# A discussion of turtle and tortoise evolution- ONLY.



## Madkins007 (Jan 25, 2014)

Some really valid points were made in a previous thread on evolution vs. creation or intelligent design. Unfortunately, as happens so often, it got heated and wandered into religion and other landmines.

Can we try it without the hype? No "show me proof of evolution/creationism", no reference to holy books, specific faiths or specific deities. And no references to things that cannot be cited from a reliable source other than the above. (Dear generic deity, the other post was so filled with unreliable stuff on both sides of the discussion that it would make a great doctoral thesis to unravel!)

One challenge was to explain diamondback terrapins or another species. I don't know DBTs well but have read the snot out of red-footed tortoises, so here is a summary of what I understand that we believe about their history.

DNA research shows at least 5 major variations in red-foots, but only one kind of yellow-foot, and both share a lot of DNA with African hingebacks, and all of the above have lots of overlap in habitat, behaviors, general shape, diet, etc. Fossils show older forms of all of the above in specific areas in South America and Africa.

The theory is that as climate changed in the combined megacontinent, some tortoises (as well as monkeys and some other species) found a way to cross whatever barriers existed between the two regions- probably a long-term drought dried up a series of rivers, marshes, etc. AND had some motivation to leave their home ranges (again, such as a long-term drought). Shortly (as in thousands of years or more) after they breached the barrier, the barrier got worse (widened, got wet again, whatever) and stopped the flow which is why there are some but not too many African-origin species in South America. 

So, we now have a tortoise that is a forerunner of both the hingeback and yellow-foot some 3-4 million years ago. Possibly due to competition for food in a fairly low-nutrient habitat, one group begins to prefer deeper forest, another prefers openings and edges (yellow vs. red).

Over time, the climate in the rainforest region has changed a lot- growing and shrinking, moving north and south, sending out arms in all directions to follow the rains and changing rivers, etc. As this happens, the red-foots on the edges find themselves cut off from other populations. The Amazon itself seems to serve as the main barrier between the reds at the north end of the rainforest and those at the south end.

Differences in diet, climate, selection, etc. generate small differences over generations- the southerners develop a tendency to average much larger, get dark plastrons, loose or never develop the wasp waist, etc. compared to the northerns. They also become more cold hardy, reproduce at a smaller size, and more

Changes in climate continue and create 5 main pockets of tortoises over time that are isolated by big rivers, mountains, dry plains, etc. and in that isolation, each group changes from the others a bit more. Three groups in the north, 2 in the south. Each group breaking off the others or the main form at different times that correspond to other evidence of the changes in the rainforest.

There is DNA evidence and fossil evidence that was used to create this picture. It can show change and movement- the fact that more modern forms and characteristics of modern forms are not represented in the fossil record suggests that change has occurred. 

A young earth model would have to explain continental drift, apparently large age differences between populations, large changes in a large ecosystem that is slow to change, lack of evidence of the older fossil forms in newer rock layers, etc. 


Partial list of citations:
- Vargas-Ramirez, Mario and Jerome Maran, Uwe Fritz. "Red- and yellow-footed tortoises, Chelonoidis carbonaria and C. denticulata (Reptilia: Testudines: Testudinidae), in South American savannahs and forests: do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats?" Organisms, Diversity and Evolution, 2010.
- Moskovits, Debra."The Behavior and Ecology of the Two Amazonian Tortoises, Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata, in Northwestern Brazil". (PhD Dissertation) University of Chicago, 1985.
- Crumly, Charles R. â€œA cladistic analysis of Geochelone using cranial osteologyâ€. Journal of Herpetology 16:215-234. 1982. JSTOR.
- Pritchard, Peter C. H. and Pedro Trebbau. Turtles of Venezuela (Contributions to Herpetology). SSAR, 1984. ISBN 0916984117.

Errors in dates, etc. are mine since I am doing this from memory in the middle of the night.

*(Remember, keep it clean and nice. Just because we look at things differently does not make 'the other side' evil, stupid, godless, etc. and as a moderator myself, even one that has not been round much in the last few months, I will not hesitate to take action if things get past a very low simmer, on any side of the debate.)*


----------



## sibi (Jan 25, 2014)

So, what is there to debate? I think the "history" you provided may very well have explained how the DBT's or other species got to be what they are today. I think it's a legitimate topic to include one's belief system, including their theories whether it includes a deity or not. However as you pointed out, when people get heated up and start calling people names and/or curse, then it's time to end the debate. It's a shame that discussions or debates can't be possible because of this. It really takes the fun out of debates.


----------



## FLINTUS (Jan 26, 2014)

I still would say that the tectonics are the driving force behind the way African, S.American and south Asian torts have evolved-see the thread I set up a while back about it, not really willing to write it all out again.
http://www.tortoiseforum.org/thread-75656.html
Opinions? Indian Stars are probably the best example of what my theory is, judging by their location.


----------



## cdmay (Jan 26, 2014)

Madkins, good questions and some sound reasoning/speculation about how (or why) ancient tortoises spread around the various continents. 
However, a topic like creation vs. evolution is hard to discuss without at least mentioning the Bible or the Creator, but having said this I will try.

First, your model of present tortoise species having a common ancestor or a few common ancestors is in line with the Bible (oops there I went already!) account about animals reproducing 'according to their kind'. The fact that recent tortoises, although rather different in color, size and shape and yet similar in genetic makeup only demonstrates the inherent potential for genetic variation given enough time. We see the same thing in humans and even dogs. Who on earth would have imagined that the various 'types' of dogs we see today all came from a single species...and yet they did. Are these variants a result of evolution in the strict sense--or are people too quick to point their fingers and say, "Look! Evolution at work!" when they are simply observing genetic variation and adaptation being expressed over time.
Second, if we are talking about Creation as described in the Biblical account, we have to keep in mind that an important concept found there is all to often taking out of context...i.e. the creative 'days' are not literal 24 hour periods of time. Clearly the creation of the cosmos, earth and even star tortoises took untold eons of time. The geological evidence of the earth serves to proves this. So the creative days mentioned in the Genesis account (which is accurate-- if also simplistic) must mean an indeterminate period of time, a creative period. When we say things like, "In my grandfather's day..." nobody assumes we are talking about a single 24 hour day but rather that we are talking about a certain period that could be many decades. Incidentally the word _day_ found in the Bible outside of the book of Genesis can also mean different periods of time. 

Also if we examine the fossil record of turtles, various types appeared complete with a shell. That shell may be variable in structure and shape--leathery soft-shelled, domed, or even heavily armored, but complete and fully functional. Many died out for various reasons over the eons but fossil turtles can be recognized as being turtles and not some other animal slowly having their ribs turn into a carapace somehow. This clearly speaks of turtles being created as turtles to me.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 26, 2014)

Check out Odontochelys semitestacea for a 200 m.y.a. turtle with plastron, but not yet a carapace. The only references I have require a subscription, but I'm sure you could google.


----------



## N2TORTS (Jan 26, 2014)

Tortoises probably evolved from aquatic pond turtles of the family Emydidae. Tortoise lineage began about 65 million years ago in tropical forests. Testudinidae appears in the fossil record in the Mid-Eocene. Tortoises reached their greatest abundance and di- versity in the Pliocene. (Auffenberg and Iverson 1979; Pritchard 1979b; Van Devender 1986). 
Ancestors of land tortoises probably crossed the Bering land bridge to the New World. North America has an abundant fossil record of tortoises, including many giant forms weighing up to 500 lbs. North American tortoises, including the immediate ancestor of Gopherus, stem from a primitive Stylemydine closely related to Hadrianus majusculus (Auffenberg 1969, 1971; Bramble 1971; Van Devender 1986).
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr316.pdf


----------



## EricIvins (Jan 26, 2014)

I think this thread has already failed, but in case it gets back on track -

http://smithsonianscience.org/2013/...million-years-older-than-previously-realized/


----------



## cdmay (Jan 26, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Check out Odontochelys semitestacea for a 200 m.y.a. turtle with plastron, but not yet a carapace. The only references I have require a subscription, but I'm sure you could google.



_Odontochelys_ was an interesting species for sure. If I'm not mistaken it is based on three complete, or nearly complete bony specimens. 
Having said that I'm not sure that the discovery in China of an odd turtle like animal--or turtle with a highly modified carapace--means anything. There is no connection to the other fossil turtle of about that time, _Proganochelys_, which had a fully formed carapace. And there are no known animals with a further progression of the carapace. No_ Odontochelys _related species or descendants. _ Odontochelys_ in my mind can only be regarded as another extinct animal that while intriguing in of itself, does not prove evolution in the slightest sense. It was another unique turtle that lived and died. Pancake tortoises, soft shelled turtles and other highly specialized species likewise are simply interesting creations--or species derived from other turtles. But none of them are turtles that sprang from lizards, or salamanders. Or far enough back, a random single celled life form that sprang to life by itself. 
One of the things that has to be acknowledged in this discussion is that all too often when a fossil animal possessing traits similar to, but not exactly like modern animals is found, it is heralded as a 'missing link'. In addition, how many times have evolutionary models that were so deeply ingrained as fact, been negated by further discovery or study leaving scientists to admit, "Well, now we know nothing" or "Now we are back at square one"?
I seem to recall a recent discovery of human skulls (in Russia?) of various shapes and sizes that prior to DNA studies would have been relegated to wildly different species. Yet the headlines read "New discovery turns evolution theory upside down"


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 26, 2014)

Hi Cdmay,

I'll take your last point first; I don't know why headlines are written that way, to sell copy I guess. Rest assured it wasn't documented that way in a peer reviewed journal. 


"No_ Odontochelys _related species or descendants. _ Odontochelys_ in my mind can only be regarded as another extinct animal that while intriguing in of itself, does not prove evolution in the slightest sense. It was another unique turtle that lived and died. Pancake tortoises, soft shelled turtles and other highly specialized species likewise are simply interesting creations--or species derived from other turtles. But none of them are turtles that sprang from lizards, or salamanders. Or far enough back, a random single celled life form that sprang to life by itself. 
One of the things that has to be acknowledged in this discussion is that all too often when a fossil animal possessing traits similar to, but not exactly like modern animals is found, it is heralded as a 'missing link'."

I've spent too much time trying to educate folks that eventually demonstrate that they lack a fundamental understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular, have no interest in learning or even meaningful discussion. Instead are locked into their own dogma, unassailable by logic or evidence. I'm not saying this includes you, but I am saying that previous attempts leave me disinterested in trying again. The previous thread may still be around, I don't know. If you are interested, the information is not hard to find. 

"In addition, how many times have evolutionary models that were so deeply ingrained as fact, been negated by further discovery or study leaving scientists to admit, "Well, now we know nothing" or "Now we are back at square one"?"

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here, but I will mention that what separates science from dogma is the intrinsic concept that all facts and theories are always subject to the arrival of new information. This is a strength, not a weakness. 

Back to the OP's narrative; in regards to the speciation from hinge backs and redfoot at 2-3 mya, what's curious is that as I recall, the S. America and Africa Pangaea linkage was completely seperated by the Cretaceous , 60 mya, or so. Do you recall where the 2-3 mya estimate came from, or addition detail on the LCA?


----------



## cdmay (Jan 26, 2014)

Hello Zeno,

I guess this statement works both ways:
*I've spent too much time trying to educate folks that eventually demonstrate that they lack a fundamental understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular, have no interest in learning or even meaningful discussion. Instead are locked into their own dogma, unassailable by logic or evidence. I'm not saying this includes you, but I am saying that previous attempts leave me disinterested in trying again. 
*

You sound like the mirror opposite of me. That evolutionists can be dogmatic and that evolution itself requires a tremendous amount of speculation and blind faith has been something obvious to me for a long time. While I don't pretend to be an expert on all of the concepts about evolution or even science, I do demand real answers and not bombastic pontificating from academics. 
So we may parse about various species and their relationships along the corridors of time, for me the big question evolution cannot answer is how life began in the first place. I have never yet heard a single reasonable (or believable) explanation of how the simplest protein molecule managed to spring into existence, then survive for more than a millisecond, reproduce into more examples of its kind, which then went on to form cells, which turned into living organisms and so on until we arrived at the point where we are now, with countless and incredibly different variations of living things on earth. Of course, I'm leaving a lot out here but you get the picture. Additionally even the very simplest, most 'primitive' organisms on earth are actually far more complex...vastly more complex... than pure chance could ever bring about, regardless of the amount of time allowed. Yet most (not saying you Zeno) simply poo poo this hurdle that cannot be ignored. I'm pretty sure I have this right but according to Hoyles _Evolution From Space_ and Dawkins _The Selfish Gene _, the mathematical probabilities of such life suddenly appearing and surviving are 10 to the 113th power and 10 to the 40,000 power. Mathematicians say that the odds of something so remote as 10 to the 50th power (a 10 followed by 50 zeros) will never happen regardless of the time allowed.
Evolutionists have yet to answer this fundamental issue and while evolutionists like to go head to head with people who believe in Creation, they don't dare dispute mathematicians. Those nerds rule.
Do I know all of the science or concepts that evolutionists propose? No, but then given the facts I don't need to. I also don't need to know the Klingon language or the science of a Federation warp drive on _Star Trek._

*
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here, but I will mention that what separates science from dogma is the intrinsic concept that all facts and theories are always subject to the arrival of new information. This is a strength, not a weakness.*

You mentioned the recent human skulls that I referred to. I admit that I did not read any peer reviewed journal regarding them, but I did listen to virtually every popular network news outlet (NOT Fox News) as well as a fairly in-dept discussion on NPR's _Science Friday_, which is about as pro evolution an outlet as can be found. The guests and moderators of these programs admitted that the recent findings did indeed raise unanswerable questions about human evolution. 

These are just a few things and I apologize to Madkins for straying from his original post about the relationships between African and South American tortoises.


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 26, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Back to the OP's narrative; in regards to the speciation from hinge backs and redfoot at 2-3 mya, what's curious is that as I recall, the S. America and Africa Pangaea linkage was completely seperated by the Cretaceous , 60 mya, or so. Do you recall where the 2-3 mya estimate came from, or addition detail on the LCA?



Like I said, dates were from memory late at night, so here is refreshed data. The original split into red and yellow seems to have happened about 13.3 million years ago (Vargas article. The article that mentioned the Kinixys connection was
- Le, Minh; Raxaworthya, Christopher J.; McCord, William P. McCord; Mertz, Lisa. "A molecular phylogeny of tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes" Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Volume 40, Issue 2 (August 2006), Pages 517â€“531' 

They suggest that cavys, monkeys, and tortoises migrated from Africa to South America between 35 and 85 million years ago, possibly on strong equatorial currents. (I had forgotten about the currents discussion when writing the op.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 26, 2014)

Cdmay, you smooth talker, you've got me intrigued. Frankly, you had me at "bombastic pontificating" (awesome name for a band, by the way). However, out of respect to Madkins, I'll start another thread, as he specifically wants to talk turtles, and it sounds like we have amino acids to discuss, among much else.


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 26, 2014)

Carl- no need to apologize as long as it loops back. Many of these discussions wander so widely into other areas that it gets really hard to track or discuss. The side issues are often fascinating, but should be broken out to their own threads. (Thought- might there be a value in a semi-permanent evolution discussion sub-forum where more latitude is allowed?)

Also, just for the record, I am a devout follower of a deity as well with my own opinions on faith and science. It is my strong personal belief that evolution, the big bang, etc., as we generally understand it, is just the way the deity chose to make things work... sort of a 'wind it up and watch it go' model. Probably the biggest difference between me and some of the staunch creationists is our interpretation of a handful of passages in our holy book. However, I am pushing my own thread guidelines here, and further discussion on this specific topic would probably not be helpful as it relates to this topic.


----------



## cdmay (Jan 27, 2014)

Madkins007 said:


> Carl- no need to apologize as long as it loops back. Many of these discussions wander so widely into other areas that it gets really hard to track or discuss. The side issues are often fascinating, but should be broken out to their own threads. (Thought- might there be a value in a semi-permanent evolution discussion sub-forum where more latitude is allowed?)
> 
> Also, just for the record, I am a devout follower of a deity as well with my own opinions on faith and science. It is my strong personal belief that evolution, the big bang, etc., as we generally understand it, is just the way the deity chose to make things work... sort of a 'wind it up and watch it go' model. Probably the biggest difference between me and some of the staunch creationists is our interpretation of a handful of passages in our holy book. However, I am pushing my own thread guidelines here, and further discussion on this specific topic would probably not be helpful as it relates to this topic.




Point taken and thanks for the patience. 
The theory about the split of red-footed tortoises, yellow-footed tortoises and hingeback tortoises is perfectly sound and doesn't conflict with the idea of creation one bit. My point is that these species arose from a common ancestor that began, or was created as a tortoise or turtle.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 27, 2014)

" My point is that these species arose from a common ancestor that began, or was created as a tortoise or turtle."

This is fascinating. What is it based on?


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 27, 2014)

I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 27, 2014)

Yvonne G said:


> I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.



I'd agree, and I'd say Odontochelys is a step in that direction.


----------



## Zamric (Jan 27, 2014)

Yvonne G said:


> I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.



mutations like shells or curved, serrated teeth all date back to the great "Arms Race" of early life on our planet. You know.... back when it was "Eat... or be eaten".


----------



## diamondbp (Jan 27, 2014)

Yvonne G said:


> I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.



I'm curious to what type of "necessity" would you think might cause such a thing? Any ideas?




zenoandthetortoise said:


> Yvonne G said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.
> ...



No doubt that Odontochelys is a unique animal, but linking it directly with all turtle evolution is far fetched. Without genetic or observable evidence we can never say if this creature would have ever changed into anything other than what it already was.
The truth is is that if Odontochelys fossils happened to get discovered in "supposedly" younger strata than previously found you could easily try to argue that they "used" to be turtles and were "now evolving away" from modern turtle form.
In the end it's all speculation based on presuppositions....not science.




Zamric said:


> Yvonne G said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.
> ...



Isn't our planet still in a state of "eat or be eaten"?? lol I found it rather intriguing that we don't have a single poisonous turtle or tortoise considering the "supposed" amount of time they have been around.
Even though their natural defenses (shell) are better than most other creatures I don't see why other reptiles (lizards/snakes) have poisonous species but turtles/tortoises don't. Just a interesting thought.


----------



## Team Gomberg (Jan 27, 2014)

*Re: RE: A discussion of turtle and tortoise evolution- ONLY.*



diamondbp said:


> Yvonne G said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any science to back me up, but I've always felt that a hard shell with the spine fused to it evolved out of some sort of necessity...evolved from an animal that didn't have a hard shell with the spine fused to it.
> ...



Maybe the zebra should have followed in the lions footsteps and turned into a meat eating hunter instead of turning into the dinner item?

Everything has a place and an order. Like Elton said, it's the circle of life..lol. If everything came from a single organism (that appeared out of no where) then why would some turn into the prey? Who would determine what can be top dog and what can't? Where would this new information to change even come from? If a turtle wanted to fuse it's ribs into a shell on it's back, how would it even do that? You and I as humans can't even grow taller than we want to. I can't add a third arm. We can't stop our blood pumping, or stop our heart. We can't do a lot of stuff with or own bodies. So what makes us think any of us ever did create drastic changes?


----------



## N2TORTS (Jan 27, 2014)

I believe this is the oldest living vertebrate on the planet today~


----------



## diamondbp (Jan 27, 2014)

We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.

Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.

I believe the same unfortunate thing happens with all other families of animals......even turtles and tortoises. I don't doubt for a minute that hingebacks and redfoot/yellowfoots came from a common ancestor. How and why that happened will always be somewhat of a mystery.That much we can undoubtedly conclude. But to go any further than that and say that tortoises evolved from a "non tortoise" animal is to jump right into total speculation and not real science.

http://creationrevolution.com/2010/10/dogs-big-problem-for-fossil-record/


----------



## cdmay (Jan 27, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.
> 
> Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.
> 
> ...



Agree. And I would add that if there were all of the needed steps or 'links' in evolution from one form to another, the fossil record would be replete with them. Instead we get a few specimens of some oddball turtle or whatever that is different or unique (Odontochelys) and then once again, evolutionists saying _*"Eureka!"*_


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 27, 2014)

"Agree. And I would add that if there were all of the needed steps or 'links' in evolution from one form to another, the fossil record would be replete with them. Instead we get a few specimens of some oddball turtle or whatever that is different or unique (Odontochelys) and then once again, evolutionists saying _*"Eureka!"*_"

And indeed it is replete, from fish with feet to reptiles with feathers and birds with teeth, but I don't think anyone since Archimedes has yelled 'Eureka' with any conviction.


----------



## Team Gomberg (Jan 27, 2014)

Bones don't tell us what the skin looked like (unless fossilized skin is found). We don't know if the dead animal had scales, or fur. We don't know what it ate. Fruit bats have teeth that look like a carnivore. But we know they eat fruit. 

Finding bones of a fish with feet doesn't mean their ancestors had no feet and their future offspring will live on land...it means you found the bones of a fish with feet.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 27, 2014)

"Fruit bats have teeth that look like a carnivore. But we know they eat fruit. "

Excellent inadvertent point; they don't look like carnivore teeth IF you know what to look for. I apparently will never understand why everybody thinks they understand evolution and are qualified to argue it. You don't believe it? Fine. Probably shouldn't believe gravity either, it's a theory too. Just be honest enough to admit you are disregarding science for faith and aren't really interested in the former if it anyway diverges from your preconceived notions of the latter.


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 27, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.
> 
> Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.
> 
> ...



Ummm... not quite true. Fossils are not just some inert rocky bone- the process can capture quite fine detail in some situations, and some fossils have been found that actually still contain soft matter in dinos. Fossils have shown feather imprints in velociraptors and enough detail for scientists to make pretty good guesses at coloration by comparing the microscopic details with current feather structures... which is also a good example of evidence of transitioning between types of animals.

Sure, scientists screw up- but that is a part of honest science. Jack Horner has a whole fascinating TED talk about how several very different looking species of dinos are actually just different age variants of other species (Sadly, triceratops is just a juvie Torosaurus.) 

In the case of dogs... we have screwed around with dogs for a long time, but we don't see that range in other animals that otherwise follow the 'rules' for being different species. Can you point to any NON-DOMESTICATED species that shows this degree or sort of variation? Even white rats and mice, the species domesticated for the most generations of any mammal, do not show that much variation in skulls. Cats, cattle, pigs? Not that much variation. I am not sure a human-created situation really helps your argument... unless, like I said, you can find a wild example of this.

Back to tortoise evolution... what aspect of the non-turtle to turtle is 'total speculation and not science'? We have fossil records neatly sorted from top to bottom with modern forms, ancient forms, hybrid forms, and no turtle at all forms. If turtles were created as turtles at the same time salamanders were made as salamanders, why are there no turtles in the older salamander strata? 

Any young Earth cosmology or description of the formation of turtles would be just as much 'total speculation and not science' pretty much by definition. Speculation is 'forming a theory without firm evidence'. What is the strong evidence that one type of animal DID NOT, over time, become another type?


----------



## cdmay (Jan 28, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> And indeed it is replete, from fish with feet to reptiles with feathers and birds with teeth, but I don't think anyone since Archimedes has yelled 'Eureka' with any conviction.



OK, since I'm not an evolutionist nor scientist and thus according to you am not qualified to debate the subject, I will let real, out-of-the-closet evolutionists speak for me. Sound OK to you?

Regarding the fossil record being 'replete' with transitional forms of life Darwin himself wrote, 
â€œThe abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists .Â .Â . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. .Â .Â . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.â€

From Botanist Heribert Nilsson, â€œIt is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .Â .Â . *the lack of transitional series cannot be explained *as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.â€

From D.B. Grower Biochemist commenting in _Scientists Reject Evolution_,
â€œThe creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. *Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.â€*

Also from _Scientists Reject Evolution _Zoologist Harold Coffin, â€œIf progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; *but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. *On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.â€

From the Discover magazine article _The Tortoise or the Hare_, . "Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, *with no link*s to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct."

"â€œSpecies appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact itâ€™s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.â€ From the _Bulletin _of the Field Museum of Natural History.

From _New Scientist_,
"Evolution predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time. Unfortunately, *the fossil record does not meet this expectation*, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. .Â .Â . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.â€

From _Processes of Organic Evolution_,
â€œ*No transitional forms are known* between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.â€ 

â€œthe fossil record does not convincingly document *a single transition from one species to another."*
_The New Evolutionary Timetable _

â€œDarwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. .Â .Â . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.â€
From _On Growth and Form_

*BOLD* highlights are mine

Zeno I agree with you on this point: It is best not to embarrass oneself by pretending to know something that you don't. 
So I let the people smarter than me (and presumably you) do the talking.


----------



## cdmay (Jan 28, 2014)

cdmay said:


> zenoandthetortoise said:
> 
> 
> > And indeed it is replete, from fish with feet to reptiles with feathers and birds with teeth, but I don't think anyone since Archimedes has yelled 'Eureka' with any conviction.
> ...



While strange and unique fossils have been found, the idea of trying to make them fit into some sort of evolutionary model doesn't get you anywhere. There are now, and have been in the past animals that possess characteristics that are similar to other animals that are of a completely different family. But that does mean one came from the other.
If the modern day platypus was extinct and then was discovered as a new fossil from the very distant past what would happen? I'll tell you, evolutionists would pee in their pantalones trying to explain how it 'proves' evolution somehow. They would say that the platypus was a missing link to ducks, or beavers, or reptiles, or whatever. Instead of admitting, "Wow, what a cool animal it must have been!"


----------



## N2TORTS (Jan 28, 2014)

â€œThe ancestry of all land animals, including the dinosaurs, can be traced back over 400 million years to the Devonian Period. During this period some animals moved to land from the water. The reason for this is that the land had food resources that had not been exploited. A Devonian lobe finned fish called Eusthenopteron evolved the limb bones in its fins that were later necessary for the transition to land. Early amphibians, such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega were probably closely related to the lobe finned fish Panderichthys, (perhaps the ancestor of all land-living animals). 
The main phase of evolution for the tetrapods occurred during the Carboniferous. A wide range of early tetrapods are known, such as the aquatic Diadectes and the bizzare Diplocaulus with its boomerang shaped head. Large terrestrial amphibians such as Eryops also evolved. Reptiles evolved from amphibians when some forms such as Seymouria 'split' from the amphibian lineage. This 'splitting' pattern explains how amphibians and reptiles were able to evolve seperately along different 'branches', and is the reason why reptiles and amphibians exist together today, even though one evolved from the other. Seymouria possessed characters that were intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. A major evolutionary step occurred with the development of the amniotes, animals able to lay shelled eggs, as this allowed animals to reproduce out of water for the first time *BINGO*
During the Permian, reptiles populated the land. At this time, most of the continents were at high, rather cold latitudes. The 'mammal-like' reptiles (pelycosaurs) included such well known forms as the 'sail backs' Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus (up to 3m long) and were the most common tetrapod in the Early Permian fauna. Other groups living at this time include the therapsids, which were a diverse group including Moschops (up to 5m long) and Dicynodon. It is important to realise that the lineage of animals that eventually led to the dinosaurs (known as the diapsids) were rare in the Carboniferous and Permian - they showed no sign of their later rise to dominance. They included forms such as Protorosaurus, and the remarkable Coeleurosauravus that was able to glide from tree to tree using skin covered ribs in a similar way to the modern 'flying lizard' (Draco).
At the end of the Permian, the greatest mass extinction (so far) in the history of life wiped out 75% of all tetrapod families. The cause of the mass extinction is not known for certain, but the lineage of animals that led to the dinosaurs, along with some other groups, survived. This great extinction marked the end of the Palaeozoic, one of the great geological divisions of time. The Mesozoic era that followed it was to see the evolution of the dinosaurs themselves.â€â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦and much more if you care to read.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/boulton/evolution.html


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 28, 2014)

"So I let the people smarter than me (and presumably you) do the talking."

Wouldn't it be better and more interesting to think for yourself?

And really, the quote maneuver? So soon the nuclear option? That doesn't bode well for the discourse, here's why;
To address your first example, that of Darwin, have you actually read the text you quote? If so, you would know Darwin was raising the strongest objections to his own work so he could address them further on. If you had read it, that would mean you purposely cherry picked a quote to skew the meaning and disingenuously 'win' a debate. Not cool. Alternatively, you may have just copied the list from a play book somewhere, which seems less than sincere as well. 

So what of it? Can an actually discussion be had or should you just include the link to your reference website? Would you find it productive to take apart the quotes, one by one ?(Thompson is particularly fascinating, although I don't think morphogenesis makes the point you're after) Except of course that silly platypus one, which is beneath both of us.


----------



## cdmay (Jan 28, 2014)

Ultimately our facts and figures must come from others Zeno--unless you have done all of the hands-on research that I quoted personally (yes, quoted--_the horror!_) you have to take it as it is written. Cherry picked or not, the statements are true. Are you saying that all of the arguments about this issue that you raised are things you yourself discovered, dug up and personally processed? Really? You didn't rely on anything you've read, heard or studied? If so, I sure am impressed.
*Of course* the people I quoted, including Darwin who, I hate to break the bad news to you, was somewhat skeptical of evolution himself, did the research and not me. 
But then I used my own reasoning to arrive at my own conclusion. Yes I have read a great deal on this subject since my late father in law tried to cram it down my throat 35 years ago. What do you take me for, some sort of mindless lemming?
The platypus example is beneath us? Really? Why because it impossible for you to explain? It's too good of an example?

By the way, at the outset I raised the issue about the skulls in Russia causing problems for the way human evolution has been historically assessed. I mentioned that virtually all of the popular press including magazines, newspapers, television news and even pro evolution radio programs such as NPR's _Science Friday_ all uniformly admitted that these findings created a huge problem for their theories.
You disputed this by saying that 'peer reviewed' journals reported it quite differently. I'm not saying they didn't but it seems to me that if this was the case, it would have been reported a such. I can tell you that the two guests on the above mentioned NPR show where both leading human evolution proponents (although I have forgotten their names) and they both fully admitted that they had to reevaluated their thoughts. Had there been any real contrary findings it seems that they would surely have mentioned them.

Regardless, I think I've made my point. As I said, I don't argue.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 28, 2014)

By appearances, I need to provide some clarification. 

"Ultimately our facts and figures must come from others Zeno--unless you have done all of the hands-on research.."

I don't think I ever expressed that you need to do your own research, but I did imply that you need to do your own reading. 

"Cherry picked or not, the statements are true."

Actually, taking quotes out of context to make an alternative meaning than intended is overtly dishonest. 

"Are you saying that all of the arguments about this issue that you raised are things you yourself discovered, dug up and personally processed? Really? You didn't rely on anything you've read, heard or studied?" 

No, I am not saying that. 

"...including Darwin who, I hate to break the bad news to you, was somewhat skeptical of evolution himself..,"

I would hope so. The hallmark of a good scientist is skepticism, always looking for more information or a flaw in the experiment. 

"Yes I have read a great deal on this subject since my late father in law tried to cram it down my throat 35 years ago." 

Sorry about your father in law, but I didn't do that. 

"What do you take me for, some sort of mindless lemming?"

No, I haven't called you any names. 

"The platypus example is beneath us? Really? Why because it impossible for you to explain? It's too good of an example?"

No, it's beneath us because it's a derisive conjecture regarding a situation that didn't happen. 

"By the way, at the outset I raised the issue about the skulls in Russia causing problems for the way human evolution has been historically assessed."

Let's assume this statement is completely accurate. If so, that's a win. Models are made to broken. Truth is always subject to new and better information. That's what separates science from dogma. 

"Regardless, I think I've made my point." 

If you did, I missed it. 

"As I said, I don't argue."

So glad to hear. Maybe we can circle back to the subject then?


----------



## cdmay (Jan 29, 2014)

You're a smart guy but clearly we don't agree. It happens.
The one last reply I really have to make though is in regards to the quotes. I spent a couple of hours pulling stuff out of my library and looking online to substantiate things I already had learned or discovered years before. I wanted sources to back up my statements. 
When someone quotes another person in order to prove a point it is by nature 'cherry-picking'. The President of the United States does this every time he quotes Lincoln or Jefferson during a speech. He too is in fact cherry-picking quotes made by others to prove his side of an issue. But I do it and you object and say 'not cool'. 
I cannot print and copy an entire book for readers of this forum to go through to make sure I wasn't jiving them. That's why the sources were mentioned.

Lastly, you claim that the quotes were taken out of context. _Really?_
They seemed awfully straightforward, clear and simply stated to me. If they were indeed taken out of context-- and the writers actually meant something else, then I bet they had a hard time setting their record straight later. Those were tough statements to undo. 

Like I said before, I don't argue or engage in endless debates. We are clearly not going to change each others mind. But thanks for at least hearing me out. We'll talk again.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 29, 2014)

"But thanks for at least hearing me out. We'll talk again."

I'll drink to that. 

Steve


----------



## diamondbp (Jan 29, 2014)

Interesting thread as usual when this subject comes up. I invite any evolutionist to take a look at a seperate thread about the supposed evolution of the egg tooth. Any input would be appreciated.

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/thread-84584.html


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 29, 2014)

Gotta' hand it to Mark. He starts a thread that says "ONLY" talk about the subject at hand, then he doesn't stay here and monitor that you all follow his rules! Where the heck are you, Mark?


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jan 29, 2014)

Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[

attachment=68961]


----------



## N2TORTS (Jan 29, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
> 
> attachment=68961]



Now Steve .....ya Know it went more like this .......
â€œYou must keep my rules. Do not crossbreed your livestock, do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, and do not wear clothes made from two kinds of materialâ€. Leviticus 19:19





OOOPPSSâ€¦â€¦.


----------



## TortsNTurtles (Jan 29, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
> 
> attachment=68961]



I knew it the teenage mutant ninja turtles are the missing link!!!




N2TORTS said:


> zenoandthetortoise said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this informative illustration can bring the discussion back go the original topic[
> ...



Hey that goes with mixing tortoise species!


----------



## Madkins007 (Feb 1, 2014)

Darn it, I let niggling things like 'real life' get in the way of monitoring this thread and it slips away again as evolution threads tend to do. Ah well, it was a fun experiment but no one seems to ever budge on their views and no one ever seems to offer anything really new or different. 

I do appreciate that it remained nice and polite- thank you everyone for that!

If something interesting does not happen soon, on the theme of turtles, I'll close the thread.


----------



## Team Gomberg (Feb 1, 2014)

*Re: RE: A discussion of turtle and tortoise evolution- ONLY.*



Madkins007 said:


> . Speculation is 'forming a theory without firm evidence'. What is the strong evidence that one type of animal DID NOT, over time, become another type?



The strong evidence? I'd say:
The fact that it's never happened or been witnessed. 
The fact there are no real connecting links.
The fact we've never seen new data appear, ever, in genetic code. Something can only get wings if wings was in the code to begin with.

I say evolution from single cell organism into everything that exists is speculation.


----------



## cdmay (Feb 2, 2014)

Yvonne G said:


> Gotta' hand it to Mark. He starts a thread that says "ONLY" talk about the subject at hand, then he doesn't stay here and monitor that you all follow his rules! Where the heck are you, Mark?



Lighten up Yvonne. The thread went just fine and the members are happy.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Feb 2, 2014)

"The strong evidence? I'd say:
The fact that it's never happened or been witnessed. 
The fact there are no real connecting links.
The fact we've never seen new data appear, ever, in genetic code. Something can only get wings if wings was in the code to begin with.

I say evolution from single cell organism into everything that exists is speculation."

Gomberg,

You clearly don't like evolution, don't believe in evolution and if your recent musings on snowball thermodynamics are any indication of your science literacy, don't understand evolution. So, why are you commenting on an evolution thread? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of jumping into a discussion of say, pancake tortoises to mention that you have no interest or experience? At some point it's a matter of decorum.


Moving on. In the article Madkins quotes by Vargas-Ramirez, et all, it states:

"Based on fossil calibration, we dated divergence times for the C. carbonaria clades using a relaxed molecular clock, resulting in average estimates ranging from 4.0â€“2.2 mya."

This an amazing number. It would place the MRCA of the carbonaria clades as contemporaries of Australopithecus. Additionally, the formation of the oldest of the GalÃ¡pagos Islands (Espanola?)is approx 4-3 mya, indicating carbonaria was well established well before elephantophus was even getting established. 

Great read madkins. Thanks


----------



## Team Gomberg (Feb 2, 2014)

Anyone with a brain can (and should) hold an opinion on how they think they got that brain. 

You can think it miraculously formed out of nothing by chance.
I can think it miraculously was designed and given to me.
We can each look at evidence to support our theory. I was an evolutionist for many years until I was convinced by enough evidence to believe I was intelligently designed. 

You might understand more about snow properties and pancake tortoises. 
I might understand more about the differences in historical science and observational science.

To say one has a right to discuss their view over another is intolerant. 

Back to turtles, I'll be attending a live debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham next week. I'm hoping to talk to them about turtles afterwards.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Feb 2, 2014)

"To say one has a right to discuss their view over another is intolerant."

Reread my post. I never said you don't have a right to your own opinion or that you don't have the right to express it. I was questioning why you think it's relevant or productive to redirect a thread by repeatedly questioning its premise. You don't like it. Point taken. Now would it be ok with you if those of us that are interested in discussing the biological nuances proceed? Perhaps you could start your own thread called "I still don't believe in evolution.


"I might understand more about the differences in historical science and observational science."

This seems dubious, at best


----------



## Team Gomberg (Feb 2, 2014)

What about carbon dating. 
Can I discuss the method of carbon dating in this thread? How it allegedly works and point out it's false assumptions and flaws?

You see, if the method is flawed, the results from such a method no longer hold any value.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Feb 2, 2014)

"What about carbon dating. 
Can I discuss the method of carbon dating in this thread?"

Well I'm not the OP, but this too seems like it would be more impropriate for you to expound your philosophy on your own thread. Common courtesy, I suppose. 
Incidentally, you might find more people interested in your take on carbon dating (or snowball melting ) if you described your expertise on the subject. While you get to have your own opinion, regardless of qualifications, it's awfully easy to disregard as inconsequential as presented. 

Incidentally, carbon dating, if memory serves, if of utility for only about the last 45K years, thus not relevant to the topics at hand.


----------



## N2TORTS (Feb 2, 2014)

â€œThe oldest turtle fossils go back to the Late Triassic, about the time of the first dinosaurs. Among the Triassic turtles the best known is Proganochelys, found in Thailand and in several parts of Germany, where the context is sandstone and shale deposits interpreted as brackish or marginal marine. The turtle was probably washed down to its resting place by coastal rivers. As well as the characteristic carapace and plastron, Proganochelys had toed feet, palatal teeth, a spiky neck and a club-like tail, and both its forelimb dimensions and heavy armour show that it lived on land (Joyce & Gauthier 2003).
Some of its features, for example its teeth and long tail, hint at an ancestry among non-turtles. Many more were unique......
Equally old, but somewhat more advanced in the family tree, are Proterochersis, also from Germany, and Palaeochersis, from Argentina. We know less about Proterochersis because, although more than two dozen shells were recovered, all from stream deposits, the skulls were not preserved. Palaeochersis was buried in a mud layer within a wadi, along with a number of other land animals. It too shared a number of features with non-turtle amniotes.
Another key fossil is the recently discovered Odontochelys, from China. Odontochelys is both slightly older and more basal in form than Proganochelys â€“ for example, it had teeth on both upper and lower jaws, and its overall shape was distinctly elongate. Most significantly, it lacked horny scutes, suggesting that the outer carapace consisted of non-bony tissue, as with modern leatherbacks, and was not preserved. The lack of a hard protective shell agrees with evidence that it lived in a coastal marine environment.
Other Late Triassic specimens have been recovered from Skye (British Isles) and North America. From their first appearance turtles were already global.
Turtles are the only living tetrapods without temporal openings in their skull, and they have sufficient features in common to substantiate the view that they have a common ancestor.â€
An interesting read â€¦
http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/origin-of-turtles


----------



## Madkins007 (Feb 7, 2014)

Team Gomberg said:


> Madkins007 said:
> 
> 
> > . Speculation is 'forming a theory without firm evidence'. What is the strong evidence that one type of animal DID NOT, over time, become another type?
> ...



1. Never happened? We see it all the time. We DO it to plants and animals all the time. http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/ and http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html are small examples of this.

2. Connecting links? This one amuses me. The claim is made that fossils don't really show much, then people expect that the fossils should reveal the sorts of minute differences that evolution creates. Looking at the above examples, how many of those changes will show up in the fossils?

3. No new data in DNA? See the above links. Things are showing up in the DNA.

Looking at how things are now and saying 'this is the way is HAS to always have been' is not speculation, but you know it is not true. The idea that 'things change' is one of the most reliable constants in the world. 

A rebuttal to what I just wrote would be something along the lines of 'well, yeah, but climate or plant progression, etc. are not the same thing as DNA' to which I would ask why DNA cannot change if other things can?

DNA is obviously mutable. It is affected by so many other things, and it itself shows a lot of evidence of evolution insofar as there is a lot of 'old' stuff in our DNA. I WISH DNA was not subject to change or mutation- it would eliminate a lot of human suffering.


Carbon dating- if someone introduced carbon dating in the thread as evidence, then discussing its validity would be appropriate in this thread. I don't remember, but may have missed, any previous comment.


----------



## N2TORTS (Feb 7, 2014)

Excellent Idea Mark ........
"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
Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material â€” 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 â€” any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he â€œrealized that there probably would be some variationâ€, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/


----------



## Madkins007 (Feb 8, 2014)

A (probably poorly articulated) thought about a common anti-evolution comment- "We have never seen big changes- we don't see half and half forms, etc". 

The thing is, we are looking at that point though the lens of time. We've only been watching closely for a few thousand years. There are a lot of species that push the boundaries of their genera. Cheetahs don't meet many of the 'rules' for being a cat, there are fish that breathe with lungs and walk, salamanders and lizards with nearly no legs, birds that don't fly or have non-typical feathers, and to bring the discussion back on target, turtles and tortoises with atypical features, like soft shells or articulating shells. For all we know, these and lots of other examples are in the middle of a transition that will not reveal itself for thousands of more years.

Obviously I cannot use these as proof of evolution since we see them frozen in time and they are not displaying changes in the short time we have watched- but that does not mean it isn't happening. The fossil record seems to support this process.


----------



## enchilada (Jul 28, 2014)

diamondbp said:


> We should all be honest with ourselves that fossils can't provide as much information as we would like to act like they do.
> 
> Consider this. Let's say that all modern dog species went extinct 20 million years ago and we never witness a single live canine of any kind. All we had were dog fossils to go by in building the "story" of dog evolution. If we found skulls of Chihuahuas on another continent from Great Dane skulls then modern science would NEVER EVER EVER CONCLUDE that they were from the exact same species. And to say otherwise is being silly. The only reason we know that all dogs are of the same species is because we have WITNESSED their incredible genetic diversity ALREADY BUILT IN to their genetics. But if dogs had went extinct millions of years ago we would have modern scientist building multiple elaborate "stories" of how different dog species were connected.
> 
> ...


actually, Chihuahua and Great Dane are the SAME SPECIES. All dogs are the same species. 
Chihuahua and Great Dane are actually different "BREED".


----------



## enchilada (Jul 28, 2014)

I am christan and I believe Evolution. most stories in Bible are metaphor. Its ok to believe there is God and jesus, but if you also believe everything in the book literally happend, like Adam making Eve out of his rib or flying talking snake make you eat some apple or pairs of animals on Noah's Ark having no inbred problem ...etc, that is stupid and makes you a fundamentalist. 
Maybe God just plant some "seed of life " on earth couple billion years ago, and let it bloom, or, we can say "evolution"


----------



## Yvonne G (Jul 28, 2014)

Remember, folks...please don't get into a religion debate. This topic is about tortoise evolution only!


----------



## smarch (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm really happy this thread exists, since I have a very scientific thinking mind.. and accidently asked on the forum once to explain where Russian torts came from without even realizing the debate that would have ensued. 
Unfortunately I am nowhere near the level of knowledge of all the posts here so don't have valid input to contribute, but I figure I'll ask here since we're already in the evolution talk so its already being watched closely for arguments to start. 

Can you guys tell me whats the best way to start research? Such as key words and stuff to search through google scholar and my schools databases? I'm specifically hoping to look up the Testudo and back, and eventually link things together. 
Or even just a few basic sites or authors to get my search going, since once I start i'll be able to go off on a research tangent, but I need a good foundation. 

Can you tell i'm on summer school break and deperate for knowledge?


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jul 29, 2014)

Heres a start 
http://m.rsbl.royalsocietypublishin...ract?sid=40b6b6c5-dda8-4499-8a7a-352b555c62e9

Most journals require a subscription , but I recently discovered the Royal Society allows access.


----------



## smarch (Jul 29, 2014)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Heres a start
> http://m.rsbl.royalsocietypublishin...ract?sid=40b6b6c5-dda8-4499-8a7a-352b555c62e9
> 
> Most journals require a subscription , but I recently discovered the Royal Society allows access.


Thanks  I have a bunch of scholarly journals through a database at school that I have instant access to with my email and password so I get free access to journals that people otherwise wouldn't. But when I get home tonight i'll definitely be starting my research, notes and all  if this thread stays available when I get more knowledgable I'll put in my input, but if its locked you wont see me starting one lol.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Jul 29, 2014)

For what it's worth, I hope you do start your own thread. That way maybe you can avoid the metaphysical rambling comments (see previous posts) and focus on what you're reading and interested in. Radiation of the Testudo for example. I, for one, would appreciate more technical posts on the forum and frankly, had somewhat tired of TFO because of the lack. Post what you find, I'd love to discuss.


----------

