• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Cool new transitional turtle fossil

Status
Not open for further replies.

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
52
Bloomington, Illinois
✟19,375.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
26,515
21,566
Flatland
✟1,102,725.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
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”?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0

RobertByers

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2008
714
9
60
✟23,409.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
52
Bloomington, Illinois
✟19,375.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

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.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Matthewj1985

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2008
1,146
58
Texas
✟1,669.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian

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?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

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:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Jadis40

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
963
192
51
Indiana, USA
✟54,645.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

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.
 
Upvote 0

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟23,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

champuru

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?
Jan 5, 2008
464
23
Infront of my computer
✟23,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,833
13,344
78
✟442,746.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.