Cool new transitional turtle fossil

[LewisWildermuth]

Yes I just heard this and it is a cool find.

It is interesting to see how quickly the Neo-Creationists have changed the argument from the idea that we would never find a half turtle creature to the idea that a half turtle is perfectly acceptable independently created animal and thus of course we would find it.

 

[Chesterton]

I’m sure there are many paleontologists who are evolutionists and atheists. How would they define a “transitional fossil”, as opposed to, I guess, a non-transitional fossil? If transitioning doesn’t have a planned end result, then there is no other kind of fossil, is there? So what’s the meaning or purpose of the phrase “transitional fossil”?

 

[lemmings]

The turtles’ armor first developed on its belly? I thought that their ancestors would have been like armadillos where the armor exists only on the top of the body.

 

[Mallon]

I’m sure there are many paleontologists who are evolutionists and atheists. How would they define a “transitional fossil”, as opposed to, I guess, a non-transitional fossil? If transitioning doesn’t have a planned end result, then there is no other kind of fossil, is there? So what’s the meaning or purpose of the phrase “transitional fossil”?

There's no strict definition for "transitional fossil" because, really, every individual that has ever left offspring is itself transitional. In this sense, almost all fossils are transitional.
"Transitional fossil" is a loosely defined term to refer to a fossil that exhibits a transitional morphology. This does not mean that we can identify it as THE direct ancestor of a particular group of animals, but we can say with certainty that it reflects the sort of transitional morphology we would expect for an early representative of a particular animal group. "Transitional fossils" are usually referred to in the context of ancestors to living taxa (especially in the media), but transitional fossils are known between long-extinct groups as well.

 

[shernren]

Having said that, there is a sensible way in which "transitional fossils" differ from, well, non-transitional ones: they correspond to transitions between phyla which, because of intervening extinction, have become separate today. If you're looking over the entire stretch of 4.5 billion years of life, of course everything is a transitional form. But if you start by restricting yourself to the two thousand years or so during which humanity has been consciously observing life, then there are indeed gaps between different groups of life, and one then turns back the clock bit by bit until one finds the "transitional fossils" which plug the gaps.

 

[RobertByers]

Yes I just heard this and it is a cool find.

It is interesting to see how quickly the Neo-Creationists have changed the argument from the idea that we would never find a half turtle creature to the idea that a half turtle is perfectly acceptable independently created animal and thus of course we would find it.

This is a half turtle. No its just a turtle. No different then turtles today with different kinds of shells. Some full covering and some less.
No it would not be a independent created creature. The original kind would not of had a shell in a pre-fallen world.
Variety in turtles is the only thing revealed by these fossils. These fossils are not from progression in time but only a moment in time frozen in place. A single day/week at the start of the biblical flood. Diversity was greastest before the flood.
I would add that since the turtle was probably not a creature that needed to be saved by the ark that therefore more varieties survived the flood. However since God kept only a remnant from the seas like on land yet under jhis protection there might of been just a pair saved.

 

[Mallon]

This is a half turtle. No its just a turtle. No different then turtles today with different kinds of shells. Some full covering and some less.
No it would not be a independent created creature. The original kind would not of had a shell in a pre-fallen world.
Variety in turtles is the only thing revealed by these fossils. These fossils are not from progression in time but only a moment in time frozen in place. A single day/week at the start of the biblical flood. Diversity was greastest before the flood.
I would add that since the turtle was probably not a creature that needed to be saved by the ark that therefore more varieties survived the flood. However since God kept only a remnant from the seas like on land yet under jhis protection there might of been just a pair saved.

Does it not strike you that this is an entirely reactive, ad hoc argument, concocted for the sole purpose of salvaging an otherwise falsified preconviction, Robert? It almost seems like you'll say anything in order to avoid ceding ground to the evolutionary theory.

You called it, Lewis.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Does it not strike you that this is an entirely reactive, ad hoc argument, concocted for the sole purpose of salvaging an otherwise falsified preconviction, Robert? It almost seems like you'll say anything in order to avoid ceding ground to the evolutionary theory.

You called it, Lewis.

This is one of the times I wish I wrong. It saddens me to see YECs trotting further and further down this well worn and predictable path.

 

[Smidlee]

From what I've read the Nature article pretty much said the same thing RobertByers wrote above.So it's ok if an evolution believer to claim this fossil was just another adaption which is common in aquatic turtles but not a creationist.
If this fossil is an transitional fossil or just an adaption it's no problem with TOE since it explains everything. It's also covers both the turtle evolve from both land and a sea creature (as of now the believers are not sure which it is) so that it can't be proven wrong in the future. (The same how the turtle got it shell)

 

[Mallon]

From what I've read the Nature article pretty much said the same thing RobertByers wrote above.So it's ok if an evolution believer to claim this fossil was just another adaption which is common in aquatic turtles but not a creationist.
If this fossil is an transitional fossil or just an adaption it's no problem with TOE since it explains everything. It's also covers both the turtle evolve from both land and a sea creature (as of now the believers are not sure which it is) so that it can't be proven wrong in the future. (The same how the turtle got it shell)

First, I think the word you're looking for is "adaptation", Smidlee. Not "adaption".
Second, you're using the word as though it is somehow antithetic to evolution. It is not. In fact, adaptation is evolution (though the two words are not synonymous). So yes, Odontochelys was adapted to its environment. No one has ever denied that. But that doesn't mean it didn't possess a transitional morphology between modern turtles and more primitive forms.
Further reading on the proper meaning of adaptation here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_31
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_01

 

[Smidlee]

In fact, adaptation is evolution (though the two words are not synonymous).

If adaptation is evolution then I'm an evolutionist yet there more to evolution than a creature simply adapting. Evolution doesn't just deal with adaption but transforming ( as well as origins). Dinosaurs transforming into birds for example. (of course evolutionist believe add a lot of time makes it less of a miracle even though time seem to be an enemy to pretty much everything)
When it come to Odontochelys some believes it is a "transitional fossil" while another see it as an adaptation. Transitional fossil as the idea this is how the turtle got it's shell ( kind of like Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story) while adaptation the turtle loss part of it's shell as it adapt to the sea life.

 

[Matthewj1985]

If adaptation is evolution then I'm an evolutionist yet there more to evolution than a creature simply adapting. Evolution doesn't just deal with adaption but transforming ( as well as origins). Dinosaurs transforming into birds for example. (of course evolutionist believe add a lot of time makes it less of a miracle even though time seem to be an enemy to pretty much everything)
When it come to Odontochelys some believes it is a "transitional fossil" while another see it as an adaptation. Transitional fossil as the idea this is how the turtle got it's shell ( kind of like Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story) while adaptation the turtle loss part of it's shell as it adapt to the sea life.

Please explain how evolution deals with origins. Like Mallon said, evolution IS adaptation to the Nth power, why is this so hard to understand? Also how do you explain away the fact that every fossil we find just happens to fit right into the theory of evolution. Do you really think God tossed alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll those transitional states in just to confuse you?

 

[Mallon]

If adaptation is evolution then I'm an evolutionist yet there more to evolution than a creature simply adapting. Evolution doesn't just deal with adaption but transforming ( as well as origins). Dinosaurs transforming into birds for example.

So what prevents small adaptations from accumulating over time to produce big evolutionary "transformations"?
Have a look at this colour gradient:

It progresses from blue at the top to red at the bottom. At each step along that gradient, there is a subtle shift in hue, such that adjacent steps are nearly indistinguishable in colour. These subtle changes are analogous to what you're calling adaptation (or "adaption" of your original terminology). Yet over the span of this gradient, these subtle changes accumulate to form red at one end, and blue at the other. A transformation! So you see, you can get big transformations via accumulations of small adaptations after all. With evolution, the processes are the same, the only difference is that time forms the vertical axis of the gradient, rather than distance.

(of course evolutionist believe add a lot of time makes it less of a miracle even though time seem to be an enemy to pretty much everything)

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

When it come [sic] to Odontochelys some believes [sic] it is a "transitional fossil" while another see [sic] it as an adaptation.

You're still not getting it. Have a look at the colour gradient I posted again. Each of those small steps ("adaptations") are transitional between red and blue. So again, if we take Odontochelys to be a single step in the evolutionary tree, it is both transitional AND adapted. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think. Again, you should try reading those links I provided you earlier.

Transitional fossil as the idea this is how the turtle got it's shell ( kind of like Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story) while adaptation the turtle loss part of it's shell as it adapt to the sea life.

Nope. Transitions can occur both ways. Transitions can incorporate new elements (such as the turtle evolving its shell), or progressively loose elements (such as snakes loosing their legs). Just as when you transition from a baby to an adult, you grow teeth, and when you transition from an adult to an old fart, you loose your teeth. Those are both instances of transitioning. A gradient of temporary states. And with evolution, it's adaptation that allows you to transition from one state to another. Transitions can be big (cell ---> human) or they can be small (grandfather ---> grandson). It all depends on the scale you're choosing to look at.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

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:



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...

Gracious! You surely know that Haeckel's drawings and doctrine of recapitulation has been proved false -a fabricated lie- for about as long as it has been in vogue!

There are no transitional forms because God created everything according to its kind and commanded it to multiply it's kind.

There has been unlawfully and genetically mixed kinds, by genetic manipulation before the flood, and after [translated as "cutting of roots" from 1 Enoch], but the results are chimera, not transitions, and was and is totally forbidden by God.
You can read about that in the Book of Giants [from the dead Sea Scrolls; the Book of Jasher, and the Book of Enoch, besides in the OT.

Jasher 4:18 And their judges and rulers [the fallen Watchers/sons of God] went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.

In the book of Samuel, there is a lion-el chimera, slain by a certain man. The Emims/Yemim [from the giants] are named from the Hebrew word for "terrors" and there is a description of some, in the Book of Jasher.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims [terrors].

2Sa 23:20 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lion-el of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow:


Genesis 36:24
And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the yemin[Hebrew word] in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

Jasher 36: http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html

And the sons of Shobal were Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam, and the sons of Zibeon were Ajah, and Anah, this was that Anah who found the Yemim in the wilderness when he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. And whilst he was feeding his father's asses he led them to the wilderness at different times to feed them. And there was a day that he brought them to one of the deserts on the sea shore, opposite the wilderness of the people, and whilst he was feeding them, behold a very heavy storm came from the other side of the sea and rested upon the asses that were feeding there, and they all stood still. And afterward about one hundred and twenty great and terrible animals came out from the wilderness at the other side of the sea, and they all came to the place where the asses were, and they placed themselves there.
And those animals, from their middle downward, were in the shape of the children of men, and from their middle upward, some had the likeness of bears, and some the likeness of the keephas, with tails behind them from between their shoulders reaching down to the earth, like the tails of the ducheephath, and these animals came and mounted and rode upon these asses, and led them away, and they went away unto this day.
And one of these animals approached Anah and smote him with his tail, and then fled from that place. And when he saw this work he was exceedingly afraid of his life, and he fled and escaped to the city. And he related to his sons and brothers all that had happened to him, and many men went to seek the asses but could not find them, and Anah and his brothers went no more to that place from that day following, for they were greatly afraid of their lives.

In another place in Jasher a man lost his ox -or something like- and searched around a mountain, heard it from a sealed cave; split the rock over the cave opening with his "rod" and found a chimera eating his ox. He killed it and the people celebrated the slaying of that creature as a yearly celebration -if I remember correctyly. I'll have to look that up to find just where it is, but there may turn up fossils of chimera at any time, and all it will prove is that God's word is true from the beginning. He forbad mixtures of kinds and set voundaries to keep it from happening naturally; angels fell and taught this to Adamkind and they mixed kinds "to provoke God", as Jasher states.

In the Book of the Gaints, written by Enoch, there is this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_3.htm
Book of Giants -- Reconstructed Texts A summary statement of the descent of the wicked angels, bringing both knowledge and havoc. Compare Genesis 6:1-2, 4.

1Q23 Frag. 9 + 14 + 15 2[ . . . ] they knew the secrets of [ . . . ] 3[ . . . si]n was great in the earth [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] and they killed manY [ . . ] 5[ . . . they begat] giants [ . . . ]


The angels exploit the fruifulness of the earth.

4Q531 Frag. 3 2[ . . . everything that the] earth produced [ . . . ] [ . . . ] the great fish [ . . . ] 14[ . . . ] the sky with all that grew [ . . . ] 15[ . . . fruit of] the earth and all kinds of grain and al1 the trees [ . . . ] 16[ . . . ] beasts and reptiles . . . [al]l creeping things of the earth and they observed all [ . . . ] |8[ . . . eve]ry harsh deed and [ . . . ] utterance [ . . . ] l9[ . . . ] male and female, and among humans [ . . . ]


The two hundred angels choose animals on which to perform unnatural acts, including, presumably, humans.

1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]


The outcome of the demonic corruption was violence, perversion, and a brood of monstrous beings. Compare Genesis 6:4.

4Q531 Frag. 2 [ . . . ] they defiled [ . . . ] 2[ . . . they begot] giants and monsters [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted . . . ] 4[ . . . ] with its blood and by the hand of [ . . . ] 5[giant’s] which did not suffice for them and [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] and they were seeking to devour many [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] the monsters attacked it.

4Q532 Col. 2 Frags. 1 - 6 2[ . . . ] flesh [ . . . ] 3al[l . . . ] monsters [ . . . ] will be [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] they would arise [ . . . ] lacking in true knowledge [ . . . ] because [ . . . ] 5[ . . . ] the earth [grew corrupt . . . ] mighty [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] they were considering [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] from the angels upon [ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] in the end it will perish and die [ . . . ] 9[ . . . ] they caused great corruption in the [earth . . . ] [ . . . this did not] suffice to [ . . . ] "they will be [ . . . ]

 

[Mallon]

Gracious! You surely know that Haeckel's drawings and doctrine of recapitulation has been proved false -a fabricated lie- for about as long as it has been in vogue!

Yes. But I never cited Haeckel's drawings. I also recognize that recapitulation theory is not a hard and fast rule of evolution. Consider my use of the term in in reference to modern evo-devo science, rather than as a throwback to Haeckel's original usage.

There are no transitional forms because God created everything according to its kind and commanded it to multiply it's kind.

Yes. And the sun goes around the Earth because the Bible says so. I know.

 

[Jadis40]

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?


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.


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.


Sure, if it makes you feel better.

Is the second one down on the right side a snapping turtle? If so, those things scare me to death. I know that I saw them from time at our lake cottage, and even they were relatively small, I know I didn't want to encounter one, just because of what I heard about them biting and not letting go.

Painted turtles and map turtles were fine.

 

[champuru]

If adaptation is evolution then I'm an evolutionist yet there more to evolution than a creature simply adapting. Evolution doesn't just deal with adaption but transforming ( as well as origins). Dinosaurs transforming into birds for example. (of course evolutionist believe add a lot of time makes it less of a miracle even though time seem to be an enemy to pretty much everything)

Like the other post said, adaptations lead to "transformations," which are really accumulations of adaptations. By origins do you mean how life began? Evolution does not deal with that, that is called abiogenesis. Birds did not "transform" from dinosaurs, but are infact theropod dinosaurs.

Birds did "transform" from dinosaurs, infact they are theropod dinosaurs. Doesn't the Oviraptor (a dinosaur) look like a turkey (a bird)? Time is not really an enemy to everything. Cheese and wine get better with time, it takes time for a caterpillar to change to a butterfly, it takes time for stalagmites to form.

When it come to Odontochelys some believes it is a "transitional fossil" while another see it as an adaptation. Transitional fossil as the idea this is how the turtle got it's shell ( kind of like Darwin's "The little eyeball that could" story) while adaptation the turtle loss part of it's shell as it adapt to the sea life.

What is the actually one would see it as both a transition and adaptation. I think you have it backwards, the turtle gained its shell, it didnt lose it. To adapt to sea life the (sea)turtle gained flippers.

 

[Smidlee]

Birds did "transform" from dinosaurs, infact they are theropod dinosaurs. Doesn't the Oviraptor (a dinosaur) look like a turkey (a bird)? Time is not really an enemy to everything. Cheese and wine get better with time, it takes time for a caterpillar to change to a butterfly, it takes time for stalagmites to form.

First Cheese and wine aren't alive as wine is a by product of living grapes and even time eventually destroy them as well. The opinion "wine gets better with age" is like a vulture seeing a dead animal better than a live one

What is the actually one would see it as both a transition and adaptation. I think you have it backwards, the turtle gained its shell, it didnt lose it

That the point that has to been proven. As I said even in this case there are some in the nature article who see this a case where the turtle lost some of it's shell.

 

[champuru]

First Cheese and wine aren't alive as wine is a by product of living grapes and even time eventually destroy them as well. The opinion "wine gets better with age" is like a vulture seeing a dead animal better than a live one

Evolution isn't alive either, it is a process and not a creature.

That the point that has to been proven. As I said even in this case there are some in the nature article who see this a case where the turtle lost some of it's shell.

Do you have a link or something to that article? It seems pretty backwards that a turtle would lose the protection of a shell.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's utter nonsense to argue that this organism "lost its shell." The shell isn't vestigial; it's still in the process of forming. When a structure becomes vestigial, it doesn't retreat to its former shape, but rather becomes something new, not like the old structure. This one still has ribs in the beginnings of the carapace, something you wouldn't see if it was losing its shell, since the ribs would no longer be there.

I have often challenged people to name me two evolutionarily-connected groups lacking an intermediate, and kept in mind that there were a number of those. On of the big ones was the gap between primitive anapsid reptiles and turtles. Now that one is filled in.