Chemical evolution:

[paddoboy]

The "things fall down" theory is roughly equivalent to your "theory of abiogenesis" in terms of its completeness and explanatory power as a scientific theory.

An exaggeration at best James. But it appears you have accepted my theory of evolution being fact and theory as correct/? Irrespective it is according to the references I gave.
Now we need attend to the misunderstanding of Abiogenesis, as I put it, not as you abbreviated it of course.
My evidence for Abiogenesis being a fact is simply that that is the position that most reputable scientists take...They speak of life from non life...or Abiogenesis. Same thing even though we are ignorant of the pathway.
The following paper, obviously also takes that position....
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe
Abstract:
Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life. A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a long polymer having a correct nucleotide sequence by random reactions seems statistically unlikely. However, our universe, created by a single inflation event, likely includes more than 10/100 Sun-like stars. If life can emerge at least once in such a large volume, it is not in contradiction with our observations of life on Earth, even if the expected number of abiogenesis events is negligibly small within the observable universe that contains only 10/22 stars. Here, a quantitative relation is derived between the minimum RNA length lmin required to be the first biological polymer, and the universe size necessary to expect the formation of such a long and active RNA by randomly adding monomers. It is then shown that an active RNA can indeed be produced somewhere in an inflationary universe, giving a solution to the abiotic polymerization problem. On the other hand, lmin must be shorter than ~20 nucleotides for the abiogenesis probability close to unity on a terrestrial planet, but a self-replicating activity is not expected for such a short RNA. Therefore, if extraterrestrial organisms of a different origin from those on Earth are discovered in the future, it would imply an unknown mechanism at work to polymerize nucleotides much faster than random statistical processes.

 

[Write4U]

I consider life and living organisms as highly evolved biochemical complexities, even as single celled organisms.
And as "irreducible complexity" has been falsified, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that life must have evolved from simpler non-living bio-molecular forms, which gradually acquired the dynamical abilities for independent existence.

Unicellular organisms are made up of a single cell and perform all the life processes for survival and independent existence. Hence, the cell is called as the fundamental structural and functional unit of life.

https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/...i-performing-the-essential-functions-of-life/

 

[paddoboy]

Aha, James Tour. A well-known actor in the creationist charade.
Science does not know how abiogenesis occurred. [Er, we are all well aware of that.]
This guy has done no work in abiogenesis research and simply trots out the Disco 'Tute party line, apparently because he is a Messianic Jew with a religious axe to grind. There is no scientific argument in anything he says about the origins of life and he has done no relevant research in the field.

All Tour can do is produce another version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, dressed up with irrelevant bits and pieces of science.
- Science does not know how abiogenesis occurred. [Er, we are all well aware of that.]
- He lied by falsely claiming that Szostak's article in Nature was a research paper when it was a cartoon summary for a bit of light relief and clearly marked as such.

- He lied by falsely telling his audience that glyceraldehyde: Glyceraldehyde - Wikipedia is not a simple sugar

- He lied by claiming ribose linked to a cyclic heterocyclic base was not a potential building block for an early RNA molecule.

He had a lot of fun with the audience, who naturally lapped it up, as it is what they wanted to hear. But an alert undergraduate chemist in the audience would have immediately spotted the misrepresentation.

It seems plain that Tour is, as I suggested in an earlier post, driven by the religious axe he has to grind to connive in spreading falsehoods, exploiting his status as a chemist to fool people who are in no position to challenge him. It is rather a disgusting exhibition."

There is no reason to treat Tour as an authority with any credibility on the subject of abiogenesis.

Quite. There is no theory of abiogenesis yet, just as there is no theory of quantum gravity yet.

Some people seem to labour under the delusion that simply making the standard naturalistic assumption of all science, viz. that natural processes were responsible, constitutes a theory of some kind.

Two interesting comments, one early in the piece, the other, err supporting James, naturally.
So those claiming that Abiogenesis is the only scientific process, are labouring under a delusion that the standard naturalistic assumption that natural processes were obviously responsible for the emergence of life [Abiogenesis] should not be, or is not a theory, because? because we don't know the exact pathway at this time?
That's an all time funny funny!!! deserved of a star.

 

[Write4U]

The great scientist Forrest Gump has been quoted as; "Natural is as Natural does."....

 

[James R]

An exaggeration at best James.

No. You're still missing the point.

But it appears you have accepted my theory of evolution being fact and theory as correct/?

Personally, I think it's a waste of time quibbling about whether evolution (in general) is a theory or a fact. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the "theory of evolution" it seems silly to me to call it a fact. I like to maintain some distinction between facts and theories. In my book, theories are ideas that explain collections of facts, patterns in facts, causal links between facts - that kind of thing.

Now we need attend to the misunderstanding of Abiogenesis, as I put it, not as you abbreviated it of course.
My evidence for Abiogenesis being a fact is simply that that is the position that most reputable scientists take...They speak of life from non life...or Abiogenesis. Same thing even though we are ignorant of the pathway.

I have no problem at all with the idea of abiogenesis. Unless life was created magically in a single act of God, or whatever, then it stands to reason that at some point life had to come from non-life by natural processes.

However, the fact that I don't believe that the God explanation is a likely solution in no way means that I believe that any "theory of abiogenesis" exists or has been proven.

Thus, the point I have been trying to make is that, in science, "theories" are generally strongly-evidenced inferences that explain observations of the natural world. Usually they answer "how" questions, like "How does the force of gravity allow us to predict planetary orbits?". The theory there might be "Newton's law of gravity says that gravity is an inverse square law blah blah blah... and we can show mathematically by the following process that orbits are elliptical blah blah blah... and we can calculate the positions of the planets precisely within the following limits blah blah blah..."

In that light, then, consider your idea of a "theory of abiogenesis". Such a theory would answer the following "how" question: "How did life arise from non-life?" Then we get stuck. We can't currently say anything like "The theory says that from initial elements blah blah blah, the following processes caused the following set of chemical changes blah blah blah, and eventually we get to step 324, where we see that a living virus/prion/cell/whatever has been produced. From then on, standard evolutionary processes apply."

Because we currently don't have steps 1 through 324, there's currently no theory of abiogenesis.

Sure, there are speculative hypotheses about how certain steps in the process of abiogenesis might occur. Maybe we have some ideas about what steps 23, 57, 113 through 120 and 287 might be, but that's not yet a theory. It's all in pieces. Nothing is tied together in a coherent whole yet. And that's what science demands - along with solid evidence to support it - before you can stop calling something a hypothesis and start calling it a theory.

 

[paddoboy]

No. You're still missing the point.

No, actually you are missing the point.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time quibbling about whether evolution (in general) is a theory or a fact. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the "theory of evolution" it seems silly to me to call it a fact. I like to maintain some distinction between facts and theories. In my book, theories are ideas that explain collections of facts, patterns in facts, causal links between facts - that kind of thing.

I'll accept that as a round about way of saying I am essentially correct. Take a deep breath James and it becomes easier.

I have no problem at all with the idea of abiogenesis. Unless life was created magically in a single act of God, or whatever, then it stands to reason that at some point life had to come from non-life by natural processes.

I'll state it again, Abiogenesis is our only scientific answer as to the arising of life...any ID side track by you , is unscientific myth.

However, the fact that I don't believe that the God explanation is a likely solution in no way means that I believe that any "theory of abiogenesis" exists or has been proven.

If its alright with you, I'll accept the more reputable explanations and reasonings as linked. It is the only scientific explanation.

blah blah blah... blah blah blah... blah blah blah..."

Nice story.

In that light, then, consider your idea of a "theory of abiogenesis". Such a theory would answer the following "how" question:

What should be considered again is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory for how Life arose. While we remain ignorant of the pathway is no reason why normal reasoning and logic should be discarded.

Because we currently don't have steps 1 through 324, there's currently no theory of abiogenesis.

I'll accept the more competent responses thank you.

Also I would read post 323

 

[James R]

I'll state it again, Abiogenesis is our only scientific answer as to the arising of life...any ID side track by you , is unscientific myth.

You didn't take in anything I told you. How surprising.

What should be considered again is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory for how Life arose.

Not a theory, for reasons I clearly explained.

I'm done wasting my time on you with this. It's pointless. You're as stuck as Q-reeus.

 

[paddoboy]

You didn't take in anything I told you. How surprising.

Tell me James, is there any other scientific theory, reasoning for how life came to be?
I'm all ears.

 

[exchemist]

No. You're still missing the point.


Personally, I think it's a waste of time quibbling about whether evolution (in general) is a theory or a fact. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the "theory of evolution" it seems silly to me to call it a fact. I like to maintain some distinction between facts and theories. In my book, theories are ideas that explain collections of facts, patterns in facts, causal links between facts - that kind of thing.


I have no problem at all with the idea of abiogenesis. Unless life was created magically in a single act of God, or whatever, then it stands to reason that at some point life had to come from non-life by natural processes.

However, the fact that I don't believe that the God explanation is a likely solution in no way means that I believe that any "theory of abiogenesis" exists or has been proven.

Thus, the point I have been trying to make is that, in science, "theories" are generally strongly-evidenced inferences that explain observations of the natural world. Usually they answer "how" questions, like "How does the force of gravity allow us to predict planetary orbits?". The theory there might be "Newton's law of gravity says that gravity is an inverse square law blah blah blah... and we can show mathematically by the following process that orbits are elliptical blah blah blah... and we can calculate the positions of the planets precisely within the following limits blah blah blah..."

In that light, then, consider your idea of a "theory of abiogenesis". Such a theory would answer the following "how" question: "How did life arise from non-life?" Then we get stuck. We can't currently say anything like "The theory says that from initial elements blah blah blah, the following processes caused the following set of chemical changes blah blah blah, and eventually we get to step 324, where we see that a living virus/prion/cell/whatever has been produced. From then on, standard evolutionary processes apply."

Because we currently don't have steps 1 through 324, there's currently no theory of abiogenesis.

Sure, there are speculative hypotheses about how certain steps in the process of abiogenesis might occur. Maybe we have some ideas about what steps 23, 57, 113 through 120 and 287 might be, but that's not yet a theory. It's all in pieces. Nothing is tied together in a coherent whole yet. And that's what science demands - along with solid evidence to support it - before you can stop calling something a hypothesis and start calling it a theory.

Just on the issue of evolution being fact and theory, my understanding of that is that we have direct observation of some evolution occurring, for example in the acquisition of resistance to antibiotics and chemotherapy agents etc. So that type of evolution can be said to be an incontrovertible fact. One can even analyse populations of the cells in which these adaptations are occurring, to verify that the adapted ones are reproducing more successfully etc., thereby validating the mechanism of change.

What we have to infer, more indirectly, by means of the "theory", is the means by which fossil forms alter through time and allow us to build cladograms, the "tree" of life and so forth.

 

[paddoboy]

Just put this in another thread but suitable here also.................
file:///C:/Users/BARRY/Downloads/Pross2011_Article_TowardAGeneralTheoryOfEvolutio%20(1).pdf

Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter:

Abstract;
Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life’s unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?


3. Concluding remarks
Darwin’s contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man’s view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result - despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal - the relentless striving toward the unification of science - requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged. In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a process than a thing. In that sense Whitehead’s process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014 compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life’s dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms - small segments of that giant network - can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one. A closing remark concerning life’s complexity. Life is complex - that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67,68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule - the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space - is yet another example of that fundamental idea. A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind - dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic - is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth’s land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable - there is a continual transformation of ‘regular’ matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more ‘stable’ form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper.

 

[James R]

Tell me James, is there any other scientific theory, reasoning for how life came to be?

Your use of the word "other" makes the wrong assumption, again. Why waste more time on you?

 

[paddoboy]

Your use of the word "other" makes the wrong assumption, again. Why waste more time on you?

Whatever James...but again, the question stands...do you have another theory as to how life arose...a scientific theory obviously.

 

[Write4U]

Whatever James...but again, the question stands...do you have another theory as to how life arose...a scientific theory obviously.

Why, paddo, life arose from life, is that not obvious. If you dare propose any other method, such as Abiogenesis, you will surely end up in Hell......

Please, do not ask where "original" life originated. Obviously it must have existed prior to life itself......the Universe works in mysterious ways......

 

[exchemist]

Your use of the word "other" makes the wrong assumption, again. Why waste more time on you?

He may not even realise that he is begging the question.

 

[paddoboy]

He may not even realise that he is begging the question.

The thing is, it's not begging the question, just as you yourself have inferred earlier on in this thread.
Abiogenesis is the process of life from non life, and is the only scientific theory for life...again as I asked James, do you have another scientific theory?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Why, paddo, life arose from life, is that not obvious.

Clearly that is not the position I am taking here. I am quite confident that life came from non-life. That doesn't mean I have a theory of how that happened. paddoboy doesn't either, and nor do you. You both just think you do.

exchemist:

He may not even realise that he is begging the question.

Probably not.

paddoboy:

The thing is, it's not begging the question, just as you yourself have inferred earlier on in this thread.

Begging the question is where you start by assuming what you want to prove.

In this case, you need to show that there is a theory of abiogenesis. So far, you have done nothing to show the existence of any such theory. But you keep assuming there is one, with no justification. That's begging the question.

Abiogenesis is the process of life from non life, and is the only scientific theory for life...again as I asked James, do you have another scientific theory?

Let me fix that for you:

"Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that there is a natural process by which life came from non-life. It is not a scientific theory, but speculation informed by existing science."

Do I have a theory of abiogenesis? No, obvious I don't. You don't. I don't. Nobody does.

Write4U therefore assumes I think God Did It, or something. I don't. Apart from anything else, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods. I don't know how it happened, yet, so I have no theory.

It's okay to say you don't know things. Far better than to pretend to know when you don't.

 

[paddoboy]

exchemist:


Probably not.

paddoboy:


Begging the question is where you start by assuming what you want to prove.

I know what it means James, and I was not begging the question.

In this case, you need to show that there is a theory of abiogenesis. So far, you have done nothing to show the existence of any such theory. But you keep assuming there is one, with no justification. That's begging the question.


Let me fix that for you:

"Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that there is a natural process by which life came from non-life. It is not a scientific theory, but speculation informed by existing science."

Do I have a theory of abiogenesis? No, obvious I don't. You don't. I don't. Nobody does.

Again you dismiss the logic behind the fact that Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory we have for the emergence of life, and many scientific papers naturally and sensibly assume that, just as the one I gave you which you seemed to have missed at post 33o James...probably many more but I'm really tired of trying to please someone who has a bee in his bonnet. You will also notice from a post I reproduced of our own famous exchemist, in which he does the same thing in assuming [correctly of course] that Abiogensis, sensibly and logically and naturally did take place.
You have even done it yourself funnily enough.

It's okay to say you don't know things. Far better than to pretend to know when you don't.

Lots of things I don't know James and I don't pretend. OK?

 

[Write4U]

In this case, you need to show that there is a theory of abiogenesis. So far, you have done nothing to show the existence of any such theory. But you keep assuming there is one, with no justification. That's begging the question.

There may not yet be a single theory, but there is a hypothesis that allows for several possible (plausible) paths, including multiple separate sites where different forms of abiogenesis may have taken place.

IMO, there is no "known" requirement that there must be a single path or site which would allow for abiogenesis and without which a general theory of abiogenesis could not be fashioned.

Hazen cites several of such possible "bottlenecks", such as Volcanic environments, Hydro-thermal vents (black and white Smokers), The Deep Earth Water (DEW) model, and Cosmic Clouds via radiation. and which if taken in toto adds up to a convincing argument that abiogenesis may have occurred differently in several different places on earth and in other parts of the universe, which to me sounds not only possible, but more than probable, given the number and general chemistry of planets in the billions of other solar systems.

Hazen posits that : "Chemical reactions can form bio-molecules in many different environments". If we ignore the irreducible complexity arguments from the faithful, it appears that abiogenesis may well have occurred in many places, an observation that is reinforced by the incredible variety and speciation in living organisms and their disparate environments, just on earth (non-remarkable chemistry) alone.

Considering the abundance of very different life forms and habitats from extremophiles, to tardigrades, to octopoda, in addition to flora, fish, birds, mammals.

continues....

 

[Write4U]

continued.....
Extremophiles

Extremophiles may be divided into two broad categories: extremophilic organisms which require one or more extreme conditions in order to grow, and extremotolerant organisms which can tolerate extreme values of one or more physicochemical parameters though growing optimally at “normal” conditions.

Extremophiles include members of all three domains of life, i.e., bacteria, archaea, and eukarya. Most extremophiles are microorganisms (and a high proportion of these are archaea), but this group also includes eukaryotes such as protists (e.g., algae, fungi and protozoa) and multicellular organisms.

Archaea is the main group to thrive in extreme environments. Although members of this group are generally less versatile than bacteria and eukaryotes, they are generally quite skilled in adapting to different extreme conditions, holding frequently extremophily records. Some archaea are among the most hyperthermophilic, acidophilic, alkaliphilic, and halophilic microorganisms known. For example, the archaeal Methanopyrus kandleri strain 116 grows at 122 °C (252 °F, the highest recorded temperature), while the genus Picrophilus (e.g., Picrophilus torridus) include the most acidophilic organisms currently known, with the ability to grow at a pH of 0.06

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187170/#

Tardigrades

Taxonomists divide life on Earth into three domains: Bacteria, Archaea (an ancient line of bacterialike cells without nuclei that are likely closer in evolutionary terms to organisms with nucleated cells than to bacteria), and Eukarya. Eukarya is divided into four kingdoms: Protista, Plantae, Fungi and Animalia. Phylum Tardigrada is one of the 36 phyla (roughly, depending on whom one asks) within Animalia—making water bears a significantly distinctive branch on the tree of life.

Tardigrades are encased in a rugged but flexible cuticle that must be shed as the organism grows. Thus they have been placed among the phyla on the ecdysozoa line of evolution between animals such as nematodes and arthropods that also shed their cuticles to grow.

Animals grow in either of two ways, by adding more cells or by making each cell larger. Tardigrades generally do the latter. If an animal has a hard cuticle or exoskeleton, it must break out of that shell in order to grow. For example, in summer in many parts of the world, one encounters the shed exoskeletons of locusts on trees everywhere.

But extreme survivorship applies only to some species of terrestrial tardigrades. Marine and aquatic tardigrades did not evolve these characteristics because their environments are stable. It appears that the extravagant survival adaptations have been selected in direct response to rapidly changing terrestrial microenvironments of damp flora subject to rapid drying and extreme weather.

Tardigrades are divided into two classes, Eutardigrada and Heterotardigrada. As a general rule, the members of Eutardigrada have a naked or smooth cuticle without plates, whereas the Heterotardigrada boast a cuticle armored with plates.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/tardigrades#

Octopodia

The

octopus (plural octopuses) is a soft-bodied, eight-limbed mollusc of the order Octopoda (/ɒkˈtɒpədə/, ok-TO-pə-də). Around 300 species are recognised, and the order is grouped within the class Cephalopoda with squids, cuttlefish, and nautiloids. Like other cephalopods, the octopus is bilaterally symmetric with two eyes and a beak, with its mouth at the center point of the eight limbs.[a] The soft body can rapidly alter its shape, enabling octopuses to squeeze through small gaps. They trail their eight appendages behind them as they swim. The siphon is used both for respiration and for locomotion, by expelling a jet of water. Octopuses have a complex nervous system and excellent sight, and are among the most intelligent and behaviourally diverse of all invertebrates.

Octopuses inhabit various regions of the

ocean, including coral reefs, pelagic waters, and the seabed; some live in the intertidal zone and others at abyssal depths. Most species grow quickly, mature early, and are short-lived. In most species, the male uses a specially adapted arm to deliver a bundle of sperm directly into the female's mantle cavity, after which he becomes senescent and dies, while the female deposits fertilised eggs in a den and cares for them until they hatch, after which she also dies. Strategies to defend themselves against predators include the expulsion of ink, the use of camouflage and threat displays, the ability to jet quickly through the water and hide, and even deceit. All octopuses are venomous, but only the blue-ringed octopuses are known to be deadly to humans.

Circulatory system
Octopuses have a closed circulatory system, in which the blood remains inside blood vessels. Octopuses have three hearts; a systemic heart that circulates blood around the body and two branchial hearts that pump it through each of the two gills. The systemic heart is inactive when the animal is swimming and thus it tires quickly and prefers to crawl.[35][36]

Octopus blood contains the copper-rich protein haemocyanin to transport oxygen. This makes the blood very viscous and it requires considerable pressure to pump it around the body; octopuses' blood pressures can exceed 75 mmHg (10 kPa).[35][36][37] In cold conditions with low oxygen levels, haemocyanin transports oxygen more efficiently than haemoglobin. The haemocyanin is dissolved in the plasma instead of being carried within blood cells, and gives the blood a bluish colour.[35][36]

The systemic heart has muscular contractile walls and consists of a single ventricle and two atria, one for each side of the body. The blood vessels consist of arteries, capillaries and veins and are lined with a cellular endothelium which is quite unlike that of most other invertebrates. The blood circulates through the aorta and capillary system, to the vena cavae, after which the blood is pumped through the gills by the auxiliary hearts and back to the main heart. Much of the venous system is contractile, which helps circulate the blood.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Anatomy_and_physiology

 

[Write4U]

It is not a scientific theory, but speculation informed by existing science."

Can you explain what about the observed existence of living things is speculative?
Unless there is a theory that Life must have evolved from Life, there is not much speculative about the fact that Life exists. Is that not called an axiom?