Posted by: Rob Lester | May 17, 2010

The missing link “shell game”

Biologists have long debated over how turtles got their shells.  Some say skin thickened over time and hardened into an armored shell (like an armadillo).  Others say some of the rib bones flattened out and became the shell with the ribs fused to the underside.  A recent fossil discovery in New Mexico is being hailed as the missing link in turtle shell design.  The specimen (an ancient turtle) was found with ribs detached from the shell.  Its shell apparently formed the way an armadillo’s does.  The scientist who identified the fossil (Walter Joyce) described it like this: “It’s pretty ugly, really…almost like a shoebox full of crud.”  It consisted of three neck spines, a small bit of belly shell, and a fragment of back shell.  Quite a bold assumption made from a “shoebox full of crud.”  It is not half-turtle/half-armadillo so why call it a missing link?  The reason is because lack of transitional forms is the biggest flaw in Darwinism.  Evolutionists are so desperate for “links” that they miss the obvious.  If armadillo and turtle shells are so different, why did evolution allow both?  They both can’t be the “fittest” so why did evolution allow both to survive?  The truth is that God created both animals much as they are today. 

Reilly, Michael “How the Turtle Got Its Shell.” Discovery News 10/8/08

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/08/turtle-shell.html

Advertisements

Responses

  1. May I suggest that the reader of this post look up Odontochelys Semitestacea – a 220 million year old Triassic turtle found in China. It has a hard bottom but no fully formed carapace on top. It is a prime candidate for a so-called ‘missing link’.

    • Thanks for bringing this up, Shawn. I actually have another post dealing with this creature which I will post in the future. Here is a link to the story on the original find
      http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/11/26-03.html

      You will see from the article (which is NOT from a creationist source) that there is much disagreement even among evolutionists over the the status of this “missing link.” One scientist sees a freak mutation, maybe with a developmental disease malforming its shell while another sees the same fossil as “an ideal missing link.” Even if true, it only verifies what creationists have said all along. That this turtle LOST the genetic information for its upper shell. That is not positive evolution but merely regressive DEvolution. Also, note that the turtles only “evolved” into another kind of turtle. Hardly proof for molecule to monkey to man evolution.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: