Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

gnostic, you are free to believe whatever you like about the age of the earth and the living things upon it.

Yes I do put more store by what the Bible says, but without compromising what science knows, as opposed to what it assumes to know.

Scientific American gives us a description of carbon dating......

"Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock.....

Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.

The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.

Bronk Ramsey’s team aimed to fill this gap by using sediment from bed of Lake Suigetsu, west of Tokyo. Two distinct sediment layers have formed in the lake every summer and winter over tens of thousands of years. The researchers collected roughly 70-metre core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years. Preserved leaves in the cores — “they look fresh as if they’ve fallen very recently”, Bronk Ramsey says — yielded 651 carbon dates that could be compared to the calendar dates of the sediment they were found in."

Now supposing that the Bible is true and a water canopy surrounded the earth up until the time of the Noachian flood? With the depletion of that canopy, radiation from the sun would have increased the carbon levels significantly, giving a completely different reading of things dated since then. Civilizations such as those found in ancient Jericho and Damascus (both mentioned in the Bible) would be much younger than previously thought.

The article went on to say....
"The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history."

Many scientists have never come across a reason to distrust carbon dating methods. Geology textbooks don't explain its shortcomings, so scientists and science students alike are not taught to question the results of radio carbon dating. They just accept them.

I'm somewhat in awe of the amount of detailed substantive scientific argument you provide in this thread, in the face of so many empty ad hominem responses. The number of pages here demonstrates how good your arguments are, you are making people think for themselves about these problems with ToE even if they never admit it here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Adaptation is the result of inbuilt mechanisms that produce a response to a change in environment and food sources.

Meaning: evolution.

It is a survival mechanism designed to maintain a species in a new habitat, adapting to a new environment and food supply......just as Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands. The creatures who adapted to island life remained in the same taxonomic family as their mainland cousins.

And the process which causes adaptation is called... Evolution!

Calling provable adaptation "evolution" means that you can slip the unproven "macro" elements of evolution in under the same umbrella...hoping no one will notice the gaping chasm between the two.

Actually, no it doesn't. It's simple clarity. Evolution is the name given the process which results in adaptation, and it just so happens it is the exact same process which results in speciation and common ancestry.

Adaptation does not prove macro-evolution at all. It is assumed that it does.

Correct. Observing macro-evolution proves macro-evolution.

And it has been demonstrated that "variation" has its limits. No species will ever become a member of a higher taxonomic family, no matter how much time you throw at it.

And what would constitute a "higher taxonomic family", exactly? What does that even mean?

Seriously...there are scientists on this forum who state that all living things evolved from amoebas and that we are biologically related to bananas..... Please....If you believe in evolution, then amoebas morphed into dinosaurs and then into chickens over millions of years.

If it's what the facts show, it's what the facts show.

On what basis can that be taken as scientific?

On the basis that it's what all the evidence shows us.

Show us the real evidence that this morphing took place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/...ution-american-museum-of-natural-history.html

We are 3738 pages into this thread and still we have no real evidence that evolution ever happened other than in science's imagination.

Actually, people have presented lots of evidence to you, you've just ignored it completely or brushed it off without understanding it. The fact that you still don't seem to understand the first thing about evolution is proof that you're obviously not looking at the evidence, or even thinking about evolution seriously, despite the countless pages of this thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm somewhat in awe of the amount of detailed substantive scientific argument you provide in this thread, in the face of so many empty ad hominem responses. The number of pages here demonstrates how good your arguments are, you are making people think for themselves about these problems with ToE even if they never admit it here.

So, apparently, in your world a "substantive scientific argument" means "deliberately misrepresenting a scientific paper and inserting your own conclusions into it without giving a source so that people cannot actually research the validity of what I've written".

For reference, she more-or-less copied and pasted most of her text from this article from Nature.com:

Core sample sends carbon clock farther back in time

Note the parts that she very deceptively left out:

The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.

Bronk Ramsey’s team aimed to fill this gap by using sediment from bed of Lake Suigetsu, west of Tokyo. Two distinct sediment layers have formed in the lake every summer and winter over tens of thousands of years. The researchers collected roughly 70-metre core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years. Preserved leaves in the cores — “they look fresh as if they’ve fallen very recently”, Bronk Ramsey says — yielded 651 carbon dates that could be compared to the calendar dates of the sediment they were found in.

The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says.

Take the extinction of Neanderthals, which occurred in western Europe less than 30,000 years ago. Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise. The more accurate carbon clock should yield better dates for any overlap of humans and Neanderthals, as well as for determining how climate changes influenced the extinction of Neanderthals.

“If you have a better estimate of when the last Neanderthals lived to compare to climate records in Greenland or elsewhere, then you’ll have a better idea of whether the extinction was climate driven or competition with modern humans,” says Paula Reimer, a geochronologist at Queen’s University in Belfast, UK. She will lead efforts to combine the Lake Suigetsu measurements with marine and cave records to come up with a new standard for carbon dating

In other words, all this research shows us is that Carbon dating is being re-calibrated so that it can be more accurate, it doesn't say that atmospheric levels of carbon-14 would have a significant impact on the dates, it would just prevent accuracy, and the difference is one of only "a few hundred years". Certainly not the MILLIONS of years that would be required for Deeje's assertion to be true. As for her assertion that a water canopy would "block" some of the radiation from the sun, it's just plain silly. For starters, the ice canopy would have melted within a single day, not to mention the simple fact that a firmament able to block radiation coming from the sun would also block ALL of the light coming from it as well, and wouldn't affect atmospheric pressure whatsoever.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of pandering to the choir. She agrees with you, therefore her posts must be "awe-worthy". You really need to try turning some of that intelligence inward and stop falling for such blatant manipulation and dishonesty.

 

[Deeje]

Note the parts that she very deceptively left out:

What did I deceptively leave out? I quoted the parts that were relative to carbon dating.

In other words, all this research shows us is that Carbon dating is being re-calibrated so that it can be more accurate, it doesn't say that atmospheric levels of carbon-14 would have a significant impact on the dates, it would just prevent accuracy, and the difference is one of only "a few hundred years". Certainly not the MILLIONS of years that would be required for Deeje's assertion to be true. As for her assertion that a water canopy would "block" some of the radiation from the sun, it's just plain silly. For starters, the ice canopy would have melted within a single day, not to mention the simple fact that a firmament able to block radiation coming from the sun would also block ALL of the light coming from it as well, and wouldn't affect atmospheric pressure whatsoever.

What millions of years?

I understand that the earth itself is very old, which is allowed for in the Genesis account. All it says in Genesis 1:1 is that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". A simple yet accurate statement that contradicts nothing that follows.

Genesis also speaks about a water (not ice) canopy that was suspended above earth's atmosphere, which would have made the earth like a hothouse with a moist and humid temperate climate all over. (Genesis 1:6-7)

An impression of a tropical Antarctica as it may have appeared 100 million years ago.
Image: Robert Nicholls/paleocreations.com

When Antarctica was a tropical paradise

This canopy was not ice or cloud but water, allowing the light to penetrate to the earth's surface, allowing for photosynthesis, but not the full radiation from the sun which we know ages everything quite rapidly.

The Bible says that this was one source of the water used by God to flood the earth in Noah's day. (2 Peter 3:5-7) Vast underground springs were also emptied and the water reached above the top of the tallest mountains. (Genesis 7:11-20) Imagine what impact that amount of water would have had on the earth's crust, re-landscaping everything under the flood waters so that nothing was really familiar after that event. Noah stepped out on dry land, not knowing where he was.

You can believe that all that is myth if you wish, but ask yourself why many scientists are now warning about global warming?
Where do we suppose all that water went? What if it was drawn up into the polar regions and snap frozen, and suspended there indefinitely? If those ices caps melt, then the earth would again be flooded.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What did I deceptively leave out? I quoted the parts that were relative to carbon dating.

The parts where the article explained the difference is one of only a few hundred years, not the thousands or millions that are required for your postulation to be true.

What millions of years?

The millions of years demonstrated by modern dating techniques.

I understand that the earth itself is very old, which is allowed for in the Genesis account. All it says in Genesis 1:1 is that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". A simple yet accurate statement that contradicts nothing that follows.

In what way is that "accurate"?

Genesis also speaks about a water (not ice) canopy that was suspended above earth's atmosphere, which would have made the earth like a hothouse with a moist and humid temperate climate all over. (Genesis 1:6-7)

An impression of a tropical Antarctica as it may have appeared 100 million years ago.
Image: Robert Nicholls/paleocreations.com

When Antarctica was a tropical paradise

This canopy was not ice or cloud but water, allowing the light to penetrate to the earth's surface, allowing for photosynthesis, but not the full radiation from the sun which we know ages everything quite rapidly.

Are you serious? In what way does the sun "age things rapidly"? What's more, the water canopy idea is so roundly refuted and contrary to all scientific models and evidence (and Biblical interpretation) that even Answers In Genesis tells its adherents not to use the argument:

The Collapse of the Canopy Model

The Bible says that this was one source of the water used by God to flood the earth in Noah's day. (2 Peter 3:5-7)

A flood for which there exists zero evidence.

Vast underground springs were also emptied and the water reached above the top of the tallest mountains. (Genesis 7:11-20) Imagine what impact that amount of water would have had on the earth's crust, re-landscaping everything under the flood waters so that nothing was really familiar after that event. Noah stepped out on dry land, not knowing where he was.

Except it would have little to no effect on the radioactive decay of carbon.

You can believe that all that is myth if you wish, but ask yourself why many scientists are now warning about global warming?
Where do we suppose all that water went? What if it was drawn up into the polar regions and snap frozen, and suspended there indefinitely? If those ices caps melt, then the earth would again be flooded.

So, in other words, for you assertion to work we must assume that all this water left no trace of itself anywhere then somehow "drew itself" to the polar regions and froze - something that water isn't really known for doing en masse. On top of this, you have the simple fact that there is not enough water in the atmosphere or at either of the poles to actually cover the entire earth. Do you honestly think the thing that scientists are concerned about with the ice caps melting to be a "global flood"? I would challenge you to find a since scientist who says that.

Once again, Deeje, you're spouting nonsense and avoiding facts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are the lurkers who read but who don't join. There are the members who read but never comment. I wonder if someone has ever done the stats on that situation?

I think that that's the information being reported here.

For example, at the top, we see the thread called Are you new to ReligiousForums.com? followed by the numbers 5,693 and 83,142. I believe that the first is the number of posts and the second the number of looks at the thread.

 

[Jose Fly]

What was weird?

That in the midst of this discussion you said "here come the threats of terrorism".

That I listed your response methodology in trying to psycho-analyze me into submission by implying some emotionally motivated flaws in my character?

Deeje, do you not understand what's going on? All I've done is ask you to explain your situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness and what would happen if you changed your mind on creationism/evolution. You made it extremely clear how that would cause you to lose all hope, meaning, and purpose in your life, and you would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" and "someone spreading poison" by your JW friends and family.

What were you expecting......everyone to just forget all that and pretend it's not a factor in this discussion?

.....there was only the threat of terrorism left.....?

You're not making any sense at all.

But I can assure all that JW's are not a threat to anyone. We just like to promote the truth and we won't be bullied.

Well obviously they're threatening and bullying you. How else would you describe an organization telling its members that if they deviate one bit from doctrine, their lives will be worth nothing and they will be treated like garbage by everyone else in the organization? If that's not threatening and bullying, I have to wonder just what you think it is.

Look back over the thread lazy bones....all the refutations are there. I even bolded the relevant bits.

I told ya......I predicted that you wouldn't show where you've refuted anything I've posted, and sure enough, you didn't.

I think you underestimate the number of people who read the posts on these forums. There are the lurkers who read but who don't join. There are the members who read but never comment. I wonder if someone has ever done the stats on that situation?

Trust me.....I'm quite content with the status of our discussion.

You posted scientific papers that only scientists can understand. I used the example of a doctor who, when he is explaining a complicated operation to a patient, he does not used medical jargon in his explanation. He explains in simple terms what he going to do. The patient does not need the jargon to understand the procedure. Scientists should be able to do this too....but when they don't have the jargon to hide behind, the theory of evolution when presented in simple terms, is completely ludicrous.

and it has no substantive evidence.....only suggestions....no facts.

Thank you for reconfirming the behaviors I described.

Micro-evolution, if it was called by its correct descriptor...."adaptation"

Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definitions for words and expect everyone else to follow along. "Microevolution" is evolution.....that's why it has the term "evolution" in it.

There are barriers to how far a adaptive traits can go. It has only ever been demonstrated by scientists to occur within one taxonomic family of any organism. This creates variety within that family.

Then I'll ask you the same things I asked Guy and others, and they simply cannot answer.....

How does a population become aware of its evolutionary status relative to long-gone ancestors? How does a population realize "If we change any more we'll cross a taxonomic line, so we'd better stop"? Also, what mechanism stops that population from changing? Do they suddenly start replicating themselves without variation?

Now let's be perfectly honest here. You and I both know you won't answer those questions.....you won't answer them because you can't. You have no idea how to answer them. It's just a matter of how you'll try and avoid admitting it.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth responding....ya know?

If I was reluctant to respond to anyone on this thread, it was never because I had no answer...it was simply viewed as a waste of effort. How many pages have we taken up already on this thread? I respond when I feel there is something worthwhile to reiterate....there is certainly nothing new to address.

Thank you for reconfirming the behaviors I described.

Please remind us again how "foraminifera" are an example of macro-evolution......?

They have a virtually complete fossil record that clearly shows Darwinian evolution over long periods of time, including the evolution of many new species complete with clear ancestor-descendant relationships. And since foraminifera are a taxonomic class, their record also includes evolution of new families.

But really Deeje, be honest here.....does that matter? Are you truly willing to lose all meaning, purpose, and hope in your life over the fossil record of foraminifera?

I think we all see the pattern all right......selective recall on your part of the material covered.

Except for the fact that you immediately repeated and reconfirmed the pattern in your very next post to me.

Repeating behaviors........? You don't see those behaviors in yourself though...?

Funny that.

If you can show where I've exhibited those behaviors, I'd be most interested.

 

[ArtieE]

and you can't create a new body plan by tweaking the options that body plan specifically supports.

Since you mention body plans, here's some interesting information about hox genes and body plans. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns

 

[Deeje]

The Brilliant Blue of the Pollia Berry


THE small berry of the Pollia condensata plant, found across Africa, exhibits the most intense blue color ever seen in a plant. Yet it has no blue pigment. What is the secret behind its striking color?

Consider: The cell walls in the skin of the berry contain tiny threads arranged like rows of matches. These threads form layers, each layer set off at a slight angle to the layer below, so that the rising layers form a helical, or spiral, pattern. The threads themselves are not colored blue. The color comes from the way the threads are stacked. Thus, structure, not pigment, is the key to the berry’s intense metallic hue and iridescence. Most cells appear blue. But from different angles, some emit a green, pink, or yellow hue because of subtle changes in the layers. Moreover, when examined closely, the colors are not smooth and even but appear pixelated, like the colors on a computer screen.

Since Pollia berries have no pigment, they keep their color even after they drop from the plant. In fact, some berries collected over a century ago look as brilliant as fresh ones! Even though the berry has no edible pulp, just seeds, it sends an irresistible signal to nearby birds, according to researchers.

Scientists believe that the Pollia berry’s pigment-free color could inspire products ranging from fade-resistant dyes to counterfeit-resistant paper.

The Brilliant Blue of the Pollia Berry | Was It Designed?

But it was just an accident...right?

 

[Deeje]

The Amazing Arctic Tern

IT WAS long believed that arctic terns flew about 22,000 miles (35,200 km) on their journey from the Arctic region to Antarctica and back. Recent studies, however, revealed that the birds actually fly much farther.

Tern migration follows an indirect path, as shown in the illustration

Tiny instruments called geolocators were attached to a number of birds. About the weight of a paper clip, these amazing devices revealed that some terns flew an average of 56,000 miles (90,000 km) on the round-trip—the longest animal migration known. One bird flew nearly 60,000 miles (96,000 km)! Why the revised estimates?

No matter where they began their migration, the arctic terns flew an indirect route. As shown in the illustration, a common Atlantic Ocean route took an S shape. The reason? The birds simply take advantage of prevailing wind systems.

During their lifetime of about 30 years, terns may travel well over 1.5 million miles (2.4 million km). That is equal to three or four round-trips to the moon! “This is a mind-boggling achievement for a bird of just over 100 grams [3.5 ounces],” said a researcher. What is more, because arctic terns experience the summers at both poles, they see “more daylight each year than any other creature,” states the book Life on Earth: A Natural History.

The Amazing Arctic Tern

Wow!

 

[Deeje]

I give up....How does evolution explain this fellow?

Or this one....?

 

[Valjean]

I give up....How does evolution explain this fellow?

Or this one....?

The same way it explains any other organism: adaptation by natural selection.
Your personal incredulity is getting in the way of your reasoning.

 

[Deeje]

The same way it explains any other organism: adaptation by natural selection.
Your personal incredulity is getting in the way of your reasoning.

The cuttlefish is unlike any other creature on this planet....how do you explain its unique abilities? Just accidental mutations and natural selection? What is "natural" about that creature?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your personal incredulity is getting in the way of your reasoning.

Actually, that's not what's getting in her way. It's being a Jehovah's Witness, which means if she even compromised on this issue the JW's would impose quite severe consequences on her......isolation from friends and family for example.

Deeje used a term that captures the situation quite well....."emotional blackmail".

 

[Deeje]

Actually, that's not what's getting in her way. It's being a Jehovah's Witness, which means if she even compromised on this issue the JW's would impose quite severe consequences on her......isolation from friends and family for example.

Deeje used a term that captures the situation quite well....."emotional blackmail".

Shooting the messenger again? This is all you have Mr Fly? Its getting old. Got something to prove evolution of the creatures in my last three posts? Or is this a smoke screen to cover up the fact that you have no facts? Pretty transparent if you ask me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Shooting the messenger again? This is all you have Mr Fly? Its getting old.

Last time I said this, you ignored it. Let's see what happens this time.....

All I'm doing Deeje is reflecting what you described would happen to you if you compromised on the issue. You were the one who said your life would lose all purpose, meaning, and hope. You were the one who said your JW friends and family would treat you like rotten fruit and a person spreading poison. Were you not telling the truth? And were you expecting everyone here to just ignore all that and act like it's not a factor in your views on the subject?

Got something to prove evolution of the last three of my posts?

We've been over this, and each time I list the lines of evidence I've posted to you and describe how you just left the discussion.......you ignore it and leave.

And again, why do you keep asking for proof of something that you said would ruin your entire life?

Pretty transparent if you ask me.

"If you ask me", being the key phrase. Given your extreme bias on the subject and the emotional blackmail you're being subjected to, your behavior is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected.

 

[Valjean]

The cuttlefish is unlike any other creature on this planet....how do you explain its unique abilities? Just accidental mutations and natural selection? What is "natural" about that creature?

Horsefeathers!
The cuttlefish is similar to any other Cephalopod. -- not all animals subscribe to the body plan we're familiar with. Its unique abilities are are the result of the same processes that gave us our unique abilities.
There's nothing biologically mysterious about cephalopods. They're completely natural.

 

[Deeje]

We've been over this, and each time I list the lines of evidence I've posted to you and describe how you just left the discussion.......you ignore it and leave.

Those people who get on a loop and just keep hammering it whilst completely ignoring the topic of the thread because they have nothing of value to add....are asking to be ignored.....IMO.

You are

Good bye.

 

[Deeje]

Horsefeathers!
The cuttlefish is similar to any other Cephalopod. -- not all animals subscribe to the body plan we're familiar with. It's unique abilities are are the result of the same processes that gave us our unique abilities.
There's nothing biologically mysterious about cephalopods. They're completely natural.

Here you go......look at the lovely diagram....

Phylogeny
What is Phylogeny?
Phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species, including its behaviors [6]. It often analyzes the relatedness of species to see whether a behavior was a recent development or had evolved long ago.

Figure 1. Cephalopod phylogenetic tree [Image courtesy of Larry Moran]

Cuttlefish Phylogeny
Cuttlefish, along with octopuses and squids, are a member of the group Coleoidea found in the Cephalopoda class in the phylum Mollusca [1]. Cephalopods are characterized by a set of tentacles and a specialized foot known as a siphon. There is some controversy about the placement of the genera of the Coleoidea group in relation to one another on the phylogenetic tree due to an inadequate fossil record [7].

Evolution of Chromatophores
Chromatophores are not unique to Cephalopods. They are thought to have developed through endosymbiosis of Paulinella chromatophora cells and cyanobacteria [4]. Therefore, chromatophores are found in many species including lizards, amphibians, fish, crustaceans, echinoderms, annelids, and insects [5]. In most species, chromatophores are controlled exclusively through hormones leading to slow color changes. However, in few species of lizards (especially chameleons), teleosts, and Cephalopods, control of chromatophores is neural [3], meaning that their color change is extremely rapid [5]. The neural control of chromatophores likely evolved through convergent evolution as it appears in species that do not share close relations.

All members of the class Cephalopoda except for Nautiloidea exhibit color change by chromatophores [3]. This, along with the fact that other species in the phylum Mollusca exhibit the color-changing behavior, suggests that the behavior evolved before the speciation of the cephalopod ancestor. The absence of the behavior in Nautiloidea suggests loss of the behavior in that species alone that dates back to 500 million years ago when Coleoidea and Nautiloidea shared a most recent common ancestor. The color-changing species of cephalopods use the same mechanism, but display unique patterns that evolved within the species [2].

Cuttlefish Color Change Phylogeny

Yes, I can see how accurate it is.....all this "suggestion" from "an inadequate fossil record "about how these creatures "likely evolved".... Are you serious?

 

[Valjean]

Here you go......look at the lovely diagram....

Phylogeny
What is Phylogeny?
Phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species, including its behaviors [6]. It often analyzes the relatedness of species to see whether a behavior was a recent development or had evolved long ago.

Figure 1. Cephalopod phylogenetic tree [Image courtesy of Larry Moran]

Cuttlefish Phylogeny
Cuttlefish, along with octopuses and squids, are a member of the group Coleoidea found in the Cephalopoda class in the phylum Mollusca [1]. Cephalopods are characterized by a set of tentacles and a specialized foot known as a siphon. There is some controversy about the placement of the genera of the Coleoidea group in relation to one another on the phylogenetic tree due to an inadequate fossil record [7].

Evolution of Chromatophores
Chromatophores are not unique to Cephalopods. They are thought to have developed through endosymbiosis of Paulinella chromatophora cells and cyanobacteria [4]. Therefore, chromatophores are found in many species including lizards, amphibians, fish, crustaceans, echinoderms, annelids, and insects [5]. In most species, chromatophores are controlled exclusively through hormones leading to slow color changes. However, in few species of lizards (especially chameleons), teleosts, and Cephalopods, control of chromatophores is neural [3], meaning that their color change is extremely rapid [5]. The neural control of chromatophores likely evolved through convergent evolution as it appears in species that do not share close relations.

All members of the class Cephalopoda except for Nautiloidea exhibit color change by chromatophores [3]. This, along with the fact that other species in the phylum Mollusca exhibit the color-changing behavior, suggests that the behavior evolved before the speciation of the cephalopod ancestor. The absence of the behavior in Nautiloidea suggests loss of the behavior in that species alone that dates back to 500 million years ago when Coleoidea and Nautiloidea shared a most recent common ancestor. The color-changing species of cephalopods use the same mechanism, but display unique patterns that evolved within the species [2].

Cuttlefish Color Change Phylogeny

Yes, I can see how accurate it is.....all this "suggestion" from "an inadequate fossil record "about how these creatures "likely evolved".... Are you serious?

I don't get your point. What are you questioning?