Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Octopus Built Its Own Brain for Better Fishing
CEH ^ | October 25, 2009

Posted on 10/26/2009 11:28:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

How the Octopus Built Its Own Brain for Better Fishing

--snip--

All we have to do is hand the microphone to some Darwinists and they will proceed to wrap the cord around their necks and hang themselves from the rafters. If you have a better example of Darwinist stupidity in the news, send it in....

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; darwindrones; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin

1 posted on 10/26/2009 11:28:42 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
An octopus brain (lower, right) has 50 to 75 lobes and at least as many neurons (about 100 million) as a mouse brain.... And that’s not counting the smaller “brains” in each arm and the still smaller “brains” (ganglia, technically) associated with each sucker. All this neural circuitry gives octopuses exquisite control over their bodies, including some nifty tricks for evading predators, and it has even prompted speculation about cephalopod consciousness.


That is because they where created in HIS image.

Praise the Mighty Cthulhu!
2 posted on 10/26/2009 11:31:52 AM PDT by IronKros (The pig put foot. Grunt. Foot in what? ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Revolting cat!; Slings and Arrows
The octopus also figured out how to get that last bit of mustard out of the bottle.


3 posted on 10/26/2009 11:33:21 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all the while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Octopus’s Garden
The Beatles

I’d like to be under the sea
In an octopus’ garden in the shade
He’d let us in, knows where we’ve been
In his octopus’ garden in the shade

I’d ask my friends to come and see
An octopus’ garden with me
I’d like to be under the sea
In an octopus’ garden in the shade.

We would be warm below the storm
In our little hideaway beneath the waves
Resting our head on the sea bed
In an octopus’ garden near a cave

We would sing and dance around
because we know we can’t be found
I’d like to be under the sea
In an octopus’ garden in the shade

We would shout and swim about
The coral that lies beneath the waves
(Lies beneath the ocean waves)
Oh what joy for every girl and boy
Knowing they’re happy and they’re safe
(Happy and they’re safe)

We would be so happy you and me
No one there to tell us what to do
I’d like to be under the sea
In an octopus’ garden with you.


4 posted on 10/26/2009 11:36:24 AM PDT by Red Badger (If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m going with “creationists” and “many suckers” for 200, Alex...


5 posted on 10/26/2009 11:37:36 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Don’t even wait to start with the hate. it’s right in the OP.


6 posted on 10/26/2009 12:07:05 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Ooooo.....something’s intricate....highly developed.....that means Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs!!!!


7 posted on 10/26/2009 12:09:27 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
" If you have a better example of Darwinist stupidity in the news, send it in....

Apparently the lowly cephalopod is not the one of God's creatures whose small brain is optimized for fishing......

8 posted on 10/26/2009 12:09:39 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
How the Octopus Built Its Own Brain for Better Fishing

BYOB?
9 posted on 10/26/2009 12:11:01 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m so glad to see someone mention this ridiculous need to give credit for changes and mutations to species as if it was a conscious decision.

It’s a running joke in my household. Every time we hear about some interesting feature of some animal or plant, either I or my husband will say something akin to “Boy, what a smart ancestor those butterflies had to think of that!” or “Wow, I wish we humans had as smart an ancestor as those seahorses!”


10 posted on 10/26/2009 12:16:35 PM PDT by The4thHorseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

In 1877 Charles Peirce outlined four methods for the settlement of doubt, graded from least to most, by their success in achieving a sound fixation of belief:
1) The method of tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think.
2) The method of authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs.
3) The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or “what is agreeable to reason” — leading to argumentation that gets finally nowhere.
4) The scientific method — whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
You have mastered methods 1 & 2, but refuse to accept that method 3 will leave you stuck where you are for another decade or so. Embrace method 4 or forever walk in the darkness, Grasshopper.


11 posted on 10/26/2009 12:17:07 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Just a post-and-run here, but also a legitimate question:

How do evolutionists reconcile the outgrowth from Darwinian theory (the evolution of species) of incredible complexity arising from simplicity or utter chaos (the big bang) with:

The immutable laws of thermodynamics, where order falls to disorder?

We see everywhere around us the proof of the laws of thermodynamics in everything we see and do. Even at home, if one does not clean up constantly, the place falls into disorder and filth.

Your 4th method might get a bit of a workout here. Forever in darkness indeed, Glasshoppah.


12 posted on 10/26/2009 12:52:53 PM PDT by Don W (I will praise Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Don W
"We see everywhere around us the proof of the laws of thermodynamics in everything we see and do."

This is exactly the point that lead me to Theistic Evolution. Evolution requires God's input.

13 posted on 10/26/2009 12:57:29 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Don’t forget about science’s blind spot!

http://www.amazon.com/Sciences-Blind-Spot-Scientific-Naturalism/dp/158743170X


14 posted on 10/26/2009 1:39:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Don’t forget about science’s blind spot!"

Just because someone got a book published on the subject doesn't make it fact. If it did you would have already accepted evolution.

15 posted on 10/26/2009 2:24:36 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“Evolution requires God’s input. “

Did you arrive at that conclusion by logical means? Do you have good scientific reason to believe this? If so, should this be taught in the classroom as part of evolution?

Not trying to be critical in any way. But I see many posters who believe strongly in evolution but believe that God must have set it in motion or has input as you say. I am just curious as to how theistic evolutionists come to this conclusion. Do they think it “makes sense” (God played a role) based on what they observe in the natural world? If so, would that make it scientific (based on observations in the natural world)?

Sorry for all the questions. For full disclosure, I believe in God, and believe He is the First Cause, and may well be cause for more than that.


16 posted on 10/26/2009 5:37:55 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
"Did you arrive at that conclusion by logical means?"

Yes. The only real disagreement between creationists and theistic evolutionists has to do with the process and the time coefficient used. Its abracadabra versus intelligent design. Creationists believe that it all too place in six standard earth days. Theistic Evolutionists believe that there is no such time constraint on God.

17 posted on 10/26/2009 6:12:55 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“The only real disagreement between creationists and theistic evolutionists has to do with the process and the time coefficient used.”

Thanks for the reply. If the theistic evolutionist position is logical, do you think it should, or at least could, be taught in the classroom as having scientific merit?


18 posted on 10/26/2009 6:41:45 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
" If the theistic evolutionist position is logical, do you think it should, or at least could, be taught in the classroom as having scientific merit?"

In a public education context and until there is proof all three options; creation, theistic evolution, and evolution need to be presented in an unbiased way in the context of their origins and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Those who wish for their children to hear (or not hear) a specific option should choose the educational context for their children.

19 posted on 10/26/2009 8:03:46 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“In a public education context and until there is proof all three options; creation, theistic evolution, and evolution need to be presented in an unbiased way in the context of their origins and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Those who wish for their children to hear (or not hear) a specific option should choose the educational context for their children. “

I would agree with that. Would you agree that it is the adherents to evolution that are blocking the discussion of all three options? In fact, it seems that only one option is allowed by their standards. I do not hear the creationist or the theistic evolutionists arguing to shut down debate and discussion.


20 posted on 10/26/2009 8:14:01 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
"Would you agree that it is the adherents to evolution that are blocking the discussion of all three options?"

No, most who are opposed to teaching all three options know almost nothing of any of them. It is simply an extension of their fight to remove God from every facet of life.

21 posted on 10/26/2009 8:19:26 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger

ONLY in the science room. Creationism simply will never have “scientific merit” because it is merely a belief and can never be anything BUT a belief.....an untestable and unprovable belief. Ya simply do not discuss and debate a theistic belief system in a Biology class.

However, you wanna have the discussion of the 3 options, you can have it in a philosophy or religious studies class or even a specialized origins of life debate class.....yes, in a public school. I’d even let ‘em teach YEC in a philosophy or religious studies class....give the kids something to laugh about.

“Hey kids, today we’re gonna talk about hos Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?”


22 posted on 10/27/2009 8:27:56 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“ONLY in the science room...”

What about theistic evolution?


23 posted on 10/27/2009 11:20:18 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger

How do you talk about a belief in a God in a scientific manner?


24 posted on 10/27/2009 12:14:11 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
“How do you talk about a belief in a God in a scientific manner?”

Many, including many evolutionist, (even some on this thread) believe that belief in God is logical based on what they see and observe in the natural world.

IDers argue that the information in the DNA of the initial life form must have come from an intelligent agent based on what has been observed regarding where information originates. We have seen information come from intelligence, but not from any other source. I guess the intelligent agent does not have to be God, but can have theistic implications I suppose. Would you object to teaching in the science classroom that the origin of information in the first life form could have come from an intelligent agent?

25 posted on 10/27/2009 1:16:31 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson