Like modern octopuses:
Researchers have revealed the soft tissues of a 165-million-year-old ammonite fossil using 3D imaging.
They found that the now-extinct molluscs sported hyponomes: tube-like syphons through which water is expelled to jet propel animals forward in water, as found in modern squid and octopuses. They also found strong muscles that ammonites used to retract into their shells to defend against predators…
The findings add insight into how ammonites lived and provide evidence that coleoids, the sub-group of animals containing squid, octopuses, and cuttlefish, might be evolutionarily closer to ammonites than previously thought.Imperial College, London, “Ammonite muscles revealed in 3D from Jurassic fossil” at ScienceDaily (December 8, 2021) The paper is closed access.
Is “might be evolutionarily closer to ammonites than previously thought” another way of saying that a complex system developed much earlier than thought?
At The Scientist: The spider web as a “giant engineered ear” As Dan Robitzki puts it, they “outsource” their hearing to the web (like the web was a microphone?) Quoted at The Scientist: “Evolutionarily speaking, spiders are just weird animals,” Jessica Petko, a Pennsylvania State University York biologist who didn’t work on the new study, writes in an email to The Scientist. “While it has been long known that spiders sense sound vibration with sensory hairs on their legs, this paper is the first to show that orb weaving spiders can amplify this sound by building specialized web structures.”
7 Replies to “Jurassic ammonites at 165 mya used jet propulsion like octopuses”
either “evolutionarily closer” or, they can always say, that it happened via “convergent (repeated) evolution of jet propulsion”
Darwinists developed a very flexible theory, that can explain away anything … can’t be falsified …
So a theory that ignores any new data that comes along and doesn’t try to accommodate it is right?
Seversky states, “So a theory that ignores any new data that comes along and doesn’t try to accommodate it is right?”
Apparently Seversky is unaware, via Thomas Kuhn, that devising “numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications’ of a theory, (making up imaginary ‘just-so stories’), in the face of numerous lines of contradictory evidence, is not a theory ‘accommodating’ new data, as Seversky seems to believe, but is, in fact, done so in order for a theory’s defenders to “eliminate any apparent conflict” between the evidence and the theory. i.e. in order for a theory’s defenders to ‘explain away’, rather than explain, the new scientific evidence that contradicts their theory.
,,, besides Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos also pointed out that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
Shoot, in the same lecture Imre Lakatos even went on to point out that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
As Dr. Cornelius Hunter explained, (and as far as the seemingly limitless ability of Darwinists to ‘explain away’ falsifying evidence with their imaginary ‘just-so stories” is concerned), “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news.”
Thus in conclusion, despite Seversky believing that it is just good old fashioned science for Darwin’s theory to try to ‘accommodate’ new data that conflicts with it, the fact of the matter is that
devising “numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications” of a theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict with new data (Kuhn), and fabricating theories “only in order to accommodate known facts” (Lakatos), is sure sign that we are, in fact, dealing with a “degenerating programme”, even dealing with a “pseudoscience” (again Lakatos), rather than dealing with a real science.
If you ever find a scientific theory of evolution let us know how it accommodates new data.
You say “jet propulsion”
I say “squirting water”
The mollusk way of getting around is ALWAYS liquid propulsion. Cephalopods have 8 or 10 limbs. In other phyla a collection of tentacles would be used as legs on land. (See barnacles vs crabs.) But land snails don’t use the limbs as legs. They use limbs as feelers, and move by liquid propulsion via slime glands.
to Pater Kimbridge
it is JET PROPULSION … this is exactly what it is …
you Darwinists try to mislead lay-persons over and over …
(you remind me of the famous Crick saying: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved)
and, this octopus is using rapid adaptive camouflage … an engineering masterpiece … military engineers envy … How insane one has to be to claim/believe that this happened with no help from engineer? Especially in 21st century…