"transitional" turtle found

quote:

---

I'd like to see what our fellow creo friends have to say about this turtle without the upper shell.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by wondering what creationists have to think about this... sounds like you're implying this would disprove it, or creationists would be put off by this?I don't think any reasonable creationist is arguing against microevolution. It exists. Period. There's tangible and undeniable proof, and it in no way contradicts creationism. We just don't believe monkeys became men, and other macroevelutional appeals that indeed have evidence, but don't have proof.

quote:

---

How would you define microevolution and macroevolution? Where do you draw the line on the continuum, so to speak?

---

I'd draw the same line in correlation to how I'm learning about it in my college Biology class; microevolution referring to small changes over a long time, and macroevolution referring to large changes. Example, for micro, specifically species adapting to a change in the environment for example, by maybe growing more fur or something to that nature. For macro, I'd use the same example I said before, but not limited to, some sort of primate becoming a human. Small change with strong evidence, as opposed to large change that has just as much evidence as the Bible does---just enough to where you need to put faith in to believe in it.

quote:

---

What kind of evidence would you need to see to accept "macroevolution?"

​

(BTW, avoid the use of the word "proof" when discussing matters of science. Science never considers anything proven. Instead, it's a matter of the supporting evidence. All scientific conclusions are subject to revision if new evidence is discovered.)

---

I apologize, and will refrain from specifically referring to a word as defining as "proof" in what I say in regards to that. Evidence to accept what I defined as macroevolution would be plausible enough evidence that is there to define microevolution. We have findings of of species and such within short periods of time (i.e. just decades to maybe so many hundreds of thousands years at tops) that we can say are the same and pinpoint small changes in them gradually over millions of years, but when something like trying to say the skulls of apes gradually turn into man? Most the skulls trying to say this are carbon dated and separated by MILLIONS of years apart! What about within these MILLIONS of years? They are TOO far apart to connect. Who is to say they weren't just a new and died out species?That's just an example, there is more to subject than that obviously, and it's not just limited to such, but I'm just laying down the concept of how I see it.

quote:

---

You call a transitional between unshelled, toothed & shelled, untoothed microevolution?
The term turtle applies to a whole order, Chelonia. That would mean that the difference between the Ape species, including humans, is microevolution.

---

This was apparently dated 220 millions of years ago.. is that too short for a change to be defined as microevolution? I apologize for not being familiar with dates and times, and will take back what I said if in major conflict with such. But also being 220 millions of years ago, who is to say this itself wasn't just a random different species, and simply died out? Rather than the entire order of Chelonia coming from that to what they have today?~~~I apologize if anything I say here is being irrational, I'm new to getting into this stuff because I've only recently taken an interest in such. I'm taking good note to what is being replied to me, and would appreciate any further revisions and corrections on what I say if necessary.

Thanks for the welcomes.
Anglagard--

quote:

---

The fossils are not carbon dated because radiocarbon dating is not generally accurate beyond 50,000 years and not at all accurate beyond 100,000 years due to having so few atoms of leftover C14. Generally, such fossils are dated by their placement in the geologic record which is dated using various argon isotopes and paleomagnetism in associated volcanic deposits that must have occurred at roughly the same time according to basic geologic principles such as superposition.

---

I was aware of the inaccuracy of carbon dating after so many years, as you've said, and, silly of me enough, I learned just yesterday that that's how such fossils as those are generally dated, yet was still stuck on carbon. I digress.

quote:

---

The various fossils associated with the human lineage over the last 5 million years are not themselves separated by millions of years but rather orders of tens to hundreds of thousands. In fact in several instances different species actually overlap in time as shown here.

---

I guess I was speaking of the earliest stages of humans, which after consulting my biology book, the earliest was 6-7 millions of years ago, and various gradual changing ones with every million years or so. Maybe not MILLIONS of years apart, but still some pretty daring gaps for the best clarity? I guess that's just an open opinion though, like I said, I'm still trying to get into this stuff, so, shows how much I know anyway, lol.CosmicChimp--

quote:

---

Small changes (micro-) can accumulate. The sum total of that type of accumulation can and often times does add up to a large scale change (macro-). You can see that as true right?

---

Surely. Maybe I differentiated between the two on a scale larger than it actually was. Makes sense.And, RAZD... very well-put collection of the concept at hand. But for me, I'm going by more than just belief. But that's just experience that I can't put on anyone else, however explains my aspiration for this subject. I'll by no means be close-minded to evidence, yet to a degree, I guess I am ultimately close-minded at the end. I look forward to further future discussion--probably still in this board, but as Anglagard said, not straying as far from the OP as we may already have.Need to read me some books and good websites after finals... maybe even that long Wikipedia article, lol.

Looks like you slipped in another reply before my last post, RAZD! I'll def check it out and read it over a little more carefully later though, as, like I said, finals are dawning over me quicker than I'd like, so I'm gonna have to scoot. Look forward to getting back into this though soon.