Loggerhead Turtles Defy Evolutionary Explanation

[Split Rock]

Nothing. Until Judgment Day rolls around and you find yourself held accountable for the things you could have known but brushed aside with "I just don't know". That, my friends, is a sobering thought.

Oh goodie!!!!!! The BIG CREATIONIST STICK rears its ugly head once again!!

 

[Thobewill]

Consider instead your lack of knowledge concerning the origin of such fantastic features as this turtle possesses.

Exactly. My lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of loggerhead magnetoreceptors. What's the problem?

 

[selfinflikted]

Nothing. Until Judgment Day rolls around and you find yourself held accountable for the things you could have known but brushed aside with "I just don't know". That, my friends, is a sobering thought.

Which brings me to wonder why, then, your god remains aloof? With the threat of eternal damnation and torture, and his alleged want for all to be saved, why doesn't he simply show himself?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Obvious answers need not be repeated.

Obviously.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Exactly. My lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of loggerhead magnetoreceptors. What's the problem?

Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Which brings me to wonder why, then, your god remains aloof? With the threat of eternal damnation and torture, and his alleged want for all to be saved, why doesn't he simply show himself?

He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle. You admit there is no evolutionary explanation, but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist. Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?

 

[Split Rock]

Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.

You have yet to give him (or us in general) any good reason to replace evolution with "anabaptistfaith's god did it." Other than the vile threat you made earlier, that is.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle. You admit there is no evolutionary explanation, but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist. Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?

Your who argument is basically:

Oooh, so many things we don't understand yet. GODDIDIT!

 

[Thobewill]

Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.

So if I do not know the evolutionary origins of something, I should just say "goddidit" and move on? No. God o' teh Gaps, indeed.

 

[Split Rock]

So if I do not know the evolutionary origins of something, I should just say "goddidit" and move on? No. God o' teh Gaps, indeed.

Wouldn't you prefer, "Cthuludidit?"

 

[MoonLancer]

Not too long ago, I received the third issue of Creation magazine for this year. This high-quality magazine puts many conventional publications to shame just by being void of distracting ads and packed full of captivating graphics. But it goes far beyond that: it is loaded with information people don't hear every day. There is a reason it is sent to more than 100 countries.

As usual, this issue contained a good article about a specific species of animal that cannot be adequately explained by evolution. This time it was the Loggerhead sea turtle.

So the Loggerhead sea turtle was created by god while all other life evolved. Ok cool... i guess.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

So we are correct in assuming that the only answer that you will accept is one that "satisfies" you and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside... rather than one that has explanatory power?

The answer that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, if you will, is the same answer that has explanatory power...for the loggerhead sea turtle.

No, all you have to do is provide evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution. Just bringing up questions we don't currently have all the answers for is not sufficient. Because that would invalidate every scientific theory we have.

I am not "just bringing up questions we don't currently have all the answers for." I am providing data that is explainable via biblical creationism at the expense of evolution theory.

Look around you at the technology that science has provided and you take for granted every single day. That demonstrates the dependability of science.. not a bunch of platitudes about what makes you feel good and secure inside.

I readily recognize and am excited about what observational science can do. But I am sometimes an ungrateful recipient of all of this, yes. But how about looking around at your pumping heart, listening ears, and seeing eyes, something that we take for granted every single day? Again, we're dealing with two different kinds of science.

Nonsense. Evolution is easily disproved, if the evidence is out there. For example: find a genetic sequence of a whale which bares closer homology to a tuna than to a cow. Or find a chimera with bird feathers and a snake's head that feeds milk to its young. Find a Cambrian layer with the bones of cattle and sheep. The list is endless.

Yes. And just about every one of those evidences for evolution is just as powerful an evidence for creation.

As for your whale-tuna-cow argument, if genetics were intelligently designed by one designer, we should expect to see similarity among living things, just as a human artist often has a favourite way of painting, for example. That is, an master designer of all living things should call for evidence that these living things have been designed with the same concept in mind.

As for your chimera-snake argument, if living things were created by a master intelligent designer, then it should only be expected that living things would have orderly characteristics.

Your cambrian argument is perhaps best answered by suggesting the order in which animals would naturally be buried in a catastrophic flood.

In short, you are not progressing by listing evidences for biblical creationism.

Why are the peacock's feather colors not explanable by evolution? do you just attach the label, "not explanable by evolution" to everything that you or some creationist mathematician cannot figure out yourselves?

How is it explainable by evolution?

 

[Thobewill]

Wouldn't you prefer, "Cthuludidit?"

Yes, I would. Unfortunately, my Cthuluism is a one-way ticket to the christian hell.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Friends, excuse my ignorance but precisely what is wrong with "Goddidit" if it offers a better explanation than evolutionary 'science' can offer?

 

[Thobewill]

How is it explainable by evolution?

Sexual selection. They get selected because female peacocks are attracted to blue and green feathers with circles on them. Even if they don't live as long, and are more attractive to predators as well, they still are able to pass on their colourful plumage genes before getting eaten.

 

[Thobewill]

Friends, excuse my ignorance but precisely what is wrong with "Goddidit" it it offers a better explanation than evolutionary 'science' can offer?

It's resorted to when people do not know how something works, aka the God of the Gaps argument. For example, Newton could not apply his laws of motion to the planets and get a stable system (mix of inaccurate data + no reliable multi-body equations) and claimed that they were only stable because God made them that way. We later revised the calculations and found that it does indeed work. Whenever science cannot explain something, people often just jump to "goddidit" instead of inquiring further for an answer. It shows a lack of curiosity and a willingness to simply give up. That's what's wrong with it.

 

[selfinflikted]

He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle.

That's quite a stretch. This is clearly a case of "god of the gaps". Thank goodness some people don't fall victim to this kind of intellectual laziness.

You admit there is no evolutionary explanation,

No, I did not. All I've said is "I don't know." There are a great many things that science can explain and conversely, there are a great many things that science has yet to explain.

but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist.

I do not submit to intellectual laziness simply because I don't know the answer to some question. That is apparently acceptable for you, but not for me. Besides, who's to say Allah or Vishnu or some other "god" didn't do it?

Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?

Again, I have no logical reason to answer an unknown with fantasy.

I'll ask again: Why doesn't go simply show himself instead of playing hide-and-go-seek?

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Sexual selection. They get selected because female peacocks are attracted to blue and green feathers with circles on them. Even if they don't live as long, and are more attractive to predators as well, they still are able to pass on their colourful plumage genes before getting eaten.

You do not seem to have read the article I linked.

Here it is:

Peacock tail tale failure

Charles Darwin’s ‘theory of sexual selection’ fails to explain the very thing Darwin concocted it for

by David Catchpoole
Photo stock.xchng

The peacock’s spectacular fan-like tail, complete with patterns that look like eyes, has all the hallmarks of having been designed—by a Designer.
So it’s hardly surprising that the difficulties of explaining this by evolution evidently presented a ‘headache’ to Charles Darwin. To be precise: ‘The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!’ Those were his exact words which he wrote in 1860,1 the year after he published his (in)famous Origin of Species. It wasn’t until 1871, eleven years later, that Darwin proposed his ‘theory of sexual selection’ in an effort to provide a naturalistic (evolutionary) explanation for peacock feathers and other ‘seemingly useless’ male ornaments.
Basically, Darwin’s idea was that the male peacock’s spectacular feathers and fan-like tail evolved (i.e. arose naturally) in response to female (peahen) mate choice. That is, the males with the most attractive tails would be more attractive to the females, thus mate more and pass on more of their genes, which include the genes for attractive tails, to the next generation.
Subsequent much-lauded studies claimed to show that peahens prefer a male with a gorgeous train and it soon became ‘part of the canon of evolutionary biology’.2
However, detailed observation by a research team led by Mariko Takahashi of the University of Tokyo ‘throws a wrench in the long-held belief that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice’.3,4 The study found no evidence that peahens choose mates according to the quality of the peacocks’ tails—‘at odds with Darwin’s theory of sexual selection’.5
The researchers judged tail quality in two ways. First, they measured tail length. Second, they counted the number of eyespots across the fanned tail. The longer the tail, and the more numerous the eyespots, the better the ‘quality’ of the tail. They then recorded whether females chose mates with the best-quality tails. But, to their (and many other evolutionists&#8217 surprise, they found that females mated with ‘poor-quality’ peacocks as often as with ‘flashy’, ‘high-quality’ males.

So, as New Scientist reported, the researchers concluded that ‘the peacock’s train is not the object of female sexual preference—contradicting Darwin’s theory of sexual selection.’6
It’s not as if the researchers set out to contradict the theory—just the opposite in fact—they had planned to confirm it. But despite continuing their research for seven years, during which time they observed 268 matings in a feral population of Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), the researchers could not link the elaborateness of a peacock’s tail with his mating success.
Put simply, the male’s feather train failed to impress or excite, much less interest, the females.
Of course, even if the females were impressed, this does not explain the origin of the genes that code for the elaborate tail feathers.7
Darwin’s sexual selection theory has been increasingly under attack in recent years.8 The theory’s latest spectacular failure to explain the very thing that Darwin concocted it for basically leaves evolutionists back at ‘square one’.
That is, just like Darwin in 1860, they would have every reason to gaze at a peacock’s tail, and feel sick!

 

[gipsy]

Friends, excuse my ignorance but precisely what is wrong with "Goddidit" if it offers a better explanation than evolutionary 'science' can offer?

Simply because it's a non explanation. It doesn't help our understanding in any way if we say "goddidit" or "pixiesdidit" or "fsmdidit" ...

If you'd tell me that you're stomach is snarling and you don't know what to do, I could simply tell you "goddidit" and let you starve, or I could explain you that your body needs nourishment and perhaps also help you getting something to eat ...