# Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

> Since you mentioned being curious about my other comment, I simply said one of my pet peeves is "when evolution is stated as fact."






> Then don't read anything written by a scientist.
> 
> 
> But you can witness gravity. Noone can WITNESS macro evolution.
> ...



And these pesky fossils?


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

*RE: Too bad this was closed*

What about the fossils? You mean the fossils of animals that we never observed? You mean the fossils of animals that we have no genetic information from? You mean the fossils of animals we no incredibly little about other than where our imagination takes us?

What about those fossils?


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

*Too bad this was closed*



> You mean the fossils of animals we no incredibly little about other than where our imagination takes us?
> 
> What about those fossils?



Curious what 'we' you are referring too. Other creationists? Your lack of information does not count as evidence. 
Regarding fossils; the progression of complexity through geologic time, the speciation and yes, 'macro evolution' not only supports the model but makes predications as to what will and won't be found and where, in the strata it will occur. This is why it is a science and no creation mythology is. 
If faith makes you happy, more power to you, but saying its a science is like saying it's an Olympic event.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 12, 2013)

*Too bad this was closed*

Are you saying the fossil record is scientific facts proving macro evolution ? Evolution is a scientific theory that has not been proven. A theory.


----------



## happyjoyjoy (Dec 12, 2013)

Have to take evolution to graduate with my bio degree next semester..... shall be interesting.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

The single most fascinating thing about evolution is how many people feel like they understand it and are qualified to offer critique. Are you weighing in on string theory vs. quantum gravity? How about the black hole paradox?
If you are in serious doubt as to whether evolution is an established scientific fact, then the requisite background for a scientific discussion is clearly not possible. My mistake, I misread the crowd. 
Perhaps we should all go back to discussing if sulcattas need humidity


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

*RE: Too bad this was closed*



zenoandthetortoise said:


> > You mean the fossils of animals we no incredibly little about other than where our imagination takes us?
> >
> > What about those fossils?
> 
> ...



Please don't start with the assumption that creationist are somehow not as smart or lack information that evolutionist have. I was a strong believer in evolution until my college years when it become quite apparent how incorrect it was and I studied the other options.

Progression of complexity? From what non living matter? You do realize that even a single cell organism is more complex that new york city. Complexity has always been there. There is an infinite amount of difference between non living matter and a living cell. The transition is impossible.

I know all about why you think evolution is correct and UNDENIABLE but you would be hard pressed to give me a single example of macro evolution.

As a creationist I don't interpret the geologic column the way you and other evolutionist do. Millions of years don't lay down layers of rock, hydrologic sorting does. 

So yes I do believe in the global flood as laid out in the Bible, and I think the evidence strongly supports it. Especially considering things like polystrate fossils and areas where the entire geologic column is REVERSED.

Keep in mind these types of debates can go of in HUNDREDS of directions, so I invite you to focus on turtles with me since this is what we both know.

I think I can show that a long term evolutionary mindset does not in any way support the supposed "evolution" of turtles/tortoises from another kind of animal. In fact, I think turtles and tortoises are evidence against macro evolution and their existence/distribution actually supports a young earth.

So if you would like to discuss ONLY the possibility of turtles/tortoises evolving then I'm totally up for it. But if you want to talk about everything that can come up with the "creation/evolution debate" then neither one of us have the time to debate all that.

So let's stick with turtles/tortoises. Please present some basics on why you think evolutionary theory supports the existence of turtles/tortoises (Testudinidae)




zenoandthetortoise said:


> The single most fascinating thing about evolution is how many people feel like they understand it and are qualified to offer critique. Are you weighing in on string theory vs. quantum gravity? How about the black hole paradox?
> If you are in serious doubt as to whether evolution is an established scientific fact, then the requisite background for a scientific discussion is clearly not possible. My mistake, I misread the crowd.
> Perhaps we should all go back to discussing if sulcattas need humidity



Nobody needs the sarcasm. We can have a healthy debate without it.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 12, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> The single most fascinating thing about evolution is how many people feel like they understand it and are qualified to offer critique. Are you weighing in on string theory vs. quantum gravity? How about the black hole paradox?
> If you are in serious doubt as to whether evolution is an established scientific fact, then the requisite background for a scientific discussion is clearly not possible. My mistake, I misread the crowd.
> Perhaps we should all go back to discussing if sulcattas need humidity



Scientific facts are necessary to prove evolution as a scientific law so your right its not possible we do agree on that one.It's just a theory. You can believe that theory and defend it .I have no problem with that but please don't call it a fact or scientific law. That is my pet peeve.


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 12, 2013)

Evolution is well regarded as a fact. The processes of evolution are represented by a multitude of theories. Some observed in real time, quantified and repeated, so those processes are factual explanations of Evolution, others are still theories.

Chelonians are not a good model for demonstrating evolution (in real time) by any observable process. They are long lived with low reproductive success.

Ernst Myer, if you can compel yourself to read his work, explains this fine difference quite well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr

There are so many mechanism at work at the same time it is hard to see. Both in-situ and ex-situ observations have confirmed many mechanisms that work independently and in concert.

There are many more to be sorted out and decomposed from the mass of processes going on all the time. Evolution is not just physical characteristics but also behavioral.

This thread may also be closed based on some of those behavioral processes that are no longer servicing some of our total population.


----------



## Team Gomberg (Dec 12, 2013)

Some very intelligent scientists believe in intelligent design. Some very intelligent scientists believe in evolution. This isn't an intellectual battle.
YouTube Dr. John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins to see some debates between 2 very smart men with opposing views on the origin of life.

I still feel my pet peeve was valid. I didn't attack anyone or belittle anyone else. I could have expounded and worded it this way.
One of my pet peeves is.. 
when the word science is attached to things that can not be tested, tried and repeated with the scientific method. You can test gravity. Every day, multiple times. You can examine and study the human eye and how it works. You can un code DNA and the 4 letters that make up the longest word ever but you can't test HOW it got there. Only that it is and what happens once it is there.

Even evolutionist can identify intelligent design is behind language. These letters I'm typing, that YOU are reading. You only understand it because we have given meaning to the scribbles. The scribbles didn't tell us their meaning. The A didn't evolve to be an A and we just get it. Someone had to make an A, give it a meaning and then we learn it. Dr. John Lennox gives a much more in depth study on the design behind language. It's fascinating.

After this, if anyone should be curious and want to talk more it can be done privately. There is a double standard on what is/isn't allowed in the topic of evolution/design.

I'm deciding to use this public forum for tortoise topics. It's TFO after all. If I want to debate evolution/intelligent design there are other platforms to do so.


----------



## Saleama (Dec 12, 2013)

I like it here Heather as this particular topic was twisted off of the video I posted earlier which offered one possibility on how turtles "evolved" and I think it is very relevant to TFO as this is where I come to speak with people who share one of my passions. I think it is pretty awesome that we all also share MANY different views on many other topics. It is proof in this crazy world we live in that there ALWAY is and ALWAYS will be something, anything out there that can unify us despite our core beliefs. Here we have several people on different sides of a really heated debate topic that can share their beliefs BECAUSE of their mutual love for turtles and tortoises. Sounds kind of silly when read out loud but its pretty cool none the less.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 12, 2013)

Will said:


> Evolution is well regarded as a fact. The processes of evolution are represented by a multitude of theories. Some observed in real time, quantified and repeated, so those processes are factual explanations of Evolution, others are still theories.


Ok, this is soooo sad to me. There is what science has become because of the evolutionary theory. You are stating here in your post and thank you for being honest as this is how evolution is backed up by other theories!! Theories are not facts they are a system of ideas intended to explain something. So how in the world can a theory be made into a scientific law with theories. Wow, that film shared sure is the example of some of the modern science .Thankfully not all scientist are holding to this theory based on theory and are looking for real scientific facts to answer the old age question. Its ok to say we don't know but here are theories.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

I think if we discuss it in regards to turtles/tortoises than it could end up in a very interesting conversations. There is never any need to belittle anyone or call names. I've posed some evolutionary problems to other tortoise/turtle enthusiasts before and they seemed to very intrigued by them. A short example would be the following:

****Considering the possible origins of diamonback terrapins(brackish water species) from Map turtles which some scientist have posed, in conjunction with the turtles ability to live and thrive in freshwater conditions, why haven't diamondback terrapins established a strickly freshwater subspecies along the coastline of their distribution?

If diamondback terrapins have been around for even 100,000 years(according to evolutionist), what would have prevented them from establishing in a freshwater habitat? Given their ability to adapt from fresh to saltwater extremes, their ability to digest various kinds of foods, etc., would seem to suggest that they COULD have and SHOULD have reestablished some freshwater communities with the amount of time they have "supposedly" been around.***

^^^^That is just a very short example of how this debate could be fleshed out. I think this kind of discussion would be interesting and possibly fruitful for thought.


----------



## hunterk997 (Dec 12, 2013)

I told my mother of this, and she is a creationist, but says she partly believes in evolution (I don't know). I brought up points such as, you can not deny the fossil record. There are collections of fossils that are dated back -not trying to start a religious debate- before religious stories "took place." One point I also thought of, going back to the original thread a member said a "box turtle isn't going to gain wings" or something along those lines. This is true, but it's also a HUGE exaggeration of evolution. And according to the theory, organisms started simple, and slowly evolved becoming more complex along the way. I have more points to make but they are more of disproving the concept of religion, which is disrespectful, so I won't mention those, they really have no place here. Anyway, like Will said, tortoises are not good examples to prove nor disprove this theory. One member asked for an example of macro evolution. I have one; the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds. Birds are "believed" to be a direct descendant of dinosaurs, I think the theropods or something.




diamondbp said:


> I think if we discuss it in regards to turtles/tortoises than it could end up in a very interesting conversations. There is never any need to belittle anyone or call names. I've posed some evolutionary problems to other tortoise/turtle enthusiasts before and they seemed to very intrigued by them. A short example would be the following:
> 
> ****Considering the possible origins of diamonback terrapins(brackish water species) from Map turtles which some scientist have posed, in conjunction with the turtles ability to live and thrive in freshwater conditions, why haven't diamondback terrapins established a strickly freshwater subspecies along the coastline of their distribution?
> 
> ...


I really enjoy reading your responses, and it really gets me thinking, but I don't have a lot of knowledge on diamondback terrapins, so you lost me this time. 
Oh I get it now. But there could be so many factors as to why they haven't reestablished a population in freshwaters. But you bring up a good point. Perhaps a freshwater predator?


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

> Ok, this is soooo sad to me. There is what science has become because of the evolutionary theory. You are stating here in your post and thank you for being honest as this is how evolution is backed up by other theories!! Theories are not facts they are a system of ideas intended to explain something. So how in the world can a theory be made into a scientific law with theories. Wow, that film shared sure is the example of some of the modern science .Thankfully not all scientist are holding to this theory based on theory and are looking for real scientific facts to answer the old age question. Its ok to say we don't know but here are theories.



Don't be sad for science, you just don't understand it. A scientific theory is not just somebody's really good guess. It's an explanation based on observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing. A fact is something that is directly observable and measurable. A theory correlates and interprets the facts, is testable and makes predictions about facts not yet discovered. This is why saying evolution is 'just a theory' demonstrates ignorance of the topic and also why creationism isn't even a decent hypothesis. No observation, no predictions, nothing to test. 
I should add for clarification that open minded ignorance is not derisive and is the starting point for all scientific inquiry and I certainly am ignorant of a great many things. For example, I know nothing of parliamentary procedure, I hire a guy to do my taxes, and I am woefully ignorant of chaos theory. 
However, when someone posits the young earth concept (in which the earth has existed for less time than dogs have been domesticated) it makes a meaningful discussion seem like a lost cause. 

One last point, creationist: can you imagine evidence that would change your mind? If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.


----------



## Rocky08 (Dec 12, 2013)

Now one thing to consider is evolution cannot be disproved by looking at cases in which something "should have" evolved to fit a certain niche but didn't. Plenty of species have simply died out when facing obstacles to their survival. Evolution is not planned or scripted based on an animal's situation, and is never guaranteed to take place on any time scale.
For example, evolution is sometimes accelerated on secluded island ecosystems, as was observed by Darwin. But in the case of say, birds evolving certain beaks for specific tasks from a single original beak type, that only happened trough luck with certain combinations of mutations and enforced through natural selection. On the level of DNA, and in all biology in general, one of the greatest things separating it from other fields if the element of chance and facilitated "random" events to create not just new life but processes present in us today. Even the process by which DNA replicates itself million of times a second in our own bodies demonstrates this.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

Zeno can you present something supporting evolution of turtles? 

If not then please refrain from the belittling comments of people not "understanding" subjects or being able to have "meaningful" discussions.

Please present something supporting turtle evolution and we can take it from there in a polite manner.

I posed a problem with a certain area of turtle evolution concerning diamondback terrapins. Perhaps responding to that would be a start.


The finches observed on the Galapogos Islands remained finches. That's micro evolution not macro. The genetic information for different beak shapes was already present in their genetics.


----------



## Rocky08 (Dec 12, 2013)

> The finches observed on the Galapogos Islands remained finches. That's micro evolution not macro. The genetic information for different beak shapes was already present in their genetics.



But that's just it, biology is not like other sciences in the fact that the template is not fixed. Your genetic code isn't comparable to say, the laws of physics, because if the way biological processes work. In all of the millions of cell processes that go on in the body of every living thing (mitosis, DNA replication, mRNA transcription and translation) there is room for error, and error does occur for better or for worse. Every two times a cell divides none of the resultant DNA is original.
And this goes on for how many millions of years in how manny billions of living organisms at a time on just this earth. Tell me there is not going to be an enormous amount of change, that we call evolution.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

By someone saying that we could never pose a problem by stating something "should" have evolved given the circumstances is false. 

If I know (by observation) the ability of diamondback terrapins to adapt, then I should be able to pose the question of why "haven't" they adapted back to fresh water . Especially since they supposedly originated from a fresh water cousin. 

I've considered all possible variables (predators, food availability, habitat,etc.) and nothing would seemingly prevent them from occupying freshwater other than preference. Which in that case we would ask ourselves why they would ever leave fresh water if they "originally" preferred fresh.

Evolutionist always ALWAYS do this. They will pose NUMEROUS possibilities of why an animal "should" have evolved to support their views but completely dismiss when a creationist poses problems of why an animal "should" have or "should not have" evolved to support creationist views . It's totally hypocritical.

Apparently it's ok to imagine how something COULD have evolved but not to imagine how they COULD NOT have evolved.

So anyone want to tell me what would PREVENT diamondback terrapins from evolving back into freshwater populations? I think it's a worthy question.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

Didn't mean to ignore you, Diamondbp, I lost your response in the thread. The point I was trying to make was regarding the incorrect use of terms, some if which demonstrated a lack of understanding. As for being belittling, you've stated I didn't understand creationism, so that probably isn't a strong point for you to make. 
As to your question, what would you consider meaningful evidence? Would the 60 million year old Carbonemys cofrinii be a start?


----------



## Rocky08 (Dec 12, 2013)

> So anyone want to tell me what would PREVENT diamondback terrapins from evolving back into freshwater populations? I think it's a worthy question.



You seem to be suggesting that a greater need for evolution to take place should facilitate it to happen when in reality there is no correlation between the need for evolution and it's occurrence. It is a completely random process that may, only by chance, help an animal succeed in it's environment.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> By someone saying that we could never pose a problem by stating something "should" have evolved given the circumstances is false.
> 
> If I know (by observation) the ability of diamondback terrapins to adapt, then I should be able to pose the question of why "haven't" they adapted back to fresh water . Especially since they supposedly originated from a fresh water cousin.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to be difficult , but I don't think I understand your question. I think what you are getting at is selection pressure, but I'm not sure. I'd be happy to take a shot at it if you would clarify.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 12, 2013)

I will pick up on this again tomorrow guys. I have six kids I have to get down for the night lol. I promise some responses tomorrow once I get to work and have some downtime. Goodnight


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 12, 2013)

And just to be clear, did you consider that post to be evidence of creation?


----------



## erica anne (Dec 12, 2013)

Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:

"It is suggested that the first eukaryotic cell was an amoeba-like cell that somehow had developed a nucleus; It is fairly easy to imagine that a primitive chromosome might have become surrounded by membrane, thereby creating a rudimentary nucleus; Although most engulfed prokaryotic cells were probably digested and used to nourish the phagocyte, some apparently survived and became permanent residents within the cytoplasm, eventually becoming incorporated as organelles."

As you see this text uses words like suggested,somehow, imagine, might have and apparently. 

Whichever standpoint you take on the origins of life you are taking that stance based on faith.


*I forgot to add the word probably to the list! [WINKING FACE]


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 12, 2013)

Evolution also occurs when needed. Lots of turtles and tortoises reach a certain size and have very few to no predators. Where is the need to evolve? They already are a perfect animal for what it does on this earth. Dbts evolving from brackish water to freshwater... Why do you feel they should evolve to fresh water? How is that better then salt water? Why not all fresh water turtles evolve to salt water? You might think dbts could have or "should" have evolved to fresh water to benefit them, when really they don't need to evolve cuz the area they are from they evolved to survive on that situation. Just like sea turtles have flippers and nearly no toes because they are almost 100 percent aquatic. They evolve to adapt the situation. This happens over such a huge time frame tho. Millions and millions of years. Well before any of us humans even started doing "science" if you Compare when recording and science started compared to the evolution timeline it's a fraction. Science is still new and is catching up on discovering the past. Evolution maybe a theory to some, but eventual science will prove it fact.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 13, 2013)

erica anne said:


> Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:
> 
> "It is suggested that the first eukaryotic cell was an amoeba-like cell that somehow had developed a nucleus; It is fairly easy to imagine that a primitive chromosome might have become surrounded by membrane, thereby creating a rudimentary nucleus; Although most engulfed prokaryotic cells were probably digested and used to nourish the phagocyte, some apparently survived and became permanent residents within the cytoplasm, eventually becoming incorporated as organelles."
> 
> ...





Don't confuse extrapolation or substantiated reasoning with faith. 
Faith is the invocation of the supernatural to explain natural phenomenon and/or the ignoring of evidence based on preconceived ideas. This is the realm of religion, not science. 
When data are missing or not understood (for example, the role of RNA) empirical evidence and testable hypothesis are reasonable; fall back to a Bronze Age mythology is not. 

Also, don't confuse the origin of life with the origin of the eukaryotic cell. That will trip you up on the final.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 13, 2013)

erica anne said:


> Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:
> 
> "It is suggested that the first eukaryotic cell was an amoeba-like cell that somehow had developed a nucleus; It is fairly easy to imagine that a primitive chromosome might have become surrounded by membrane, thereby creating a rudimentary nucleus; Although most engulfed prokaryotic cells were probably digested and used to nourish the phagocyte, some apparently survived and became permanent residents within the cytoplasm, eventually becoming incorporated as organelles."
> 
> ...





Exactly!!!! Some people are just in denial . Real science would have data , pictures, experiments, observations, & studies noted to prove this is what happened. They can't go back in time to prove these changes. Complete changes of macro-evolution have not been documented since Darwins time. There is not a recorded animal or any living thing that has ever scientifically evolved into something else. Evolution has tons of between the lines so there is no actual proof of macro-evolution but lots of micro-evolution is going on in science that can be proven but not macro-evolution. They simply don't know for sure its just one of the many theories out there.




Millerlite said:


> Evolution also occurs when needed. Lots of turtles and tortoises reach a certain size and have very few to no predators. Where is the need to evolve? They already are a perfect animal for what it does on this earth. Dbts evolving from brackish water to freshwater... Why do you feel they should evolve to fresh water? How is that better then salt water? Why not all fresh water turtles evolve to salt water? You might think dbts could have or "should" have evolved to fresh water to benefit them, when really they don't need to evolve cuz the area they are from they evolved to survive on that situation. Just like sea turtles have flippers and nearly no toes because they are almost 100 percent aquatic. They evolve to adapt the situation. This happens over such a huge time frame tho. Millions and millions of years. Well before any of us humans even started doing "science" if you Compare when recording and science started compared to the evolution timeline it's a fraction. Science is still new and is catching up on discovering the past. Evolution maybe a theory to some, but eventual science will prove it fact.



I live in the north. If I purchased a ton of Sulcata babies and put them out side baby after baby in the cold winter which is getting to 11 degrees or less at night what do think will scientifically happen? Will its genetic code begin to adjust to the winter. It is one of the oldest animals if I remember correctly but I may be wrong on that. The point would be would its DNA begin to evolve or change to adapt to the winter. My hypothesis would be no it will die so no further offspring would pass on this dna for surviving. My hypothesis would be the same if I tested a billion babies with the same results. An evolutionist would say well after billions of years a tortoise could evolve into an animal that produces its own heat to survive or they would say well evolution took place slowly with small environment changes like we see today over billions of years so the DNA would slowly evolve. So I would like to ask the question then how did the fish get out of the water?




zenoandthetortoise said:


> > Ok, this is soooo sad to me. There is what science has become because of the evolutionary theory. You are stating here in your post and thank you for being honest as this is how evolution is backed up by other theories!! Theories are not facts they are a system of ideas intended to explain something. So how in the world can a theory be made into a scientific law with theories. Wow, that film shared sure is the example of some of the modern science .Thankfully not all scientist are holding to this theory based on theory and are looking for real scientific facts to answer the old age question. Its ok to say we don't know but here are theories.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no need to belittle me. Belittling someone does not make you more intelligent it only reveals your character so lets just discuss the theory of evolution please. 
I know what real science is and agree with you it's an explanation based on observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing. So I am glad we agree on this so we can build our discussion from this foundation. Since you are educated on evolution enough to defend and hold to the theory of evolution lets stick to science only looking at data concerning observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing only. Why don't you take me all the way to the beginning of evolution. How did all begin? There has to be a beginning for something to evolve. Lets start there.


----------



## erica anne (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> erica anne said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:
> ...





Ok, fair enough. What do you call it when people believe in something that is not proven by facts?

My point with the text was not the origin of life vs the origin of the eukaryotic cell. It was that scientifically there are many loopholes when it cones to the topic of evolution since this text was indeed found in the section discussing the beginnings of life.

It would be unwise to pretend this theory was based on solid facts. 

Sometimes emotion keeps people from acknowledging this point. In fact, I highly repeat scientists who are willing to admit that it is just a theory.




erica anne said:


> zenoandthetortoise said:
> 
> 
> > erica anne said:
> ...





*grr autocorrect! Not repeat, respect!


----------



## TommyZ (Dec 13, 2013)

Ok....at the risk of sounding dumb amongst all you folks, id like to just interject something... im by no means a scientist, but im definatly a realist and open to logical reasoning, and from my perspective, evolution always seemed logical. The only true reasoning i have for this is going back to my childhood. My fathers best friend, my "uncle Al" discovered a fossil, they actually named it after him. His health has been quite diminished due to a stroke for the last 20 years so he's not quite all there to discuss things with.

From what he explained to me his discovery bridges the gap of evolution. In his opinion it proves the evolution from lizard's to birds. I'll paste a link to the wiki below, as I would like to see what everyones opinion is on it..

Again, sorry if I sound profoundly unscientific. ( I'm a registered Republican who is educated at Berkeley, if that helps paint a picture of the paradox that is me, lol)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarosaurus


----------



## Yvonne G (Dec 13, 2013)

Maybe I'm missing the point trying to be made, but if a DBT evolved from a freshwater turtle, why would it then again evolve to go back into the fresh water?


(and a note from me with my mod hat on...thank you so much for keeping this thread polite)


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 13, 2013)

This is the most interesting thread I've come across on this forum and I sincerely hope it's allowed to continue. 

However, I need to clean up a mess I've made first. In rereading my posts, the tone I've used sounds abrasive and rude and for that I apologize. 

Some context: I am involved in several online groups where methodologies and experimental rigor are proposed, challenged, criticized, and ultimately strengthened. (You could call it nerd smack talk and not be far off) The difference being of course that these are other scientists and these are people I know. 

Again, my apologies for failing to shift gears from one forum to the next. 

I may not be able to participate much today , but will try as time permits.


I live in the north. If I purchased a ton of Sulcata babies and put them out side baby after baby in the cold winter which is getting to 11 degrees or less at night what do think will scientifically happen? Will its genetic code begin to adjust to the winter. It is one of the oldest animals if I remember correctly but I may be wrong on that. The point would be would its DNA begin to evolve or change to adapt to the winter. My hypothesis would be no it will die so no further offspring would pass on this dna for surviving. My hypothesis would be the same if I tested a billion babies with the same results. An evolutionist would say well after billions of years a tortoise could evolve into an animal that produces its own heat to survive or they would say well evolution took place slowly with small environment changes like we see today over billions of years so the DNA would slowly evolve. So I would like to ask the question then how did the fish get out of the water?

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. DNA undergoes mutation, alleIes change in frequency, and species differentiate under selection pressure. All of which takes time. So I completely agree with your hypothesis. You'd end up with a bunch of dead sulcattas. Some genetic combinations may posses the flexibility to cope with climactic shifts (for example, look how widely wood turtles range, using a combination of behavioral and physiological changes). Most don't however. The vast number of species that have existed don't any longer. 

Regarding, the self-heating tortoise conjecture, given that Hesperotestudo crassicutata existed during the Pleistocene, yet did not expand its range during the 2 million year ice age and instead went extinct, it would seem giant tortoise don't posses the plasticity to adapt to the cold.


----------



## Saleama (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> erica anne said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:
> ...





Faith is not ALWAYS based in religion. I can have faith that my plane will arrive on time. I can have faith that there will be a PS4 on the shelf when I get to Wal-Mart and that faith can be based on faith in Sony to get it to the store when I need it to be there and have nothing to do with hoping God has interviened in the stocking of the store shelves. A fith based belief does not make that belief any less valid than a scientific belief because it is based on faith. One could say that the scientists who built and used the super collider had faith in their science that the thing would not destroy the earth. 

Reptiles share many of the same traits and there are many species who occupy the same island habitats. Why did nature cause some to form one way and others to form in other ways when they live in a very closed environment? It would be like my torts developing vastly different physical charateristics while all living in the same tortoise table (I am of course aware of the fact that evolution is a LONG process and could never occur in my table by the way). It would seem that all the reptiles on the island would develop in a similar fashion wouldn't it? And maybe they do beyond their physical appearences? They eat similar foods, procreate in similar ways...yada yada yada.


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 13, 2013)

MasterOogway said:


> erica anne said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is a hot topic I will stay neutral only saying that my microbiology (science) text book states that:
> ...







The way your thinking of evolution is it will happen fast. It doesn't especieallu in tortoises. Humans have been around like 30-75 thousand years depending on what you want to believe is the first human species. That means tortoises and turtles were already evolved before we even knew they were a turtle or tortoises ( which we labeled). Evolution takes longer then humans can comprehend because we don't like to believe in a world with out a human species. But your wxpierment there would def be a bad choice you will just kill sulcatas by placing them north in a cold climate. What you would have to do is either mimic there natural environment, or change slowly change Africa's weather. Over time you would have to slowly lower the temps over hundreds of thousands of years. You still think they would just all eventually die and not adapt to a colder winter? I me your saying let's dump a bunch of babies in a northern winter see who survives and if they evolve to survive. That's just cruel. We can't speed up the process. If however Africa climate change dramatically in a short amount of time... Let's say in 10 years sulcata habitat are below freezing... This would be likely to some unbalance of the earth whether it's humans fault or natural, either way you most likely will watch species die off. This too is a process where the environment changed faster then evolution can occur. So even naturally a species can die off with drastic changes to the environment, and that's how we do lose species. So many factors in evolution, It's def not a simple subject or a one way street


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 13, 2013)

A couple of points to advance the conversation :

1). If you maintain a creationist viewpoint, can you imagine any evidence that would change your mind?
I'll give an example for my own perspective, not original with me. If fossilized rabbits showed up in pre-Cambrian rock, serious questions would be raised. What would the reciprocal evidence look like?

2). Can you produce any evidence that supports creationism? Pointing out a mechanism not fully understood in evolution, does not constitute evidence. 

3). Lastly, a note on faith, using the given example of air travel. Airplanes are engineered, tested, inspected and pilots trained and licensed. Data is readily available regarding frequency of accidents and safety violations. Thus flying is a calculated risk, no invocations to the supernatural required.


----------



## FLINTUS (Dec 13, 2013)

Millerlite said:


> The way your thinking of evolution is it will happen fast. It doesn't especieallu in tortoises. Humans have been around like 30-75 thousand years depending on what you want to believe is the first human species. That means tortoises and turtles were already evolved before we even knew they were a turtle or tortoises ( which we labeled). Evolution takes longer then humans can comprehend because we don't like to believe in a world with out a human species. But your wxpierment there would def be a bad choice you will just kill sulcatas by placing them north in a cold climate. What you would have to do is either mimic there natural environment, or change slowly change Africa's weather. Over time you would have to slowly lower the temps over hundreds of thousands of years. You still think they would just all eventually die and not adapt to a colder winter? I me your saying let's dump a bunch of babies in a northern winter see who survives and if they evolve to survive. That's just cruel. We can't speed up the process. If however Africa climate change dramatically in a short amount of time... Let's say in 10 years sulcata habitat are below freezing... This would be likely to some unbalance of the earth whether it's humans fault or natural, either way you most likely will watch species die off. This too is a process where the environment changed faster then evolution can occur. So even naturally a species can die off with drastic changes to the environment, and that's how we do lose species. So many factors in evolution, It's def not a simple subject or a one way street


Well said. I did start a thread about tectonic plates shifting, and as a result the climate(and habitat) changing. One of the best examples of evolution in chelonia are the Galapagoses, where they have developed isolated on volcanic islands. What we were saying is that(possibly) these climates have changed so quickly in some cases, the tortoises have not had time to adapt. My theory was that this is why Indian Stars pyramid in the wild, as the plate on which India sits moved much more quickly-3 times the speed- compared to other major plates. This would-along with many other examples- show that evolution is a very slow process. 
On the subject of tortoise evolution, recent DNA evidence has suggested that red foots are the closest living relative of the forest hingebacks(erosa & homeana). It is believed that chelonoidis evolved from a version of kinixys erosa/homeana after the African and Nazca plates split.


----------



## Saleama (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> A couple of points to advance the conversation :
> 
> 
> 3). Lastly, a note on faith, using the given example of air travel. Airplanes are engineered, tested, inspected and pilots trained and licensed. Data is readily available regarding frequency of accidents and safety violations. Thus flying is a calculated risk, no invocations to the supernatural required.



I have to disagree. I think we all fly based, if just a little, on faith for many things. Faith in the piolets ability, faith in the mechanics credintials, faith in the TSA to keep terrorists off the plane. Sure, a scientist or engineer or other learned person might know the % and the calculations and such, but most of us just trust in the system and have faith that we will arrive where we should and do so safely.




Saleama said:


> zenoandthetortoise said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of points to advance the conversation :
> ...



Also faith in my ability to spell! Or not so much,LOL.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Didn't mean to ignore you, Diamondbp, I lost your response in the thread. The point I was trying to make was regarding the incorrect use of terms, some if which demonstrated a lack of understanding. As for being belittling, you've stated I didn't understand creationism, so that probably isn't a strong point for you to make.
> As to your question, what would you consider meaningful evidence? Would the 60 million year old Carbonemys cofrinii be a start?



Please present why Carboynemys cofrinii is conclusive evidence for turtle evolution.

Consider this. We have never witnessed a live one. We don't know its genetic make up. We don't know what it ate, how it breed, what the reproductive cycle was like, the exact habitat it preferred, etc.

So if you conclude anything from a mere SKELETON fossil, you will have to do so by your total imagination. Not using true science, but your evolutionary presuppositions.

Who is to say that Carboynemys cofrinii didn't exist for 10 million years after the last dated fossil? It happens all the time. We discover LIVING creatures that haven't left a single trace of evidence for (supposed) millions apon millions of year.

The fact is that the grand scheme of evolution is built on pure speculative imagination, and the scientific community needs to admit that.

I'm going to lunch. I'll touch on this more when I get back


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 13, 2013)

> Please present why Carboynemys cofrinii is conclusive evidence for turtle evolution.
> 
> Consider this. We have never witnessed a live one. We don't know its genetic make up. We don't know what it ate, how it breed, what the reproductive cycle was like, the exact habitat it preferred, etc.
> 
> ...



Actually I didn't state that it provided " conclusive evidence for turtle evolution". The implication was that a 60 million year old anything renders the "young earth" concept on equal footing with the flat earth concept. 

I'm still waiting for evidence of creation beyond supposition and imagination and some indication that you are in any way qualified to speak to the status of the scientific community. 

In the event that you are , I have included the abstract of the paper. Please note conclusions beyond my total imagination can be drawn. 

â€œNew pelomedusoid turtles from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia and their implications for phylogeny and body size evolutionâ€

Authors: Edwin Cadena, Dan Ksepka, North Carolina State University; Carlos Jaramillo, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama; Jonathan Bloch, Florida Museum of Natural History

Published: In the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Abstract:
Pelomedusoides comprises ï¬ve moderate-sized extant genera with an entirely southern hemisphere distribution, but the fossil record of these turtles reveals a great diversity of extinct taxa, documents several instances of gigantism, and indicates a complex palaeobiogeographical history for the clade. Here, we report new pelomedusoid turtle fossils from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia. The most complete of these is represented by a large skull (condylobasal length Â´ = 16 cm) and is described as Carbonemys cofrinii gen. et sp. nov. (Podocnemididae). Carbonemys is incorporated into a parsimony analysis utilizing a modiï¬ed morphological character matrix designed to test relationships within Panpelomedusoides, with the addition of molecular data from seven genes (12S RNA, cytochrome b, ND4, NT3, R35, RAG-1 and RAG-2) drawn from previous studies of extant Podocnemididae. C. cofrinii is recovered within Podocnemididae in the results of both morphology-only and combined morphological and molecular (total evidence) analyses. However, molecular data strongly impact the inferred relationships of C. cofrinii and several other fossil taxa by altering the relative positions of the extant taxa Peltocephalus and Erymnochelys. This resulted in C. cofrinii being recovered within the crown clade Podocnemididae in the morphology-only analysis, but outside of Podocnemididae in the combined analysis. Two panpodocnemidid turtle taxa of uncertain afï¬nities are represented by new diagnostic shell material from the Cerrejon Formation, though we refrain from naming them pending discovery of associated cranial material. One of these shells potentially belongs to C. cofrinii and represents the second largest pleurodiran turtle yet discovered. Analysis of pelomedusoid body size evolution suggests that climatic variation is not the primary driver of major body size changes. Cerrejon turtles also demonstrate that at least two major subclades of Podocnemididae were already in place in the neotropics by the Early Cenozoic.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> > Please present why Carboynemys cofrinii is conclusive evidence for turtle evolution.
> >
> > Consider this. We have never witnessed a live one. We don't know its genetic make up. We don't know what it ate, how it breed, what the reproductive cycle was like, the exact habitat it preferred, etc.
> >
> ...



Do you really think I'm going to spend endless amounts of time ironing out finer points of creationism with you? Because I'm not. I will only recommend two incredible books on the subject. First is called "One Small Speck to Man" by Vij Sodera, and the other is a book with a lengthy title "The Doctrines of Genesis 1â€“11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins". These books are both written by extremely well educated men and should not be regarded as "bronze age mythology" as Richard Dawkins would like to think.

Both books are truly outstanding reads. Most evolutionist haven't bothered to REALLY dive into the evidence against evolution. They regard it as a waist of time and thus never examine other theories.

So if you want to make this a general debate about creation vs evolution as a whole , I will pass because we simply don't have the time. My athiest buddies have had plenty of long lunches with me on these topics and they have gained a great respect for my ability to defend my position. But the amount of time involved is to great for either of us to type out. It takes HOURS and HOURS of debating in person to even break the surface of the issues. That's why I was asking for us to focus specifically on turtle evolution because we can get somewhere much faster that way.

I will try to flesh out another example of why long term evolutionary views don't fit with our current undestanding of the turtle/tortoise complex when I have time. Doing long debates while working is not something my boss smiles about.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 13, 2013)

> Do you really think I'm going to spend endless amounts of time ironing out finer points of creationism with you?



Of course not. That's why I only requested one piece of evidence, as yet undelivered, along with one hypothetical example to consider the alternative , also unanswered. If you have either , let's hear it, otherwise, what are you still talking about?


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> > Do you really think I'm going to spend endless amounts of time ironing out finer points of creationism with you?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. That's why I only requested one piece of evidence, as yet undelivered, along with one hypothetical example to consider the alternative , also unanswered. If you have either , let's hear it, otherwise, what are you still talking about?



Sure. Take a brief look at human language. The way humans communicate is unlike any other animal. Humans do not have the ability to independently create "language" apart from other languages. All we can do is alter and abstract the sounds of language that we have learned from our parents. I can "make up" a language, but only because I was raised with language. And what I mean by this is that language isn't inherently built in to our species. 

When you look at feral children (wild humans) they display the absence of "language" because we are the only species where our communication with others is not inherently built in. We can only "learn" language in our development by observing the language of others.

There have been terrible experiments in the past where children were raised in groups by caretakers who were forbidden to speak and these children went without hearing language during their development and never developed a language between the other children. They simply didn't communicate vocally. 

This makes ZERO sense if humans are simply an "advanced ape".

Without getting into the grueling details, this is proof that language existed BEFORE we did (God Spoke) and that it was given to our first parents. It since has been altered in numerous way but it still remains completely unique to anything other communicative system in the animal kingdom.

It eliminates the idea of it being a progressive evolutionary trait because feral children display no ability to communicate with language of any kind. Language had to have come from an outside source (aka GOD)


----------



## tortadise (Dec 13, 2013)

I am certainly not qualified to scientifically debate this issue. Nor do I intend to act as if I do. But I am certainly a man of science. That being said I can also respect the creationists point of view as well. I have done a good amount of reading up on Rhynchocephalia (tuatara) many years back. I recently obtained a great find of a book at half price books(If I had a scanner I would gladly post the thesis paper in the book). I found another very detailed thesis on the diversification on these ancient reptiles and the evolution that each sub species has undergone on the several islands around New Zealand. I would love to get both interests(creationist/evolutionist) point of view on these living verified ancient lineage animals, as I am not qualified to partake in such (very good conversing so far) on this topic.

For quick reference(wiki link of said animal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

tortadise said:


> I am certainly not qualified to scientifically debate this issue. Nor do I intend to act as if I do. But I am certainly a man of science. That being said I can also respect the creationists point of view as well. I have done a good amount of reading up on Rhynchocephalia (tuatara) many years back. I recently obtained a great find of a book at half price books(If I had a scanner I would gladly post the thesis paper in the book). I found another very detailed thesis on the diversification on these ancient reptiles and the evolution that each sub species has undergone on the several islands around New Zealand. I would love to get both interests(creationist/evolutionist) point of view on these living verified ancient lineage animals, as I am not qualified to partake in such (very good conversing so far) on this topic.
> 
> For quick reference(wiki link of said animal)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara



I wish I had more time to dedicate to this type of debate. Let me just make this one point. Anytime you see a "tree of life" chart or an "evolutionary chart" showing animals evolving into completely different kinds of animals, kept in mind that the directional LINES of the chart are PURE IMAGINATION and SPECULATION. They don't have science involved because if they did it wouldn't be just a LINE there. It would have actual DATA(usually in the form of a simple picture).

I will use the picture from your link to illustrate my point. Notice the lines from the different kinds of reptiles. There is no reason to link these creatures to one another other than "evolutionary necessity". Basically to complete their made up story.


----------



## Wutborg (Dec 13, 2013)

Wauv, this must be an american dominated site. Do we really have to start from Adam and Eve every second day? No, we don't know exactly how life evolved, but why jump to non-or even contra empirical evidence based answers instead of waiting for the answers to come forth. It simply might be answerable in our lifetime, and so what? Don't think there is a shortcut to the answer. And no...life on land didn't evolve from gasping fish (rolling eyes..!!) greetings from Denmark.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

Yvonne G said:


> Maybe I'm missing the point trying to be made, but if a DBT evolved from a freshwater turtle, why would it then again evolve to go back into the fresh water?
> 
> 
> (and a note from me with my mod hat on...thank you so much for keeping this thread polite)





Yvonne you just made my point actually  If DBTs "supposedly" evolved from freshwater species then why would it ever evolve to become a brackish water species?

I know you don't necessarily believe in evolution as understood by the modern scientific community so don't take this explanation as aimed toward you.

This is my basic point. If evolutionist believe DBTs "MUST HAVE" evolved from a freshwater species (evolutionary necessity) , than we would have to except that a turtle(like an ancient map turtle) would leave it's current desired habitat for an alternative. Ex. Freshwater to Brackwish water.

Well if evolutionist hold that to be a true possibility, then why would they not hold to the POSSIBILITY that DBTs would evolve BACK INTO a freshwater habitat, even if in a small isolated population??

So the story of DBTs evolution HAS TO originate from freshwater species. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that they would not reinhabit freshwater habitats given the "supposed" large amounts of time they have been around.

In a nutshell, evolutionist can't have it both ways. They can't scream EVOLUTION!!!! when it's convenient but then "throw their hands in the air" when a evolutionary problem is posed.

If diamondback terrapins have been around for even 100,000 years they have had a RIDICULOUS amount of time to reestablish freshwater colonies. It's just logical to assume this.




FLINTUS said:


> Millerlite said:
> 
> 
> > The way your thinking of evolution is it will happen fast. It doesn't especieallu in tortoises. Humans have been around like 30-75 thousand years depending on what you want to believe is the first human species. That means tortoises and turtles were already evolved before we even knew they were a turtle or tortoises ( which we labeled). Evolution takes longer then humans can comprehend because we don't like to believe in a world with out a human species. But your wxpierment there would def be a bad choice you will just kill sulcatas by placing them north in a cold climate. What you would have to do is either mimic there natural environment, or change slowly change Africa's weather. Over time you would have to slowly lower the temps over hundreds of thousands of years. You still think they would just all eventually die and not adapt to a colder winter? I me your saying let's dump a bunch of babies in a northern winter see who survives and if they evolve to survive. That's just cruel. We can't speed up the process. If however Africa climate change dramatically in a short amount of time... Let's say in 10 years sulcata habitat are below freezing... This would be likely to some unbalance of the earth whether it's humans fault or natural, either way you most likely will watch species die off. This too is a process where the environment changed faster then evolution can occur. So even naturally a species can die off with drastic changes to the environment, and that's how we do lose species. So many factors in evolution, It's def not a simple subject or a one way street
> ...



How exactly is the Galapagos Island tortoises proof of macro evolution? It shows micro evolution no doubt, but it's a far cry from macro evolution because no NEW genetics emerged on these islands. I think the variety between Islands actually points toward a young earth considering their ability to swim and mix genetics between islands. Even a very short amount of time should have blended these genetics to where noticable differences from each island should have dissolved or back MUCH less noticable.

If one would hold that the Galapagos Tortoise complex happened over a few thousand years then it would make much more sense. Because then these tortoises would have developed interbreeding populations that would "exagerrate" the genetics within the small population (ex. saddlebacks) because not enough time would have passed for genetics to move from one island to another through swimming tortoises. 

If you put beagles, german sheperds, poodles, etc. on islands within close proximity to each other and leave them there for a few thousand years you may come back to find fairly unique populations on each island that maintained alot of their "original" traits. But if you came back 500,000 years later to observe the dogs on each island you would likely come back to a melting pot of "MUT" genetics because enough time had passed for these seperate island populations to travel,intermingle, and interbreed their genetics creating simply "mut dogs"


----------



## erica anne (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> A couple of points to advance the conversation :
> 
> 1). If you maintain a creationist viewpoint, can you imagine any evidence that would change your mind?
> I'll give an example for my own perspective, not original with me. If fossilized rabbits showed up in pre-Cambrian rock, serious questions would be raised. What would the reciprocal evidence look like?
> ...




It would be interesting to be able to observe evolution in process. Not adaption or mutation but a species right smack in the middle of Evolution. If we have been evolving over millions and billions of years why are we still not seeing cases of evolution taking place?

Evidence for creation:

All fossil bearing strata contain the same range of amounts of carbon 14 which should have decayed away in less than 100,000 years. Diamonds and coal layers still contain carbon 14.

There 1200 minerals in the earth, the amounts of each can be measured in the seas, including the rate of influx. All show an earth too young for evolutionary needs.

Helium escapes from rocks into the atmosphere quickly (geologically speaking), yet rocks in the lowest strata still contain plenty of helium.

These are a few pieces of evidence that point to a young earth.

Common biochemistry points to a single Intelligent designer. Also, there is the case for a global flood. (which is talked about in great detail in Genesis 7:19) Strata layers are bent yet yet unbroken indicating the layers were still mud when smashed together. Polystrate fossils traverse multiple layers of strata proving that it accumulated before the fossils could rot away.

We cannot talk about creation without bringing up the topic of the Bible. The creation of this planet was described in the book of Genesis and as creationists believe the word to be true we must ask, is the Bible supernatural?
A few years ago I went in pursuit of finding evidence that supports the fact that the Bible is supernatural and here's what I found (I will only share a sliver of evidence),

Isaiah 53:3-9, 13 describes in detail the crucifixion of Jesus. This was written 700 years before Jesus walked the earth. The crucifixion had not even been invented yet. (In fact, if I recall correctly it was not to be invented for another 400 years.)

There over four dozen major predictions in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament. For example the virgin birth of the Messiah, the exact place of his birth, (Mary and Joseph only went to Bethlehem because of the census that was taking place), His specific ancestry, his betrayal, his accusation by false witnesses, his manner of death and his resurrection. Mathematicians have calculated that these predictions would have been impossible to orchestrate or to be accidentally fulfilled. As such, these events can only be supernatural in nature. Again this is very, very brief.

Sooo, to answer your first question, there is too much evidence that supports creation that I would have to overlook. And not enough evidence of evolution to convince me.

Now, is there any evidence that would convince you of Intelligent design?


----------



## ShellyTurtlesCats (Dec 13, 2013)

Loving this thread.

I don't believe in God, in fact... I don't believe in anything, aside from science. Science & logic, all the way!!!


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

Shelly if you were walking in the middle of the desert and came across a super computer sitting on the ground what would you conclude? 

That it formed itself and ended up their by crazy random chance? Or that it was place their by an intelligent being ?

Your brain is a super computer. It can do millions apon millions of calculations per second. It didn't get here by random chance. 

Plus your tortoises are cute


----------



## ShellyTurtlesCats (Dec 13, 2013)

*Re: RE: Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)*



diamondbp said:


> Shelly if you were walking in the middle of the desert and came across a super computer sitting on the ground what would you conclude?
> 
> That it formed itself and ended up their by crazy random chance? Or that it was place their by an intelligent being ?
> 
> ...



Unintelligent people own technology. And, thanks! They are way cute!


----------



## tortadise (Dec 13, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> tortadise said:
> 
> 
> > I am certainly not qualified to scientifically debate this issue. Nor do I intend to act as if I do. But I am certainly a man of science. That being said I can also respect the creationists point of view as well. I have done a good amount of reading up on Rhynchocephalia (tuatara) many years back. I recently obtained a great find of a book at half price books(If I had a scanner I would gladly post the thesis paper in the book). I found another very detailed thesis on the diversification on these ancient reptiles and the evolution that each sub species has undergone on the several islands around New Zealand. I would love to get both interests(creationist/evolutionist) point of view on these living verified ancient lineage animals, as I am not qualified to partake in such (very good conversing so far) on this topic.
> ...



Agreed on the tree attached. I merely attached the link for readers to obtain (if not known) a basic knowledge of the tuatara. Perhaps this will be a little more satisfactory of the diversification in the species. I do agree that the fossilized records of even tuataras cannot be analyzed as living specimens. Which is exactly what this study showcases. But clearly it shows an evolutionary difference in the species on the different islands they are found. The same could be with Galapagos tortoises. The evolution of each island(which moves off the tectonic vent) plays a role in the evolution of each species on that island. Its too hard to say really though. As record keeping of those islands is far too young to substantiate definitive evidence. Displaying that evidence may take 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of years of record keeping, and data logging. Weather patterns, climactic fluctuations, flora change, flora decrease, predatory increases, etc... It all works as a machine, a living breathing, dying reborn again machine. It changes, and it always must change to accommodate the changing, moving, living, dying, and recreating world in which these plants and animals are adapting, living, and dying in. Its so big,yet perceived or viewed as such a small inanimate object that is stationary. As we humans are typically use to viewing things this way. "Time fly's" they say. Yet we are a very very young and curious(too curious IMO) creature. In my opinion the human whether creationist or evolutionist is and never will look at either with a biased big picture understanding. Until we understand and comprehend(which we may never or even posses the power) the complete structure and operations of this planet we can never define, or bring forth "evidence" to sustain a just cause on either standing in this debate.

Anyways. Blah Blah Blah on my part. But here is a better breakdown of what I was trying to bring forth in a breakdown example.
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800525


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 13, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> Shelly if you were walking in the middle of the desert and came across a super computer sitting on the ground what would you conclude?
> 
> That it formed itself and ended up their by crazy random chance? Or that it was place their by an intelligent being ?
> 
> ...



If I went into the desert and saw a supercomputer I would think someone or something built a computer and I would try to figure out how it got there. It's impossible and joy scientifically possible for a super computer to come out of no where. If your sayin humans are super computers. You can argue that animals that live in the desert are also "computers" that evolved to survive the situation. But I believe in science and facts. I just can't believe that one day there was nothing and jus a few days later everything was created and is what it is now. ...


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

So what put you here? Random chance or an intelligent source?

Based off your answer regarding the computer , you would have to conclude an intelligent source?

Would you not?


FYI Christians don't believe God created the world as is .

We believe the original state of creation was changed drastically in the fall of man and the even more so in the Global Flood of Noah's day.

Gods original creation did not involve death. But that's a whole other debate.


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 13, 2013)

For an actually non living object yes, man most likely made it. As far as us humans. I believe we evolved to where we are now. And we are still evolving as time passes. Back when the world was first made it had a low amount of oxygen in the air, bacteria and plants that had oxygen as a bipriducted raised oxygen levels on earth allowing species to evolve and live on land. How and what evolved to what is still the mystery. Over the years tho human brains got bigger, we started evolving to become what we are now. This was before the bible before humans can even think the way we do now. Honestly I think everything evolved from single cell bacteria or something on that line after the plant was formed from something with high energy..

I ask you thins. Why do we have gold, silver, lead, iron, etc.... Where did they come from? Did a superbean create each one? And placed all the natural elements do we can survive and have pretty shinny jewelry? Something with a lot of energy created the elements. Such a powerful source of energy and heat was evolved that humans can't recreate it. The surface of the sun has enough energy to create these elements because it's so hot. They believe a supernova happened and the planet was made Big Bang theory. This explains. Why we have elements naturally on earth. To me this theory males more since then a superpower just randomly making elements.


----------



## Wutborg (Dec 13, 2013)

"You walk out in the desert and find a watch/computer/fridge" and conclude someone must have made it. You look at the world and conclude someone must have made it" Please... You don't seriously mean to revive that old, bad analogy from the "natural theology" arsenal. I mean...you do see the difference between the two cases..right? ( just a hint: a watch is a man-made mechanism)


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 13, 2013)

I will respond tomorrow bro. I have to get my kids to bed. Goodnight to everyone


----------



## Rocky08 (Dec 13, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> Sure. Take a brief look at human language. The way humans communicate is unlike any other animal. Humans do not have the ability to independently create "language" apart from other languages. All we can do is alter and abstract the sounds of language that we have learned from our parents. I can "make up" a language, but only because I was raised with language. And what I mean by this is that language isn't inherently built in to our species.
> 
> When you look at feral children (wild humans) they display the absence of "language" because we are the only species where our communication with others is not inherently built in. We can only "learn" language in our development by observing the language of others.
> 
> ...



This is a ridiculous comparison. Evolution takes millions of years to take place and you are saying that language, which humans have invented a mere few thousand years ago, should be ingrained in our DNA already? Why? No other social customs are "natural" to humans, we invented them in the last few thousand years in order to facilitate the growth of our society. We then teach them to our offspring. Just because a human who is not taught these things doesn't know them does not mean they were granted by some divine deity. We evolved to be intelligent enough that the brightest of us could begin to create rudimentary language and teach it to our offspring, nothing more.
On a bit of a side note, one major problem I have with creationism is your belief that, out of literally the infinity of the universe, a god who looks, speaks, and acts exactly like the ideal "human" persona granted us, this one civilization, his blessings and "only son" (specific to Christianity) Given how deeply I believe in the true vastness and amazing miracle that is the universe, that sounds unimaginably egotistical to me.
(Not intending to be rude or spiteful, just voicing my honest views about what an astounding world we all live in)


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 13, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> A couple of points to advance the conversation :
> 
> 1). If you maintain a creationist viewpoint, can you imagine any evidence that would change your mind?
> I'll give an example for my own perspective, not original with me. If fossilized rabbits showed up in pre-Cambrian rock, serious questions would be raised. What would the reciprocal evidence look like?
> ...



In my opinion the best way to advance this discussion about macro evolution is starting at the beginning and systematically go through the evolutionary process.Looking at scientific evidence as we go through. Ideally using explanations based on observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing. So there has to be a beginning that began the evolution process lets start there. That is the foundation of it after all it is how it all began. Lets not start in the middle so we can see the entire theory of evolution.Can you please educate us on an explanation based on observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing. A fact is something that is directly observable and measurable about the very beginning. How did everyhting begin?


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 13, 2013)

We evolved to have a great mind, and with the mind we create and do what we do. They say humans will stop having wisdom teeth grow in and pinky toes will disappear... This is adaptions


----------



## erica anne (Dec 13, 2013)

MasterOogway said:


> zenoandthetortoise said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of points to advance the conversation :
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly. Science has laws stating that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed and the theory of spontaneous generation was disproved in the 1600s. Sooo, how did it all begin??


----------



## FLINTUS (Dec 14, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> Most evolutionist haven't bothered to REALLY dive into the evidence against evolution. They regard it as a waist of time and thus never examine other theories.


I have no problem with religion even though I'm atheist, but there are two things I can't stand in some religious people:
Fundamentalists-make up laws that aren't written in their holy script/book, tell off anyone who doesn't do what they want etc.
People who always say that you can't present enough evidence for the theory of evolution, or any other situation which they don't believe in, when they do not have any evidence for evolution themselves.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 14, 2013)

Looks like I have some catching up to do. 
Diamondbp- your language example is not biology, it's anthropology, it's not evidence, it's conjecture, and it's premise is baseless. Even if all of that were correct and it somehow 'proved' language were 'given' to us, it in no ways proves it's origin is any god, much less Christianity's god. Thor, aliens and Bigfoot would be just as likely sources. 

In regards to your dismissal of branching phylogenys ('tree of life'), are not based on speculation but on morphological, molecular, and geologic data. Besides, if it were all made up, the worse thing you could say is that it was on equal logical footing with creationism 

In regards to your DBT scenario, I'm not "throwing my hands in the air whenever an evolutionary problem is posed", in part because you have yet to pose one. Observing that DBTs have not reclaimed a freshwater niche does not have any bearing on the observation that they previously claimed a brackish one. Unrealized potential change is not a challenge it's merely an observation of what has happened and what has not. Following your reasoning , I could have been an attorney. I am not. Ergo, law school does not exist




diamondbp said:


> Shelly if you were walking in the middle of the desert and came across a super computer sitting on the ground what would you conclude?
> 
> That it formed itself and ended up their by crazy random chance? Or that it was place their by an intelligent being ?
> 
> ...



This would be a rehash of the watchmaker analogy used by William Paley in his book "Natural Theology ", written in 1802. It still fails. The two immediate problems are 
1) for the supercomputer (or watch) to be analogous to a human brain , it would have to be carrying around plans and parts from every preceding device , from abacus to Commodore 64. A computer doesn't do this, because it was designed. A brain does because it wasn't. 
2) natural selection is not random. The mutations of genes, recombinations and drift are random. Natural selection is the opposite of random.




erica anne said:


> It would be interesting to be able to observe evolution in process. Not adaption or mutation but a species right smack in the middle of Evolution. If we have been evolving over millions and billions of years why are we still not seeing cases of evolution taking place?
> 
> What makes you think we are not?
> 
> ...



The previously mentioned rabbits in the Precambrian, organisms without vestigial organs, a fossil record that wasn't loaded with mass extinctions, a genetic code that wasn't shared across Domains, etc.


----------



## erica anne (Dec 14, 2013)

Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 14, 2013)

I made this for my creationist buddies lol


----------



## hunterk997 (Dec 14, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> I made this for my creationist buddies lol



Not to be disrespectful, and if this goes over the "no religious debate" rule I'm sorry, but where did the deity (or deities) come from?


----------



## tortadise (Dec 14, 2013)

hunterk997 said:


> diamondbp said:
> 
> 
> > I made this for my creationist buddies lol
> ...



Unfortunately it may go over the rule. I will establish order if need be. This has been a very clean,mature, and orderly kept debate thus far. Lets keep it that way. I feel your question is however valid in response to the post. BUT from here on out lets keep it structured to the statements pertaining to each side, and properly followed up rebuttals without taking stabs and derailing. A lot can be learned from readers on this topic. But it has to be kept professional.


----------



## hunterk997 (Dec 14, 2013)

tortadise said:


> hunterk997 said:
> 
> 
> > diamondbp said:
> ...



I thought so, again, I apologize. But I also feel that if what I believe to be correct can be questioned, I should be able to do the same. But I understand that the forum rules over rule circumstance.


----------



## tortadise (Dec 14, 2013)

Your ok. You clearly asked a very valid question of the post indeed. I was not singling you out at all. I certainly hope it didn't come across that way. I was merely stating it to future posts. Sometimes these can get into less detailed posts, and valid on topic replies.

It is a valid question to the post.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 14, 2013)

I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.

I for one just like to ponder the "story" of turtles/tortoises. Questions about their distribution, reproduction, habits, etc. are all fascinating and deserve to be studied.

I've had coversations with some turtle buddies of mine about why people are so passionate about understanding the history behind the particular species they work with. And we pretty much concluded that it's because if we can somehow figure it out that it places another puzzle piece to the giant puzzle of the story of life.

For instance, common map turtle distribution along the mississippi river stops shortly after the Louisiana/Arkansas border despite other map turtle species (ouachita/mississippi) thriving all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Why does the distribution along the river stop ? Why do other species go all the way to the mouth of the river with no problems yet a very similar species doesn't? Common map turtles can thrive is a number of habitats and yet they don't inhabitat these southern waters.

As a creationist I look at these types of scenarios and think that it's impossible to expect a species like common map turtles to inhabit 70% of the river system and not inhabit the last 10% of the river system if the species has been around for even 100,000 years. It seems implausable to me, especially considering that roughly 10 other species with similar habits do just that. River cooters, Red-eared sliders, Ouachita maps, Missississippi maps, spiny softshells, common snappers, etc. etc. all inhabit the same river system and go all the way to the coastline, yet the common map turtle does not?

^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.


----------



## hunterk997 (Dec 14, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> ^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.


But what about fossils dated back to thousands of years. And according to recorded history, the Japanese were creating pottery earlier than the estimated 5,000 years some creationists claim the age of the earth to be. So what I question is, how can a civilization exist without the planet, and much less be making things? But again I feel I'm hitting that borderline, so I'll back off. 
But, a shorter earth timeline is very far fetched. There is a tree is Sweden (I think that's the location) that has been identified as being over 9,000 years old. So I feel a short earth timeline theory is a false one. And as someone mentioned earlier, just because an animal doesn't move locations, doesn't mean a lot. There is still so much we as humans don't understand about eco-systems that could be the reasoning for this happening.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 14, 2013)

erica anne said:


> Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.



Hi there. My approach was to point out logical fallacies, misunderstanding of terms,and identify anecdotes when presented as evidence. I could give you information from the National Academy, the AAAAS, or any number of other peer reviewed scientific journals, but you've given no indication that you are interested (it's easily accessible) or have the background to understand it. Again, that's not derisive. Despite my interest in quantum physics, I have but two years of under grad physics, so will forever be on the sidelines as that progresses. 
Two mysteries remain for me; why do you feel qualified to criticize such a complicated field? Do you offer the Old Testament to electrical engineers or astronomers and expect that to be considered relevant?
Also, if you choose a life based on faith, rather than empirical evidence , then why not own that and demonstrate the courage of your convictions? instead of searching for evidence for what you already decided to accept without evidence?


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 14, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.
> 
> I for one just like to ponder the "story" of turtles/tortoises. Questions about their distribution, reproduction, habits, etc. are all fascinating and deserve to be studied.
> 
> ...



How old do you believe the earth to be? 10000 years is still a fraction a blink of time if you compare it to the creation of the world. How do you know there wasn't something blocking map turtle from going any more south, and just recently they have the oppurtunity to go south, but they just have not yet or have no reason too. If the grass is already green, no need to go across the bridge to get more grass. In humans ways of thinking... Yes... If we have green grass. We will build a bridge to get more green grass. Mostly all other animals do not think the same way. They survive and if it's not broken don't fix it. I'm talking 50,000 years ago as still early and new. If the Mississippi River was even 75-100 thousand years old and flooding south, that's still such a short time frame for evolution in respects to the world being billions of years old. My problem with the creation theory is religion timing is off. They so think the world is not old. Or think 10 thousand years is a long time... Why can't we believe that a creator made the universe and the Big Bang and earth being created that way and evolution occurred wouldn't we still be technically created... In that theory. Why would a higher power make creatures that can't adapt and survive situations? You would think a creator would implement a way things survivor for as long as they have, we just labeled it evolution...


----------



## erica anne (Dec 14, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> erica anne said:
> 
> 
> > Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.
> ...



Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field? Do you have your PhD in this field, have you done first hand experiments to prove your theories? What makes you qualified? I am guessing that it is studying other people's research that you base your arguments on. 

No I don't spend my time on forums debating this topic but that does not mean mean that I not qualified to interpret research and form an opinion. My area if interest is biology, human anatomy and physiology and am in the process of several chemistry courses. (Btw, I aced microbiology awhile ago). 

You asked creationists to provide evidence. This would mean validating the document that we believe describes the origins of life. I simply used the example of the Old Testament to do this.

Now, you have yet to answer my questions


----------



## dokomadake (Dec 14, 2013)

woah....


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 14, 2013)

Millerlite said:


> diamondbp said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.
> ...



I believe that the earth is roughly 6500 years old, as state in the Bible. This may shock you , but when you interpret scientific findings through Biblical presuppositions you will find an astonishing correlation. But if you interpet science with evolutionary presuppositions and then try to reconcile that with the Bible you will run into a host of issues.

People come across carbon dating, potassium argon dating, starlight problem, geologic column, etc. and just assume that creationist don't have extremely well thought out scientific explanations for these problems, but they do. It's just that most people read a few looney creationist websites and don't search out the credible sources for arguments against evolution. If you ever want to take an honest look at creation science I could recommend some superior reading for you.

To give you an extremely brief reason why the God of the Bible wouldn't use evolution, I will lay out just a few key points.

If Jesus is the 3rd person of the trinity (Godhead) and Jesus came to defeat Death/Sin so that we could be reconciled to God, then why would Jesus have used death as the mechanism by which we were created?

Think about it, in the Bible death entered creation through the sinful act of our first Parents Adam and Eve. Jesus is considered the "New Adam" that would restore humanity beyond our previously perfect relationship with God. So death and sin is considered the enemy. It's not a mechanism in which God would choose to create things. Natural selection on works if the remaining "unfit" population DIES OFF. Extinction is a huge factor in the "supposed" story of evolution.

If God sent his only begotten son to conquer Death by his crucifixion, why on Earth whould he use death as the main mechanism for creating us? Also the Bible states that God "does not delight in the death of the living". So again, why would God use millions apon millions of years of creatures DIEING to form the current creation?? It makes zero sense from a theological stand point. There are many more points I could make from Christian theology on why God couldn't have "used" evolution to form creatures, but it's not effective unless I'm dealing with fellow believers. Nonbelievers tend to scoff at the Bible, so the info I give from within the text of the Bible holds no weight with them.

Now back to the subject of map turtles. The reason I can CONCLUDE that common map turtles should have reached the mouth of the mississippi by now (considering an evolutionary timescale) is because NUMEROUS OTHER SPECIES HAVE DONE JUST THAT. Common map turtles are very closely related to the other species of map turtles. All map turtles must come from a common ancestor (yes creationist believe this) but that that ancestor resembled modern map turtles very closely. And if they did indeed come from a common ancestor than their distribution must have been FROM THE SAME AREAS at one point in time. There is no natural barrier in the mississippi River drainage that would prevent common map turtles from furthering their distribution, YET allow other map turtle species to inhabit. The mississippi river's current alone should give us great reason to wonder why common map turtles have not been carried down to the mouth of the mississippi river. It's the largest most powerful riversystem in north america.

So I think it is totally justified to suspect that common map turtles ARE STILL EXPANDING their range because they simply haven't been around as long as evolutionist would like to think.

Look at invasive species across the globe. Most invasive species cover a very large area in a very small amount of time (few decades). Even the red-eared slider has QUICKLY established feral populations in other countries to the point where they couldn't possibly be removed by human effort.

To answer your question of why would the creator create creatures "without" the ability to adapt.............well he wouldn't and he didn't lol. In the Book of Genesis (first book of the Bible) it states that God created creatures to bring forth "after their own kind". God created the genetics of every "kind" of animal to be so potent that many many of what we call "species /subspecies" can come from a certain kind of animal. So we as creationist fell that "speciation" is because God has built into each animals genetic code the ability to adapt and produce a vast amount of different traits, but not NEW traits. Birds will always be birds, fish will always be fish, humans will always be humans. Animals produce within their Biblical "kinds". Coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. can all interbreed and produce fertile young because they are of the same "kind". We label them different species, but even modern science can't decide on what EXACTLY determines a species.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 14, 2013)

I actually don't have to , but you used a smiley face and I can't resist those 

Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field? 

No. 


Do you have your PhD in this field, have you done first hand experiments to prove your theories? 

No, no, and here's a big point; it's not my theory. 


What makes you qualified? 

I am a biologist of over 20 years, working in botany, ecology, and environmental monitoring. I would posit that qualifies me to explain the scientific definition of a theory, experimental procedures, and the nature of empirical reasoning. 

I am guessing that it is studying other people's research 

Yes, I spend a great deal of time reviewing research papers. 

No I don't spend my time on forums debating this topic

Me neither

but that does not mean mean that I not qualified to interpret research and form an opinion. 

Everybody is qualified to have an opinion. If you want others to take it seriously, data and logic are required. 


My area if interest is biology, human anatomy and physiology and am in the process of several chemistry courses. (Btw, I aced microbiology awhile ago). 

Nice work with micro. Thats a challenging class. 


You asked creationists to provide evidence. This would mean validating the document that we believe describes the origins of life. I simply used the example of the Old Testament to do this.

I actually wasn't asking you to validate the bible or any other religious document. I was referring to scientific evidence. To be clear, I would consider a fossil or molecular data as evidence. I would not consider a bible verse. 

I am of the opinion that a debate of evidence and/or logic can be both enlightening and a hell of a lot of fun. If you (or anyone else) wants to play, by all means bring it, and I'll do my best to keep up. 

Either way, good luck with your studies. I have found biology to be endlessly fascinating.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 14, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> I actually don't have to , but you used a smiley face and I can't resist those
> 
> Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field?
> 
> ...



I am seeing a pattern of you avoiding the question lets go back to the beginning? I think this is the fifth time asked. Are you avoiding the question? Please educate us on the evolutionary beginning and lets go from there.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 14, 2013)

MasterOogway said:


> I am seeing a pattern of you avoiding the question lets go back to the beginning? I think this is the fifth time asked. Are you avoiding the question? Please educate us on the evolutionary beginning and lets go from there.



Hi. I'm sorry you're feeling ignored. Here are the problems with your question. 
1) unlike genesis, reality takes more than a few paragraphs to explain. "The Structure of Evolution ", by Gould runs some 1400 pages, "The Princeton Guide to Evolution " is over 700 pages. I'm not going to duplicate that, typing on my phone. However, both are readily available and highly recommended. Have at them. 
2) I've seen nothing in your comments to indicate a sincere interest in scientific inquiry, just a pattern of using preconceived notions to reach foregone conclusions. Standard protocol for religious dogma, grating when given credence as evidence. 
3). Even if I had the time and space to address #1 and if I was completely wrong about #2, you have in no way demonstrated an aptitude to understand it. Are you familiar with the process of short chain RNA polymerization? How about the properties of a phospholipid membrane?

So, yeah, given that I'm fending off comments about the flood and assumptions of a 6000 year old earth, " going back to the beginning" seems like a stretch.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 14, 2013)

Zeno can I ask what species of turtle or tortoise are you most knowledgable?

I'm waiting on someone to give me a possible reason for "map turtle" problem and no one seems to understand it , let alone answer it with reason.

So perhaps someone can pick a separate North American species that I could pose an evolutionary problem with. Perhaps box turtles? 

I'll try to really explain my map turtle problem in greater detail Monday if I can. Goodnight


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: RE: Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)*



diamondbp said:


> By someone saying that we could never pose a problem by stating something "should" have evolved given the circumstances is false.
> 
> If I know (by observation) the ability of diamondback terrapins to adapt, then I should be able to pose the question of why "haven't" they adapted back to fresh water . Especially since they supposedly originated from a fresh water cousin.
> 
> ...



Simple, they excell in a niche with very little competion, few health issues, and perpetuate well in that habitat. They can and do enter freshwater systems, but are limited by other species already doing well there.

The POV, by R. Wood that terrapins gave rise to many graptemys is long out of contention. The basis of that paper and the evidence put forward are not considered valid, and newer tools for building phylogenies do not back that paper, if that is who/what you are referencing regarding the relatedness of these groups. 

DBT have both behavioral and physiological adapystions that limit other species from exploting tidal marshes, though a few species do make extended forayd into tidal marshes it is as adults, for short periods of time, the sorta "tap out" and retreat to freshwater.

Another example of a species pushing into new habitat, as in climate not the physical space, is alligator snappers. Their able to do well as adults in river areas that do not support a climate for egg maturation, that is why they effectivly have two range maps, one where they can reproduce, and another for where thay have moved over their individual lives. Perhaps some of those females in those colder areas will change a behavior and select a time or place where the eggs will mature, and or there will be a small change in the requirments for successful egg incubation. 

Then there are the few species that lay there eggs underwater, that is both a physiological and behavioral thing. 

These examples show adaptations to places or "strategies" that are outlier life histories from the most common chelonian success models.

Behaviors are overlooked as they don't yet have a strong relationship to something as concrete as DNA for other aspects of an organism. 

Behavior is a big deal. Migrations and life time movements are the best studied aspects of this part of evolution.

Gravity, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact, with theories for explaination. Evolution, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact with theories for explanation.

Biology is not simply a provincial science of chemistry and physics, bound by "laws" in the same way, or limited to rhose laws. Biology is a very young science compared to physics and chemistry, so is not as well organized, and has had to distinguish itself at greater conflict with metaphysical POVs, that physics and chemistry have already achieved with much less of a stronghold by alternate POVs.

Short lived organisms with an "r" reproductive strategy are better examples/models for both lab and field real time observations of what has been called micro evolution.

Macro evolution examples can be found in real time as well, but are best examplified by virus based changes in organisms, where the virus is now incorporated into the organism itself.

This is very heady stuff, the best easy to digest material I have found is in the book "Tears of the Cheetah", and that now is sorta old news.

Today's humans and the ever growing body of evidence that we are an amalgamation of a few species of hominoids, is the most compelling story to date where both macro and micro evolution are reasonable explainations of our existence as a species.

The explanation of life itself has had a few major shifts in the recent few years.

What two decades ago, our solar system was the only one with planets, yeah? Now hundreds of systems and hundreds of planets are well respected knowledge, the exist, they are. 

Just before these discoveries, an alternate POV, was that our solar system was it, the whole of every place that had planets. Some time earlier in our recorded history, the sun revolved around the earth, we no longer find that a valid POV.

But those are rocks floating in space, right, errors in a POV, that are not so scary or painful to let go of. But that life is random, undirected, and not governed by laws as predictable as what gravity can be held to, well that takes a critical mass of individuals to make the cultural/population awarness to a next evoltional change.

The idea that each species is the result of countless undirected small changes is what makes chelonians so incredibly fascinating to me. That they have endured at least two major extinction events, do not seem to experience age or reproductive senescence, and have established speciation in every concievable habitat, less frozen deserts. 

I look forward to life being found on a moon of Saturn, another layer of an onion of cultural miss guidance being peeled away.

Rational critical thinking, who'd have thought?


----------



## Rocky08 (Dec 15, 2013)

Will, that was one of the most direct, well written statements I've read on this thread.
And I would like to commend everyone on here for keeping everything so civil and educated. This is not the first time I have seen this topic on a forum. With less... Civilized results.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 15, 2013)

Points well taken Will. And thanks especially for the reminder of the genetic (and therefore evolutionary) basis for behavior, a point I completely overlooked (plant-biased, I suppose). 

Perhaps this would also be a mechanism (bad pun, sorry) for bringing this thread back around to center on chelonians. To wit; brumation in temperate terrestrial species is not only a physiological possibility, but a strong behavioral tendency. I have seen many examples where this tendency seems to override controlled temps and extended day length. Conversely, I have never seen this behavior with temperate aquatic species. 
However, I have also not maintained hundreds of species or hundreds of individuals as some on the forum have. Perhaps collectively we posses enough data points to construct a model?


----------



## ascott (Dec 15, 2013)

> To wit; brumation in temperate terrestrial species is not only a physiological possibility, but a strong behavioral tendency. I have seen many examples where this tendency seems to override controlled temps and extended day length.



Perfect, perfectly worded. Now I will go back to my seat on the bleacher and enjoy the conversion of "good stuff"


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 15, 2013)

Simple, they excell in a niche with very little competion, few health issues, and perpetuate well in that habitat. They can and do enter freshwater systems, but are limited by other species already doing well there.

The POV, by R. Wood that terrapins gave rise to many graptemys is long out of contention. The basis of that paper and the evidence put forward are not considered valid, and newer tools for building phylogenies do not back that paper, if that is who/what you are referencing regarding the relatedness of these groups. 

DBT have both behavioral and physiological adapystions that limit other species from exploting tidal marshes, though a few species do make extended forayd into tidal marshes it is as adults, for short periods of time, the sorta "tap out" and retreat to freshwater.

Another example of a species pushing into new habitat, as in climate not the physical space, is alligator snappers. Their able to do well as adults in river areas that do not support a climate for egg maturation, that is why they effectivly have two range maps, one where they can reproduce, and another for where thay have moved over their individual lives. Perhaps some of those females in those colder areas will change a behavior and select a time or place where the eggs will mature, and or there will be a small change in the requirments for successful egg incubation. 

Then there are the few species that lay there eggs underwater, that is both a physiological and behavioral thing. 

These examples show adaptations to places or "strategies" that are outlier life histories from the most common chelonian success models.

Behaviors are overlooked as they don't yet have a strong relationship to something as concrete as DNA for other aspects of an organism. 

Behavior is a big deal. Migrations and life time movements are the best studied aspects of this part of evolution.

*Yes, environment will effect an animals adaptions to its surroundings. However this is not an example of macro evolution but an example of micro-evolution. In the end you still have the same animal. Lets use the snapping turtle as an example .It is still a snapping turtle in the end.*

Gravity, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact, with theories for explaination. Evolution, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact with theories for explanation.

Biology is not simply a provincial science of chemistry and physics, bound by "laws" in the same way, or limited to rhose laws. Biology is a very young science compared to physics and chemistry, so is not as well organized, and has had to distinguish itself at greater conflict with metaphysical POVs, that physics and chemistry have already achieved with much less of a stronghold by alternate POVs.

Short lived organisms with an "r" reproductive strategy are better examples/models for both lab and field real time observations of what has been called micro evolution.

Macro evolution examples can be found in real time as well, but are best examplified by virus based changes in organisms, where the virus is now incorporated into the organism itself.

*Are you saying that a virus lets say like chickenpox is an example of macro-evolution? It is a virus that will incororate into the organism itself. My mother in law sadly is fighting shingles but she is still a human but with a virus.*

This is very heady stuff, the best easy to digest material I have found is in the book "Tears of the Cheetah", and that now is sorta old news.

Today's humans and the ever growing body of evidence that we are an amalgamation of a few species of hominoids, is the most compelling story to date where both macro and micro evolution are reasonable explainations of our existence as a species.

*Did science find the missing link in today's humans? I missed this please share.*

The explanation of life itself has had a few major shifts in the recent few years.

What two decades ago, our solar system was the only one with planets, yeah? Now hundreds of systems and hundreds of planets are well respected knowledge, the exist, they are. 

Just before these discoveries, an alternate POV, was that our solar system was it, the whole of every place that had planets. Some time earlier in our recorded history, the sun revolved around the earth, we no longer find that a valid POV.

But those are rocks floating in space, right, errors in a POV, that are not so scary or painful to let go of. But that life is random, undirected, and not governed by laws as predictable as what gravity can be held to, well that takes a critical mass of individuals to make the cultural/population awarness to a next evoltional change.

*What! That has nothing to do with evolution .I think in the furure science will be looking back and saying wow check out this theory of Evolution. *

The idea that each species is the result of countless undirected small changes is what makes chelonians so incredibly fascinating to me. That they have endured at least two major extinction events, do not seem to experience age or reproductive senescence, and have established speciation in every concievable habitat, less frozen deserts. 

*What amazes me is they are still chelonians after all that time.*

I look forward to life being found on a moon of Saturn, another layer of an onion of cultural miss guidance being peeled away.

Rational critical thinking, who'd have thought?

*I look forward to when science admits evolution is a lie so it can move forward!*
[/quote]




zenoandthetortoise said:


> MasterOogway said:
> 
> 
> > I am seeing a pattern of you avoiding the question lets go back to the beginning? I think this is the fifth time asked. Are you avoiding the question? Please educate us on the evolutionary beginning and lets go from there.
> ...



*I would be glad to talk science I have been attempting this with you all along but there needs to be a start like the beginning and work our way forward.I can understand why you would avoid this like the plague. If I held to the evolutionary theory I would too but I would rather you publically explain how it all began*


----------



## Yvonne G (Dec 15, 2013)

Ok, here's my suggestion...

This is a VERY interesting thread with much information being disseminated. But when a reply is posted using a previous post in the reply please, please, please make sure that you have [ quote ] before the reply you are quoting and [ / quote ] after the quoted text. (with no spaces, obviously)

when you just show the quoted post then your post under it it is so hard to distinguish where the other person's post ends and yours starts. If you can't copy/paste the quote, then just type in the [ quote ]. Please!!!!

(Oops...did this just turn into one of Yvonne's pet peeves?)


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 15, 2013)

Actually, MasterOogway, what I typically avoid like the plague is a conversation in which neither logic nor empirical evidence are going to be taken seriously. But I've got 15 minutes and 20% of my battery left, and it seems like people are enjoying this , so here goes;


"Yes, environment will effect an animals adaptions to its surroundings. However this is not an example of macro evolution but an example of micro-evolution. In the end you still have the same animal. Lets use the snapping turtle as an example .It is still a snapping turtle in the end."

Do you understand that micro evolution, speciation, and macro evolution exists on a gradient? If you do, then you know this question is pointless, if you don't know, look it up. 



Biology is not simply a provincial science of chemistry and physics, bound by "laws" in the same way, or limited to rhose laws. Biology is a very young science compared to physics and chemistry, so is not as well organized, and has had to distinguish itself at greater conflict with metaphysical POVs, that physics and chemistry have already achieved with much less of a stronghold by alternate POVs.

"Are you saying that a virus lets say like chickenpox is an example of macro-evolution? It is a virus that will incororate into the organism itself. My mother in law sadly is fighting shingles but she is still a human but with a virus."

In the lysogenic stage, viral genes are incorporated into the host chromosomes without destroying the cell or altering the genome. Your mother in law is still human. Bacterial speciation is much more rapid, dynamic and often virally mediated. 


"Did science find the missing link in today's humans? I missed this please share."

What link is it that you think is missing?


"What amazes me is they are still chelonians after all that time."

Me too. I am endlessly fascinated by them. 

"I look forward to when science admits evolution is a lie so it can move forward!"

Even if evolution were to be discredited and replaced, it wouldn't be a 'lie', it would be incomplete or incorrect. That happens in science, again, by evidence and rational thought , not recourse to mythology. 



" I would be glad to talk science I have been attempting this with you all along but there needs to be a start like the beginning and work our way forward.I can understand why you would avoid this like the plague. If I held to the evolutionary theory I would too but I would rather you publically explain how it all began"

Stay tuned, got to find my charger. 

Thanks for the quote tip Yvonne.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 15, 2013)

MasterOogway, your narrative awaits. 

First, a couple caveats:
1). I'll take you from the Hadean epic to the arrival of the Archaea. I'm not an astronomer or a geologist. Also, footballs is on. 
2). I have time for a synopsis , not a thesis. No spell check, no editing, no citations. I'll send you a reading list if you want more info. 

To begin, a definition of life. Life on earth is coded by a molecular double helix composed of three-letter nucleotide sequences that construct proteins of 20 specific amino acids , encapsulated in a phospholipid membrane, energy is stored in ATP and an aqueous internal environment mediates internal reactions. Now to get there. 
Following the period of heavy bombardment all elements for the above were present, as was liquid water, an anoxic reducing atmosphere, and energy in the form of solar radiation, electrostatic discharge, and rampant volcanism. The described ambient environment is capable of generating amino acids from existing precursors. Concurrently, abiotic molecules are capable of both reproduction and completion for available resources (crystals do this). Reproduction and completion are requisite conditions for selective pressure and thus evolution. The availability and increased reactivity of organic molecules would have strongly favored their inclusion in compounds for both fecundity and speed of reactions. Furthermore, three dimensional molecules take shape by ionized charges, chirality of formation and substrate or catalytic electrical charge gradients. 

Okay, that's amino acids, protein precursors, replication and the substitution of organic molecules for abiotic precursors. Phospholipids will have to wait for tomorrow. 

Peace out!


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 16, 2013)

Sorry not going to be able to address today. Here's the phylogeny though:





DiamondDP- I don't think the PM thing is working, but would love to discuss your map turtle question. I have no experience with them, but the extreme dimorphism and speciation within such a narrow geography would make a fascinating case study. 

Would you restate your question? I think it'd be great if we could bring this thread back to torts. Otherwise , we should call it Cell Molecular Forum


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 16, 2013)

Will said:


> diamondbp said:
> 
> 
> > By someone saying that we could never pose a problem by stating something "should" have evolved given the circumstances is false.
> ...



***Hopefully my responses to your paragraphs come across clear and concise. I'm not taking a personal shot at you by any means, but you didn't support evolution in any way in those comments. Nor did you give solid reasons FOR the evolution of DBTs into brackish water, or reasons AGAINST why they wouldn't have evolved back into freshwater in some areas by now considering the large time frame that evolutionist hold

It seems that a young earth creationist timeline is much more fitting when examining the distribution of DBTs. I can easily see DBTs spreading their range along the coastline from texas to nearly Maine over the last 3-4 thousand years and that they simply haven't been around long enough to evolve back into any freshwater communities.


----------



## jerm42991 (Dec 16, 2013)

Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others? 

I have never once seen a reason why both can't be possible.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 16, 2013)

jerm42991 said:


> Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others?
> 
> I have never once seen a reason why both can't be possible.



I can only speak from a Catholic prospective. The God of the Bible couldn't have used evolution to form creation because it involves a TREMENDOUS amount of death. Billions and billions of creatures DIEING over the course of several hundred million years is hardly a beautiful way for a loving God to create things. And the Bible states that death was not a part of the original creation. God created man immortal and in perfect harmony with creation before the fall of man(sin of Adam and Eve). 

Plus Jesus died to conquer death and sin so that we could be reconciled with God the father. So it doesn't make sense for Jesus to "USE" death (natural selection) as a method to form creatures and then later on be crucified to undo death and sin.

It states in Revelation (the last book in the Bible) at the end of time that death will be no more and that creation will be restored to perfect harmony. Therefore if God's altimate plan is for there to be no death, then obviously that means he wouldn't have used the dealiest means (evolution&natural selection) to create the world.


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 16, 2013)

jerm42991 said:


> Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others?
> 
> I have never once seen a reason why both can't be possible.



I've always and probably do believe in both. I think the church has gotten facts twisted over the years: which is very possible. Just playing telephone proves that. I was raised catholic and I can almost guarantee my family is more religious then other families. Meaning they go to church 4 times a week. I have an uncle that's a catholic priest, and uncle that's a deacon... And I was raised and had to go through a bunch of Sunday schools and all that. Not till like college when I started perusing my biology degree did I change as a catholic, I would still consider myself catholic just not a true catholic I guess, more like a free minded catholic. Idk most catholic would say I'm not catholic... Anyways. I know back in 1992 Catholics believe the earth was the center of the universe.... This was flat out wrong and science has proven the sun was the center of the universe yet they denied it was not true, their religion told them it was the earth and that's what the believed up till 1992... The pope agreed that actually the sun was in the center and things went around the sun not the earth and after 1992 the Catholic Church excepted the facts, and now when you ask a catholic if it's the sun or earth that's the center of the universe they look at you dumb cuz the sun clearly is in the center... Anywho why can't this be true about other aspects of the religion? If the pope changed his mind on evolution and Catholics followed because that's how it works... Would we all look back on this debate and just say wow that's weird. I'm not saying, for as much as the bible says how much humans lie and and all that... So why do you think through translation people added to the story, or accidentally manipulated the story. Also it's proven that people like to add to stories to make it more interesting, it's highly likely this too happened with the bible... Possibly? Why can't I be a catholic that beloved in evolution? And if things and beliefs change in the Catholic Church... And the people thinking I'm uncatholic because I believe in eviction, maybe in 10 years I can once again become true catholic once again. Just gotta wait for the Catholic Church to evolve... Lol bad joke


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 16, 2013)

Ok, DiamondBP, I have a new hypothesis. I would bet that I can correct your use of terminology, explain scientific concepts, and dismiss your anecdotal musings till carpal tunnel sets in and you will continue to respond with bible verses and unsubstantiated conjecture about DBTs. 

How about this, we establish two threads; one for folks that find a scientific understanding of biology helpful or at least enriching to their involvement with chelonians and a different one for people that enjoy a spirited recitation of bible verses.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 16, 2013)

Millerlite said:


> jerm42991 said:
> 
> 
> > Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others?
> ...



Although it's a side topic, since you are a fellow Catholic I'll take a minute to explain the situation.

The Catholic church does not have a dogmatic stance of the creation/evolution debate. We are free to interpret Genesis and the story of origins without offending church teachings. But this topic has been a passion of mine for years and I can assure you that the story of evolution is not reconcilable with The God of the Bible. The church is currently working through this issue but it will be many years before any dogmatic stances are taken, if they are taken at all.

Only when the church makes dogmatic statements on faith and morals from the chair of Peter (the Pope's authority) are they binding on the entire community of the church. So we are not bound to believe anything in particular when it comes to the origins of life, other than God created it all from nothing, and that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

I'll give you a brief example of how ridiculous evolution can be when it's attempted to be mixed with Christian theology.

Let's look at the formation of the first man's (Adam) body. In the Bible, it said that God formed man from the dust of the ground and he breathed his soul into the man that he may become a living being. Then shortly after he placed the man in a deep sleep and formed Eve from Adams side so that she would be the same flesh and bone. Well the church affirms that the formation of Eve is miraculously from the rib of Adam. Some thiestic evolutionist(believe GOd used evolution) who are Catholic scholars don't tackle the formation of Adam's body very well at all. Some will propose an idea that God was evolving a man's body from ape ancestors and at one point in time breathed the human soul into this ape creature and it became man. Then humanity as we know it proceded from there.

The GIANT THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM behind that idea is that it would mean that Adam's body was ONCE IN THE WOMB OF A BEAST. Which is completlely inconceivable that God would miraculously create Eve from the side of Adam, yet Adam was no more than a Apeman with a human soul breathed into him.

Would Adam had to have honor his mother and father if they were Apes? lol 

As Catholics the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus is of most importance to us. Well if Jesus is the "New Adam", it reflects the importance of being the original flesh and blood found in our first earthly father (Adam). So to hold that the first human person was actually formed in the womb of an Apewoman IS MOST ABSURD!!

That was your very very short Catholif theological lesson for the day lol. Evolution and Christian theology can not be reconciled if analyzed carefully.




zenoandthetortoise said:


> Ok, DiamondBP, I have a new hypothesis. I would bet that I can correct your use of terminology, explain scientific concepts, and dismiss your anecdotal musings till carpal tunnel sets in and you will continue to respond with bible verses and unsubstantiated conjecture about DBTs.
> 
> How about this, we establish two threads; one for folks that find a scientific understanding of biology helpful or at least enriching to their involvement with chelonians and a different one for people that enjoy a spirited recitation of bible verses.



I haven't seen you contribute to this thread with anything meaningful or scientific yet either my friend. So the feeling is mutual. 

ps. I'm only bringing the Bible into it in response to others. I can argue my points just fine without the Bible.


----------



## wellington (Dec 16, 2013)

Just a reminder to everyone. Religion discussions are not allowed. We have allowed this to go on here, because so far it has stayed respectful. That said, let's get back to the original op' thread and stay away from getting any further into religion.
Thank you.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 16, 2013)

wellington said:


> Just a reminder to everyone. Religion discussions are not allowed. We have allowed this to go on here, because so far it has stayed respectful. That said, let's get back to the original op' thread and stay away from getting any further into religion.
> Thank you.



My Apologies. I'm honestly not trying to bring any religion into it. But when others bring it up I feel the need to respond. If no one brings it up you can count on me not to.




zenoandthetortoise said:


> Ok, DiamondBP, I have a new hypothesis. I would bet that I can correct your use of terminology, explain scientific concepts, and dismiss your anecdotal musings till carpal tunnel sets in and you will continue to respond with bible verses and unsubstantiated conjecture about DBTs.
> 
> How about this, we establish two threads; one for folks that find a scientific understanding of biology helpful or at least enriching to their involvement with chelonians and a different one for people that enjoy a spirited recitation of bible verses.



Zeno, do us all a huge favor. How about you take a shot at explaining why DBT's evolved into a brackish water species. I seriously doubt you will attempt to but please humor me.

I think you will find out while your typing out your reasons that the anecdotal musings will come flooding in, because that's how the whole story of evolution is built. Scientist and their own anecdotal musings that are excepted by others that aren't experts in the other scientist' fields and just blindly accept their "stories".

But please attempt to anyways. I'm ready to be in awe by your evolutionary knowledge on any species and their evolutionary story.


----------



## jerm42991 (Dec 16, 2013)

diamondbp said:


> jerm42991 said:
> 
> 
> > Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others?
> ...



But why is the bible and what you say any more right than what the Quaran says? Or any more right than the Buddhist or Hindu teachings? 

Also, death is everywhere. Millions of creatures have died for countless reasons so I don't buy that logic. Why is it not possible that his first creation was bad and he had to start over and instead of wiping out the population and starting from scratch he tweaked it. 

Why is the thought that we made Adam and Eve people because that is what we knew. You can say he made man, but he also made fish. Is every fish the same? No, are there fish that are extinct? Yes. So why is it not possible to have different species of man and have some gone instinct? Every other group is like that, what makes you think humans are special?


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 16, 2013)

jerm42991 said:


> Random idea I have always thought and didn't see. Why can't both be true? Why isn't it possible that the very beginning was "created" and set in a way to develop and evolve over time? Why do humans have to of been created as humans? Why can't evolution be simple tweaks by something greater? Muslims, Christians, Buddhists ancient romans/greeks and many others all have different theories on what happened. Why is the Adam/Eve story more true than the others?
> 
> I have never once seen a reason why both can't be possible.



Well, for the western world only the alternate POV's of the US seem locked into this conflict. I went to an Augustinian graduate school and the clergy there found no conflict at all, but they seem to understand the value and difference between trying to explain human beings from beings being human.

Those are the most efficient words I can express on this.

It has become politically divisive here (the US) more than compliance with alternate POV rhetoric.

At least that is the short distance explanation that works for me.

I made reference to an onion, well I think at it's core their is enlightenment, but that has been masked by so many layers of intentional and adaptive miss information, it seems best to discard the parts that are rotten, layer by layer. Maybe the rot will move inward to the core faster than the peeling process, and the whole onion will be discarded. But those that cling to those rotten layers are doing the whole a dis-service. At least that's what my take home was from those wise Agustinian monks. 

Back to chelonians.

Turtles are a climax organism, they are not likely to collect random changes that would offer flight, or gills in the traditional sense. They are so good at being turtles they are in a climax of adaptation. Few turtles could be considered generalists, they are all specialists. Consider a humming bird, it is not likely to develop passerine habits, and eat insects and seeds through adaptation. They have lost plasticity through adaptation, to be the best most excellent type they can be. But a passerine, still very plastic, could become more hummingbird like. They are less specialized.

Sliders might represent to most recent grand expansion in area and diversity (making my last comment incoherent, sliders are the generalists in the chelonian gradient as I see it), but I'm guessing on that. They are still all more or less the same yet different enough. They have some behavioral traits that put other species where they co-exists, by human intervention or 'natural' radiation, that out compete others. They are nasty and bite other species alot out of some internal antagonism. Sliders will go and bite other species much larger than them, and keep at it, till the other's leave or die, or stress to the point of being nonviable.

They also represent another behavioral shift that may well lead to a brackish water intrusion species. At least one population of sliders in central America go out a river into the sea, move along the shore, lay their eggs and then travel overland back to fresh water. Some populations of giant freshwater turtles in southeast Asia do this too.

Perhaps this is what occurred with what is now DBT, only the eastern seaboard of the US has lots of back bays and tidal marshes, so there was a place for them to not have to travel all the way back to freshwater creeks etc. Once this worked, expansion along the thin strip of real estate that supports this kind of life history would have afforded a quick expansion to it's limits. Over time they were less what they had been, and became better at what they are now. 

This is how science works. I just proposed a theory. Now if I had the inclination, resources etc. I would seek evidence that this theory/guess is based on things that are found in nature. Frankly for all I now this has been tested and removed from potential explanations. I would also keep a lookout for things that negate this idea, they would be good clues to alternate better explanations.

My own focus is looking at ways to help chelonians persist against human modified environments. Or play a role in making what we do less damaging to what chelonians do. 

I like captives, but if I lived some where with a native species not controlled by a political agenda, or if I could play along with that agenda, I'd shed the captives in a minute.

It's not that I don't care about the deep natural history of chelonians, but their recent natural history engages me so much more.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 16, 2013)

" I'm ready to be in awe by your evolutionary knowledge on any species and their evolutionary story. "

Really? That hasn't been the pattern. Reread the posts. Answers I've provided generate no comments and questions I've asked are ignored. For that matter so are attempts to bring this topic back to general interest. 

On another note, you speak frequently of what scientist think, how they think, and the 'hypocrisy' of evolutionary science. Your qualifications to speak to any of these topics comes from what? Your expertise on Catholicism is no more relevant than my interest in vintage motorcycles. 

I claim no firsthand knowledge of DBT natural history, but with my already described background in biology, (which you may or may not accept as valid) I would be happy to offer explanations of process, postulate relationships and extrapolation of progenitors from the extant populations. First though, you need to demonstrate a genuine interest in science instead of repeating dogma. 

To paraphrase Jonathan Swift, I'm not going to try to reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.


----------



## ascott (Dec 16, 2013)

> Religion discussions are not allowed.



Wow....this is America correct? I have not read such a horrible statement in some time...really.




> .this is America correct?



I say this because you and I are both in this country and I can not believe someone would make such a statement....actually, there is no need to be of this country only for your statement to be completely offensive.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

ascott said:


> > Religion discussions are not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I didn't make this statement, but my understanding of the intent behind it was to keep the comments relevant to the subject matter, not to offend.


----------



## jaizei (Dec 17, 2013)

ascott said:


> > Religion discussions are not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Controversial topics such as religion or politics are discouraged because they are divisive. If you have a problem with the rules or a moderator pm Josh. 

We've allowed this thread to continue since it has been fairly civil. If it gets out of hand, it will be closed. The topic is evolution, from a scientific perspective.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 17, 2013)

I would just like to point out that all of my religious comments were in response to questions or concerns posed either against religion or for theistic evolution. So I am not aiming to keep religious comments in this thread. It's extremely hard to talk abouth the differences between creation and evolution without bringing up any aspects about God, but it's totally possible. So I think it would be good for all parties to refocus on the science against or in favor of macro evolution (since we all agree on micro evolution).

I'm simply hoping that someone who believes turtles evolved from another kind of animal would present some basic reasons why. Or possibly discuss a modern development within the chelonian order that would support macro evolution.
**********
As far as my points on DBTs, I haven't had a satisfying response from anyone as to what would "prevent" DBTs from permantly inhabiting a freshwater niche if they have been around for such a long period of time. 

If someone argues that they wouldn't because of competition, then I could point out multiple river systems that drain into the coastline that don't have much, if any, competition to DBTs. If someone argues that they wouldn't because they are comfortable and fit for brackwish water only, then I would argue that that same reasoning could be used against them ever LEAVING freshwater to become a brackwish water species. If someone argues that they wouldn't because of unknown behavioral reasons then I would bring up the fact that we know ZERO about the behaviors of extinct chelonia, yet evolutionist develop theories supporting turtle evolution despite the absence of behavioral data. If someone says that they are a "climax" organism and that there is no reason for a DBT to evolve new capabilities, I could list a host of possible advantageous adaptations that they currently don't possess.

I could also pose another question that I think we should consider if turtles have been around for a "supposed" 200 million years. WHY AREN'T THERE MORE strictly BRACKWISH WATER SPECIES?!?! lol Think about it

Think of the host of other animals that inhabit brackwish water habitats permanently (various species of fish, birds, reptiles, etc.) and yet turtles, which have supposedly been around much longer than most modern animal groups, have only one strictly brackish water species??

Ponder this. Why aren't there any permanently brackwish water species of musk turtles? Snapping turtles? Cooters? Mud turtles? Softshell turtles? Map turtles? Sliders? etc. etc. Obviously they are all suscessful groups of turtles that live along the coastline and yet NOT ONE has evolved over the last "supposed" several million years to inhabit brackwish water permanently? Hmmmm 

Why wouldn't that raise some further questioning about turtle evolution? I think it's a most interesting topic.


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 17, 2013)

I figured I had addressed some of the interest into the diversity and distribution of brackish water chelonians.

Many species enter brackish water temporarily, it seems DBT are specialists, DBT use it as a primary habitat. They do not use it exclusively, nor only. But then that needs to be qualified. Define brackish with some quantitative like PPT of what we think of as table salt (which of course is a purified compound from sea water) among all the other water qualities that make salt water what it is.

There are numerous alkali water species of chelonians as well as acidic water species, most which have severe health issues if not maintained in those water types.

DBT can live in outright sea water, as do what we think of as Marine turtles. They have specialized physiology that allow them to excrete some excess salt, and like marine turtles they have the behavioral instinct to drink freshwater from the surface when it rains, and before the rain water becomes salty. DBT denied freshwater die. 

Dozens of other species enter and live in what we think of as the marine environment to the point of getting barnacles growing on their shells. To having a gut load of marine invertebrates from extended foraging etc.

But the marine environment is not just water chemistry, is is pounding surf, and other organisms, parasites, predators, and food stuffs, as are the many kinds of freshwater habitats where there are many other specialized species of chelonians.

So why haven't DBT specifically entered and inhabit a few rivers on the eastern seaboard of the US? What evidence do you have that they don't, what evidence do you have that those rivers are otherwise devoid of 'freshwater' chelonians, what evidence suggests these rivers are an open niche, and the lack of other chelonians you suggest it is - because it is otherwise good habitat. Maybe those rivers are not good habitat for any chelonian species, yeah?

You might as well ask why is there only one species of tortoise in the sahara, or just one species group in the Galapagos? Why not chelonians that have spikes on their head (recently extinct) or giant tortoises big enough for people to use as retreats into a hollow shell (recently extinct). Why not terrestrial crocodilians that eat palm fruit (recently extinct)?

DBT are unique, they are specialist, but several other species are using the marine environment, just not exactly the same way DBT do. Some more than DBT, some less.

Why aren't there tortoises (land dwelling chelonians) in Australia -- wait for it -- anymore?

The dealio is how you think (no direct value being issued to that). Life is not a directed path being followed, based on a script. It is spontaneous and undirected.

DBT are in the habitat they are in, because they 'got lucky' if that is how you need to think about it. 'Stochastic opportunity' is the more scientific terminology.

Read more than just TFO and find this out on your own accord. If you want further custom research of already published literature for your specific questions make a donation to some chelonians based NGO, submit evidence here, and I'll further address your research interests. Win-Win yeah?


----------



## Mgridgaway (Dec 17, 2013)

ascott, just for the record, the rule against religious discussions (obviously, science is not a religion, but its perceived proximity to it makes it entangled) is very common across most boards. It exists because, like Jacqui said, they are extremely divisive and do very little as often the people debating are highly entrenched in their own belief (or secured by scientific fact).

diamondhp, I'm no scientist, so I'm not going to bother too much on why there's only one brackish water species, but consider these two things:

First: Per wikipedia:
Terrapins look much like their freshwater relatives, but are well adapted to the near shore marine environment. They have several adaptations that allow them to survive in varying salinities. They can live in full strength salt water for extended periods of time,[11] and their skin is largely impermeable to salt. Terrapins have lachrymal salt glands,[12][13] not present in their relatives, which are used primarily when the turtle is dehydrated. They can distinguish between drinking water of different salinities.[14] Terrapins also exhibit unusual and sophisticated behavior to obtain fresh water, including drinking the freshwater surface layer that can accumulate on top of salt water during rainfall and raising their heads into the air with mouths open to catch falling rain drops,.[14][15] 

DBTs in brackish water seems like a simple (or not so simple) adaptation to me. Why aren't any other turtles given the same treatment, you ask? Well, why are we the only primates who can build cars? Just the luck of the draw, really. 4.7 billion years is an infinitely long time for things to go right or wrong.


And Part Two: Diamondhp, remember, if you want scientists to take you seriously, you're going to have to provide some actual facts supporting creationism as a valid science. It isn't enough to just knock down science without providing a hypothesis and substantial studies and data for your belief. If creationism is truly a real science, you should be able to prove it. Just like how we can prove gravity or evolution (and yes, Master Oogway, evolution has been proven repeatedly. Please use a site like wikipedia to research Scientific Theory before claiming the absolute opposite of what it means. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm simply hoping that someone who believes turtles evolved from another kind of animal would present some basic reasons why."





See also:
Archosauriforms
Procolophonids
Euntosaurs


**********
"As far as my points on DBTs, I haven't had a satisfying response from anyone"

You have gotten a satisfying response because your not asking a good question. Ultimately, the answer to why something hasn't evolved is the same as to why something has: selection pressure, both natural and sexual. 
Trouble is, by couching everything in your hypothetical precludes the gathering of actual data 

And on the seventh page, I rested...


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 17, 2013)

Will said:


> So why haven't DBT specifically entered and inhabit a few rivers on the eastern seaboard of the US? What evidence do you have that they don't, what evidence do you have that those rivers are otherwise devoid of 'freshwater' chelonians, what evidence suggests these rivers are an open niche, and the lack of other chelonians you suggest it is - because it is otherwise good habitat. Maybe those rivers are not good habitat for any chelonian species, yeah?
> 
> ***What you are asking me to provide for you here is observable evidence. Correct? You want me to site and source STUDIES of river populations of freshwater turtles. Your asking me for PROVABLE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE to support my theories.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mgridgaway (Dec 17, 2013)

Actually, evolution is a recognized science. It's backed by 150+ years of serious, repeatable research and data. 

And even if evolution is just the current best explanation of data (again, 150+ years of data that has yet to be reasonably disproven), it is still a much better explanation than creationism, which, were it a boat, would sink in the dead sea. You and other creationists continue to knock down evolution with the silliest and most inane arguments, but you provide no adequate alternative explanation. Until you can reasonably do so, you will not be taken seriously.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

"By presenting some blurry image on an extinct turtle that somehow proves macro evolution?"

No, it proves that you need to do your own research. I've given you some terms, concepts and names, look them up. When you ignore the information (on multiple posts) provided it calls the sincerity of your inquiry into doubt. 

If you wish this to be constructive, do some homework, ask coherent questions and at least acknowledge the information provided. 
If you just want to rant against "Scientific Hypocrisy", there are probably religious forums more appropriate.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 17, 2013)

Mgridgaway said:


> Actually, evolution is a recognized science. It's backed by 150+ years of serious, repeatable research and data.
> 
> And even if evolution is just the current best explanation of data (again, 150+ years of data that has yet to be reasonably disproven), it is still a much better explanation than creationism, which, were it a boat, would sink in the dead sea. You and other creationists continue to knock down evolution with the silliest and most inane arguments, but you provide no adequate alternative explanation. Until you can reasonably do so, you will not be taken seriously.



Typical evolutionst response. How many creationist books have you read? I'm curious?

Why don't you pick the species of turtle/tortoise that you best know and describe for us the evolution of that species. 

Heck, I'll let you pick any species on this planet and describe to me how they "supposedly" evolved from a different kind of animal. Please, I'm begging someone to do so.




zenoandthetortoise said:


> "By presenting some blurry image on an extinct turtle that somehow proves macro evolution?"
> 
> No, it proves that you need to do your own research. I've given you some terms, concepts and names, look them up. When you ignore the information (on multiple posts) provided it calls the sincerity of your inquiry into doubt.
> 
> ...



So basically you can't even give me a SIMPLE explanation of how extinct chelonian fossils prove macro evolution can you? I doubt it's because your lazy or don't have time. I think it's because they simple DON'T SUPPORT macro evolution. They are just extinct species. That is all.

This show me you have no personal input. 

I've been studying the creation/evolution debate consistently for over a decade. I have dozens of books on the subject that I've read numerous times. I was an all honors student and in the G.T. (gifted and talented) program for academics and art since the age of 5. I didn't pursue any scientific field because I decided marriage and a family was more important than dedicating 10 years of my life to college and a poor paying biology field job. I'm not claiming to be some brilliant mind, but I seriously doubt any of you ever put some serious thought into the possibility of creationism (whether the old-earth creationism or young-earth creationism).

So again I will invite you and any other evolutionist who is reading this thread to please provide the story behind a certain species of turtles and their supposed evolution.

I am open to other to talk about other animal groups and their evolution if someone wants to present that information.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 17, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> Actually, MasterOogway, what I typically avoid like the plague is a conversation in which neither logic nor empirical evidence are going to be taken seriously. But I've got 15 minutes and 20% of my battery left, and it seems like people are enjoying this , so here goes;
> 
> 
> "Yes, environment will effect an animals adaptions to its surroundings. However this is not an example of macro evolution but an example of micro-evolution. In the end you still have the same animal. Lets use the snapping turtle as an example .It is still a snapping turtle in the end."
> ...


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

So,to sum, your assumptions are as follows:
1). I've never read creationist books or
2). Researched creationism
3). I have a poorly paid job
4). Your 'following the debate' is on equal footing with formal education 
5). I'm neither busy or lazy 

You're actually incorrect across the board (that's the trouble with assumptions), but item 5 is going to preclude a substantial response in the immediate future. Despite my assumption that a minivan full of archaeopteryx wouldnt sway you in the least, in the interest of returning this thread to chelonian relevance, I will respond. But I'm on my way out of town, so you'll have to wait.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 17, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> MasterOogway, your narrative awaits.
> 
> First, a couple caveats:
> 1). I'll take you from the Hadean epic to the arrival of the Archaea. I'm not an astronomer or a geologist. Also, footballs is on.
> ...


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 17, 2013)

We have fossil evidence that shows old species that are how extinct. Some well preserved species we even had traces of dna. If it were enough we probably can get a DNA sequence for it and have even more evidence. As far turtles go. In someone or believes in a creator the world is only 6500 years old. So turtle species are only 6500 hundred years old and are younger then humans? As far as species? Or would they all just be within a week apart since they were made quick. Anyways... Within that short short time period, there was no evolution or very little. It's actually to be believe that turtles or the oldest living record is 200 million years old... That seems like a long time but for a earth that's billions of years old still not even a great amount of time. The thing with science is we observe, and collect data, yeah evolution is still in the data collecting stage but there is very little evidence that proves what We found this far is wrong.. Createtism is a great theory or conspiracy depending how you look at it. It may be one of the greatest!


----------



## Mgridgaway (Dec 17, 2013)

I've put plenty of thought into creationism and read plenty of material over the years. I am also not, as you claim, an evolutionist. I'm not a scientist, either. But I believe in facts, and rational, data-driven evidence. Leave everything else in the realm of fiction (which I also love, mind you). Creationism has yet to produce one tangible piece of evidence; when this changes, please, please, let me know. I'll be the first to research it.

And to your own admission, you are no more qualified than I. We are laymen. Did you know Will is one of those biologists you speak so fondly of? Did you know that there are people who've spent their whole adult life learning, studying, and researching - past college - while you were off getting married and having a family? Yes, that was a bit condescending, but I don't mean any disrespect. But when you talk about evolution as if you're on the same level of someone who has spent 20+ years in the scientific field studying biology, while really all you've done is pick up factoids from easily-digestible books with a subjective slant toward creationism, you're not doing anything to further your cause.


----------



## MasterOogway (Dec 17, 2013)

Millerlite said:


> We have fossil evidence that shows old species that are how extinct. Some well preserved species we even had traces of dna. If it were enough we probably can get a DNA sequence for it and have even more evidence. As far turtles go. In someone or believes in a creator the world is only 6500 years old. So turtle species are only 6500 hundred years old and are younger then humans? As far as species? Or would they all just be within a week apart since they were made quick. Anyways... Within that short short time period, there was no evolution or very little. It's actually to be believe that turtles or the oldest living record is 200 million years old... That seems like a long time but for a earth that's billions of years old still not even a great amount of time. The thing with science is we observe, and collect data, yeah evolution is still in the data collecting stage but there is very little evidence that proves what We found this far is wrong.. Createtism is a great theory or conspiracy depending how you look at it. It may be one of the greatest!



Fossil evidence is proof of an extinct animal. So are the giant dinosaurs bones that I see in the museum. That is evidence of an extinct animal. DNA is simply the dna make up of the extinct animal.That is all it tells us. In order for it to be data used you would have to show many animals fossils over a million years link after link and show a complete change which is macro-evolution. Simply having DNA of an extincts animal is not proof of evolution. The Dna maybe completely different that does not make it a link in macro-evolution


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 17, 2013)

I'll have to respond tomorrow fellas. I'm getting off of work and I am not feeling well. Hopefully the kids let daddy rest tonight. Yall have a good night.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

"Heck, I'll let you pick any species on this planet"

I'll take you up on this generous offer and for the sake of expediency rely on my botany roots. (Pun intended).

By definition, macroevolution is the differentiation into different species than the ancestral species. Observed examples include:

de Vries (1905) found an unusual genetic variant among a formerly homogeneous population of Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. This variant was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana (thus indicative of a new species).

Digby (1912) crossed Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. However, polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring , incapable of reproduction with either parent strain. It was noted that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three separate occasions. 

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

These examples are observed, documented and old enough to be public access. Check away 

Since it's apparent this (or any other information) will be insufficient for the faithful and I am getting tired of presenting remedial biology, I suggest again separate threads. One for those who want to discuss Vishnu, genesis, Norse myths or whatever and one for an actual discussion of chelonian science, including evolution, natural history and ecology.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 17, 2013)

"Now Now, we need to begin further back.To the beginning."

You asked for beginning of life, I gave you beginning of life. I'm a biologist not an astrophysicist. 

"Who was there to record and witness this. I would like their names please."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trying to be humorous, otherwise you've set a new low for inane comments. 

If you take your own mythology seriously, who exactly do think witnessed " in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"?

That would a rhetorical question. I'm not interested in hearing about your mythology , just making a point about your thought process.


----------



## ascott (Dec 17, 2013)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/superhero-woman-lifts-car-off-dad/story?id=16907591

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...tIvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LPkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1371,1924769

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength.htm

Who or what created this magnificent piece of work (us)? This is something that I believe will always be a question that can never truly be answered....Okay, now I will go away again back to my seat in the bleachers....


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 18, 2013)

There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 19, 2013)

There is a mathematical inference that species evolve in the macro level. 

Reverse engineer the ascertion that species gone extinct, did not otherwise give rise to whooly new forms.

So, the fossil record, millions of years or just a few thousand, either way contains tens of thousands of large species of animals, at least 1 kilo. 

If all created spontanously at once, and some 80% now extinct, where did they all live? Does spontaneouse creation happen in episodes?, such that when species inventory gets low, a new suite of animals is created?

Birds are dinosaurs, but just one small group, from a much larger diversity of animals that were/are dinosaurs.

The age of the earth is certainly no younger than the oldest living things, some bacteria are over 500,000 years old, some trees over 80,000.

Emergent properties, that's what makes life, alive and dynamic. There are emergent properties is culture too, one is called religion. Life was here before religion. One begat the other in chronological order. Relgion is an artifact of cultural and social needs.

It's a great thing, and has advanced culture and socity in harmony with other great cultural and social mechanisms like war and agriculture.

But some animals practice war, and agriculture. I'm reasonable sure humans are the only animal to practice religion. 

Makes it a truly purely human thing.


----------



## BeeBee*BeeLeaves (Dec 19, 2013)

Nope. My tortoises think I am the food goddess and worship me. I rule. : )


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 19, 2013)

zenoandthetortoise said:


> So,to sum, your assumptions are as follows:
> 1). I've never read creationist books or
> 2). Researched creationism
> 3). I have a poorly paid job
> ...



I don't doubt that you may have browsed creation material, but yes I doubt that you have read some in depth creation literature. Any creation books or articles that stand out in your mind? Or did they all fall incredibly short to you?

I also wasn't stating that all "biology" type jobs are poor paying jobs, but most people don't go into the field of biology because the pay is so good.

The rest of what your saying I'm assuming in just incorrect and doesn't need to be addressed.



Also archaeopteryx isn't proof of anything other than that archaeopteryx existed. Do you have DNA from archaeopteryx? Nope. Behavorial data? Nope. Therefore your conclusions on that type of animal is more limited than you will admit.

Modern sugar gliders and flying squirrels are remarkably similar yet we would never link them together because of observational data, genetic data, etc.




Mgridgaway said:


> I've put plenty of thought into creationism and read plenty of material over the years. I am also not, as you claim, an evolutionist. I'm not a scientist, either. But I believe in facts, and rational, data-driven evidence. Leave everything else in the realm of fiction (which I also love, mind you). Creationism has yet to produce one tangible piece of evidence; when this changes, please, please, let me know. I'll be the first to research it.
> 
> And to your own admission, you are no more qualified than I. We are laymen. Did you know Will is one of those biologists you speak so fondly of? Did you know that there are people who've spent their whole adult life learning, studying, and researching - past college - while you were off getting married and having a family? Yes, that was a bit condescending, but I don't mean any disrespect. But when you talk about evolution as if you're on the same level of someone who has spent 20+ years in the scientific field studying biology, while really all you've done is pick up factoids from easily-digestible books with a subjective slant toward creationism, you're not doing anything to further your cause.



I like facts to. I just don't like false evolution driven interpretation of facts. I respsect Will. I'm not trying to say I don't like biologist lol. 

How do you know the books I have read and am reading are easily digestible? 

I'm curious about the books you may have read on creation science. Was nothing that was presented in those books at all of value? Did they not draw into question any aspect about evolutio?

Also I am not claiming to be more qualified than anyone else. I would never ever claim such a thing. But I do know that I've put a ton of thought into these issues and think I raise some reasonable objections to evolution when it comes to turtles. I have only presented a few of my points. Topics of this nature can be discussed in much greaterefficiency and detail in person. I simply don't care to type out all that I could say on this subject. I like you guys........ just not enough to exhaust my fingers that way lol.




zenoandthetortoise said:


> "Heck, I'll let you pick any species on this planet"
> 
> I'll take you up on this generous offer and for the sake of expediency rely on my botany roots. (Pun intended).
> 
> ...



Zeno this is macro evolution? They start with Primerose annnnnnd ended with Primerose. That is amazing. 

Now if they did that same experiment 10,000 times would they end up with a cypress tree? I think not. It would still be a primerose, just a VARIANT of the original kind of plant. Which is exactly what a creationist would expect.

If you would like to show me another example please do so. And don't attempt to say that I simply don't understand your examples. I've had that same sad story presented to me numerous times and have read plenty of articles about it. In the end.................. it's still a primerose.




Millerlite said:


> There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?



Well these points will bring us into the topic of dating methods and the accuracy of them. I will just say this, there is LOTS of information and objections on the different types of dating methods by creationist that go into great detail. All dating methods have built in assumptions in the equations used to determine dates. If you change these ASSUMPTIONS you consequently change the outcome of the dating methods.
http://www.icr.org/rate/

That's one link that may help on that topic.

Young earth Biblical creationist believe all creatures were created in the days of creation described in the Bible. That is all whole other topic that we could dive into but religion will come up repeatedly and we've been asked to not have that happen. I don't mind if you PM me with a question.


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 19, 2013)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

I got a few things wrong, by the thin slice of word meaning. It's important to tease these things out.

Random mutations, selected results. So not quite so 100% random as I have put forward here.

The mutations are random, but the results selection is governed by adaptations that result in higher cohort success.


----------



## Yvonne G (Dec 19, 2013)

Like so many other things in the bible, interpretations are everything. Who's to say that when the bible says something happened in a day, exactly how long a day is? It may be they're referring to a period of time and not to a 24 hour day....like a jurassic period, an eon, etc.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 19, 2013)

Will said:


> There is a mathematical inference that species evolve in the macro level.
> 
> Reverse engineer the ascertion that species gone extinct, did not otherwise give rise to whooly new forms.
> 
> ...



Birds ARE dinosaurs? Can you produce the genetic data to prove that? These are the types of statements that really make me shake my head. Please provide any info you can to confirm 100% that birds are dinosaurs. And please don't try the "dinosaurs with feathers" tactics. Most evolutionist haven't noticed that there is intense debate WITHIN the scientific community on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs are from another lineage. I've read information from both sides and neither are compelling.

Bacteria over 500,000 years old? Can you provide that info? Trees 80,000 years old? Can you provide that info. I've heard some outrageous ages to living organisms but never that outlandish. I'm interested on seeing that material.

As far as your argument to the sheer mass of animals that are now extinct and fossilized you have to take a few things into account before drawing the conclusions you are drawing. 
I will try to answer this objection without bringing to much religion into it. 
Young-earth Creationist believe that the Earth before Noah's flood was MUCH MUCH different. Scripture tells us that there was only one great sea and that God created the Earth to be inhabited by man and FOR man to have dominion over the WHOLE EARTH. This(along with other scriptures) indicates a radically different pre-flood world.

Only about 5% of the current Earth's surface in able to be inhabited by man in a completely naturalist manner (naked lol). Which doesn't correspond to how scripture says God originally created the Earth.

Most creationist believe that there was probably 80-90% or more of land surface compared to water, which gives a MUCH LARGER area for God's creatures to dwell in comparison to todays surface. Scripture indicates that the mountain ranges were MUCH LESS extreme and would have provide more liveable landscape for both Man and beast. Also before the flood there was harmony amongst the creatures in creation which would allow more creatures to inhabit the same areas without fear of one another. Only after the flood did animals begin to fear man and each other. 
Also there is strong evidence that the atmosphere before the flood was much different than today's atmosphere and would have provided better conditions for larger plants and animals than we have today.

I can't stress how much I had to abbreviate these points. And if you have never read any creation material this will all sound quite outlandish to you.

I just want to make it known that the creation we observe today is vastly different than the creation before the flood ACCORDING to sacred scripture.

I will ignore the comments on religion from Will to keep us from diving to far into a religious debate.




Yvonne G said:


> Like so many other things in the bible, interpretations are everything. Who's to say that when the bible says something happened in a day, exactly how long a day is? It may be they're referring to a period of time and not to a 24 hour day....like a jurassic period, an eon, etc.



I can answer your objection if you like Yvonne. But it will require some religious comments. That is up to you if you would allow me to do that.




BeeBee*BeeLeaves said:


> Nope. My tortoises think I am the food goddess and worship me. I rule. : )



I think you rule to BeeBee 


I would like to provide two very strong indicators of a young earth also. If I need to provide others I can.

1. Very Little sediment on the seafloor-- If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for 3 BILLION yeasr, the seafloor should be CHOKED with sediments many miles deep. Think about it. And NO Tectonic plate movements would no absorb enough sediment to counter this giant problem.

2: Bent Rock Layers -- In MANY MANY MOUNTAINOUS areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down seperately over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and ALREADY HARDENED?


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 19, 2013)

Will,

Did you happen to catch this? If implications are correct and consistent within the order(a) then environmental (including thermoregulation) would not be a driver to gigantism. Could be significant given the commonality of this trend, particularly in isolation .

â€œNew pelomedusoid turtles from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia and their implications for phylogeny and body size evolutionâ€

Authors: Edwin Cadena, Dan Ksepka, North Carolina State University; Carlos Jaramillo, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama; Jonathan Bloch, Florida Museum of Natural History

Published: In the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Abstract:
Pelomedusoides comprises ï¬ve moderate-sized extant genera with an entirely southern hemisphere distribution, but the fossil record of these turtles reveals a great diversity of extinct taxa, documents several instances of gigantism, and indicates a complex palaeobiogeographical history for the clade. Here, we report new pelomedusoid turtle fossils from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia. The most complete of these is represented by a large skull (condylobasal length Â´ = 16 cm) and is described as Carbonemys cofrinii gen. et sp. nov. (Podocnemididae). Carbonemys is incorporated into a parsimony analysis utilizing a modiï¬ed morphological character matrix designed to test relationships within Panpelomedusoides, with the addition of molecular data from seven genes (12S RNA, cytochrome b, ND4, NT3, R35, RAG-1 and RAG-2) drawn from previous studies of extant Podocnemididae. C. cofrinii is recovered within Podocnemididae in the results of both morphology-only and combined morphological and molecular (total evidence) analyses. However, molecular data strongly impact the inferred relationships of C. cofrinii and several other fossil taxa by altering the relative positions of the extant taxa Peltocephalus and Erymnochelys. This resulted in C. cofrinii being recovered within the crown clade Podocnemididae in the morphology-only analysis, but outside of Podocnemididae in the combined analysis. Two panpodocnemidid turtle taxa of uncertain afï¬nities are represented by new diagnostic shell material from the Cerrejon Formation, though we refrain from naming them pending discovery of associated cranial material. One of these shells potentially belongs to C. cofrinii and represents the second largest pleurodiran turtle yet discovered. Analysis of pelomedusoid body size evolution suggests that climatic variation is not the primary driver of major body size changes. Cerrejon turtles also demonstrate that at least two major subclades of Podocnemididae were already in place in the neotropics by the Early Cenozoic.


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Dec 19, 2013)

this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".

Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.

I can't imagine what it is like to lift 300 pounds over my head in a press and jerk, I'm not strong enough. Doing it with 100 pounds is not the same. Sooo, if you are not able to lift heavy thoughts, or do your own work to build up to that on your own, I'll not offer any more simple based points for consideration to facilitate your strength.

The ages of trees and bacteria are easy google searches. Do them yourself. Learn to read scientific literature on your own time. 

Fish for a day or fish for life. My bad to have fed you each day.


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 19, 2013)

Will said:


> this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".
> 
> Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.
> 
> ...



I concur. Hence my attempt to return it to relevance.


----------



## diamondbp (Dec 19, 2013)

The grand story Evolution requires....

Something coming from nothing

Life from non life

Intelligence from non intelligence

Organization by random chance 

That your (Zeno and Will) greatggggggggggggggggggggreat grandfather is a ROCK. Yes a rock. Or stardust. Whichever seems more poetic to you.

Yet those silly creationist believe....

A creation requires a creator 

Intelligence comes from a higher intelligence 

Organization comes from an organizer 

Life comes from life 

That the greatgggggggggggggggreat grandfather of a human....is a human

How dare creationist question evolution *facepalm*

God help us


----------



## Team Gomberg (Dec 19, 2013)

*Re: RE: Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)*



diamondbp said:


> The grand story Evolution requires....
> 
> Something coming from nothing
> 
> ...



This is blunt and well said. I just decided to tune into this thread but didn't read all the previous posts. Just a few...




Millerlite said:


> There's also rocks that were dated back 100 of thousands of years ago and some even dated back to 1-2 million years old. If there was no earth then how was these materials on earth for so long? Or maybe it wasn't earth until humans named it? Is that a type of theory?



Some living animals have been carbon dated to be a few thousand years old.
Different parts of the same animal have dated to be thousands and millions years apart in age.

Carbon dating is a rubber ruler. It assumes certain levels are a constant but that assumption is just that...a guess. You can't make the "estimated age" a fact when the formula is a guess to begin with.


----------



## Millerlite (Dec 19, 2013)

Team Gomberg said:


> diamondbp said:
> 
> 
> > The grand story Evolution requires....
> ...





They found a piece of radioactive plutonium in Canada I believe, it was tested and eatimated to be million of years old. This is pretty accurate tho because of the properties of radioactive decay it might be off a percent but still way pass the 10,000 year mark


----------



## Team Gomberg (Dec 19, 2013)

Did they use the same method of testing that said a freshly killed sea lion was 1,300 years old?


Here are some wrong assumptions with carbon dating.
1, Atmospheric C14 is in equilibrium
2, Decay rate remains constant
3, Initial amounts of C14 can be known
4, The sample being tested is contaminated
5, The geologic column can be used as a base to calibrate C14 dates.


----------



## ascott (Dec 19, 2013)

> Will Wrote:
> this whole thread is about the same as a child maintaining a conversation by shot gunning the question "why".
> 
> Like any learned person, it is amusing for awhile then becomes a flag that those asking do not have regard for the answers given in short, here.
> ...





*pompÂ·ous*
ËˆpÃ¤mpÉ™s/Submit
adjective
1.
affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.
"a pompous *** who pretends he knows everything"
synonyms:	self-important, imperious, overbearing, domineering, magisterial, pontifical, sententious, grandiose, affected, pretentious, puffed up, arrogant, vain, haughty, proud, conceited, egotistic, supercilious, condescending, patronizing; informalsnooty, uppity, uppish

Just thought I would add the thought that first came to mind after these two posts....


----------



## zenoandthetortoise (Dec 20, 2013)

Well I was clearly mistaken in thinking this could be a topic for a serious discussion. Instead, every attempt to add clarity has been met with metaphysical rambling, explanations dismissed out of hand and an overt belief that the musings of the self - righteous are some how on par with scientific discourse is presented as a valid point. 

Me and my silly optimism. 

Hey moderators- any chance you can kill this thread before the Sunday schoolers hijack it again ?


----------



## Yvonne G (Dec 20, 2013)

You're right, Steve...it was good while it lasted.


----------

