originally posted by: Milkweed
From what I understand, this is an attempt to explain away discrepancies with the octopus and the theory of evolution. Well how does it do these
amazing things like, change color? Must be an alien.
Apparently, scientists telling and selling the story is already sufficient evidence for some of the flock to consider this "science" or "scientific";
of course, getting one's paper published is part of this too. Ask yourself, what were the details of what the article refers to as a "research study",
what experiments did they perform to confirm their 'may be'-claim ("might actually be" in the article title, nice and vague according to
'The Agnostic Code'
) regarding cephalopods? What "research" was really
done when you
don't count all the previous research that has already been done regarding cephalopods (or physics, biology, genetics and chemistry) and just building
a story around what has already been discovered by others who didn't try to sell a storyline fit for Hollywood and its Sci-Fi market? A quick glance
at the title of the actual paper that was published showed it to be just another attempt at promoting and selling panspermia (catering to the market).
These papers usually contain more fancy storytelling and speculation than actual research. And any research discussed in it was usually done by others
and doesn't logically lead to their speculations unless someone applies a bias in favor of panspermia and a lot of wishful but illogical thinking
(usually by leaving out important facts/certainties for people to consider in relation to their speculative argumentation, i.e. the reasons that are
proposed to think that "cephalopods may be space aliens" as it's phrased in the thread title or any of their other "different proposed explanations"
that the article says they "embrace" in their supposed "attempts to tackle the question of how life originated here on Earth." When it looks more like
catering to the market to me with fancy storylines selling, promoting and beefing up panspermia than trying to figure that out honestly or "tackle" as
the article puts it).
Too bad these sort of far-fetched storylines and the behaviour of the flock* regarding them doesn't ring a bell for some people.
*: Spectacular scientific breakthroughs (in actual science) has enveloped (philosophical naturalism posing as) science in a halo of infallibility and
authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
defines this as “an
exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.” I prefer to phrase that as "an
exaggerated trust in the efficacy of methodological naturalism sold to(or perceived by) the flock as the proper methods of natural science applied to
all areas of investigation." But I guess that would make it a bit too convoluted for a dictionary.
As usual, the article title is heavily sensationalized (reminding me of the entertainment industry again) while the article itself mentions:
“The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens.”
[whereislogic: Octopuses are classified as cephalopods]
The scientists challenge that the belief that modern cephalopods evolved to their present form here on Earth and propose the possibility that those we
see today are the descendants of creatures that arrived on Earth frozen in an icy comet.
So it's actually these unspecified mythological "creatures" that are supposedly the "space aliens" (the ones we can't do any research on
conveniently). Not the octopuses (cephalopods) as studied on earth. And if you're familiar with the overarching evolutionary storyline, you know that
that tells the story of a gradual increase in complexity over multiple generations of living organisms, so that seems to imply that these mythological
"creatures" from which cephalopods are supposedly the descendants, are less complex than the 33,000 protein-coding genes in the Octopus genome that
were discovered by other scientists doing actual research (remember what I said earlier about actual research?).
So the better title for this thread would be:
"Scientists argue that the ancestors of cephalopods may be space aliens".
Whether any of them actually suspects that to be the case depends on their principles and honesty vs desire to market themselves and their papers as
supposed "science" or "scientific" (or in case of themselves: "scientists doing valuable research"); a desire to cater to the market for financial
gain (sustain or further one's career according to the phrase coined to describe the pressure in academia to rapidly and continually publish academic
work to sustain or further one's career: "publish or perish"). I somehow doubt that they actually suspect that to be the case (concerning the
ancestors of cephalopods maybe being space aliens), cause they are knowledgeable enough not to be taken in by their own marketing strategies of
catering fanciful fantasies to the market as serious scientific studies or papers. 'Pfff, write a Sci-Fi book next time, it might help with your
credibility regarding honesty in the future', is what I'm thinking about the ones who wrote this paper or added their stamp of approval on it. It's
pretty dishonest and greedy to advance a supposed possibility (even likelihood depending on how it's phrased or interpreted) just because it sells
well (is gulped down eagerly by the market, see text under my profile name) when you don't actually believe it's a possibility and you are quite aware
that your speculations don't hold much more ground in serious discussions about reality (the facts/certainties/realities) than proposing we are
descendants from pink unicorns living in the Orion Nebula traveling to earth in icy space rocks (at least that one is already less vague and more
specified than vaguely referring to "creatures that arrived on Earth frozen in an icy comet." Quoting from the article).
edit on 30-7-2018 by
whereislogic because: (no reason given)