Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

[FLINTUS]

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.

I have no problem with religion even though I'm atheist, but there are two things I can't stand in some religious people:
Fundamentalists-make up laws that aren't written in their holy script/book, tell off anyone who doesn't do what they want etc.
People who always say that you can't present enough evidence for the theory of evolution, or any other situation which they don't believe in, when they do not have any evidence for evolution themselves.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Looks like I have some catching up to do.
Diamondbp- your language example is not biology, it's anthropology, it's not evidence, it's conjecture, and it's premise is baseless. Even if all of that were correct and it somehow 'proved' language were 'given' to us, it in no ways proves it's origin is any god, much less Christianity's god. Thor, aliens and Bigfoot would be just as likely sources.

In regards to your dismissal of branching phylogenys ('tree of life'), are not based on speculation but on morphological, molecular, and geologic data. Besides, if it were all made up, the worse thing you could say is that it was on equal logical footing with creationism

In regards to your DBT scenario, I'm not "throwing my hands in the air whenever an evolutionary problem is posed", in part because you have yet to pose one. Observing that DBTs have not reclaimed a freshwater niche does not have any bearing on the observation that they previously claimed a brackish one. Unrealized potential change is not a challenge it's merely an observation of what has happened and what has not. Following your reasoning , I could have been an attorney. I am not. Ergo, law school does not exist

---

Shelly if you were walking in the middle of the desert and came across a super computer sitting on the ground what would you conclude?

That it formed itself and ended up their by crazy random chance? Or that it was place their by an intelligent being ?

Your brain is a super computer. It can do millions apon millions of calculations per second. It didn't get here by random chance.

Plus your tortoises are cute

This would be a rehash of the watchmaker analogy used by William Paley in his book "Natural Theology ", written in 1802. It still fails. The two immediate problems are
1) for the supercomputer (or watch) to be analogous to a human brain , it would have to be carrying around plans and parts from every preceding device , from abacus to Commodore 64. A computer doesn't do this, because it was designed. A brain does because it wasn't.
2) natural selection is not random. The mutations of genes, recombinations and drift are random. Natural selection is the opposite of random.

---

It would be interesting to be able to observe evolution in process. Not adaption or mutation but a species right smack in the middle of Evolution. If we have been evolving over millions and billions of years why are we still not seeing cases of evolution taking place?

What makes you think we are not?

Evidence for creation:

All fossil bearing strata contain the same range of amounts of carbon 14


This statement and those that follow are blatantly incorrect. Site a source if you want to be taken seriously.

Now, is there any evidence that would convince you of Intelligent design?

The previously mentioned rabbits in the Precambrian, organisms without vestigial organs, a fossil record that wasn't loaded with mass extinctions, a genetic code that wasn't shared across Domains, etc.

 

[erica anne]

Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.

 

[diamondbp]

I made this for my creationist buddies lol

 

[hunterk997]

I made this for my creationist buddies lol

Not to be disrespectful, and if this goes over the "no religious debate" rule I'm sorry, but where did the deity (or deities) come from?

 

[tortadise]

I made this for my creationist buddies lol

Not to be disrespectful, and if this goes over the "no religious debate" rule I'm sorry, but where did the deity (or deities) come from?

Unfortunately it may go over the rule. I will establish order if need be. This has been a very clean,mature, and orderly kept debate thus far. Lets keep it that way. I feel your question is however valid in response to the post. BUT from here on out lets keep it structured to the statements pertaining to each side, and properly followed up rebuttals without taking stabs and derailing. A lot can be learned from readers on this topic. But it has to be kept professional.

 

[hunterk997]

I made this for my creationist buddies lol

Not to be disrespectful, and if this goes over the "no religious debate" rule I'm sorry, but where did the deity (or deities) come from?

Unfortunately it may go over the rule. I will establish order if need be. This has been a very clean,mature, and orderly kept debate thus far. Lets keep it that way. I feel your question is however valid in response to the post. BUT from here on out lets keep it structured to the statements pertaining to each side, and properly followed up rebuttals without taking stabs and derailing. A lot can be learned from readers on this topic. But it has to be kept professional.

I thought so, again, I apologize. But I also feel that if what I believe to be correct can be questioned, I should be able to do the same. But I understand that the forum rules over rule circumstance.

 

[tortadise]

Your ok. You clearly asked a very valid question of the post indeed. I was not singling you out at all. I certainly hope it didn't come across that way. I was merely stating it to future posts. Sometimes these can get into less detailed posts, and valid on topic replies.

It is a valid question to the post.

 

[diamondbp]

I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.

I for one just like to ponder the "story" of turtles/tortoises. Questions about their distribution, reproduction, habits, etc. are all fascinating and deserve to be studied.

I've had coversations with some turtle buddies of mine about why people are so passionate about understanding the history behind the particular species they work with. And we pretty much concluded that it's because if we can somehow figure it out that it places another puzzle piece to the giant puzzle of the story of life.

For instance, common map turtle distribution along the mississippi river stops shortly after the Louisiana/Arkansas border despite other map turtle species (ouachita/mississippi) thriving all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Why does the distribution along the river stop ? Why do other species go all the way to the mouth of the river with no problems yet a very similar species doesn't? Common map turtles can thrive is a number of habitats and yet they don't inhabitat these southern waters.

As a creationist I look at these types of scenarios and think that it's impossible to expect a species like common map turtles to inhabit 70% of the river system and not inhabit the last 10% of the river system if the species has been around for even 100,000 years. It seems implausable to me, especially considering that roughly 10 other species with similar habits do just that. River cooters, Red-eared sliders, Ouachita maps, Missississippi maps, spiny softshells, common snappers, etc. etc. all inhabit the same river system and go all the way to the coastline, yet the common map turtle does not?

^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.

 

[hunterk997]

^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.

But what about fossils dated back to thousands of years. And according to recorded history, the Japanese were creating pottery earlier than the estimated 5,000 years some creationists claim the age of the earth to be. So what I question is, how can a civilization exist without the planet, and much less be making things? But again I feel I'm hitting that borderline, so I'll back off.
But, a shorter earth timeline is very far fetched. There is a tree is Sweden (I think that's the location) that has been identified as being over 9,000 years old. So I feel a short earth timeline theory is a false one. And as someone mentioned earlier, just because an animal doesn't move locations, doesn't mean a lot. There is still so much we as humans don't understand about eco-systems that could be the reasoning for this happening.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.

Hi there. My approach was to point out logical fallacies, misunderstanding of terms,and identify anecdotes when presented as evidence. I could give you information from the National Academy, the AAAAS, or any number of other peer reviewed scientific journals, but you've given no indication that you are interested (it's easily accessible) or have the background to understand it. Again, that's not derisive. Despite my interest in quantum physics, I have but two years of under grad physics, so will forever be on the sidelines as that progresses.
Two mysteries remain for me; why do you feel qualified to criticize such a complicated field? Do you offer the Old Testament to electrical engineers or astronomers and expect that to be considered relevant?
Also, if you choose a life based on faith, rather than empirical evidence , then why not own that and demonstrate the courage of your convictions? instead of searching for evidence for what you already decided to accept without evidence?

 

[Millerlite]

I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.

I for one just like to ponder the "story" of turtles/tortoises. Questions about their distribution, reproduction, habits, etc. are all fascinating and deserve to be studied.

I've had coversations with some turtle buddies of mine about why people are so passionate about understanding the history behind the particular species they work with. And we pretty much concluded that it's because if we can somehow figure it out that it places another puzzle piece to the giant puzzle of the story of life.

For instance, common map turtle distribution along the mississippi river stops shortly after the Louisiana/Arkansas border despite other map turtle species (ouachita/mississippi) thriving all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Why does the distribution along the river stop ? Why do other species go all the way to the mouth of the river with no problems yet a very similar species doesn't? Common map turtles can thrive is a number of habitats and yet they don't inhabitat these southern waters.

As a creationist I look at these types of scenarios and think that it's impossible to expect a species like common map turtles to inhabit 70% of the river system and not inhabit the last 10% of the river system if the species has been around for even 100,000 years. It seems implausable to me, especially considering that roughly 10 other species with similar habits do just that. River cooters, Red-eared sliders, Ouachita maps, Missississippi maps, spiny softshells, common snappers, etc. etc. all inhabit the same river system and go all the way to the coastline, yet the common map turtle does not?

^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.

How old do you believe the earth to be? 10000 years is still a fraction a blink of time if you compare it to the creation of the world. How do you know there wasn't something blocking map turtle from going any more south, and just recently they have the oppurtunity to go south, but they just have not yet or have no reason too. If the grass is already green, no need to go across the bridge to get more grass. In humans ways of thinking... Yes... If we have green grass. We will build a bridge to get more green grass. Mostly all other animals do not think the same way. They survive and if it's not broken don't fix it. I'm talking 50,000 years ago as still early and new. If the Mississippi River was even 75-100 thousand years old and flooding south, that's still such a short time frame for evolution in respects to the world being billions of years old. My problem with the creation theory is religion timing is off. They so think the world is not old. Or think 10 thousand years is a long time... Why can't we believe that a creator made the universe and the Big Bang and earth being created that way and evolution occurred wouldn't we still be technically created... In that theory. Why would a higher power make creatures that can't adapt and survive situations? You would think a creator would implement a way things survivor for as long as they have, we just labeled it evolution...

 

[erica anne]

Zeno it is apparent that your tactic is to pick one piece of evidence to argue with and derisively claim to discredit it. That could go around and around never getting anywhere. So I say to you. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some evidence as to how it all began. Site your sources, and don't start in the middle.

Hi there. My approach was to point out logical fallacies, misunderstanding of terms,and identify anecdotes when presented as evidence. I could give you information from the National Academy, the AAAAS, or any number of other peer reviewed scientific journals, but you've given no indication that you are interested (it's easily accessible) or have the background to understand it. Again, that's not derisive. Despite my interest in quantum physics, I have but two years of under grad physics, so will forever be on the sidelines as that progresses.
Two mysteries remain for me; why do you feel qualified to criticize such a complicated field? Do you offer the Old Testament to electrical engineers or astronomers and expect that to be considered relevant?
Also, if you choose a life based on faith, rather than empirical evidence , then why not own that and demonstrate the courage of your convictions? instead of searching for evidence for what you already decided to accept without evidence?

Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field? Do you have your PhD in this field, have you done first hand experiments to prove your theories? What makes you qualified? I am guessing that it is studying other people's research that you base your arguments on.

No I don't spend my time on forums debating this topic but that does not mean mean that I not qualified to interpret research and form an opinion. My area if interest is biology, human anatomy and physiology and am in the process of several chemistry courses. (Btw, I aced microbiology awhile ago).

You asked creationists to provide evidence. This would mean validating the document that we believe describes the origins of life. I simply used the example of the Old Testament to do this.

Now, you have yet to answer my questions

 

[dokomadake]

woah....

 

[diamondbp]

I don't mind answering questions of that nature since they are relevant to the topic in a way. We just all must keep in mind that we the topic of God comes up that people can quickly get bent out of shape. So as long as we remain civil and respectful, this can be a really fruitful discussion.

I for one just like to ponder the "story" of turtles/tortoises. Questions about their distribution, reproduction, habits, etc. are all fascinating and deserve to be studied.

I've had coversations with some turtle buddies of mine about why people are so passionate about understanding the history behind the particular species they work with. And we pretty much concluded that it's because if we can somehow figure it out that it places another puzzle piece to the giant puzzle of the story of life.

For instance, common map turtle distribution along the mississippi river stops shortly after the Louisiana/Arkansas border despite other map turtle species (ouachita/mississippi) thriving all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Why does the distribution along the river stop ? Why do other species go all the way to the mouth of the river with no problems yet a very similar species doesn't? Common map turtles can thrive is a number of habitats and yet they don't inhabitat these southern waters.

As a creationist I look at these types of scenarios and think that it's impossible to expect a species like common map turtles to inhabit 70% of the river system and not inhabit the last 10% of the river system if the species has been around for even 100,000 years. It seems implausable to me, especially considering that roughly 10 other species with similar habits do just that. River cooters, Red-eared sliders, Ouachita maps, Missississippi maps, spiny softshells, common snappers, etc. etc. all inhabit the same river system and go all the way to the coastline, yet the common map turtle does not?

^^^This is the type of question that I ponder alot as a turtle/tortoise enthusiast. And as a creationist I think a shorter Earth timeline makes more sense when we consider the distribution of many species. That's my humble opinion.

How old do you believe the earth to be? 10000 years is still a fraction a blink of time if you compare it to the creation of the world. How do you know there wasn't something blocking map turtle from going any more south, and just recently they have the oppurtunity to go south, but they just have not yet or have no reason too. If the grass is already green, no need to go across the bridge to get more grass. In humans ways of thinking... Yes... If we have green grass. We will build a bridge to get more green grass. Mostly all other animals do not think the same way. They survive and if it's not broken don't fix it. I'm talking 50,000 years ago as still early and new. If the Mississippi River was even 75-100 thousand years old and flooding south, that's still such a short time frame for evolution in respects to the world being billions of years old. My problem with the creation theory is religion timing is off. They so think the world is not old. Or think 10 thousand years is a long time... Why can't we believe that a creator made the universe and the Big Bang and earth being created that way and evolution occurred wouldn't we still be technically created... In that theory. Why would a higher power make creatures that can't adapt and survive situations? You would think a creator would implement a way things survivor for as long as they have, we just labeled it evolution...

I believe that the earth is roughly 6500 years old, as state in the Bible. This may shock you , but when you interpret scientific findings through Biblical presuppositions you will find an astonishing correlation. But if you interpet science with evolutionary presuppositions and then try to reconcile that with the Bible you will run into a host of issues.

People come across carbon dating, potassium argon dating, starlight problem, geologic column, etc. and just assume that creationist don't have extremely well thought out scientific explanations for these problems, but they do. It's just that most people read a few looney creationist websites and don't search out the credible sources for arguments against evolution. If you ever want to take an honest look at creation science I could recommend some superior reading for you.

To give you an extremely brief reason why the God of the Bible wouldn't use evolution, I will lay out just a few key points.

If Jesus is the 3rd person of the trinity (Godhead) and Jesus came to defeat Death/Sin so that we could be reconciled to God, then why would Jesus have used death as the mechanism by which we were created?

Think about it, in the Bible death entered creation through the sinful act of our first Parents Adam and Eve. Jesus is considered the "New Adam" that would restore humanity beyond our previously perfect relationship with God. So death and sin is considered the enemy. It's not a mechanism in which God would choose to create things. Natural selection on works if the remaining "unfit" population DIES OFF. Extinction is a huge factor in the "supposed" story of evolution.

If God sent his only begotten son to conquer Death by his crucifixion, why on Earth whould he use death as the main mechanism for creating us? Also the Bible states that God "does not delight in the death of the living". So again, why would God use millions apon millions of years of creatures DIEING to form the current creation?? It makes zero sense from a theological stand point. There are many more points I could make from Christian theology on why God couldn't have "used" evolution to form creatures, but it's not effective unless I'm dealing with fellow believers. Nonbelievers tend to scoff at the Bible, so the info I give from within the text of the Bible holds no weight with them.

Now back to the subject of map turtles. The reason I can CONCLUDE that common map turtles should have reached the mouth of the mississippi by now (considering an evolutionary timescale) is because NUMEROUS OTHER SPECIES HAVE DONE JUST THAT. Common map turtles are very closely related to the other species of map turtles. All map turtles must come from a common ancestor (yes creationist believe this) but that that ancestor resembled modern map turtles very closely. And if they did indeed come from a common ancestor than their distribution must have been FROM THE SAME AREAS at one point in time. There is no natural barrier in the mississippi River drainage that would prevent common map turtles from furthering their distribution, YET allow other map turtle species to inhabit. The mississippi river's current alone should give us great reason to wonder why common map turtles have not been carried down to the mouth of the mississippi river. It's the largest most powerful riversystem in north america.

So I think it is totally justified to suspect that common map turtles ARE STILL EXPANDING their range because they simply haven't been around as long as evolutionist would like to think.

Look at invasive species across the globe. Most invasive species cover a very large area in a very small amount of time (few decades). Even the red-eared slider has QUICKLY established feral populations in other countries to the point where they couldn't possibly be removed by human effort.

To answer your question of why would the creator create creatures "without" the ability to adapt.............well he wouldn't and he didn't lol. In the Book of Genesis (first book of the Bible) it states that God created creatures to bring forth "after their own kind". God created the genetics of every "kind" of animal to be so potent that many many of what we call "species /subspecies" can come from a certain kind of animal. So we as creationist fell that "speciation" is because God has built into each animals genetic code the ability to adapt and produce a vast amount of different traits, but not NEW traits. Birds will always be birds, fish will always be fish, humans will always be humans. Animals produce within their Biblical "kinds". Coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. can all interbreed and produce fertile young because they are of the same "kind". We label them different species, but even modern science can't decide on what EXACTLY determines a species.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

I actually don't have to , but you used a smiley face and I can't resist those

Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field?

No.


Do you have your PhD in this field, have you done first hand experiments to prove your theories?

No, no, and here's a big point; it's not my theory.


What makes you qualified?

I am a biologist of over 20 years, working in botany, ecology, and environmental monitoring. I would posit that qualifies me to explain the scientific definition of a theory, experimental procedures, and the nature of empirical reasoning.

I am guessing that it is studying other people's research

Yes, I spend a great deal of time reviewing research papers.

No I don't spend my time on forums debating this topic

Me neither

but that does not mean mean that I not qualified to interpret research and form an opinion.

Everybody is qualified to have an opinion. If you want others to take it seriously, data and logic are required.


My area if interest is biology, human anatomy and physiology and am in the process of several chemistry courses. (Btw, I aced microbiology awhile ago).

Nice work with micro. Thats a challenging class.


You asked creationists to provide evidence. This would mean validating the document that we believe describes the origins of life. I simply used the example of the Old Testament to do this.

I actually wasn't asking you to validate the bible or any other religious document. I was referring to scientific evidence. To be clear, I would consider a fossil or molecular data as evidence. I would not consider a bible verse.

I am of the opinion that a debate of evidence and/or logic can be both enlightening and a hell of a lot of fun. If you (or anyone else) wants to play, by all means bring it, and I'll do my best to keep up.

Either way, good luck with your studies. I have found biology to be endlessly fascinating.

 

[MasterOogway]

I actually don't have to , but you used a smiley face and I can't resist those

Are you indicating that the only people that are qualified to do research and present arguments are those that dedicate their life to the field?

No.


Do you have your PhD in this field, have you done first hand experiments to prove your theories?

No, no, and here's a big point; it's not my theory.


What makes you qualified?

I am a biologist of over 20 years, working in botany, ecology, and environmental monitoring. I would posit that qualifies me to explain the scientific definition of a theory, experimental procedures, and the nature of empirical reasoning.

I am guessing that it is studying other people's research

Yes, I spend a great deal of time reviewing research papers.

No I don't spend my time on forums debating this topic

Me neither

but that does not mean mean that I not qualified to interpret research and form an opinion.

Everybody is qualified to have an opinion. If you want others to take it seriously, data and logic are required.


My area if interest is biology, human anatomy and physiology and am in the process of several chemistry courses. (Btw, I aced microbiology awhile ago).

Nice work with micro. Thats a challenging class.


You asked creationists to provide evidence. This would mean validating the document that we believe describes the origins of life. I simply used the example of the Old Testament to do this.

I actually wasn't asking you to validate the bible or any other religious document. I was referring to scientific evidence. To be clear, I would consider a fossil or molecular data as evidence. I would not consider a bible verse.

I am of the opinion that a debate of evidence and/or logic can be both enlightening and a hell of a lot of fun. If you (or anyone else) wants to play, by all means bring it, and I'll do my best to keep up.

Either way, good luck with your studies. I have found biology to be endlessly fascinating.

I am seeing a pattern of you avoiding the question lets go back to the beginning? I think this is the fifth time asked. Are you avoiding the question? Please educate us on the evolutionary beginning and lets go from there.

 

[zenoandthetortoise]

I am seeing a pattern of you avoiding the question lets go back to the beginning? I think this is the fifth time asked. Are you avoiding the question? Please educate us on the evolutionary beginning and lets go from there.

Hi. I'm sorry you're feeling ignored. Here are the problems with your question.
1) unlike genesis, reality takes more than a few paragraphs to explain. "The Structure of Evolution ", by Gould runs some 1400 pages, "The Princeton Guide to Evolution " is over 700 pages. I'm not going to duplicate that, typing on my phone. However, both are readily available and highly recommended. Have at them.
2) I've seen nothing in your comments to indicate a sincere interest in scientific inquiry, just a pattern of using preconceived notions to reach foregone conclusions. Standard protocol for religious dogma, grating when given credence as evidence.
3). Even if I had the time and space to address #1 and if I was completely wrong about #2, you have in no way demonstrated an aptitude to understand it. Are you familiar with the process of short chain RNA polymerization? How about the properties of a phospholipid membrane?

So, yeah, given that I'm fending off comments about the flood and assumptions of a 6000 year old earth, " going back to the beginning" seems like a stretch.

 

[diamondbp]

Zeno can I ask what species of turtle or tortoise are you most knowledgable?

I'm waiting on someone to give me a possible reason for "map turtle" problem and no one seems to understand it , let alone answer it with reason.

So perhaps someone can pick a separate North American species that I could pose an evolutionary problem with. Perhaps box turtles?

I'll try to really explain my map turtle problem in greater detail Monday if I can. Goodnight

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

Re: RE: Too bad this was closed (the evolution debate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple, they excell in a niche with very little competion, few health issues, and perpetuate well in that habitat. They can and do enter freshwater systems, but are limited by other species already doing well there.

The POV, by R. Wood that terrapins gave rise to many graptemys is long out of contention. The basis of that paper and the evidence put forward are not considered valid, and newer tools for building phylogenies do not back that paper, if that is who/what you are referencing regarding the relatedness of these groups.

DBT have both behavioral and physiological adapystions that limit other species from exploting tidal marshes, though a few species do make extended forayd into tidal marshes it is as adults, for short periods of time, the sorta "tap out" and retreat to freshwater.

Another example of a species pushing into new habitat, as in climate not the physical space, is alligator snappers. Their able to do well as adults in river areas that do not support a climate for egg maturation, that is why they effectivly have two range maps, one where they can reproduce, and another for where thay have moved over their individual lives. Perhaps some of those females in those colder areas will change a behavior and select a time or place where the eggs will mature, and or there will be a small change in the requirments for successful egg incubation.

Then there are the few species that lay there eggs underwater, that is both a physiological and behavioral thing.

These examples show adaptations to places or "strategies" that are outlier life histories from the most common chelonian success models.

Behaviors are overlooked as they don't yet have a strong relationship to something as concrete as DNA for other aspects of an organism.

Behavior is a big deal. Migrations and life time movements are the best studied aspects of this part of evolution.

Gravity, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact, with theories for explaination. Evolution, yeah it exists, no doubt, but what is it, why does it happen etc? A fact with theories for explanation.

Biology is not simply a provincial science of chemistry and physics, bound by "laws" in the same way, or limited to rhose laws. Biology is a very young science compared to physics and chemistry, so is not as well organized, and has had to distinguish itself at greater conflict with metaphysical POVs, that physics and chemistry have already achieved with much less of a stronghold by alternate POVs.

Short lived organisms with an "r" reproductive strategy are better examples/models for both lab and field real time observations of what has been called micro evolution.

Macro evolution examples can be found in real time as well, but are best examplified by virus based changes in organisms, where the virus is now incorporated into the organism itself.

This is very heady stuff, the best easy to digest material I have found is in the book "Tears of the Cheetah", and that now is sorta old news.

Today's humans and the ever growing body of evidence that we are an amalgamation of a few species of hominoids, is the most compelling story to date where both macro and micro evolution are reasonable explainations of our existence as a species.

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

What two decades ago, our solar system was the only one with planets, yeah? Now hundreds of systems and hundreds of planets are well respected knowledge, the exist, they are.

Just before these discoveries, an alternate POV, was that our solar system was it, the whole of every place that had planets. Some time earlier in our recorded history, the sun revolved around the earth, we no longer find that a valid POV.

But those are rocks floating in space, right, errors in a POV, that are not so scary or painful to let go of. But that life is random, undirected, and not governed by laws as predictable as what gravity can be held to, well that takes a critical mass of individuals to make the cultural/population awarness to a next evoltional change.

The idea that each species is the result of countless undirected small changes is what makes chelonians so incredibly fascinating to me. That they have endured at least two major extinction events, do not seem to experience age or reproductive senescence, and have established speciation in every concievable habitat, less frozen deserts.

I look forward to life being found on a moon of Saturn, another layer of an onion of cultural miss guidance being peeled away.

Rational critical thinking, who'd have thought?