Why not? How do you scientifically rule out that this particular intelligent design-apparent production number came from somewhere else?

This process revealing monologue here was long on presumption, but devoid of real dot-connecting proof, I thought.

However, their surprising and droll ?totally irrelevant efforts with fossilised ink sacs was quite entertaining. To get to this paragraph in the long article, just do a search of the word "cuttlefish".

I find no way whatsoever of determining the source of these very active and intelligent mollusks they describe. At least in the Massachusetts Puritain case, someone among the European aliens there kept a few notes.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletin39fiel/bulletin39fiel_djvu.txt

"The present cuttlefish evolved from an earlier cephalo-
pod with an external shell, perhaps similar to the straight-
shelled ammonites commonly found fossilized in Paleozoic
rocks. In the course of evolution the cuttlefish shell was
reduced in size and eventually enclosed within the mantle,
gaining the animal two important advantages, speed and
maneuverability. However, the price of increased swim-
ming capability was the loss of protection for many of the
animal's soft parts. To compensate for this vulnerability,
somewhere along the evolutionary line cuttlefish ancestors
developed an inksac."

Somewhere? Mars, or Rigel, maybe? Here, again, there is that smug Darwinoid closed mind "discussion-over" finality certainty apparent. No quarter whatsoever is given, that I could see, for any artificial or teleological ?guiding influences.