Something different this week: click the image and see David Gallo present a series of short video clips of cephalopods in action.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
Might there have been fewer crimes in the name of Jesus, and more mercy in the name of Judas Iscariot?
[Thomas Pynchon]
Recent Posts
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
- An open letter to the Indiana legislature
- One Carnival of Evolution, coming right up
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- https://me.yahoo.com/a/PEzPIDl5yZq_ophitb7kJOTDwIEO#3c0e4 on Our illness is their profit
- Tumara Baap on Our illness is their profit
- chriswarr on Our illness is their profit
- vibise on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- mrpoxman on Our illness is their profit
- Everbleed on Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- CherryBombSim on Our illness is their profit
- I'm sorry, thank you on Our illness is their profit
- https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlg3ZrAn0yJktAa1txQLOB6bCND-AfW0pA on Our illness is their profit
- mandas on Our illness is their profit
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Boys and their toys | Main | Faith based solutions »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Friday Cephalopod: underwater astonishments
Category: Cephalopods • Organisms
Posted on: January 18, 2008 10:56 PM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/61749
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Darby | January 18, 2008 11:13 PM
Here's a question I've wanted to ask for a while - I've read in several places that cuttlefish color vision is somewhat limited - they don't see red, for instance - but the colors they supposedly don't see seem to be part of their camouflage and flash repertoire. I used to think that it might be that "red" works differently at depth (the tested red might be in wavelength frequencies that don't penetrate to the specimens' natural environments), but it seems to be really red to my vision in the footage.
How reliable are the color vision tests?
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 11:16 PM
OK, that color/camouflage stuff was amazing.
Posted by: David Briggs | January 18, 2008 11:22 PM
Wow, those squid are really something. I'll say, they're in action! LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 11:22 PM
in the comments for the vid:
*sigh*
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | January 19, 2008 12:04 AM
Thanks for this post! That octopus at the end was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.
Posted by: James | January 19, 2008 3:29 AM
Underwater creatures are so awesome. It's amazing which bizarre and yet wonderful animals Nature has created over time :)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 19, 2008 3:33 AM
That was great, but do all the TED videos use that format? It was really annoying to have to stop and watch the spinning pineapple slice while I waited for the next few seconds to load.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 19, 2008 3:50 AM
I had to sign in just to slap around the two creationist fools who logged in to demonstrate their stupidity.
Their cluelessness is evinced by their hit-and-run comments.
I'm starting to fear what I might do if I ever run into morons like this in person. Speaking of the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade....
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 19, 2008 4:41 AM
I agree Patrick Quigley, I was just about to slide the video back and watch it again when they obligingly ran the video backwards. Watching octopus do that sort of thing will never cease to amaze and enthrall me.
Posted by: Zib | January 19, 2008 5:18 AM
P-Zed,
off topic: interesting article here in today's Guardian about that stupid Answers In Genesis "Answers Research Journal".
Posted by: davem | January 19, 2008 8:45 AM
So how did the octopus do the disappearing act? What struck me most was the pattern matching, not just the colour. Do those particular species specialise in hiding in those particular places, or can they adapt to any hiding place, and any pattern?
Posted by: Alex Besogonov | January 19, 2008 9:35 AM
Octopodes have pretty good eyes and a good brain to match them.
I've read a story long ago about octopus which was fished by marine biologists. They thought it was dead and put it on a newspaper to cut. And suddenly octopus changed its colors into black-and white stripes. It was mimicking the newspaper!
Posted by: lithopithecus | January 19, 2008 12:43 PM
uh...
...did anyone else notice the ID banner on the screen before the speaker began to show his footage?
what the hell?
(perhaps i'm missing something: it's very early...)
Posted by: MAJeff | January 19, 2008 1:52 PM
I've watched the video like 7 or 8 times now. And every time I'm left thinking, "That's so amazing." Very cool shit.
Posted by: Venger | January 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Yeh I noticed the banner that said "intelligent design" at about 14 seconds into the video. Shame that someone would use such cool videos to lie about the natural world.
Posted by: Andy C | January 19, 2008 6:38 PM
A couple of people noticed the "Intelligent Design" banner at the beginning of the talk... for those of you that aren't familiar with TED, it stands for Technology Entertainment Design. That banner was not the title of Gallo's talk (it was the title of the session, which would have been made up of several talks - e.g. John Meada and Maira Kalman both talk in a March 2007 session called Simplicity), and had nothing to do with "Intelligent Design" as most of the people reading this blog would understand it - it was just a slightly unfortunate reference to the 'Design' part of the acronym.
Additionally, it doesn't seem to be consistent with Gallo's research articles on ocean ridges and tectonics, and the talk actually fits into TED's "Evolution's Genius" theme on their website.
Posted by: zayzayem | January 19, 2008 10:59 PM
Re #13, #15, #16
If you look at TED's "Evolution is Genius" you actually something a little more disturbing.
"About this theme
TED adores great design. A growing number of speakers focus their Talks on the most elegant designs that exist: those in the natural world."
Someone I read every-now-and-then once made a prediction (one I agree with), the next rebranding of creationism won't be ID, it will be "evolution".
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 20, 2008 3:17 AM
I admire them for reclaiming design. There IS design in nature, the point of evolution is not that it knocked the fact of design out of the ring. It is that evolution tells you how you get the work of design without a designer.
Also, have you thought that someone surfing the net for biological design would be almost guaranteed to run across TED's site? In that sense it is a honeypot and I say good on them for it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 20, 2008 3:25 AM
It is that evolution tells you how you get the work of design without a designer.
indeed.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567
Posted by: Andy C | January 20, 2008 6:26 AM
Re #17
I think you're reading way too much into the references to design. Check out the list of speakers for TED conferences (you'll notice Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer... the list goes on). Suggesting that TED's design references are pushing an ID agenda is a massive stretch.
Posted by: Epacris | January 20, 2008 9:28 AM
Putting this into a cephalopod-related thread, I'm wondering just how late I am in coming upon the advertisement for the wonderful "Tentacle Arm" and telling you about it? Has everyone else already seen it, or am I spreading the joy further?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 20, 2008 9:45 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/must_have_tentacles.php