Evolution of Turtle shells

by cantleave 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    You might have read about this over the last day or two, I was going to add this to the "Common Ancestry" thread, I considered it somewhat off topic as it is more to do with evolutionary transition.

    The shells of turtles and tortoises have always been a bit mystery for evolutionery biologists. A turtle shell is not a single structure but a complex one made up from the fused bones analogous to the ribs and vertebrae of other vertebrates. These bones in effect form a pseudo exoskeleton. All other shelled animals are made up of scales and not modified bones. This modification the skeletal structure means that the turtle has had to find new way to breath as the usual method is to use the ribs to ventilate the lungs. Turtles have overcome this by evolving a muscular sling

    Until the discovery in China of a 220 milion year old fossil of a reptile Odontochelys semitestacea in 2008 all other fossilised turtles had fully formed shells, making the evolutionary steps that formed shells extremely difficult to ascertain. O. semitestacea however had a fully develop plastron (shell on its belly) made from flattened ribs, but only a partial shell on its back. Now another fossil has been studied, Eunotosaurus which is 30 - 55 million older than O. semitestacea.

    The study, published in the journal "Current Biology", found that Eunotosaurus has nine broadened ribs as well as elongated vertebrae, similar to those seen in turtles and by examining marks left by fibres, the scientists have also deduced that it lacked intercostal muscles which are used to move the rib cage and aid breathing as turtles do. However Eunotosaurus didn't have features seen in other extinct fully shelled turtles like the Odontochelys and modern turtles.

    What I found interesting is we didn't really need to find the fossils to see how this evolution occured. This evolutionary history is there for all to see by looking at the stages of embronic development of turtles. These newly found fossils are refelected by the developing embryos of modern turtles.

    Of course this is one more nail in the already well sealed coffin of creationism. Nest time someone shouts "where are your btransitional fossils?" you calmly respond with Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys semitestacea along with an encylopaedia worth of others.

  • rip van winkle
    rip van winkle

    Cantleave: " Nest time someone shouts "where are your btransitional fossils?" you calmly respond with Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys semitestacea along with an encylopaedia worth of others."

    Thank you, Cantleave! Just the other day I was shell-shocked when asked that very question. I was completely perplexed as I had no response...until now!!

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    I should never type without my reading glasses!

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    The article looks like proof of creation to me.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    The article looks like proof of creation to me.

    What article? Have you read the original? This is my summation of it.

    I would love to see your reasoning as to why you feel what I have written is "proof of creation".

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    Your article

    What I found interesting is we didn't really need to find the fossils to see how this evolution occured. This evolutionary history is there for all to see by looking at the stages of embronic development of turtles. These newly found fossils are refelected by the developing embryos of modern turtles.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    How do you think that proves creation? Or am I misunderstanding you?

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    I don't believe we have 220 million year old fosils. The only remenants are recent.

    So These newly found fossils are refelected by the developing embryos of modern turtles.

    They are modern turtles less than 10,000 years old.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    What you believe and what is known and verified are two very different things.

    The JW's believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and they have an archeologist who through his confirmation bias will endorse that belief, does it make them right? Absolutely not.

    The age of the Earth and of fossils is beyond dispute, only ignorant fools like Hovind and Ham and those want believe the myths from a book of fairy tales will say otherwise.

  • James Brown
    James Brown

    The age of the Earth and of fossils is beyond dispute, only ignorant fools like Hovind and Ham and those want believe the myths from a book of fairy tales will say otherwise.

    What you believe and what is verified are two different things.

    Science has already documented and proved they cant date the earth millions of years.

    If you want to believe that delusion have at it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit