Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

[Rocky08]

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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.

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

 

[erica anne]

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

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

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

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

---

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

 

[Millerlite]

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

 

[MasterOogway]

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

 

[erica anne]

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

*grr autocorrect! Not repeat, respect!

 

[TommyZ]

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

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

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

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

 

[Yvonne G]

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

---

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

 

[Saleama]

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

 

[Millerlite]

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

---

---

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

A couple of points to advance the conversation :

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

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

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

 

[FLINTUS]

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

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

 

[Saleama]

A couple of points to advance the conversation :


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

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

---

A couple of points to advance the conversation :


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

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

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“New pelomedusoid turtles from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia and their implications for phylogeny and body size evolution”

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

Published: In the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“New pelomedusoid turtles from the late Palaeocene Cerrejon Formation of Colombia and their implications for phylogeny and body size evolution”

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

Published: In the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

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

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

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

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

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