation myth or explanation.

Can't have it both ways. But we all know that will never happen, so we both stick to our preferred paradigm

We can't have it both ways, true. Which is why we should stick to the only one that has any evidence.

instead of telling each other to shut up and stifle debate as you evolutionists so love to do.

It was your choice to drop a turd in a science thread; sorry that your feelings are hurt when your turd is called out.

When you have evidence for this god of yours, we can have a debate about what role god plays in DNA transcription. Until then, we will benefit no more from that subject than having a debate about how rainbow unicorn farts affects the motions of the planets.

 

[SoldierMan]

No.

Not for ID in the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer.

Non sequitur.

Who is "they"?

Requires cite; this claim is only - as far as I can tell - being made on ID websites, and not quoting Dawkins' actual words in context.

No.

No. Evolution is provably evident without needing any creation myth or explanation.

We can't have it both ways, true. Which is why we should stick to the only one that has any evidence.

It was your choice to drop a turd in a science thread; sorry that your feelings are hurt when your turd is called out.

When you have evidence for this god of yours, we can have a debate about what role god plays in DNA transcription. Until then, we will benefit no more from that subject than having a debate about how rainbow unicorn farts affects the motions of the planets.

LOL you're a typical clueless militant evolutionist.

Like I said, you want me to prove God, you need to prove abiogenesis, otherwise macro-evolution is just as a good as spontaneous generation or any other failed idea.

Macro-evolution has NEVER been proven. Even Lenski's 30 year experiment proves this. Even the AIDS virus proves this.

No surprise that you don't know about Dawkins' comments on intelligent design as you regurgitate the same talking points all wannbe evolutionists do.

 

[scudsucker]

LOL you're a typical clueless militant evolutionist.

No.

Like I said, you want me to prove God, you need to prove abiogenesis,

No. Abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution.

otherwise macro-evolution is just as a good as spontaneous generation or any other failed idea.

No. You are conflating concepts, or you do not understand them.

Macro-evolution has NEVER been proven. Even Lenski's 30 year experiment proves this.

No.

Even the AIDS virus proves this.

No.

No surprise that you don't know about Dawkins' comments on intelligent design as you regurgitate the same talking points all wannbe evolutionists do.

Dawkins states in your video that no one knows how the first self replicating molecule replicated itself. That is the current scientific consensus: there is no evidence, therefore no conclusion can be made. But once again, of course, you are conflating concepts.

Certainly there is no evidence of any intelligent design in your posts, neither the earthly nor divine form.

 

[SoldierMan]

No.

No. Abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution.

No. You are conflating concepts, or you do not understand them.

No.

No.

Certainly there is no evidence of any intelligent design in your posts, neither the earthly nor divine form.

And yet one of the pillars of evolution himself (Dawkins) says that it is possible that intelligent design (aliens) could be responsible for the creation of life on earth. So you disagree with him?

I think you need to get your head out of the sand or other orifices and wake up to the reality of 2020. This is not 1990, you need to catch up to the times.

 

[scudsucker]

And yet one of the pillars of evolution himself (Dawkins) says that it is possible that intelligent design (aliens) could be responsible for the creation of life on earth. So you disagree with him?

It is equally possible that the rainbow farts of the unicorns that power the motions of the planets could be responsible for the creation of life on earth. But neither I, nor Dawkins in your "gotcha" video make any claim to the likelihood of either. As Dawkins states, no one knows.

You are also conflating evolution with the origin of life. I note that you have made no effort to support your original contention, Intelligent Design, aka "god dunnit"

I think you need to get your head out of the sand or other orifices and wake up to the reality of 2020.

You are aware that it is now 2021, right?

This is not 1990, you need to catch up to the times.

This, SoldierBoy, is not 1290. Humanity and science has moved on from your superstition since the dark ages.

 

[SoldierMan]

It is equally possible that the rainbow farts of the unicorns that power the motions of the planets could be responsible for the creation of life on earth. But neither I, nor Dawkins in your "gotcha" video make any claim to the likelihood of either. As Dawkins states, no one knows.

You are also conflating evolution with the origin of life. I note that you have made no effort to support your original contention, Intelligent Design, aka "god dunnit"

You are aware that it is now 2021, right?


This, SoldierBoy, is not 1290. Humanity and science has moved on from your superstition since the dark ages.

Yeah unfortunately you have not moved on, you are still stuck in the early days of evolution. We have ENCODE now and my gotcha video DOES show that even people like the die hard Dawkins admit that DNA and the origins of life could have been created by an intelligent creator.

You still have your head stuck in the mud pool. Evolution is no longer king of the hill. With the advancement of technology Darwinian evolutionary assumptions are constantly being shown to be wrong. But I'm guessing you are the type of person that only wakes up to reality when they get a big klap across their face. Yours is coming.

 

[scudsucker]

Yeah unfortunately you have not moved on, you are still stuck in the early days of evolution.

??? Claimed without evidence

We have ENCODE now and my gotcha video DOES show that even people like the die hard Dawkins admit that DNA and the origins of life could have been created by an intelligent creator.

Nope. Sorry. Not an admission of anything.

You still have your head stuck in the mud pool.

You are the one practicing stone-age superstition.

Evolution is no longer king of the hill.

Neither I, nor apparently you, have any idea what you are trying to say here.

With the advancement of technology Darwinian evolutionary assumptions are constantly being shown to be wrong.

Incorrect.

But I'm guessing you are the type of person that only wakes up to reality when they get a big klap across their face. Yours is coming.

Incorrect on both counts.

How about some evidence, SoldierBoy? All you have done is throw out insults and wild suppositions but you have not attempted to back up your nonsense.

 

[SoldierMan]

??? Claimed without evidence

Nope. Sorry. Not an admission of anything.

You are the one practicing stone-age superstition.

Neither I, nor apparently you, have any idea what you are trying to say here.

Incorrect.

Incorrect on both counts.

How about some evidence, SoldierBoy? All you have done is throw out insults and wild suppositions but you have not attempted to back up your nonsense.

Or you your nonsense. All you say is "incorrect", "nope, sorry".

You can't even admit that an intelligent designer might be responsible for the creation of life when even staunch (more than militant) evolutionists like Dawkins are doing so. Like I said, you are stuck in your paradigm with super glue and nothing will penetrate your dogma.

Anyway, this is a little too serious for the second day of 2021. Maybe we can start a new thread later in the year when the novelty of the new year has worn off and we return to grumpy old men and discuss in depth. Enjoy.

 

[scudsucker]

Or you your nonsense. All you say is "incorrect", "nope, sorry".

Because you are not supporting yourself with evidence; what else is there to say to your bald assertions? You are incorrect in each.

You can't even admit that an intelligent designer might be responsible for the creation of life when even staunch (more than militant) evolutionists like Dawkins are doing so.

Dawkins is not "admitting" anything.

Like I said, you are stuck in your paradigm with super glue and nothing will penetrate your dogma.

Requires evidence.

Anyway, this is a little too serious for the second day of 2021. Maybe we can start a new thread later in the year when the novelty of the new year has worn off and we return to grumpy old men and discuss in depth. Enjoy.

I can understand why you want to run away; defending the impossible is hard, especially without a shred of evidence.

 

[SoldierMan]

Because you are not supporting yourself with evidence; what else is there to say to your bald assertions? You are incorrect in each.

Dawkins is not "admitting" anything.

Requires evidence.

I can understand why you want to run away; defending the impossible is hard, especially without a shred of evidence.

LOL Ok it seems it took you only 1 day to turn back into a grumpy old fart

I'm not running away from anything, that would require something to run away from, you certainly have provided nothing of the sort.
If you think I am running away from this little back and forth than you have no idea what actual debate is.

I mean you can't even admit that Dawkins is saying that there is a possibility of life being created by aliens when he says it in colour on video with sound, which shows just how stubborn you are. I know that kind of person, it's like debating with a 10-year old. They just put their fingers in their ears and no matter what they are shown just shout I'm right, I'm right over and over.

Anyway this is me walking away because I have better things to do than debate with an extremist on a nice Saturday like this.

 

[scudsucker]

Anyway this is me walking away because I have better things to do than debate with an extremist on a nice Saturday like this.

... or slinking away having contributed zero evidence to support your sky fairy nonsense.

 

[SoldierMan]

... or slinking away having contributed zero evidence to support your sky fairy nonsense.

Hahahaha I see you are either a hard-head (for which there is very little cure) or just being a jerk. Good luck with that

 

[scudsucker]

Hahahaha I see you are either a hard-head (for which there is very little cure) or just being a jerk. Good luck with that

And you are dishonest.

I'm pretty sure Jehova had something to say about that in Ephesians 4:25.

 

[biometrics]

May I commend you guys on your civil discussion, on other unmentioned forums things would be chaos by now.

I originally didn't want to create this section due to the trouble it caused there.

Carry on...