nPeace
Veteran Member
The origin of the turtle shell: Mystery solved
To investigate whether the turtle carapace evolved with any contribution from its ancestors' exoskeleton, Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa and his team carefully observed developing embryos of Chinese soft-shell turtles, chickens and alligators. In their analysis, they compared the development of the turtle carapace, the chick's ribs and the alligator's bony skin nodules. The researchers found that the major part of the turtle's carapace is made from hypertrophied ribs and vertebrae and therefore derives solely from endoskeletal tissue.
This finding was confirmed by the observation of fossils of the ancient turtle Odontochelys and the ancient reptile Sinosaurosphargis, that both exhibit shells of endoskeletal origin. Odontochelys has a rigid shell instead of a flexible ribcage. And Sinosaurosphargis possesses an endoskeletal shell similar to the turtle's under, and separate from, a layer of exoskeletal bones.
Taken together these results show that the turtle carapace has evolved independently from the exoskeleton. This scenario is also consistent with the recent phylogenetic analyses based on genomic data that have placed turtles in the same group as birds, crocodiles and marine reptiles like Sinosaurophargis, contradicting recent studies based solely on fossil record.
"Recently, genomic analyses had given us evidence that turtles evolved from reptiles closely related to alligators and dinosaurs, not from primitive reptiles as once thought. Our findings match the evolutionary history revealed by the genomic analyses, and we are about to unravel the mystery of when and how the turtle shell evolved," explains Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa who led the research.
This is the kind of stuff some apparently consider strong and reliable evidence - one assumption after another, and the one that can fit all of them into the better package wins, until another one comes along to replace it.
Well.
I got to thinking... Why don't they check all the bacteria and see if they are missing the genitalia gene? That way, they can work on explaining why they haven't evolved them. Which interpretation gets awarded as the best evidence?
Evolution of Genitals
While the fin-to-limb transition has received considerable attention, little is known about the developmental and evolutionary origins of external genitalia. Similarities in gene expression have been interpreted as a potential evolutionary link between the limb and genitals; however, no underlying developmental mechanism has been identified. We re-examined this question using micro-computed tomography, lineage tracing in three amniote clades, and RNA-sequencing-based transcriptional profiling.
Here we have, in the early known stages of life, seeing fully formed complex living organisms appearing seemingly out of nowhere, and persons are willing to accept fanciful tales to explain their arrival to fit a scripted mythological story called The Theory of Evolution.
We have a whole host of organisms that were supposed to be the first living organisms, still existing for supposedly billions and billions of years, with no change at all, no reproduction that produces major evolutionary change... Wow.
How did male genitalia evolve? Harvard researchers discover origins of reproductive organs
Sexual selection and genital evolution
Explaining genital diversity is a longstanding problem that is attracting renewed interest from evolutionary biologists. New studies provide ever more compelling evidence that sexual selection is important in driving genital divergence. Importantly, several studies now link variation in genital morphology directly to male fertilization success, and modern comparative techniques have confirmed predicted associations between genital complexity and mating patterns across species. There is also evidence that male and female genitalia can coevolve antagonistically. Determining mechanisms of genital evolution is an important challenge if we are to resolve current debate concerning the relative significance of mate choice benefits and sexual conflict in sexual selection.
The Fascinating Evolution of Animal Genitalia (Video)
Yes, these are all so fascinating... Fascinating Fanciful Fairytale imo.
I understand why some persons prefer these fantasies, to the evidently more realistic explanation, so maybe some time in the future, who knows? Perhaps someone might author of another book - The God Delusion : Ripping God to Shreds.
Regarding design.
@Cacotopia Design is not the same as appearance. @QuestioningMind, @blü 2 Design is not the same as patterns. (Please see Randomness in design)
So I made no mention of either. I gave the definition of design, and there is a clear explanation given. It can be read in the OP.
No one therefore is looking at a bird and going, "Hey! It looks like it was designed! Therefore God..."
To illustrate.
When scientists peer at the cell, what do they see?
They see... a cell.
When they peer into the cell, and study its components, and how they work, and for what purpose... what do they see?
Ah. Now they see... DESIGN!
Biology: Cell Structure I Nucleus Medical Media
They may not have seen the designer, but the evidence of design says there is.
Randomness in Design
Cell division of meiosis and mitosis
A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.
@viole What is magical, and ridiculous fantasies...
is when one says that all these components somehow assembled themselves in an intelligent manner. Enter the fairy godmother - natural selection.
Explain how natural selection created, or designed the cell. That's right, for more than 150 years they are still trying to see how they can get the genie to grant their wish.
The origin of the first cells remains a mystery
...before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers.
...For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets, called protocells, were presumed to be the first cells. Modern scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell perspective is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The origin of the first cells remains a mystery.
Oops! Whatever happened to the Darwinian transition?
The first cells
The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolutionary theory of life on Earth. The birth of the cell marked the passage from pre-biotic chemistry to partitioned units resembling modern cells. The final transition to living entities that fulfill all the definitions of modern cells depended on the ability to evolve effectively by natural selection. This transition has been called the Darwinian transition.
Give it a few more years. I'm sure the fairy godmother will come true... some day.
@Salvador I should have mentioned that I do agree with you that there is higher intelligence, for obvious reasons.
However, I believe that alleged sightings of aliens are by persons trying to fool the public, or those persons are being fooled themselves, or both.
As regards whom they are being fooled by... I do believe a higher intelligence is involved.
To investigate whether the turtle carapace evolved with any contribution from its ancestors' exoskeleton, Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa and his team carefully observed developing embryos of Chinese soft-shell turtles, chickens and alligators. In their analysis, they compared the development of the turtle carapace, the chick's ribs and the alligator's bony skin nodules. The researchers found that the major part of the turtle's carapace is made from hypertrophied ribs and vertebrae and therefore derives solely from endoskeletal tissue.
This finding was confirmed by the observation of fossils of the ancient turtle Odontochelys and the ancient reptile Sinosaurosphargis, that both exhibit shells of endoskeletal origin. Odontochelys has a rigid shell instead of a flexible ribcage. And Sinosaurosphargis possesses an endoskeletal shell similar to the turtle's under, and separate from, a layer of exoskeletal bones.
Taken together these results show that the turtle carapace has evolved independently from the exoskeleton. This scenario is also consistent with the recent phylogenetic analyses based on genomic data that have placed turtles in the same group as birds, crocodiles and marine reptiles like Sinosaurophargis, contradicting recent studies based solely on fossil record.
"Recently, genomic analyses had given us evidence that turtles evolved from reptiles closely related to alligators and dinosaurs, not from primitive reptiles as once thought. Our findings match the evolutionary history revealed by the genomic analyses, and we are about to unravel the mystery of when and how the turtle shell evolved," explains Dr. Tatsuya Hirasawa who led the research.
This is the kind of stuff some apparently consider strong and reliable evidence - one assumption after another, and the one that can fit all of them into the better package wins, until another one comes along to replace it.
Well.
I got to thinking... Why don't they check all the bacteria and see if they are missing the genitalia gene? That way, they can work on explaining why they haven't evolved them. Which interpretation gets awarded as the best evidence?
Evolution of Genitals
While the fin-to-limb transition has received considerable attention, little is known about the developmental and evolutionary origins of external genitalia. Similarities in gene expression have been interpreted as a potential evolutionary link between the limb and genitals; however, no underlying developmental mechanism has been identified. We re-examined this question using micro-computed tomography, lineage tracing in three amniote clades, and RNA-sequencing-based transcriptional profiling.
Here we have, in the early known stages of life, seeing fully formed complex living organisms appearing seemingly out of nowhere, and persons are willing to accept fanciful tales to explain their arrival to fit a scripted mythological story called The Theory of Evolution.
We have a whole host of organisms that were supposed to be the first living organisms, still existing for supposedly billions and billions of years, with no change at all, no reproduction that produces major evolutionary change... Wow.
How did male genitalia evolve? Harvard researchers discover origins of reproductive organs
Sexual selection and genital evolution
Explaining genital diversity is a longstanding problem that is attracting renewed interest from evolutionary biologists. New studies provide ever more compelling evidence that sexual selection is important in driving genital divergence. Importantly, several studies now link variation in genital morphology directly to male fertilization success, and modern comparative techniques have confirmed predicted associations between genital complexity and mating patterns across species. There is also evidence that male and female genitalia can coevolve antagonistically. Determining mechanisms of genital evolution is an important challenge if we are to resolve current debate concerning the relative significance of mate choice benefits and sexual conflict in sexual selection.
The Fascinating Evolution of Animal Genitalia (Video)
Yes, these are all so fascinating... Fascinating Fanciful Fairytale imo.
I understand why some persons prefer these fantasies, to the evidently more realistic explanation, so maybe some time in the future, who knows? Perhaps someone might author of another book - The God Delusion : Ripping God to Shreds.
Regarding design.
@Cacotopia Design is not the same as appearance. @QuestioningMind, @blü 2 Design is not the same as patterns. (Please see Randomness in design)
So I made no mention of either. I gave the definition of design, and there is a clear explanation given. It can be read in the OP.
No one therefore is looking at a bird and going, "Hey! It looks like it was designed! Therefore God..."
To illustrate.
When scientists peer at the cell, what do they see?
They see... a cell.
When they peer into the cell, and study its components, and how they work, and for what purpose... what do they see?
Ah. Now they see... DESIGN!
They may not have seen the designer, but the evidence of design says there is.
Randomness in Design
A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.
@viole What is magical, and ridiculous fantasies...
is when one says that all these components somehow assembled themselves in an intelligent manner. Enter the fairy godmother - natural selection.
Explain how natural selection created, or designed the cell. That's right, for more than 150 years they are still trying to see how they can get the genie to grant their wish.
The origin of the first cells remains a mystery
...before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers.
...For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets, called protocells, were presumed to be the first cells. Modern scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell perspective is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The origin of the first cells remains a mystery.
Oops! Whatever happened to the Darwinian transition?
The first cells
The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolutionary theory of life on Earth. The birth of the cell marked the passage from pre-biotic chemistry to partitioned units resembling modern cells. The final transition to living entities that fulfill all the definitions of modern cells depended on the ability to evolve effectively by natural selection. This transition has been called the Darwinian transition.
Give it a few more years. I'm sure the fairy godmother will come true... some day.
@Salvador I should have mentioned that I do agree with you that there is higher intelligence, for obvious reasons.
However, I believe that alleged sightings of aliens are by persons trying to fool the public, or those persons are being fooled themselves, or both.
As regards whom they are being fooled by... I do believe a higher intelligence is involved.
Then what are you waiting for? You don't need a new thread for that. Do it right here. The thread is open for debate... despite @Cacotopia's assertions that it's not.
Thank you very much. You don't know how much that means to me to see that someone actually got it, and acknowledged it as well.
Oh boy. Here we go again, is right. I give up. When you get it I may be gray... if you get it. 
