Friday Cephalopod: "Dumbo" doesn't do them justice

What an awful name for such a graceful animal.

More like this

This was Anton's idea, at the dinner the other night, but I will get it started here anyway. An interesting animal I had I never owned an unusual species of animal. As a little kid I had small turtle named Aeschillus. Later I had two horses, half-brothers, whose names meant the same in two…
A damn-building mammal...get your mind out of the gutter: Beavers grace New York City's official seal. But the industrious rodents haven't been spotted here for as many as 200 years -- until this week. Biologists videotaped a beaver swimming up the Bronx River on Wednesday. Its twig-and-mud lodge…
A female okapi (Okapia johnstoni), photographed at the Bronx Zoo.There are few animals that I find as charming as the okapi (Okapia johnstoni). During the warmer months no trip to the Bronx zoo is complete until I stop by to see them. (Once the temperature drops they are taken off exhibit so they…
Thankfully, these are the waning days of the awful, incompetent, no-good Bush/Cheney presidency, years we will try to forget in the decades to come. What will help is that we don't have a good name for this decade — The Oughties? Bleh — and we're just going to have to refer to them as the years…

I'd call it a 'gown', or possibly a 'brolly' (brit word for umbrella). Either way, I agree: 'dumbo'? not the best name ever.

The "design" is identified: the natural universal formula that is hidden under all natural systems - from atoms to galaxies to human beings. This formula is itself under evolution, its first appearance in this "Universe" was in shape of light waves containing the code for life, and its last shape here and know is the DNA. This design has worked in this Universe without applying any kind of intelligence. And the whole Universe have its entire Natural History re-written from this formula perspective, we have the knowledge of the product, which launches solid bases for calculating what is the producer. it is a natural conscious system. Which self-reproduces by natural genetic process. The Universe is like a placenta, inside it is occurring a natural normal process of reproduction of the thing that generated it. Again, no intelligence, no planing, applied for origins of Universes. If you want call that "thing", that ex-machine "conscious natural system", as God, feel free for doing it, but, you must know, the power of this "God" in relation to any living creature is proportional to the power of a pregnant woman in relation to her fetus. If you want to know the formula and the shape of that originals light waves, google "The Universal Matrix/DNA Formula for Natural Systems and Life's Cycles Theory". Yes, a terrestrial simple soup can generates life, if the bits-information as photons from that formula are inserted in it.

By Louis Charles … (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

I don't get how people can study God's work and say He didn't do it. EVERYTHING is just too intelligently designed to deny an Intelligent Designer. Baffled that atheism even exists.

Not a scientist, but I understand that a few centuries ago subatomic particles were not observable as the energy making up everything (that appears) solid or material was at one point completely INVISIBLE and undiscovered - though it was always there. What is potentially behind that (once unobservable) energy? God? Each generation knows "more" than the previous generations, so what might future generations (or maybe even us in our post physical lives) know that we couldn't possibly grasp in this present time? Probably a whole lot given that there are MANY discoveries, revelations and debunked theories yet to occur. The mystery of God has been revealed (in part) with MUCH MORE to come.

By Feelgood Goodman (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Who programs the DNA? Doesn't there have to be a Programmer? It's really too sophisticated (DNA along with every other miracle/act of God in the universe) to say that it was all nature instigated without Intelligence.

By Feelgood Goodman (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

The Mastropaolo argument from loquaciousness ignores a whole avalanche of evidence for evolution to focus on what is perhaps the least important facet of evolution; how it got started. We know that the earth is billions of years old, and that several million years ago, humans did not exist, while non-avian dinosaurs did. We have numerous convergent lines of evidence for "descent with modification". Mr. Mastropaolo has not proved that "evolution is biologically impossible"; he has merely listed a set of conjectural "improbabilities" for the self-assembling of the ancestral cell. Once he can explain the 97% genetic and morphological similarity between himself and the nearest chimpanzee more satisfactorily than the "theory of evolution" does, I will be more interested in his feelings.

By Jay Clemons (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Once, someone asked an old man how he had become wise. "Through making the heart white in celestial contemplation," he replied, "not by making paper black with writing."

By Porridge today… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink