A Cephalopod disproves Darwin.

According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.

I have always wondered how a diamond back rattlesnake is so perfectly camouflaged with its' surroundings. And Scientists have always said it is due to selection of the fittest, based on luck of the draw genetic mutations.

HOW CONVENIENT

So, every moth, bird, snake and animal on this planet has mutated by chance to camouflage to its' natural surroundings.

I postulate that is not the case. That animals can adjust to their surroundings just by thinking it.

My proof for this theory? Cephalopods. They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings.
(Octopus and Cuttlefish)

While they do this instantly, animals can do this over time.

That's my hypothesis. Prove me wrong!

a reply to: FingerMan

If you say "They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings" how come we found them?

And what haven't we found that has mastered something more?

Cephalopods have spent about 400 million years playing hide and seek and a natural delusion/overperception of believing they are better consealed than they actually are gets passed on in genetic form to become the same abilities PLUS the extra potential that gets achieved within a NEW growth process.

Evolution.

That's my hypothesis, prove me wrong!

a reply to: FingerMan

Prove you wrong? Thats now how science works my friend. You have to prove your theory right first.

I think you're misunderstanding how mutations and survival of the fittest works. You cant look at it from a simplified small group perspective over a short course of time. It doesnt work that way.

Think about it this way. Humans are birn with all sorts of random features as our DNA mixes. Those features are all expressions of DNA, which has billions of potential combinations.

Think about moths. Regardless of whats best for aby species theee is always variants and individuality due to DNA.

Suppose theres a region of woods with white tree bark. Moths which repro6like crazy in all different shades of brown, are eaten by birds
The shades of brown are created via "mutations" over time, slight differences in DNA that lead to different outcomes. It just so happens that in this forest of dar brown trees. White moths dont live very long, because they stand out when on the trees, theyre easy for the birds ti see and are eaten rather quickly. Therefore the moth population over time get darker and darker. Because moths with the dark brown DNA live long enough ti reproduce moresoe than the light colored ones.

Then over time half that forest is overtaken by trees with white bark. All of a sudden, months in that area of the forest end up getting the reverse. The dark ones are easily killed. Thus now in diff6parts of the forest there are 2 moth populations more likely breeding with eachother.

Over hundreds of thousands of years, the difference in trees changes other aspects of the environment, things that favor certain charteristics of these moths.. be it temperature resilience, amount of food, tyoe of food, texture of the bark.. all these things start having a tiny impact on which moths survive.

Over all that time now you have 2 completely different species of moth that have been created by the environment deciding which ones lives longer by tiny minute differences.

originally posted by: FingerMan
According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.

I have always wondered how a diamond back rattlesnake is so perfectly camouflaged with its' surroundings. And Scientists have always said it is due to selection of the fittest, based on luck of the draw genetic mutations.

HOW CONVENIENT

So, every moth, bird, snake and animal on this planet has mutated by chance to camouflage to its' natural surroundings.

I postulate that is not the case. That animals can adjust to their surroundings just by thinking it.

My proof for this theory? Cephalopods. They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings.
(Octopus and Cuttlefish)

While they do this instantly, animals can do this over time.

That's my hypothesis. Prove me wrong!

I think they evolved those features.

Evolution of Chromatophores
They are thought to have developed through endosymbiosis of Paulinella chromatophora cells and cyanobacteria. Therefore, chromatophores are found in many species including lizards, amphibians, fish, crustaceans, echinoderms, annelids, and insects

Quotes work, right?

Some species can rapidly change colour through mechanisms that translocate pigment and reorient reflective plates within chromatophores. This process, often used as a type of camouflage, is called physiological colour change or metachrosis

Everyone talks about mutations like they happen all the time and that most of them are beneficial to a given species. They ignore the current variation available to a population. There are thousands of variations of characteristics and when a population gets reduced to down to those with certain traits, they call it a mutation.

We are born with all kinds of latent traits that aren't useful now, but may be later or when combined with other ones during reproduction. IMO most mutations die off long before they can contribute to the gene pool while latent genes will remain mostly inactive until survival depends on it.

If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

I like your POV on this, esp. the military analogy. There was this guy I knew, an atheist, who used the argument that over an infinite amount of time the "shear weight of the numbers" would have to eventually randomly produce the universe that we have today. The big hole in that argument is proving the existence of time before the big bang. If there was nothing before the big bang, as in zero, then the shear weight of zero is zero and no way for any kind of random events to occur before the universe appeared.

ETA: Also, natural selection isn't random, it is due to the laws of nature that are also not random.

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

Mutation is dumb luck. Surviving long enough to proliferate is not.

It's worth noting that OP exhibits a 5th grade understanding of biology.

If you read my OP, my main focus was the camouflage of snakes. I do not for one second believe that happens by chance.
A snake with a perfect leaf camouflaged into its' scales perfectly mimicking the leaves in its' habitat?

Nope. They do what the cephalopods do, just at a slower pace.

They think it into being. There is a mechanism we have not discovered that will disprove the already disproved Darwin cult.

Nobody proved me wrong yet!

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

Bingo!

Darwinian Evolution has been disproved 15 ways from Sunday. Until the majority of Scientists say this, the blind mice won't see the truth of it. Boy I could give examples all day long of the masses believing something that was obviously untrue for years and years.

And the sad truth is, most also have no integrity. "Boy, was I wrong about that one! And boy was I wrong about that other one too! Doesn't matter one bit, I am 100% correct on this and that! I think I'll go scream at someone on the internet and tell them to wear their freaking mask!"

something i always wondered, when all the simple organic molecules or single cells got together, how did they select the one was going to be the a@@hole, or did that one decide to volunteer.

and don't say natural selection, cause if i was simple organic molecule or a single cell, and all the other simple organic molecules or single cells decided i was going to be the one full of sh@@, there be hell to pay. i might even close up until the cells in the legs and knees got wobbly, the arms got and elbows got weak, the intestines started cramping, the mouth became dry, the eyes got watery, the ears started pounding, the brain became foggy and couldn't reason, until they decided that i'd be the boss.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Mutation is dumb luck.

Military-grade reactive camouflage happening by dumb luck? It is far more likely to be a result of design.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
something i always wondered, when all the simple organic molecules or single cells got together, how did they select the one was going to be the a@@hole, or did that one decide to volunteer.

and don't say natural selection, cause if i was simple organic molecule or a single cell, and all the other simple organic molecules or single cells decided i was going to be the one full of sh@@, there be hell to pay. i might even close up until the cells in the legs and knees got wobbly, the arms got and elbows got weak, the intestines started cramping, the mouth became dry, the eyes got watery, the ears started pounding, the brain became foggy and couldn't reason, until they decided that i'd be the boss.

Probably natural selection. The cell that could not capitalize or use correct punctuation in a sentence was deemed that particular part of anatomy.

well if you had 9 brains and 3 hearts too,
i bet you could blend.

but then there is lia thomas.

a reply to: FingerMan

The ostrich has been around a long time, but Darwin didn't include him in his theory so the ostrich just hides his head for protection.

I think Darwin should get a Darwin award for not including the ostrich in evolution.

originally posted by: FingerMan
According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.

I have always wondered how a diamond back rattlesnake is so perfectly camouflaged with its' surroundings. And Scientists have always said it is due to selection of the fittest, based on luck of the draw genetic mutations.

HOW CONVENIENT

So, every moth, bird, snake and animal on this planet has mutated by chance to camouflage to its' natural surroundings.

I postulate that is not the case. That animals can adjust to their surroundings just by thinking it.

My proof for this theory? Cephalopods. They can match their skin perfectly camouflaging to their surroundings.
(Octopus and Cuttlefish)

While they do this instantly, animals can do this over time.

That's my hypothesis. Prove me wrong!

Cephalopods are alien & not of this earth.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: FingerMan

Prove you wrong? Thats now how science works my friend. You have to prove your theory right first.

I think you're misunderstanding how mutations and survival of the fittest works. You cant look at it from a simplified small group perspective over a short course of time. It doesnt work that way.

Think about it this way. Humans are birn with all sorts of random features as our DNA mixes. Those features are all expressions of DNA, which has billions of potential combinations.

Think about moths. Regardless of whats best for aby species theee is always variants and individuality due to DNA.

Suppose theres a region of woods with white tree bark. Moths which repro6like crazy in all different shades of brown, are eaten by birds
The shades of brown are created via "mutations" over time, slight differences in DNA that lead to different outcomes. It just so happens that in this forest of dar brown trees. White moths dont live very long, because they stand out when on the trees, theyre easy for the birds ti see and are eaten rather quickly. Therefore the moth population over time get darker and darker. Because moths with the dark brown DNA live long enough ti reproduce moresoe than the light colored ones.

Then over time half that forest is overtaken by trees with white bark. All of a sudden, months in that area of the forest end up getting the reverse. The dark ones are easily killed. Thus now in diff6parts of the forest there are 2 moth populations more likely breeding with eachother.

Over hundreds of thousands of years, the difference in trees changes other aspects of the environment, things that favor certain charteristics of these moths.. be it temperature resilience, amount of food, tyoe of food, texture of the bark.. all these things start having a tiny impact on which moths survive.

Over all that time now you have 2 completely different species of moth that have been created by the environment deciding which ones lives longer by tiny minute differences.

Your moth example was already used to explain a white & brown moth issue in England during the coal soot days of the Industrial Revolution, so don’t try to push it as a priori analogy of your own . Scientists have well documented this scenario. Nice try though

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

Mutation is dumb luck. Surviving long enough to proliferate is not.

It's worth noting that OP exhibits a 5th grade understanding of biology.

Agree 100% . All mutations are random in nature & some are successful while others are not .
The organism mutates not to advance by itself, but by luck or doom depending on the environment the organism is in .
Mutations are not a product of external nor internal learned or forced advancement of a species, but rather a fluke minus modern pollutants/chemicals effects on all things.
The only reason a mutated organism succeeds is pure luck .
A pasty white skinned redhead would not make it long enough in Africa

originally posted by: SecrettoSociety

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

Mutation is dumb luck. Surviving long enough to proliferate is not.

It's worth noting that OP exhibits a 5th grade understanding of biology.

Agree 100% . All mutations are random in nature & some are successful while others are not .
The organism mutates not to advance by itself, but by luck or doom depending on the environment the organism is in .
Mutations are not a product of external nor internal learned or forced advancement of a species, but rather a fluke minus modern pollutants/chemicals effects on all things.
The only reason a mutated organism succeeds is pure luck .
A pasty white skinned redhead would not make it long enough in Africa

Sorry. But this is the "I have faith in what Mr. Darwin said" argument. And it has as much weight with me as the "I have faith in what Donald Trump said".
If there are mutations that are dumb luck, we would see them all over the place. Where are the 4 armed computer programmers? Dumb luck is purely dumb, the numbers of this happening are higher than there are particles in the universe.

I don't know what it is. But there is a mechanism that forces changes. I think it is a subconscious mechanism. And this is how you get changes in species that lead to perfect patterns on snakes to their foliage. (Which happen faster than evolution allows for)

If people rest on their laurels and claim they 100% absolutely know the mechanism, and it is Darwin, they are just prolonging our dark age on this. Darwin's Theory of evolution is wrong, has been proven wrong 6 ways from Sunday, and is even provably wrong by the layman.

I understand there are a ton of people out there that WANT this to be true so they don't have to worry about there being a creator.
Too bad for them, they won't be able to get around the argument that the creator created a universe with mechanisms to change and heal itself on multiple levels. But Darwin ain't it.

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: SecrettoSociety

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton
If you're referring to the absurdity that random chance could grant cephalopods the ability to sense their surrounding and change their pigment accordingly, I agree. Think about the difficulty of creating this mechanism. The organism has to be able to sense to completion the color of the surrounding and then have a mechanism that causes its skin pigment to change to those exact tones.

This sort of camouflage is considered advanced cutting-edge technology in the military world, yet in biology we're told to believe it's just dumb luck through random mutations? No way. It was designed by an intelligent Creator

Mutation is dumb luck. Surviving long enough to proliferate is not.

It's worth noting that OP exhibits a 5th grade understanding of biology.

Agree 100% . All mutations are random in nature & some are successful while others are not .
The organism mutates not to advance by itself, but by luck or doom depending on the environment the organism is in .
Mutations are not a product of external nor internal learned or forced advancement of a species, but rather a fluke minus modern pollutants/chemicals effects on all things.
The only reason a mutated organism succeeds is pure luck .
A pasty white skinned redhead would not make it long enough in Africa

Sorry. But this is the "I have faith in what Mr. Darwin said" argument. And it has as much weight with me as the "I have faith in what Donald Trump said".
If there are mutations that are dumb luck, we would see them all over the place. Where are the 4 armed computer programmers? Dumb luck is purely dumb, the numbers of this happening are higher than there are particles in the universe.

I don't know what it is. But there is a mechanism that forces changes. I think it is a subconscious mechanism. And this is how you get changes in species that lead to perfect patterns on snakes to their foliage. (Which happen faster than evolution allows for)

If people rest on their laurels and claim they 100% absolutely know the mechanism, and it is Darwin, they are just prolonging our dark age on this. Darwin's Theory of evolution is wrong, has been proven wrong 6 ways from Sunday, and is even provably wrong by the layman.

I understand there are a ton of people out there that WANT this to be true so they don't have to worry about there being a creator.
Too bad for them, they won't be able to get around the argument that the creator created a universe with mechanisms to change and heal itself on multiple levels. But Darwin ain't it.

I accept a creator that is no where & everywhere.
God made us , but biological evolution is a process of living things , without God meddling into it .
It is the pinnacle of our ego to believe that God made us special. We are a collection of items put together on a spinning rock