A discussion of turtle and tortoise evolution- ONLY.

[N2TORTS]

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

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

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

 

[cdmay]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

 

[Levi the Leopard]

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

 

[Madkins007]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cdmay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Discover magazine article The Tortoise or the Hare, . "Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct."

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

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

From Processes of Organic Evolution,
“No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.”

“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
The New Evolutionary Timetable

“Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”
From On Growth and Form

BOLD highlights are mine

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

 

[cdmay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Discover magazine article The Tortoise or the Hare, . "Dinosaurs, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to any ancestors before them. They multiplied greatly, then became extinct."

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

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

From Processes of Organic Evolution,
“No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.”

“the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
The New Evolutionary Timetable

“Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”
From On Growth and Form

BOLD highlights are mine

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

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

 

[N2TORTS]

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

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

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

 

[cdmay]

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

By appearances, I need to provide some clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

No, I am not saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

No, I haven't called you any names.

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

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

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

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

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

If you did, I missed it.

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

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

 

[cdmay]

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

I'll drink to that.

Steve

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

 

[Yvonne G]

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

attachment=68961]

 

[N2TORTS]

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

attachment=68961]

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



OOOPPSS…….

 

[TortsNTurtles]

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

attachment=68961]

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

---

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

attachment=68961]

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



OOOPPSS…….

Hey that goes with mixing tortoise species!