Loggerhead Turtles Defy Evolutionary Explanation

[Thobewill]

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

Here it is:

*article*

I had not seen that. Very interesting. I do not know how it evolved, then. I will research it later.

EDIT: Saw SplitRock's reply. That, too, was interesting. More research is required.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Sorry, dude. "God did it and he did it that way because that's the way he did it," offers no real explanation at all.

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.

I asked you before... please give me an example of evidence that you would claim does not offer support for biblical creationism. Just one, please. Otherwise, if any evidence = evidence for biblical creationism, than no evidence offers support for biblical creationism.

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.

No. Science, vs. religion. You just have trouble reconciling them.

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

See above. One more time... if ANY evidence is evidence in support, than NO evidence matters at all.

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.

That is why I choise tuna to compare to whales... because they both live in the ocean. Why would your god give a sequence to a whale more homologous to a cow, than to a fish? Whales and fish live in the same environment, and cows do not. Yet, the sequence is more similar to a cow than a tuna. Why? Evolution has an answer. Does biblical creationism?

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.

What does that mean?? Does a platypus have "orderly characteristics?" Why or why not?

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

And what order would that be? Please don't give me the tired old, "mammals run faster than reptiles up a hill," argument. Even a fifth grader would laugh at that one.

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

Are there any evidences that you would not claim as "for biblical creationism?"

How is it explainable by evolution?

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

-----------cut----------------

Interesting how your "creation ministry" source only told half the story. Here is the rest:

Behavioural ecologist Marion Petrie at the University of Newcastle, UK, has dismissed the study.
"All they have done is fail to find a relationship," she says. "The authors seem to ignore the fact that three previous independent studies have found relationships between mating success and train morphology. Rather than consider what is unusual about their study, they conclude that peahens in general do not prefer males with elaborate trains."
Takahashi argues that it is the failure to find a relationship that makes her study so important. "Unfortunately because negative data have been seldom published, they are seldom discussed," she says.
Because it is "negative data", Petrie says she doubts she would have been able to get this study published.
Hormonal factor
Takahashi points out that growth of the peacock's train is dependent on the absence of oestrogen rather than the presence of testosterone. She says this undermines the assumption that the train is a sexual signal.
"Until now, who cared that the peacock's train was under oestrogen control?" Takahashi says. "We hope our paper will encourage others with [negative] data to publish."
But another peacock specialist, Adeline Loyau at the University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, echoes Petrie's concerns.
"My major problem is that they didn't consider the complexity of the signal," she says. "They only looked at the number of eyespots and train length as a sign of train elaboration. The number of eyespots didn't correlate with mating, so they concluded that the train signals nothing."
'Complex issue'
The peacock's train is a highly elaborate structure, Loyau adds.
"It's not just the number of eyespots - it's the density of spots, it's the arrangement of patterns, it's colour - they didn't talk about the colour at all."
Louise Barrett at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, is an executive editor on Animal Behaviour, the journal that published Takahashi's study.
"It is perfectly true that the Takahashi study didn't consider colour," she says. "But they did consider many other aspects of tail elaboration and they failed to find any effect."
The arguments against Takahashi's study wrongly suggest that the latest findings "trump" previous results, says Barrett. "Rather it illustrates that the story is more interesting and complex than we thought. One should never be too complacent and think that a problem has been solved," she says.
Journal reference: Animal Behaviour, DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007

Have peacock tails lost their sexual allure? - life - 27 March 2008 - New Scientist

So, you see, it isn't so cut and dry as you suggest.

 

[TerranceL]

So the consensus is that the evolutionists just don't know exactly how to explain the loggerheads? You may be satisfied with not knowing, but I am satisfied with knowing that God is Truth and His explanation fits this data much more congruently than does the evolutionary one.

So it's better to believe it was all done by magic than say you don't know?

Amazing.

 

[TerranceL]

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.

What would religion be without fear mongering?

 

[AV1611VET]

What would religion be without fear mongering?

Atheism?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

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

Wow. Are you being serious, or am I being Poe'd. I'm not quite sure.

Goddidit offters nothing in the way of explaining anything. EVERYTHING we've ever known came through the scientific method.

As for your example, we may not know now, but guess who will be responsible for discovering it when we do. I'll give a hint... it won't be Ken Hamm.

 

[TerranceL]

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

Because it's ignorance.

You might as well say you did it. Or, Vishnu did it. Or maybe Mickey Mouse.

It's all the same thing if you decide to take the goddidit path.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Atheism?

Religion without fear mongering would be atheism?

 

[selfinflikted]

What would religion be without fear mongering?

Extinct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion without fear mongering would be atheism?

Well, I can't say "evolution", as evolution teaches "war or migrate" -- (or maybe it's "fight or flight").

(The Malthusian Principle comes to mind as well.)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Well, I can't say "evolution", as evolution teaches "war or migrate" -- (or maybe it's "fight or flight").

(The Malthusian Principle comes to mind as well.)

How about confused, has that come to mind yet?

 

[MoonLancer]

Atheism?

Atheism would simply be a lack of theism. pretty simple.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Originally Posted by TerranceL

What would religion be without fear mongering?
​

Atheism?

So..If there was no fear mongering in religion, everybody would cross over to atheism.

That may be the most flattering thing I have ever seen you say in regards to atheism AV.

 

[Greg1234]

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

The same thing that's wrong with Pyramidbuildersdidit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheism would simply be a lack of theism. pretty simple.

Theism would simply be a lack of atheism. pretty simple.

 

[Thobewill]

The same thing that's wrong with Pyramidbuildersdidit.

What exactly are you talking about, man?

 

[Split Rock]

Theism would simply be a lack of atheism. pretty simple.

So, if someone told you, "dark is just the absence of light," you would respond with: "Light is just the absence of dark!" ????

 

[MoonLancer]

Theism would simply be a lack of atheism. pretty simple.

Theism would simply be a lack of nonTheism. What?

Apply all nons in the same way

Moral is a lack of Amoral

Americanism is a lack of UnAmericanism.

Your just trying to get people to drink your smarmilade. sorry no.

the a in atheist means not. This use has a very VERY strong bases in Latin and can be seen in many different words. Please apply your language consistently and honestly. Thank you.

 

[Naraoia]

You know, most animals, vertebrate or invertebrate, have an innate magnetic field sensing ability. It's unused in some, but in others, like the Loggerhead, or migratory birds, it's much stronger. It has evolved multiple times, in several different ways on our planet.

The field sensing ability (in loggerheads and birds) is not as complicated as one might think. It derives from a protein called cryptochrome (in the retinas) and magnetite in the snout or beak of the animal. This essentially allows the animal to "see" the magnetic field and orient themselves toward it.

It's also worth noting that magnetic field sensing is not the only thing cryptochromes do. So it's not like they were useless until they suddenly became perfect compasses.

So the consensus is that the evolutionists just don't know exactly how to explain the loggerheads? You may be satisfied with not knowing, but I am satisfied with knowing that God is Truth and His explanation fits this data much more congruently than does the evolutionary one.

Like Split Rock said, that's because it can be made to fit any data. An explanation that fits any data is no explanation at all. Explanations tell you why things are this way and not another way.

And with that, I officially second SR's request. What evidence would falsify your theory?

I am becoming immensely amused at the extreme flexibility of evolution theory.

Says the pot to the kettle...

Really now guys, just what is it about this changing and undependable science that you so much cherish? Would you not rather live a life revolving around the absolutes stated in God's Word?

I would rather live my life being honest to myself. And the harder I look, the fewer absolutes I see.

Put simply, the male’s feather train failed to impress or excite, much less interest, the females.

Actually, the differences in the train failed to make a difference in the degree to which females were impressed with particular males.

Which is a very different thing from simply not being interested in trains.

Aside from the criticisms others levelled at that study, there's this bit from the paper itself:

Phylogenetic studies have suggested that oestrogen-dependent plumage dichromatism such as that in Indian peafowl was preceded by bright monochromatism in both sexes, followed by natural selection for duller coloration in females ([Kimball and Ligon, 1999] and [Badyaev and Hill, 2003]), whereas selection on male bright plumage may not be as strong ([Møller and Pomiankowski, 1993], [Bleiweiss, 1997] and [Kimball and Ligon, 1999]).

​

In other words, the history of the trait suggests either species recognition or mutual mate choice as its original function. The latter would still imply some sort of mate preference based on it, but the former doesn't.

And, from the concluding section:

Combining these considerations, we propose that the peacock's train is an obsolete signal for which female preference has already been lost or weakened, but which has none the less been maintained up to the present because it is required as a threshold cue to achieve stimulatory levels in females before mating (Holland & Rice 1998) and/or it is maintained as an unreliable cue (Møller & Pomiankowski 1993). Peahens probably use the male train in their mate choice sequences, but we should not necessarily assume that the male trait is a costly and/or informative cue (use of uninformative cues can be beneficial for females, e.g. through facilitation of mate detection; Candolin 2003).

​

So, even if (big if) peahens don't give a fig about the looks of a peacock's train, there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for its continued presence. It's a pretty obvious signpost for "I'm a peacock, ready to mate", for one thing.

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

Shifting goalposts, la-la-la...

By the way, the "genes that code for the elaborate tail feathers" probably code for stuff like beta-keratin, growth factors, growth factor receptors, transcription factors, enzymes of all sorts, maybe microRNAs, and so on. There are no "elaborate tail feather genes", any more than there are "leg genes". There are only genes whose products do their little bits of chemistry, and the outcome of lots of interacting little bits of chemistry is a pretty feathery train.

Darwin’s sexual selection theory has been increasingly under attack in recent years.8

Funny thing that that reference would be to a creationist source.

Also, what is Darwin's sexual selection theory according to the author of this article? Like other aspects of evolutionary theory, sexual selection has moved on since Darwin.

 

[TerranceL]

The same thing that's wrong with Pyramidbuildersdidit.

Who do you think built the pyramids?