Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

[zenoandthetortoise]

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.

---

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]

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.

---

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

What if I said I have none. You would laugh wouldn't you? You would say I couldn't build a theory without any observable evidence wouldn't you? And rightfully so.

YEEEEET, you believe that DBTs evolve with ZERO observable evidence don't you? Did you observe the ancestors of DBTs? No you didn't. Nor did anyone else. Did you track their supposed "adaptations" from their freshwater ancestors? Did you log these observations down and make correlations between their evolution and the changes of the ecosystem around them making astonishing connections that illuminate the story of their evolution?

The answer to these questions is >>NO YOU HAVEN't<<. NOR HAS ANYONE ELSE. And that goes for every extinct species of chelonia ever. Yet you still believe they evolved because the scientific community DEMANDS that they have. You simply accept it in void of all observable evidence. Like I said before.... scientific hypocrisy.

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)?

***Good creationst argument you just made there.^^

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

***That's a good question that I would love to POSE a theory for if I get some serious free time. I think that's much more of a problematic for long term evolution than for a young earth creation.

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.

***If a creation said something about a "creature got lucky" yall would laugh and dismiss it as "bad science". Yet it's perfectly acceptable for an evolutionist to use such language?? Again scientific hypocrisy. Applying a fancy scientific name to such an idea doesn't change the nature of the idea. If your only explanation to why DBTS HAVE BECOME BRACKWISH WATER species is because "they got lucky" then you have lowered your science to pure imagination.

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?

***I do appreciate your input Will. You sound really geniune and I don't think you mean harm. But I don't see much weight behind what you are saying. It seems like a regurgitation of typical baseless evolutionary language. No offense.

---

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...

By presenting some blurry image on an extinct turtle that somehow proves macro evolution? You must be joking right?

---

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:

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.

My answer to that question of why only humans can build cars is a religious answer. I'm sure you can figure out what the answer is lol.
Saying things are "the luck of the draw" is far from a solid scientific statement. I'm not saying I don't agree with it, I just don't think it explains anything. It basically leaves the door wide open to free interpretation.

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:

Your proposal here doesn't accurately portray creationism or evolutionism. Nether creationism or evolutionism is a science. They are both INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SCIENCE.

For instance. If I find a extinct turtle specie's fossils and extract them out of the ground for measurements and such, the information I log down is scientific data. Now if I go on to build a theory of how and what this extinct species evolved from I am no longer dealing with strict science, but an INTERPRETATION of the scientific material.

Example. When I look at polystrate fossils I interpret them differently than an evolutionist would because I don't believe the layers in the geologic column represent millions of years but that they represent layers layed down by the global flood. The petrified tree was merely caught in this flood and became petrified quickly within the sediment preventing decay. But an evolutionist will INTERPRET it differently and try to IMAGINE a way in which an UPRIGHT PETRIFIED TREE would remain in tact over SEVERAL MILLIONS YEARS without breaking apart.

So the petrified tree itself and the layers are scientific material, but the story of how the tree got there is an INTERPRETATION of the science. Evolutionist and creationist have their own interpretation

Another quick simple example. If I find a skeleton of a mut dog in my yard I can take measurements, check bone density, dental features, etc. and that would be considered scientific material. But if I then go on to say that this dogs great great great great grandparents were a poodle and a beagle you would problably laugh because I couldn't possibly prove that. That's because my interpretation of the scientific material isn't merited. It's impossible to draw those particular CONCLUSIONS based of the scientific material.

---

---

 

[Mgridgaway]

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]

"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]

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.

---

"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.

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]

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.

My answers (Masteroogway is in bold) sorry moderator I tried using reply and it was all grouped together


I understand those who hold the Evolutionary theory believe that it takes millions of years of tiny steps of micro-evolution to create a complete change macro evolution over billions of years. I also understand that it a theory and there is not any documented scientific evidence of an enitre specie change macro-evolution which make it s theory. Ideally we need proof of all these steps using explanations based on observation, experimentation, reasoning and testing. (your words of true science)There is none. I do understand that and it is my point I look forward to discuss further.


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.

Actually... Biology the study of life does have a set of laws that science holds to: exhibits movement, achieves growth, reproduces, comes from preexisting life (which makes the beginning of the evolutionary theory interesting), exhibits irritability, requires energy, faces death, responds to stimuli

"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.

Viruses without a host are lifeless.They have no cell membranes, cytoplasm, or organelles of their own.They cannot move on their own, and they can reproduce only by using the organelles and enzymes of the host organism.Obligate intracellular parasites cannot reproduce outside their host cell, meaning that the parasite's reproduction is entirely reliant on intracellular resources. This is virology not macro-evolution. It lives off the host it does not change the host or become a new virus.Which is whaat macro-evolution requires a complete change.


"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]

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]

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.

MasterOogway is in bold
Now Now, we need to begin further back.To the beginning. Billions of years maybe. Where did these elements come from? What caused the sun? What caused the bombardment? Where did the rock & volcanism come from? Also can you prove the described environment existed billions of years ago? I would like to see this documentation? Who was there to record and witness this. I would like their names please.

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!

 

[Millerlite]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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....