Found in all oceans, these pycnogonids are not actually spiders, though most have eight legs.
About 1,300 species of sea spiders have been identified, and more are found every year. Fossils suggest that they’ve existed on Earth for at least 450 million years. Back then, pycnogonids and other arthropods likely dominated the oceans. Few animals lived on land.
Sea spiders lack organs for breathing, instead expelling carbon dioxide and taking in oxygen directly through their outer layer, or cuticle. This gas exchange primarily occurs via the legs, as they have the most surface area by far. Even more fascinating, it seems that pycnogonids primarily transport oxygen within their bodies via peristalsis, involuntary constriction and relaxation of the gut. Peristalsis moves hemolymph, or blood, throughout the body. “Shared digestive and respiratory functions may save energy,” the researchers who uncovered this strategy said. “Legs function as the gills used by other arthropods, and the gut functions as a heart.”
Ross Pomeroy, “The Strange, Unsettling World of Sea Spiders” at RealClearScience (February 2, 2022)
Their biology doesn’t sound like it would work — yet no big changes seem to have been needed for nearly half a billion years.
Pomeroy also notes,
As far as reproduction goes, males carry fertilized eggs then care for offspring. Females produce and lay eggs, which males then externally fertilize. Subsequently, males pick them up and store them with specialized body parts called ovigers.
Ross Pomeroy, “The Strange, Unsettling World of Sea Spiders” at RealClearScience (February 2, 2022)
That’s a complex sort of behavior, isn’t it? Unfortunately, we can’t know if it is an ancestral behavior or a recently developed one. But if there is no design in nature, how would it have developed at all? There is no clear path via random mutations.
and
You may also wish to read: Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen
Isn’t Mother Nature wonderful?
Amazingly weird! All leg, no body.
Maybe they should be called Stay-At-Home-Daddy Long Legs.
Absolutely.
But this refutes natural evolution.
There must be a limitation on change built into the genome or DNA aspect of life. It’s in every species ever seen.
or with genetic entropy taken into account, just more evidence of ID AND YeC.
reference Pearlman YeC volume I Framework for understanding science in context.
There are three Darwinist explanations for “evolutionary stasis” that are commonly offered:
A. Oh, but there were spectacular changes, but they’re all internal changes. This is why the fossilized specimens have been given different species or genus assignments.
B. Oh, but there musta been some form of population isolation, preserving their biome for hundreds of millions of years, hence removing evolutionary pressure.
C. Oh, but there musta been some as-of-yet unknown naturalistic process that will explain everything.
Any others that I might have missed?
-Q
I wont comment on E stasis, because it is more than obvious that tons of stasis examples falsify the theory of evolution in the first place …
But, this is interesting
So, it seems, that to share digestive and respiratory function is a good design…it may save energy … but not with humans …. then it is a bad design … you know, that famous Darwinian objection that you can choke on food …
Nobody has proven yet that darwinian evolution is real so explanations for “evolutionary” stasis are superfluous.
Any kind of stasis is the worse enemy for evolution because those “random mutations” are totally eliminated from the system and what we have is an incredible stable genetic mechanism that clear any random mutation(=error) for millions of years in the row. 😆
Martin_r @6,
While often done, I think it’s the height of arrogance to judge any design from a position of profound ignorance of that design.
Of course, biology seemed so simple during the time when all “simple” cells consisted of nothing more than undifferentiated protoplasm encased in a “simple” cell wall. Biology textbooks still often refer to “simple” single-celled animals.
-Q
Lieutenant Commander Data @7,
Good point.
It seems that evolution occurs much too quickly in some cases (see Haldane’s dilemma) for a stable genome.
Secondly, the rate that genome diversity is lost ultimately results in extinction (see, for example the concern over the genome of tigers and of wheat).
And finally, the rate of deleterious mutations in humans is concerning–estimated to be about double that of any other sell-studied species . . .
In the last 12 years, there’s likely additional published research on human genetic burden since then, but my brief literature search didn’t turn it up.
-Q
Question: why are so many scientific names of species unpronounceable for English speakers?
They’re sometimes latinized versions of the names of their discoverers and sometimes descriptive.
Often the scientific names of animals are simply descriptive, but in a neutral “dead” language commonly used by European academics to communicate without linguistic prejudice. So the name “river horse” and “strange little animal with long ears” in Latin would result in a compound word that’s hard to pronounce in English.
-Q
What I’d really like to see is how the usual detractors of ID rationalize evolutionary stasis in sea creatures specifically, and other so-called “living fossils” in general. I know of a few in a very long list.
Any takers?
-Q
Querius, “What I’d really like to see is how the usual detractors of ID rationalize evolutionary stasis in sea creatures specifically, and other so-called “living fossils” in general. I know of a few in a very long list.
Any takers?”
Me to!
As far as the science itself is concerned, all we ever seem to get from Darwinists are ‘crickets’ and (very) bad theological arguments.
Which reminds me, the ears of 50 million year old crickets are found to be “virtually identical in size, shape, and position to their modern counterparts.”
As Laszlo Bencze asks of the supposed ‘scientific explanations” of Darwinists, “This is science? It’s not even a sound religion.”
A few more notes:
Just how bad is the Fossil Record for Darwinists?
Nice! Thank you, Bornagain77. Great video under a few more notes!
Note that the second video link under a few more notes was terminated by YouTube. The third link was short and sweet–I didn’t know about the avian and other “explosions.” In his article at the end, Güntner Bechly makes a great argument against punctuated equilibrium, which also reminds us of Haldane’s dilemma.
As I’m sure you know, there are also many really interesting specimens preserved in amber that appear modern.
-Q
Thanks Querius, here is another video interview with Dr. Carl Werner, that also shows just how bad the fossil record is for Darwinists.
Another great video . . . no fossil ancestors for bats, seals, and dinosaurs?
-Q
C’mon people. Surely one of the detractors here can respond if they have any background in biology.
I’d even settle for one of the usual ad hominem attacks, which always provide me with the warm assurance that I’ve won the argument.
-Q
What? No takers at all?
-Q