[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NFC: DP -- Turtles

I would much rather read about reptiles, amphibians and Darwin than
Creationist beliefs.

Let's not start this again.  There are theological lists available for those
afflicted with the need for God and discussions thereof.

The North American Native Fishes Association:  over
20 years of conservation efforts, public education, and
aquarium study of our native fishes.  Check it out at

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan & Denise Dondlinger <dendan at wctc_net>
To: nfc at actwin_com <nfc at actwin_com>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: NFC: DP -- Turtles

>All of the info in the second and third paragraphs just suggests the master
plan of a creator-God.  Before you dismiss me as a kook of some sort, I ask
you this simple question:  where is the physical evidence to support the
theory in the first paragraph?  There is none.  I have had this discussion
with others before and the belief that such evidence exists and will be
found or did exist and was destroyed by carelessness of previous human
generations.  In my mind it is easier to believe in God then it is in the
above.  Afterall, it is more plausible that we were created than a result of
a series of genetic mutations (or mistakes).
>Please excuse me for going a little off topic.  I just wanted to respond to
this theory.  Not all of us on the list subsrice to it (including the person
posting it).  You can respond if you like, but let's leave reptiles,
amphibians and Darwin at home from now on.
>> There was some discussion on one of the lists a few weeks back about
>> turtles and why they are more closely related to mammals than amphibians,
>> lizards and snakes.  Well, here is a brief explanation.
>> Basically the first point involves the turtles extremely long history.
>> They diverged from the earliest chordate ancestors before or at the same
>> time as the dinosaurs.  The pelycosaurs split at approximately this time
>> as well and eventually their line gave rise to the mammals.  Thus, the
>> mammals, reptiles and turtles evolved on separate lineages and are not
>> evolved one from the other.
>> Second is the skull characteristics. Turtles have a skull type known as
>> the "anapsid" skull.  Meaning there are holes in the skull for the eyes,
>> nostrils and one 'extra' hole (known as the anorbital finestra) between
>> the eye socket and nostril.  This is the primitive skull type that was
>> retained from the early ancestors of all chordates.  Mammals developed a
>> "synapsid" skull, which if memory serves has no extra holes in it while
>> the reptiles, amphibians and birds have a "diapsid" skull which has two
>> more additional holes in it.  Scientist contend that since the turtles
>> have retained the ancestral skull after millions of years that they did
>> NOT evolve from reptiles, but again are their own separate lineage.
>> I believe recent DNA test have also shown turtles to have a closer
>> relationship to mammals than to reptiles.  This revelation is
>> controversial to say the least and while it is accepted around the people
>> in my university and I believe at the University of Kansas, it is not
>> universally accepted yet.
>> Well, that's my review of "General Zoology" for this semester. I got a B
>> in the class so hopefully I learned something and have passed the
>> knowledge on.
>> Luke
>> P.S.  I presented this from an evolutionists point of view, but in case
>> any of you were suddenly thinking I had 'converted', I still think
>> evolution is a crock...at least as explained in it's current form...  :-)