Comments on: Turtle on the Half-Shell

By: LinkFest: Turtle evolution, coral bleaching, science and buddhism, etc | FNQhome.com

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:00:41 +0000

[...] At Neurologica, Steven Novella describes a new palaeontological find, Odontochelys semitestacea (the…. O. semitestacea is a 220 million year old fossil from the turtle lineage, and suggests that the carapace (top of the shell) and plastron (bottom) may have evolved separately rather than at the same time. O. semitestacea has a well-developed plastron but only a hint of the formation of a carapace. Thus the shell in this specimen gives protection to the lower half of the body, perhaps particularly useful when the turtle is at the surface breathing. [...]

By: TheBlackCat

TheBlackCat — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:30:03 +0000

@ Pec: It’s been two days, I am still waiting for you to tell me what sort of evidence you would find convincing.

By: Clinton Huxley

Clinton Huxley — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:33:00 +0000

I agree 100% with Pec. The evidence, as it stands, does not support the currently accepted theory of evolution. But then, I don’t believe that the geographical evidence as it stands supports “spherical Earth” theory, either. Furthermore, it’s time for my mashed banana and then the nurses are going to let me watch “The Worlds Most Tedious Pets” in a minute. Gibber.

By: wertys

wertys — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:21:40 +0000

What does this finding do to the theory that it its ‘turtles all the way down?”….

By: TheBlackCat

TheBlackCat — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:40:03 +0000

@ Pec: “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED THEORY ABOUT WHAT CAUSES EVOLUTION.”

What sort of evidence, if it existed, would you think of as supporting the currently accepted theory about what causes evolution? You are obviously not convinced by the existing evidence, so what evidence would you need to be convinced?

By: PaulG

PaulG — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:27:51 +0000

SN: “I challenge anyone to find an official statement by the DI that indicates they accept the fact of evolution”

pec: “The major ID theorists all accept the fact of evolution. You are wrong.”

So, er, where are the “official statements” by the DI and/or these “major ID theorists” then?

In the UK we have a technical term for the sort of statement provided by pec (above – choose any really). It’s not used by all scientists, but any that have had anything to do with discussing ID/creationism at any time have used it. The term is… “complete bollocks”.

By: Traveler

Traveler — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:31:49 +0000

Pec,

Who are these major ID theorists accepting evolution of whom you speak?

By: Puppet_Master

Puppet_Master — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:57:56 +0000

“Well just because two or more things are accepted as true does not mean there must be a simple causal relationship between them.”

pec, when you roll a steel ball in a bowl it will eventually settle at the bottom of the bowl at it’s lowest energy state. It’s obvious that things want to be at their lowest energy state possible.

The ball obviously fell to a lower energy state (fact). Presumably, animals evolve (fact). Earth has a gravitational field (cause). Environmental pressures arise (cause).

It is just as appropriate to say that things falling only correlates a gravitational field than it is to say things evolving only correlates with selective pressures.

Maybe Steve can help me out on this, but I’m pretty sure, logically, you can never 100% prove a causal relationship.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:13:29 +0000

Pec describes herself to scientists as a ‘rational scientific person’ in the same way a drunk describes himself as sober to a policeman. And with the same results.

By: pec

pec — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:01:57 +0000

“Do you often believe in things for which you think there is no evidence?”

THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. I don’t know how else to say this. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED THEORY ABOUT WHAT CAUSES EVOLUTION.

SN: “I challenge anyone to find an official statement by the DI that indicates they accept the fact of evolution”

The major ID theorists all accept the fact of evolution. You are wrong.