Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rocky08

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
27
Location (City and/or State)
Aurora, Colorado (U.S.A.)
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
16,138
Location (City and/or State)
Apple Valley, California
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" :D
 

MasterOogway

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
528
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.

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.

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:D
 

Yvonne G

Old Timer
TFO Admin
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
93,391
Location (City and/or State)
Clovis, CA
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
Sorry not going to be able to address today. Here's the phylogeny though:

ImageUploadedByTortForum1387207539.605050.jpg


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 :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

diamondbp

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,331
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.

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.

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.

***There are many many areas in the DBTs distribution where they compete with either NO competition or very little competition. In fact, in Louisiana where the DBTs occur there is massive amounts of River cooters, Red-eared sliders, snapping turtles, softshells, stinkpots, mud turtles, etc. that inhabit the same waters. And yet the DBTS thrive in these areas. So although your comment seems to make sense, it's simply not the case when considering their ENTIRE range. They also deal with alot of predators in brackish water that freshwater turtles don't have to deal with (crabs, larger species of fish like Redfish,etc.)

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.

***Whether or not DBTs came from map turtles is honestly irrelevant. The MAIN POINT behind me stating that is that everyone would agree that they HAD TO HAVE evolve from a FRESHWATER species. That would be agreed on by everyone. And if they did evolve from a freshwater species, then certain conclusions can be drawn.

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.

***I'm not sure if you realize this, but by ^^ this comment you just eliminated the possibility of a freshwater species EVER evolving into a brackwish water species(DBT). YET you believe they do? Think about it, you just stated that other "other species(freshwater)" are LIMITED because they DON'T HAVE the behavioral or physiological adaptations to exploit tidal marshes. So according to "your" statement, you eliminate the possible evolution of DBTS from freshwater ancestors because at one point in the past the most NOT HAVE HAD these adaptations to live in brackish water. Am I not correct? One an earlier comment by another member they said that there is no need for a DBT to try to inhabit freshwater again because it's comfortable in brackwish water. Well if that was the case, they WOULD HAVE NEVER LEFT FRESHWATER to begin with lol. It total scientific hypocrisy.

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.

***No comment on that paragraph. It didn't have much relevance.

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.

***You are ASSUMING these are adaptations. You haven't witnessed the last supposed "millions" of years to make that conclusion that these species adapted to anything. You simply assume it because of you evolutionary presuppositions. Alligator snappers (or any other turtle)could very easily be doing the EXACT SAME HABITS that they have always done. We can't go back in time to witness these creatures and their habits. We simply have skeletons and fossils,,,,,,thats it. No genetics, no obsersvations, nothing. So again your comment is not a scientific one.

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.

***Behaviors are a big deal, I agree. And how many fossils have we observed their BEHAVIORS?? Answer is ZERO. No fossils reveal behavior. If I find a dog skeleton buried in my back yard it would be impossible to determine any of the dogs BEHAVIORS while it was still alive. Correct? So when you say that "migrations" and "life time movements" are the best studied aspects of evolution then you must admit that it is impossible to conclude much of anything from the fossil record(lack of observation). Definitely not enough to construct a tree of life lineage from any species to another.

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.

***The last 3 paragraphs didn't merit a response. I didn't necessarily disagree with anything stated in them.

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 false. The virus remains a virus, and the host organism remains the same. If the host organisms reproduces after being infected with the virus the offspring are not a "different" animal. Also when that host organism dies the virus remains a virus. The virus doesn't evolve wings and fly away lol.:p

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.

*** Again totally false. Human evolution is one of the poorest and pathetic attempts to piece together a story. "Bones of Contention" is a great book on this topic. Humans have always been humans, and apes have always been apes. Interestingly, fossils for chimpanzee and gorilla evolution are seemingly non existent. That's because they didn't evolve.

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

***That's because it's false science. Mark my words, evolution will continue to be drastically adjusted for the next several decades just as it has been over the last few decades. Some of what was taught as UNDENIABLE FACTS 20 years ago has already been proven false. This trend will continue.

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.

*** Again I don't disagree with those ^^ two paragraphs, but they are irrelevant for this topic.

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 agree strongly that chelonians are incredibly fascinating. They are vastly different from many other families of creatures.

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?

***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

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
60
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,331
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,670
Location (City and/or State)
Southern Calif.
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,331
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?

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

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. :cool:

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

wellington

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Tortoise Club
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
49,660
Location (City and/or State)
Chicago, Illinois, USA
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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,331
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

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
60
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?

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.

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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Tortoise Club
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
5,173
Location (City and/or State)
South of Southern California, but not Mexico
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

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
420
" 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

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
16,138
Location (City and/or State)
Apple Valley, California
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top