Cool new transitional turtle fossil

[Mallon]

Anyone familiar with evolutionary biology knows that turtles remain one of the most poorly understood groups of vertebrates, especially given their poor fossil record -- there just aren't that many transitional turtle fossils out there to help root them in the amniote tree.

That changed today.

Check out Odontochelys, the toothed turtle:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/odontochelys-a.html

It's an odd-looking reptile with a turtle-like head (with teeth!), no carapace, yet it has a turtle's plastron (under-belly)! Weird. Better still, it appears on the surface that this might be a case of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny because, in living turtles, the plastron develops before the carapace during embryonic development.

Really cool stuff. A transitional turtle. Now if only we could figure out where bats came from...

 

[Leonard]

I fail to see why it MUST be interpreted as a 'transitional' form. It seems like just another extinct critter to me!

 

[Mallon]

I suppose it's always possible that God created these creatures intact to look like half-turtles/half-basal amniotes. The question is: Why would He do such a thing? And why would He do it so consistently across all living things?

Neocreationists have been saying for years that evolution is false because "there are no transitional fossils!". But when something like Odontochelys pops up, the reaction is often "God just created it to look that way!"
Just doesn't come across as an honest mindset...

 

[Assyrian]

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/odontochelys-a.html

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, and were not ashamed.

 

[Mallon]

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Biblical proof of turtle evolution!

 

[Assyrian]

They are soooo cute!

 

[IndyPirate]

Oh Noes!!1!! Now There Are Two Gaps Instead Of One!!!

In all seriousness, this is an awesome find. I need to bone-up on reptile fossils at some point. I feel so far behind.

 

[shernren]

Godzilla -> Odontochelys -> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

 

[shernren]

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Yeah, it looks like the top turtle's checking out the bottom turtle's ... bottom.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I hate to tell you but this is all a hoax. Everyone knows that there are no transitional fossils! [/sarcasm]

I guess they could try and claim Hovind's $250k but then again I bet the IRS actually has that cash right now.

 

[Smidlee]

I fail to see why it MUST be interpreted as a 'transitional' form. It seems like just another extinct critter to me!

If you are an evolution believer then of course it must be interpreted as a transitional form. They were looking for something old with a partial shell to fit their theory so they found one. It seems evolution had a lot more magic in the past than it does today since the turtle hasn't changed for 200 millions year according to the evolutionists. Of course you could also be correct as well as it could be a totally separate creature from the turtle.

 

[Mallon]

If you are an evolution believer then of course it must be interpreted as a transitional form.

The thing about evolutionary theory is that it predicts this very thing. And verily, the fossils are found to match these predictions time and time again. You can write it all off as a fluke if you like. But eventually, you've got to be honest with yourself and wonder about the existence of all these transitional forms that evolution predicts. Alternatively, why are there no chimaeras in nature?

They were looking for something old with a partial shell to fit their theory so they found one.

YES! And that's the point. Scientists found evidence that nicely fits the theory of evolution by common descent. No other hypothesis re: the origin of biodiversity predicts such a morphology.

It seems evolution had a lot more magic in the past than it does today since the turtle hasn't changed for 200 millions year [sic] according to the evolutionists.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is but one species of turtle. In fact, there are over 300 species alive today.

So yes, of course turtles have changed in the last 200 million years. They just haven't changed much. Then again, there's NOTHING in the theory of evolution that says they have to. Evolutionary rates are not constant among all taxa, and no one has ever claimed they are.

Of course you could also be correct as well as it could be a totally separate creature from the turtle.

Sure, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Smidlee]

The thing about evolutionary theory is that it predicts this very thing. And verily, the fossils are found to match these predictions time and time again.

I've read and see these prediction change all the time. Evolution pretty much predicts everything. I wouldn't be surprise we have a totally different interpretation of these fossil 10 year from now. Since fossil continues to be reinterpreted to fit the theory I remain skeptic to evolutionist's interpretations of the data.

So yes, of course turtles have changed in the last 200 million years. They just haven't changed much. .

I find evolutionist's interpretations of fossils evolving (change) more than the actually creatures. Of course you probably already knew I'm not an evolution believer so I don't automatically assume similarities equals common descent since we have have so many example in nature today.

 

[Mallon]

I've read and see these prediction [sic] change all the time. Evolution pretty much predicts pretty much everything. I wouldn't be surprise [sic] we have a totally different interpretation of these fossil [sic] 10 year [sic] from now.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this using specific examples?

I find evoltionist's [sic] interpretations of fossils evolving (change) more than the actually [sic] creatures.

In what way? Interpretations change all the time in science, not just evolutionary science. Are changing interpretations a bad thing? We Christians interpret the Bible differently now than we did 500 years ago, after all...

 

[Smidlee]

Here's the thing . The fact the turtle hasn't change much in 200 million years is evidence for evolution as well as a fossil interpretation which claim the turtle had some major changes in 10 millions year is evidence of evolution. (the little changes of the jellyfish is also evidence of evolution) Change and no change is evidence of evolution. One thing I do agree with is creatures in nature has a lot of similarities.

 

[Mallon]

I honestly cannot understand the point you're trying to make, Smidlee. Could you please rephrase yourself, this time paying close attention to your spelling and grammar? The above post is simply illegible.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Here's the thing . The fact the turtle hasn't change much in 200 million years is evidence for evolution as well as a fossil interpretation which claim the turtle had some major changes in 10 millions year is evidence of evolution. (the little changes of the jellyfish is also evidence of evolution) Change and no change is evidence of evolution. One thing I do agree with is creatures in nature has a lot of similarities.

Mutations are sometimes the result of environmental changes. A creature could be an apex predator for 10 million years and then it's prey could evolve a defense forcing it to either evolve or die. So yes, lots of quick change, and no change at all are both evidence for evolution. I can only figure that you just really don't understand how the mechanism of evolution works if you don't see that almost every single fossil we dig up is transitional. In a lot of cases we have stage A and C but lack B, then we find B and it is half way between A and C and right in the strata where evolution predicted it would be. I only preface it with "almost" because we don't always have A, sometimes we have B and C and then find A.

 

[Mallon]

So yes, lots of quick change, and no change at all are both evidence for evolution.

I wouldn't argue that "no change at all" is evidence of evolution. Evolution IS change. Change is evidence of evolution.
The point is that we DO see change in the fossil record, including that of turtles and crocs and the like. They may not have changed as dramatically as mammals or birds in their evolutionary history ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"), but they have changed, and that is evolution.

 

[RobertByers]

Anyone familiar with evolutionary biology knows that turtles remain one of the most poorly understood groups of vertebrates, especially given their poor fossil record -- there just aren't that many transitional turtle fossils out there to help root them in the amniote tree.

That changed today.

Check out Odontochelys, the toothed turtle:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/odontochelys-a.html

It's an odd-looking reptile with a turtle-like head (with teeth!), no carapace, yet it has a turtle's plastron (under-belly)! Weird. Better still, it appears on the surface that this might be a case of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny because, in living turtles, the plastron develops before the carapace during embryonic development.

Really cool stuff. A transitional turtle. Now if only we could figure out where bats came from...

THIS IS THE BEST YOU GOT FOR TRANSITIONS?!! This is a example of evidence for the claims of evolution. Well AMEN brother. Everybody look here.
This is a turtle with minor adaptation for its world of no more relevance for turtles today with soft or hard shells.
You did admit there is poverty of data on turtle transitions. This is because it never happened. A option.

This creationist accepts whales have legs showing a previous life. yet not from evolution or slow and still within kind from its origin off the Ark. This turtle is less different then water mammals.
no case here. Evolution still not evidenced where it must be to make a case.

 

[Mallon]

THIS IS THE BEST YOU GOT FOR TRANSITIONS?!! This is a [sic] example of evidence for the claims of evolution. Well AMEN brother. Everybody look here.
This is a turtle with minor adaptation for its world of no more relevance for turtles today with soft or hard shells.
You did admit there is poverty of data on turtle transitions. This is because it never happened. A option.

No one here is arguing that Odontochelys wasn't well-adapted to its environment, Robert. But all the disparaging remarks in the world don't take away from the fact that this is exactly what the evolutionary theory predicts: a transitional turtle lacking a fully-formed shell from the Triassic.
Does your preferred form of neocreationism allow you to make the same predictions that can be tested against the fossil record?

Evolution still [sic] not evidenced where it must be to make a case.

Robert, you believe evolution predicts fossil horses with gills. With all due respect, I hardly believe you are in a position to gauge the evidence for evolution when you display such an abominable understanding of it. It's okay not to understand something -- there's lots in this world I don't know about -- but it's wrong to pretend you understand something when you don't.