Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

Then don't read anything written by a scientist.


But you can witness gravity. Noone can WITNESS macro evolution.

Variation AMONGST species happens but it has limits just as horses can only be breed to run so fast. Horses have genetic limits when it comes to speed.

Same with turtles. Box turtles can produce a variety of coloration but that's because the genetic information for those various colorations are ALREADY PRESENT in their genetic informaiton. That genetic information doesn't just appear from nowhere. It was already in place. So therefore nothing NEW is ever created. They remain box turtles, just variations of the same kind. (in a nutshell)

And these pesky fossils?

 

[diamondbp]

RE: Too bad this was closed

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

What about those fossils?

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Too bad this was closed

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

What about those fossils?

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

 

[MasterOogway]

Too bad this was closed

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

 

[happyjoyjoy]

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

 

[diamondbp]

RE: Too bad this was closed

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

What about those fossils?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

 

[MasterOogway]

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

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

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Levi the Leopard]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saleama]

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

 

[MasterOogway]

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

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

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

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

 

[hunterk997]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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

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

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

 

[Rocky08]

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

 

[diamondbp]

Zeno can you present something supporting evolution of turtles?

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

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

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

---

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

 

[Rocky08]

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

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

 

[diamondbp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

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?