The Turtle Evolution Shell Game

Recently, an angry atheopath demanded that I provide just one claim by evolutionists that is false. He also refused to read any of the posts, so why bother? At any rate, here is another that fits his demand.

Darwinists seem to have a habit of saying that they have great evidence, but the evidence is poor. For example, animals claimed to be evolutionary ancestors for turtles either lived alongside them, or had no relationship to turtles at all. Then things get...downright weird.

Turtle, Pexels  / Vlad Chețan

The great evidence for turtle evolution isn't. These critters are unique, and their shells are integral to their rib cages. There are numerous anatomical features needed. Scientists evosplain how they allegedly developed their shells a little at a time (which would make it more convenient to claim that some creature is an ancestor, despite the fossil record). The newest is claimed to be a "key missing link", but they are just dealing from the bottom of the deck because they don't like the hand they've been dealt. Best to fold, cowboy up, and admit that there is no evidence for evolution because the evidence clearly points to recent creation by the Master Engineer.

One of the most challenging examples of evolution for its proponents is that of turtles. This is because turtles have a comparatively good fossil record, which shows that even the first claimed turtle is unequivocally a turtle. A review of the newest claims for evidence of turtle evolution, including Pappochelys, found that major problems exist with all of the examples reviewed. Rather than confirming evolution the newest fossils do more to reinforce the conclusion that the extant fossil record shows no clear evidence for turtles arising from non-turtle ancestors as postulated by evolutionists.

To read the rest, find your way over to "New fossil proves turtle evolution … or does it?"