dailymail.co.uk — Scientists believe they have cracked a long-standing mystery of evolution - how the turtle got its shell.It follows the discovery in south west China last year of the oldest known turtle fossils, believed to date back 220 million years.The three adult specimens were discovered remarkably intact with characteristics never before seen in turtles.
Nov 26, 2008 View in Crawl 4
gordonjNov 28, 2008
@Robjaynethe macro/micro evolution distinction is not considered in modern biology. It was once (1927) but was abandoned by almost all scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology as an artificial distinction. The only people who commonly use those terms these days are not scientists, but creationists. Here is a demonstration:Search results in PubMed for "evolution": 231544Search results in PubMed for "macroevolution": 161Search results in PubMed for "microevolution": 320
disgodDec 1, 2008
@ hchargerYou answered a question Dimensio didn't ask and didn't even hint at. Here's a link to the list of questions he asked you to respond to:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/general_sciences/Scientists_solve_evolutionary_puzzle_how_turtle_got_shell?t=21112232#c21124931">http://digg.com/general_sciences/Scientists_solve_ ...</a>He never once asked how you knew anything about the end of days. I actually did, and I'll get into why your arguments are faulty to being with, but Dimensio was asking you to substantiate claims you made about science, not your beliefs in the end of the world. You are just really not paying attention to what we say are you?Now on to why your argument is invalid. Your reasoning is based solely off of belief in the bible, and the idea that the bible is absolutely correct and inerrant about everything it claims. Well the bible can be proven wrong about many many things, and most of them don't even have anything to do with Creation. The history according to the bible can be shown to be completely wrong and/or made up. The earliest person that can actually be validated by any historical documents is King David, before that nothing, no matter how important a figure they were to the bible, including Abraham, or big events such as the Exodus. Not only can it not be validated by history, but historical texts and anthropological research has disproved pretty much everything before that. So, your basic assumption is faulty. And before you claim I'm wrong, I gave you the evidence. It is a very interesting special. The bible has been shown to be a collection of stories from other religions, was written by many different people, and has been deliberately altered for political or religious gain. It is a lie to claim the bible is inerrant.
hchargerDec 3, 2008
"Yet you continue to debate." You know something son...you're right, this debate will only be a stalemate. This subject can only be concluded when the final day of this system of things is here. Nuff said, we gone bye bye.
disgodDec 3, 2008
@hchargerBye bye, I'm sure I'll see you spouting your retarded non science somewhere on Digg again, and don't worry if I see it, I'll be there and I'll destroy your arguments again. It's been fun, but please don't think that you came close to trying to disprove evolution. You never came close to ever making a valid point or using actual scientific knowledge to back up any claim that you made. You never really even bothered to debate, all you did is whine about how I wouldn't accept your "evidence" while you refused to give it, then when you did, and I showed you how you were wrong, you continued to whine. Sorry, but if your evidence can be proven definitively wrong it isn't denying evidence it is understanding the facts. You don't understand the facts, and you are blinded by your religious indoctrination into believing in myths and fairy tales. I really hope that one day you need the fruits of the theory of evolution. You know, basically the entire modern medical field. I would just find it the capping irony that the very thing you so vehemently disagree with would eventually help save your life.
disgodDec 4, 2008
“I really don't know why I'm replying to this….” Probably because you don’t want to admit that you’ve lost an argument to someone who is half your age, either that or you want to get the last comment in.“but for your information you didn't destroy any argument whatsoever, because I wouldn't debate remember. “No you didn’t debate, a debate is where someone presents their case, i.e. your series of quotes on evolution and then someone calls into question what you have said, and you respond by tell them why they are wrong. You have not done that, you presented a few quotes, which are not evidence especially when it can be shown that you took them out of context, scientific research is evidence, and then complained that I was just not paying attention to what you said without ever directly responding to my criticisms. That isn’t debating that is whining and saying I’m treating your arguments unfairly. First of all it is easy to prove that I was paying attention because I went out and found the quotes you mentioned and found out what they actually meant and told you. Second of all if you had actually attempted to argue why what I was saying was wrong by using evidence or proving that my interpretation of the quotes you used was wrong, then we would have had a debate. But you didn’t. You didn’t directly refute anything I’ve said. You’ve danced around using any science to back your claims up, and just made blanket statements about the study of the theory of evolution which can again be proven 100% false. And yeah, I did destroy the little evidence you presented because I directly refuted what you were claiming these authors meant, or asked you to further clarify which quotes you wanted us to look at from your sources. Sorry, but a page number for a quote doesn’t work. “Sure, I did not disprove evolution, I'm not as advanced in that field, but common sense can and also your valid science information has not been accurate throughout the years. “Really? Which parts haven’t been accurate? I argued that Natural selection is real, and that has been proven many times in both natural and laboratory settings. I argued that evolution is subject to the scientific method, just like every other field of science, which is true, and easily proven. They don’t get a free pass to skip the scientific method. I argued that beneficial mutations occur, again we’ve got the evidence to prove that this statement is accurate in both natural and laboratory settings. So please tell me which statements I made about evolution haven’t been accurate throughout the years? Common sense can disprove the theory of evolution eh? Please tell us how common sense can disprove evolution? Here’s a little common sense for you. You don’t look exactly like your parents, and you look even more different than your grand parents. Your children will look different from you and none of you share the exact same DNA. This fact can be proven by DNA sequencing. Given enough time, and selective pressures your decedents will eventually look nothing like you, and given tens of millions of years they will eventually look nothing like humans, if there is a selective pressure going on. All this took to describe evolution was the common sense fact that you don’t look exactly like your ancestors or descendants, and the common sense fact that if something is happening now it should continue to happen before and after. That, and the fact that common sense should tell you that if every single piece of evidence relevant to biology and the age of the Universe says that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is around 4.5-4.7 billion years old, and that animals evolve over time, science is probably correct. I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later tonight, I’ve got to go to class now.
hchargerDec 5, 2008
The problem with your evolution theory is there are no time-set that is accurate. Not one of you evolutionalist can agree on how old the earth is and how old the universe is, you know why. Because you have no witnesses to prove it. You can do all the experiments you want in a laboratory, they still are not the process naturally. The ones doing the experiments are adding their own formulas, there is no base because the evolution theory is entire guesswork. If you can show me a witness who was around all these millions of years then you could have solid evidence that the theory of evolution actually existed. At least the Bible has eye-witness accounts of events, some passed on by generations prior and written down. Yes common sense will disprove evolution, I mean your laboratory experiments are not evidence, even some of those people I mentioned said so. You say science is correct in calculating the exact age of the earth. If thats the case why don't all evolutionists and scientists agree with the years, and don't even try and tell me they do. Scientists have been changing the theory of evolution for decades, more-so these days than before as new techniques become available for testing soil and mineral samples, plus fossil materials are suggesting the earth is not as old as once thought. I don't know where you get your information from, but I've heard many news articles and science magazines that are finding more flaws in the theory than ever. I just wish I would have recorded them, but you should know. Or maybe as I said prior, you ignore anything that can upset your beliefs. I see you beat around the bush about family roots and ancestors by saying it all evolves from natural selection when you seems to forget that parents differentiate because of different genes, so understandable that no one is an exact duplicate or look alike of their parents. I'm not sure why you are using such simple facts to explain evolution when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it, regardless what scientists tell you. And another thing, please don't patronize me by putting words in your comments that are untrue. A true debater does not need to discredit his rival, unless he/she is not sure of themselves or deliberately using falsehoods in order to get their point across. I'm not whinning as you say, I have no need to. It doesn't matter if I'm double your age or whether you have a PHD in anything, just because I don't believe in the theory of evolution does not warrant myself to win a debate or simply to get the last word in. If that was the case you being more knowledgeable than myself, should have heeded your own common sense and quit this conversation a long time ago, so who wants the last word?
hchargerDec 5, 2008
Actually recorded mankind goes back approximately 6000 years, thats the history of man according to Bible texts. Evolutionists of course put man on a longer time table because its much more difficult to prove and enough scientists claim themselves to be correct, then because they are university people with an education up the wig wang, they must be right huh? Wrong, but because the nature of humans are easily led, these educated individuals can get away with it because religion really doesn't answer any of their questions, but the content of the scriptures do, if you vigorously study them. Trouble is, no one wants to do that, because studying the contents of the Bible can not be accomplished by instant gradification, unlike evolution, so they take the easy way out by believeing anything they wanna hear. Tickle their ears (so to speak)!The age of the earth is unknown and it will stay that way, for how long...we do not know. But it is certain that God did not create the earth and everything in it in a literal 24 hour day suggesting the earth could be hundreds of thousands of years old but highly unlikely to amount to millions, or billions of years. Many of man's questions may be answered when the human race developes unification and adapts the ability to agree on one common bond, but unfortunately it will never occur while the present system of things exists. The reason why Jehovah God says...it must go.