Richard Dawkins: Show Me the Intermediate Fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2014
- Richard Dawkins shows how whales evolved from a cloven-hoofed ancestor, and reveals whales' closest modern-day cousin.
Get the RDF TV podcast through iTunes!
itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZ...
If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you'd like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:
richarddawkinsfoundation.org/f...
During Richard Dawkins' 2009 American tour, we visited Judy Diamond's "Explore Evolution" exhibit at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. This exhibit has now been replicated in six museums around the country. While visiting we filmed a collection of short unrehearsed and unscripted videos-just inspired by the "Explore Evolution" exhibit.
See the "Explore Evolution" web page here:
explore-evolution.unl.edu/
Special Thanks to:
Dr. Judy Diamond
The University of Nebraska State Museum
www.friendsofthemuseum.org/
See more at:
RichardDawkins.net - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
It's nice seeing Dawkins talking about something he's both passionate and specialist in, instead of wasting his time trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Both are needed, a challenge is the most satisfying thing for a curious person!
To be fair the whale is one of the worst examples of intermediate fossils, the reality is these 'intermediate' aren't actually found in this order, they'd of need to evolve ridiculously fast to get the changes shown. It takes 100 million years to get two mutations to a single pair of corporative mutations... this thing requires 100's and 1000's of them through each set of 'transitions' its just not possible. This was demonstrated in 2008 by Cornell University. Its just not happening in our wildest dreams in the 9 million years being claimed.
Qjamesbowskiii2067 He is pointing at pictures not fossils . Naivety, ignorance and gullibility suit the evolutionist.
@@kenneths.9315 I've not the slightest idea what you're talking about
@@jamesbowskill2067 Referencing Dawkins pointing to drawings while claiming intermediate speciation. it can;t be that hard to understand.
“Yes, but where are the intermediate fossils between the intermediate fossils?”
"And why aren't those hippopotamus becoming whales?"
th-cam.com/video/lIEoO5KdPvg/w-d-xo.html
I've never heard that one before today but it's one of the most infuriating out there.
Ricardo Rodrigues how do you know they’re not? Maybe if you lived for around 5m yrs you might see it happen right in front of you
@@abominabletruthman so you expect to have fossils between then, and then you will ask fossils that are in between those again, and so on and on, but do you remotely understand how hard it is for an animal to fossilize? Some intermediate species did not live as long before evolving again and maybe is periods of time where no chances of fossilization happens. And of course new fossils are discovered each year, so not having "closely" intermediate species now does not mean next year we'll find some. This way of thinking of some people is that "if science cant give me every exact answer to every one of my questions then science must be false, ergo the bible is true", but it's not like we have reached the peak of knowledge, we are FAR from it.
"Show me the evidence"
*shows evidence
"I'm not gonna read that"
Realität successfully skipped
@Isaiah Jammes watch the video Timmy
@Isaiah Jammes oh dear, oh dear...
I believe what I believe because research, reasoning and thinking led me to a conclusion that it is true. If someone convinces me with valid arguments that I am wrong, I am happy to change my mind and admit I was wrong.
You however believe what you believe because it's written in an old book. Instead of building your opinions based on arguments, thinking and evidence, you cherrypick arguments to fit your opinions, which is quite the opposite of what a critical thinker would do.
As to your last paragraph, education is a privilege. Some people embrace it and use it to become smart and knowledgeable individuals. Some however, yes I'm looking at you, drop out, cry that education is indoctrination as a coping mechanism, and become as gullible and close minded as you are.
That's why I refuse to waste more of my time on you, have fun
@Isaiah Jammes I am willing to hear your arguments, I truly am. List them in a bullet point list, without beating around the bush and I will be sure to review them.
@@michac.8283 explain how first life came to be when there was zero organic matter - please explain how this very first life had the ability to find nourishment, turn that nourishment into energy, transport that energy to the area that would use it to make a copy of itself and please explain how this first life had the ability know how to replicate itself
My point being life from nothing / life from non-life is hard to see happening once you understand that on earth there was no ORGANIC material prior to their being organic material to make organics...
time and chance is not the answer
I think the fossil record could best be analogized to stop motion animation. Fossils are like the individual frames. Every fossil is transitional to something else. Any single frame is just a snapshot in time. Only by comparing the older to the younger frames can it be understood. With enough fossils you get a moving image of evolution.
Wow, that really is a good analogy.
But it doesn't work that way. There is far more variation among members of a species all living at the same time, than there is between that species as a whole and the same species 100 years apart. With the relatively small number of substantially complete fossils of larger animals, we only get samples, and these samples come randomly from across the variation within the species at that time. So you would never get a smooth sequence of changes by going from fossil to fossil in chronological order.
agreed, all you can do is show animation fantasy stories and imagination for evolution because it is not real. just like dawkins just showed pictures to people and told a fantasy story and that passes as great evidence to the atheist. spot on.
There is no evidence for evolution . I can stick a few pictures on a board and say this is what happened . Doesn't make it true
@@michaelmarshall9132 People like you could be caught redhanded murdering someone, be shown video + DNA evidence & have a witness talk openly, and you'd still deny it.
But Mr. Dawkins, this doesn't explain the recent phenomenon known as "landwhales." They seem to spawn and socialize at walmart locations as well as welfare offices. A very curious adaptation indeed
That's just fucked up.
A very interesting change in our recent environments. Are you sure humans have nothing to do with it?
😆
In such populations, eventually the hind legs may recede, developing into a more stout, slower moving animal more dependent on artificial mechanical means of movement while the ever-thickening front limbs become stronger and more efficient for everyday tasks.
V Ling Yes, I can see the usefulness of this adaptation. Increases arm size and carrying capacity directly correlates with better ability to consume copious amounts of food. Remarkable observation V ling
I can hear Wendy Wright singing "la la la la missing links la la la"
erase, as I have, her existence from your mind. It's taking up important space with which you can store interesting information.
I may have exaggerated. I know of her, I've just removed her entire interview by Dawkins from my head.
"errr ... let me back up...." she might say :))
Johannes M. Johannes , fantastic! I don't know whether to applaud you or to fear you - for having the passion and the commitment - and the ability - to record the transcript of one of the greatest pieces of creationist idiocy and mendacity to written form - great stuff
And the funny thing?..... creationists, who post the interview, as their own, label it as "The world's wisest creationist "owning" Professor Dawkins" - I chortle, heartily, and moisten my gusset area, in the process
This is but another example of creationist intellectual...ineptitude, similar forms of this argument can be heard in debates and churches everywhere, she is only remarkable in her lack of self-awareness, so much so that she is under the impression that she had offered Prof Dawkins answers that sufficiently addresses his questions.
For a truly remarkable display of stupidity we cannot hope to look away from either Kent Hovind or Ray comfort. Even Wendy wright appears reasonable compared to those two buffoons.
Science is fascinating, if only more people took notice ;)
It might even be possible to raise whales in huge farms. They can be kept in huge aquariums and fattened up to produce more blubber. They could be genetically engineered to produce more blubber to resolve the energy crisis. They could also be milked in whale diaries to produce huge amounts of milk to supply the world with milk.
I wish that in school I had a teacher that could make it as interesting as Mr.Dawkins.
People always say that, but it’s more likely they’re just finding the subject matter more interesting as they get older.
I like Dawkins but this isn’t exactly the type of lecture that would have young students on the edge of their seat with excitement.
Nelson's Rudolph yes and I imagine those would be more entertaining for schoolchildren :)
You just needed to fade up the marimba.
Jimmi K - why is theology a dumb subject it is critical to the philosophy of all nature 🤷♂️
It's Dr Dawkins. Mr is just disrespectful.
"Show me the evidence".... OK.
45 million years ago, 35 billion years ago. nigga what sort of evidence is that? your just speculating son you dont know that. we are fighting about what took place 2000 years ago and yet you can tell me what took place 4 billion years ago. how life came about by itself. WHATEVER. Bullshit artists. You dont know that any of this happened you weren't there.
This is not science.. this is VooDoo
lol oh dear, my favourite voodoo is the story of the magc man in the sky who wass always there then one day decided to make eveything! then blamed what he had made and punished his crreetion according to the rulles he haad made up and now they suffer becaausee of a woman made from a rib wwho ate an apple from a maagic tree! and was encouraged to do so by a talking snake lol !!! what kind a dope was the guyy who made that up smoking?? lol
why would I want to die! im not a suicidal maniac!! although I did hear of a cult once that were like that, I think they followed some idea about a magic man in the sky! oh wait.... lol
unit 003 were you there 35 million years ago? Or you take that by faith? Haha
lmfao! really thats all you got! you must realise that faith is not a good way to get to any kind of truth. Maybe you were around 2000 years ago! lol gods are like leprachauns! not real until proven to be so!
"show me the evidence, show me the evidence"
lmfao
I know 🙈 th-cam.com/video/0csd3M4bc0Q/w-d-xo.html
They got none
Nothing but fraudulent lies.
Also only God could make something as pretty as you.
@@untoldhistory2800 Thx a lot for the tip on the video. It's very telling the fact that even odds and probabilities don't side with Dawkins.
Mack 1 mate go outside wtf are you doing
I am so very very grateful for Dr Dawkins and all his life's work.
I'm not grateful, he is an evil man
*Goes to Scottish bar and meets two thicc girls*
"So, are you two girls from around here?"
Girl: "Wales"
Me: "Sorry, are you two whales from around here?"
Dawkins talked about transitionary species a while back. He had an analogy:
Imagine holding hands with your mom, your mom holds hands with her mom, so on and so forth. Back to the beginning of life.
Each animal would be indistinguishable from the next along this "bloodline". You couldn't tell the differences between animals except by skipping a few hundred generations.
This is what creationists want to see. An unbroken line. Unfortunately they don't realize how improbable the process of fossil making is.
Unable to get the ideal fossil record they'll continue to deny.
That is a very interesting point- the actual proof would be the unbroken line.
Darwin himself pointed out the "extreme imperfection of the geological deposits".
To really understand the probability we can look at how many of the present species are represented in the fossil record.
For example out of 43 orders of present vertebrates 42 has been found as fossils.
Among 329 families of present vertebrates 261 are present in the fossil record.
This gives a fossil percent at around 80%.
Evolutionists talk about the million and billions of overlapping species that has existed but the fossil record show about 200,000 to 300,000 of the extinct species. So the intermediate species Darwin predicted has never been found and there is no reason to believe that they will in the future.
8obsolete8name8
Exactly, the great tragedy of fossils is that whole ecosystems cannot be recovered. The result of geological processes like Plate Tectonics and erosion make it so fossils can only be found tar pits and cave like places, etc.
I thought about this some time ago, the only fossils we find are fossils from ecosystems where the improbable events that lead to fossils are possible. Where active volcanoes were and such are unlikely to yield fossils likewise for regions that were mountainous in the past.
Not many people know this so the modern scientists just continue to use it as evidence. This gives a very bad name for science when people eventually finds out.
8obsolete8name8
It's not bad. Just a tragedy that we will never find fossils from animals that lived in specific prehistoric environments.
There are plenty of fossils to support evolution, enough to remove all reasonable doubt.
People who don't accept evolution don't realize how difficult it is to find fossils and fail to appreciate the fossils that have been found.
Of course there is enough fossils to support evolution- any theory can be supported if the evidence is vague enough. That is how they are able to use it on the other side to prove God too.
My point is that if you look at the evidence neither theory is proven. They say that God created the species but we don't directly find God in the evidence- so how is it evidence? Others say the species came about after a long line of intermediates but we don't find even one line in the evidence, so? What is found are dots - and those who believe in evolution say those dots use to be a line, others say someone created dots. Neither can be proven just by looking at the dots.
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!
Watched her few days ago, I really wanted to go there and punch her really hard in the face, never to get up again..
Closed mindedness is genetic.
WHERE'S THE VIDEO?
THE EVIDENCE CAN BE SEEN IN MUSEUMS! GO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!
why so agressive?
You can communicate with a deaf man but you cannot speak with someone that doesn't want to listen.
It's called confirmation bias and it permeates society. It's exactly why the shitty algorithm used by TH-cam continually presents 'recommendations' that are aligned with your history - effectively becoming an echo chamber.
@Lee S You haven't a clue do you? Talk about 'trying to sound important'. Here's a tip: stop posting shit here while you're high. Lol. God what a twit.
Sure you can. It's called parenting. (Though I get what you're saying.)
@Lee S Are you drunk? You sound drunk. In any case, I pity someone who won't even look even more than someone who stops looking because they think they've found the answer. Where the latter is a single mistake in an otherwise sensible worldview, the former is terminal.
Or that actively chooses willful ignorance and believe in a "god" for whom we have zero evidence. I still wanna know WHICH 'god', Thor? Zeus? Yahwey? Vishnu? Hera? I bet it's Thor, I do love those movies.
Choosing to be an ignorant must be hard work. Dawkins explain things so clear and chilled, best teacher ever.
Well, it obviously fooled you. If thats the case i have a seminar on how you giving me all of your wealth, will benefit you the most.
@@RoytheRooster_1 stupid analogy.
An asylum run by lunatics, explains Mr. Dawkins! He is blinded by his primitive, illogical and unscientific beliefs and he is guiding astray millions of people.
The man is showing a cartoon as evidence for “missing links”; the critical mind is dead.
@@alessiobemelmans9539 Did you not see the part where he showed the fossils? The "cartoon" isn't the evidence, it's just a simplified explanation of the evolution of cetaceans and how they share a common ancestor with hippos. Also, the chart didn't mention anything about any "missing links".
"People ask for intermediate evidence of evolution and the best example is Wales "
Totally agree, I went there earlier this week and it was like 1840!!
@@anti-nonsensecomments7512 if you don't understand something that obvious I'd give up. Basically wales is behind the times
@@anti-nonsensecomments7512 don't worry about it if you cannot follow something this simple.
@@anti-nonsensecomments7512 are you just being obtuse? It's a joke and doesn't need to be factually accurate.
@@anti-nonsensecomments7512 I think your name is merely irony. I am not that fussed for likes either. I had forgotten about this one and I've got others with over 3k likes. It doesn't matter if they get one or a million. The intent of this joke was a play on Wales being on the past. 1840 is in the past that's all it needs
@@anti-nonsensecomments7512 poor mr Joke, you were just trying to help. As a man of culture, I will also abstain myself of linking this less than ''perfect joke''.
Richard Dawkins. I love his presentations. His style and the depth of his knowledge are utterly captivating.
This cartoon illustration is the greatest evidence for evolution in existence!!! Wow!!!
The illustrations are based on actual fossils (look at the skulls he shows).
Thank you Nebraska for still educating our youth. I proud of the state of my birth!
[christian throws hands on ears] "lalala can't hear you! not true!"
no, Christian says that those bones found in the skeleton of a whale are attached to muscles, without those bones and muscles the whale would have no way of mating. They are not vestigous, they are crucial to the reproduction of the whale. The same structures are found in snakes. This is not evidence of evolution, this is evidence of the genius of God's Design. It's very unfortunate that such a video can mislead so many. this video is bankrupt of any evidence, besides paintings on a chart that are merely a depiction of an artist's perspective, nothing else.
Michael Kurkov So why is it that our laryngeal nerve, which stems from the brain, goes all the way down to our heart, loops around, and then comes back up to attach to the larynx? The distance from the beginning of the nerve to to the larynx is only a few inches, but instead it takes this long and useless path down and up again. Science has an explanation for this, but what about creationists? Where's the logic in this? Or what about how the place where we breath and eat IS WITH SAME TUBE!!!! That's like having an exhaust pipe and a gas intake in the same tube... No competent engineer would ever do this.. Efficiency is important but not when you now have a high risk of choking to death on your food..
And btw, our eyes aren't really amazing. They're neat, but definitely not perfect. Tons of animals have WAY BETTER eyes than us. The mantis shrimp can see 4x as many wavelengths of light. Humans see 3 primary colors of light, and all the rest are just those colors mixed together, the mantis shrimp can see 12.. Imagine a color you can't even imagine, now do that 9 more times.. Human bodies are flawed. They aren't perfect at all..
No we say . You’re forgetting the father . Were you born from a father?
Omega501 they’re perfect but limited . Shrimps need better eyes . We seem to be doing just fine with ours . Just because science thinks they have an answer . They always change it ! Always . They will never have the true answer because they’re looking in the wrong pkace
@@John5.24 You still can't prove god, you just claim it.
How pitiful are you religious apologists?
I worked with a guy who was trying to write a book proving, scientifically that evolution was not true. He kept falling back to "show me an example". Even after giving many, he said each one wasn't good enough. After a thought, I asked "What would a 'good' example be? Is it possible to define what would be needed to change your mind?" And he responded "I don't know". Deniers do not rely on logic, science, anything. It's willful suspension of disbelief.
Have you considered that Evolution cannot explain gender? Evolution states that it takes millions or billions of years for each individual creature to randomly form by naturalistic means. By the time a compatible male forms naturally and in the same locale of a female forming, the female would have died off long before her male counterpart arrives, thus dying off the species immediately. Evolution would have to create nearly every species in pairs (similarly but very differently) and at the same proximity for us to see what we are looking at today. These pairs would have to be made for each other, be very similar, yet different, created at the same time and place. But the Bible explains clearly that God created man in his own image, both male and female He created them.
It’s amazing how much information can be taken from just the skull of an animal.
Well, skull bones are how mammalian ear bones developed, so skulls are pretty important. Mammalian ear bones are also a good reason not to believe in young earth creationism as if even one bird had mammalian ear bones that would be extremely strong evidence for supernatural intervention, but God didn't create one so his followers would be ridiculed...
I love how theists often demand a lot from science but little from their religion. I don't know how they feel comfortable with their lopsided critical thinking.
They have a massive emotional and life investment in the religion, most have been in the religion for years making important life choices based on it so anything that may threaten the validity of those choices is viewed extremely harshly. It's like how conservatives can utterly destroy communist theory with critical thinking but completely fail logically with their religion even though they displayed the ability to reason out illogical ideology. It's emotional thinking at it's core favoring the stability and lack of self accountability the religion gives rather than face the harsh truth that you alone are responsible for your actions and choices.
They were brainwashed into religion when they were young and impressionable
Captain Howdy evolution is the way God intended it to be. Laws of nature and so on and so on are there because of God.
Captain Howdy c’mon. No Christian believes a guy was swallowed by a whale and then spat out 5 or what’ ever day later. Those are just stories.
@@iHeartOiSkanks Christians literally built a "museum" with a partial boat where they tell people a family built something thats half the size of the titanic, filled with animatronics of humans and dinosaurs which alledgedly lived together...
I think Wendy Wright's problem and many other people who wish evolution were fake is that they complain that these are "just cartoons", and would like to see every single bone we've ever found laid out in order so that they can see the progression. They would also like a scratch and sniff and taste station, so that they can see that these are real bones and real fossils. -_-
Alter Ego They'd still say that the devil put it there.
True that, the fucking dumb brainwashed animals >:( not to insult animals or anything
They think that truth is whatever they want to be true the most. It doesn't work that way. They shouldn't even be able to use that word. Someone could be discovered to have a terminal illness for example, be informed by the doctor, and immediately deny it because "I feel fine and I don't want to think about that". They'll still die.
+Alter Ego: Hi Alter; everybody dies... why? God bless you.
Mario DiBlasio You should read about it yourself,instead of asking silly questions.
Now let us gaze into the debate of hundreds of professionals at the comment section.
Worst desicion of my life. But I was really so amazed of how calmly two or three of the "evolutioniists" argued. How hard they tried but yet had no way to break trough.
A new paper was published in nature showing that the so called vestige legs of the whales are actually very important in the reproduction. So without these bones, the whale will never existed. The well know book 'BIOLOGY' has updated that and removed this 'evidenve.
@@mahmoudzemzami3570 So thats why that last remainder of their legs is still needed, cool.
Let me guess, you dont believe in evolution.
Technically, every continuing genus on the tree of life that has ever existed was/is an intermediate species.
@@tototome7046 yeah boys I think we found another deluded drunkard.
Quite right, we are all intermediate species, we just don't exist long enough to realise it.
@@chesterparsnip This is a concept that is not stressed enough in early science education. My mother is a high school biology teacher and her solution to this conceptual block was to show the students an image of a rainbow, and ask: at what point does the red become orange, or the green become blue? I thought that was a pretty clever analogy.
@@blakebruner5038 That's a super awesome way to put it! As a former evangelical christian, now athiest, I'm having to learn by myself the concept of evolution and it's awesome because I don't have a system of thought (i.e. christianity) telling me how to think. At one point as I was thinking about the whole fossil record, it dawned on me that I'm the product of the mutation of species over time, and what comes after me is going to be a mutation of my species. The "Rainbow Analogy" is a very succinct way to put that. :-)
@@andycocking10 I'm happy to hear that you got something out of her methods. As for the rest of your comment, in terms of confronting the "great abyss" that many are left with after abandoning religion, allow me to recommend an author/philosopher to you named Albert Camus. His ideas are generally called "Absurdism" today. It really helped me make sense of the void that God left behind when I stopped believing. It is a very optimistic view of nothingness. In a nutshell he argued that life having no greater meaning is actually the key to us being able to find value and meaning in whatever we choose. Check him out sometime. Cheers.
Every fossil is an intermediate fossil.
Question: Why then did Stephen Jay Gould feel compelled to postulate punctuated equilibrium?
@Dennis Feenstra I agree with your first sentence and that was exactly my point. In addition PE explains why there are relatively few universally agreed upon examples of intermediate fossils. If 'every fossil is an intermediate fossil' as the original commenter stated neither Gould nor anyone else would have proposed PE in the first place.
@Dennis Feenstra (sighs heavily)
@Dennis Feenstra I'll just take your word for it that what I've written is both wrong and senseless. And while, how it could possibly be both at the same time remains a deep mystery to me, I bow to your superior intellect, critical thinking skills, and deductive reasoning ability. As you've made clear in this comment section, I am merely here to benefit from the limitless depths of your PE knowledge - and what a treat it has been! Would you please do me the honor of taking the last word in this enlightening exchange?
(sighs heavily... rolls eyes... yawns...)
The Elomeryx really let himself go the last 35 million years
He put it on during quarantine.
sitting on his sofa. tweeting hate for hours to all his hooven friends. then his family moved out and moved to the beach. sad... really.
Best laugh I've had all day. Great comment.
or as comedian robert mac would say, 35 million years and 6 months.
For some strange reason, it felt soothing just looking at that evolutionary chart.
That's because you believe it absolves you of personal accountability to your Creator. Except it doesn't, it's a fantastical illusion.
Roy Wilson I knew my creator was Manu.
@@militantpacifist4087 Oh, ok, at least it isn't Mancity.
@@troyart So believing a guy riding on a cloud created everything, including Earth sitting on pillars, is not an illusion? A guy with a simple boat sailing for more than a year with samples of ALL the animals on Earth is not an illusion? A man whose son turned water into wine but threw his toys out the cot when a fig tree did not have fruit out of the season for figs is not an illusion? Often wonder what was the son expecting from the damn tree out of season, a hamburger and a Coke perhaps?
@@troyart *Absolutely*
.
We know that a creator is a fantastical illusion.
Science is truly a beautiful thing.
Amen
The best method to getting closer to the truth, and we are the only species in the known universe that does it.
Yes it is, unfortunately, this video in no way represents actual science.
@@LumieX how so?
@@shimon2476 Because he's assuming a bunch of nonsense that has not and cannot ever be verified. Nobody has ever observed what he is claiming and no experiment can confirm his claims. It's pseudoscience.
“Show me the evidence”
(Shows evidence)
“Ok but SHOW me the evidence...”
itsy But he DID NOT show the evidence. That chart should be miles long if the intermediate transitional forms really existed. Where are the fossils to fill in those huge gaps between those cute illustrations of “whale ancestors”?
@@CYBERemnant That is a great question. Let us presume we both agree that the earth is Millions and millions of years old (which it is, but that is a separate argument) Think about all the Millions of transitions you are talking about, Yes many have indeed been found and continue to be found. But you must also consider a few things. The natural process of nature and entropy destroy most of this evidence as it is natural for the animals to break down with so so much time. Also consider that these "transitions" are incredibly slow, so slow that we cannot perceive them within the understanding of our short lifetime, that is how evolution takes place it is a "slow and gradual" process. So these transitions you are talking about can almost be indistinguishable to us, technically evolution for the most part is taking place but me and you cannot see it, that in itself is a type of transition and for it to be visibly different to our eyes we are talking about fewer Specimen than you might originally think. Intermediate transitional forms do exist but they are not what you think they are, There is no ONE transitional form between two species, think of a Color wheel, Consider the Colors Blue and Red. think of all the different color variations between those two colors gradually just like you would see on a color wheel. that is more to what Transitional fossils are, as you can see the blending of these two colors is more subtle than just having one color in the middle.
There are many great books on this subject matter, Dawkins touches on it a bit i believe in "the Greatest show on Earth" which is a beautiful book about the nature of our world. it took me a long time to get this concept but i reckon you would pick it up pretty quickly. I hope i didn't make that explanation to confusing to understand, and even if you dont agree its ok do your own research. you will discover and learn some beautiful things of our universe out there. Cheers and all the best.
neondemon I like your color wheel analogy and accept that it supports the point your making. However, that same point eliminates any evidence that those “transitional” examples are even transitional at all! They could be totally different creatures altogether or some kind of mutant. You can only accept this theory on the premise that the earth and its life is millions or even billions of years old. But the Grand Canyon disproves that.
@@CYBERemnant Well they are still transitional because it is between two different species albeit the differences are gradual between them. A dog is a different animal than a wolf, but they are both stil connected to the same family tree, we know this since there have been many in between variations and transitional versions of Wolf/Dog through history. You might see this type of evolution more directly with dogs since we ourselves have breed dogs for centuires and have picked certain traits that we desire (artifical selection). We pick big dogs too breed with other big dogs or ones with spots with other ones with spots until we find a breed we like. Evolution and "Natural selection" does the SAME thing but only through the various random process of nature, time and without the aid of human kind. Now picture that type of breeding for Millions upon millions of years and maybe then you can somewhat picture how one animal can turn and adapt to a new environment given enough time. And that brings us to the next point, i agree you can only accept this theory if you buy into the idea that the Earth is in fact billions of years old. But this isnt hard to prove since we have countless ways to measure and date this, from rocks to living and dead lifeforms, even the distance of the stars relative to us can all be measured to help us with that. The age of the earth isnt a debate amongst schoolars. Funny enough The Grand canyon has compacted layers that date back billions of years, so if you have read other wise i would check those sources.
Regardless of all that, i presume you must be a person of Faith? if so there is nothing wrong with that i respect that. You can easily go living day by day as such but still reconcile with the Facts of the theory of Evolution. My mother is super religious but she has studied medicine and biology, she has no problem accepting them as fact, because that is what they are! good questions btw thank you.
neondemon I understand how dating rocks and fossils is essential to the evolution theory, but questions remain about the accuracy and reliability of those methods. In a previous comment I threw out the challenge of explaining why the layers of rock visible in the Grand Canyon look the way they do. Evolution teaches that some of those layers represent billions of elapsed time, yet each layer from the Cambrian on up is virtually smooth, with no signs of erosion like from runoff from storms that always creates gullies and such. There is no evidence of tree growth or even animal burrows. And supposedly those layers were lying there for millions of years! No, my friend. The evidence shows exactly the opposite: those layers were laid down in a short period of time by flood waters. Those same flood waters buried millions of life forms and millions of tons of vegetation. That’s where fossils and coal beds came from. So, how would you explain the absence of erosion and deposition between those Grand Canyon layers? I’m very curious to know.
Now, show me the intermediate fossils between _those_ so-called intermediate fossils! C'mon, these goalposts aren't going to move themselves!
@macolyis Not sure if this is an invocation of Poe's Law or not. In any case, the chart Dawkins is pointing to _is_ greatly simplified, or it would need either a bigger wall or smaller pictures and text. There are indeed intermediate fossils between the intermediate fossils, some of which are listed (along with some theories regarding the "motivation" behind some of the adaptations) here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
...though if you are as earnest as you seem, I doubt your mind will be changed.
@macolyis So you keep saying. You do realise that the changes would have been small and incremental. Evolution doesn't go "Boom! Have a new creature!"
Show me the arrow at half the distance traveled. And now half of that. And again. Again. You see!? You haven't proved that the arrow reached its point! That's what anti evolutionists sound like.
Ha ha ha. Children's noses will move to the top of their heads (to escape pollution) within 4 generations. Dawkins is insanely stupid
@@Ometecuhtli Literally ALL observable and experimental evidence suggests that evolution on the scale that is claimed by people who promote evolution is impossible. Show me literally a single observable or experimentally reproducible example of a sea dwelling creature evolving into a land dwelling creature or vice versa. Or a non-winged flying creature evolving into a winged flying creature or vice versa. According to evolution, this happened. Show me it happening please. Oh right, you can't because we are forced to assume to that it only happens over millions of years thus proving that the very idea is pseudoscience.
Facts don't care about your feelings
Axel....lmao perfect
@Winston Grettum
Some of us think that very thing about your preacher.
@Winston Grettum I find the irony in this comment, very funny.
@Winston Grettum Dawkins isn't really shoving his belief. His just lecturing about science. He was a professor before. So you teach those who do not know. He presented proofs that we're studied carefully and ate still being studied to people. And they're facts. The only problem is, Religious belief kinda deludes learning. At least evolution has clear evidences, what does creationist have? They have zero evidence you know. That's what separates belief from facts.
@Winston Grettum
You obviously haven't studied biology-at all! Dawkins isn't stating his guesses, he is supporting the positions of 99% of the worlds biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, bacteriologists, botanists, primatologists, geologists, ...
Your assumption that an ad hominem from you falsifies the positions of tens of millions of scientists, career scientists, degreed scientists, is flat out ridiculous.
Pakicetus was a land mammal, not a transitional form, missing link, or whale. Dorudon are long serpent-like mammals with tiny appendages that are clearly too small for walking. But even evolutionists have expressed doubts that they are ancestral to modern whales.
Rodhocetus had neither a tail fluke nor flippers, according to its discoverer. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the museums to change their displays or the textbooks to stop portraying Rodhocetus as a neat transitional form.
A PhD in biology professor vs a random youtube troll. Who are you going to believe?
Saying "backwards" 3 times and gesturing with your finger to show "backwards" on the skull 3 times, makes it true.
Intermediate forms and the transitional fossils of transitional species don't exist.
Ever heard of Dr Colin Patterson?
*"If I knew of any evolutionary transitional fossils I would certainly have included them in my book 'Evolution'".*
And......
*"I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument".*
Dr Colin Patterson
Former Senior Paleontologist
at the British Museum of
Natural History.
And.......
*"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."*
Dr David Raup
Former Curator of Geology
at the Field Museum of
Natural History in
Chicago.
Dr. Phil Gingerich in his 1983 article about Pakicetus he had a drawing of a half-land, half-sea creature based on all the fossil evidence he had at the time,which were parts of the skull. We now know, from further fossil evidence, that it was an land animal, somewhat like a pig, and not a whale.
Watching this vid has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I'm sorry I just can't take this seriously. It's hilarious, almost like watching a storybook time show or something.
yes..because talking snakes, people living in fish and walking on water are SOOOO credible..lmfao..religion..bedtime stories for idiots and children destined to be idiots...lol
Myke hog , dude someone drew these images. Plus talking snakes, a person being swallowed by a fish, and God incarnate walking on water is still more believable than this.
Dawkins also believes NOTHING created everything.😂😂 Literally! Or that aliens seeded human beings and we evolved into what we are today. Like stop it bro. You’re really going to sit there and talk about the “impossibility” of certain events in Christianity but glaze over this man’s ridiculous claims. You my friend are funny.
Interesting video. Wish it could have been a bit longer and more detailed.
Looking at the chart (which is my only source of information at this time), it seems to me that Rodhocetus could not be a direct ancestor of Dorudon unless there was a large shift or change in some combination of habitat, or it's predator/prey relationships. The animal that precedes Rodhocetus, which I can't see the name of, shows a trend toward shortening forelimbs and lengthening hindlimbs that is continued with Rodhocetus. The animal that follows Rodhocetus in the chart, Dorudon, has no hind limbs at all and shortened, more flipper-like, forelimbs. Of course there may be a huge time gap between Rodhocetus and Dorudon, not shown in the video, without adequate fossil records to illustrate the change. Though the skulls seem to remain remarkably similar, the difference between the depictions of the two animals, Rodhocetus and Dorudon, given a similar time gap and habitat between Rodhocetus, the previous animal, and Dorudon leads me to speculate that Rodhocetus was more like an uncle to modern whales whose line died out rather than a direct ancestor.
Thanks again for the nice video.
Excellent. Informative and enjoyable to watch for someone who already believes in reality and wants to understand more about the world around them. However, it won’t do a thing for those who don’t believe, be cause as the saying goes, you can’t win an argument with an ignorant person.
"Show me the evidence for evolution! Meanwhile, I'll continue believing in an invisible sky wizard with zero evidence..."
Northern Brother, oh, if we just write it in the Bible it'll be true.
Northern Brother He is not a wizard by the way, it is The Creator, wizards are your evolutionists gurus.
encimadeti
creator:
Abracadabra!
💥➡🐅🐎🐂🐩🐖🐄🐏🐪🐇🐿
Northern Brother, according to the Big Bang, there wasn't even an invisible sky wizard that got us here, there was absolutely nothing. Now, tell me. 0+0= ? According to Big Bang, everything came from nothing! You can believe that, but I'll take that invisible sky wizard any day over saying the entire universe blow up from nothing and from that came everything. You have to really be on a lot of drugs to come up with such a bizzare theory!
Peter Stanton how does the fact that you find big bang improbable somehow make invisible sky wizard believable?
You had me at Pakicetus. You complete me.
Now show me the intermediate fossils between the intermediate fossils.
jorgensenmj he actually never shows any intermediate fossils, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. From my research those pre-whale creatures like Takracetus with the back feet have never actually been found with the back feet, it is typically just skulls.
T Jones they build most of these “intermediate fossils” from a bone here or there. So pretty much any “evidence” they have is pure speculation and imagination
@@pggarcia6703 Nope; fossils reconstruction is observation and intuition. God is definitely imagination.
I'm going to need to see a good portion of the skeleton before I believe they know what it looked like or what animal it was an ancestor to.
If you are being sarcastic (it's hard to tell sometimes) then it fits the mood of most of the comments and please just ignore the following diatribe.
If however, you are sincere in your statement , then that implies you believe in a god . You don't question god, for whom there is zero scientific evidence, yet you question evolution for which there is overwhelming evidence. Even the Vatican acknowledges evolution is true and it is taught in catholic schools.
Many museums don't have the room or the money to purchase full fossil skeletons so they exhibit partial ones. That doesn't mean that there isn't a full skeleton available. Even if a full one has never been recovered , the parts that have been recovered can tell many things . The progression of the nostrils from in front of the skull to the top of the skull tells us clearly that there was an evolution from a land mammal to todays whales and that fact wouldn't be diminished if we didn't have the rest of the skeleton, which we do have in other museums, universities etc. btw. Just google
Rodhocetus , Pakecetus and Dorudon.
@@TheNYgolfer were you born that ignorant or did you work your way up to it?
Mate ,we can literally tell the personality of a dead organism by its fossils .
One hair is enough to tell u apart from 7 billion ppl .one cell is all u need to decode ur specie,living pattern.and even inheritane lol
Edcuation mate !
Honestly as an asian i am unimpressed since your ppl had so many great minds seeing u in there race is an embarasment
@@arianagrandaremix8858 Cool story bro! Lol I wish I shared the strength of your faith!
@@zachpinney omg . Good luck with ur denial .
Ps: covird happned and millions dies bez a virus EVOLVED .
There is a difference btw faith and fact
Urs is faith based on stories
Mine is fact based on physical ,molecular and obseveable evidence .lol .
Could so easily listen/watch a whole lecture on this. So interesting and well presented
And you would still be left with the same lack of answers as before watching it. Because nobody has these answers. But for some reason, some people like to believe that they've figured it all, where we come from and where we go. And then they call it science😂 and teach it in schools. It's just pathetic and it's laughable. What was before the big bang? "To this question nobody has an answer". Seems pretty similar to what creationists say when being asked where it all started. But at least creationists do not pretend to know it for a fact.
@@qwertyuiopa410 Creationists claim god did it all. How is this not pretending to know it for a fact?
@@sartori69 they accept God built the universe but never question how or when or any specific details about its creation. Plus, the creationists choose to BELIEVE this, while evolutionists claim to know how it happened, when and what was before the universe which is just nonsense.
@@qwertyuiopa410 "They" choose to believe it without question and with no evidence. How is that a good thing? Questioning everything is the most honest way to approach it. It's called skepticism, and it's the best path to intellectual honesty.
"Evolutionists"? I assume you mean evolutionary biologists. They have come to tentative conclusions based on evidence to explain things the best way they can. Conclusions can, have, and will continue to change over time as more is learned about the world.
No intellectually honest person is claiming to know what was before the universe. Show me where you saw anyone of any merit state such a thing as fact.
Also, evolution and the origins of the universe aren't even the same argument. They are two different branches of science. Maybe you should learn more about science so you can accurately criticize it instead of conflating two different things?
@@sartori69 so basically what you're saying is evolitionists are just as clueless as they can be since they will never know the answer to some of the biggest questions like where we come from and where we're going. Think about it philosophycally. How can i trust a "branch of science" who doesn't offer me answers to these kind of quinessential questions.
"Show me the evidence, show me the evidence..." Well, Wendy Wright, here they are.
And where does the great lord and savior Shrek fit on this evolutionary chain?
No Shrek? It's alls ogre now
TicTacZac At the very, very top.
You created yourself out of nothing . You’re god . Just wish a pen into existence and it will happen. Nothing created nothing . There was no beginning there is no end . You’re nothing you don’t matter no one does . Hitler is ending up nowhere. You end there . There are no conciquences for your actions
LOL
@@ElijahMendiola *Yawns*, typical rhetoric
Truth and logic , lets just stick to these on our quest for knowledge .
Every animal and being has a common ancestor with every other, if one goes back sufficiently in time.
I practically grew up in Morrill hall. It astonishes me that the meme of no intermediates survives when almost 50 years ago I was educated without much effort with just the evidence you presented. How long must we wait for the creation myth to die?
Of course, you are gullible, easy to be indoctrinated to believe a lie.
When science can explain not only how life began, but where all of the information contained in DNA came from. We are supposed to believe that all of the information just got there randomly? How do the different proteins in a living cell know what their functions are. How did they receive their information to perform the tasks they do.
@@mgreg8134 Your lack of understanding is no-one else's problem.
@@tsopmocful1958 explain it to me oh great one. I have nothing against science I do have a problem with science that says we've got it all figured out. When there are obviously still many questions to be answered. Not to mention his example using whales progression has been debunked.
@@mgreg8134 I'm not explaining anything to you because I already said that your lack of understanding is no-one else's problem.
And science never claims to have 'it all figured out'...only religions claim that.
Nor do any gaps in scientific knowledge mean that a god exists.
You're just another silly creationist, so no-one cares what you think.
Show me the history of consciousness.
Show me the fossils of the first sentient life form.
Well played.
We don’t even understand how consciousness works in modern animals, so how could we lay out an evolutionary history for it? Instead you can look at the evolution of nervous systems, because that we can actually study right now.
@@lenn939 - More like adaptation of the nervous system. you'll be hard pressed to show evidence that the nervous system originated in primordial soup, and don't cite the Nirenberg experiment as it's flawed since they introduced synthetic RNA into the experiment, which of course, wouldn't have been present all those millions of years ago.
What was the timeframe for this? Also, is the whale blow hole just positioned higher up? I assume the oral and nasal passageways are also reconfigured to keep water out of the lungs.
Dawkins does a splendid job of fairy-tale telling in this brief video. He has a great imagination, that's for sure!
wanton ignorance
I am rather amazed at how gullible you are to believe Dawkins' specious interpretation in this video...but so be it.
@@douglaspriore9186 I am rather unamazed that you failed to understand what the OP actually wrote. Further, explain what is specious about Dawkins' presentation.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect There have been many articles, book chapters, and videos detailing what is wrong with Dawkins' presentation. One of my favorites is chapter 13 in a book titled Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Volume 1 by Dr. Carl Werner, so rather than me giving my 'distilled' explanation, I would direct you to that book which goes into great detail in about 20 pages or so (or perhaps even the video by the same person).
@@douglaspriore9186 I note you can't explain or substantiate your claim, nor did you acknowledge your inane misunderstanding of the OP.
"Where's the intermediate fossil? Show it to me, show it!"
- pause -
"You're stepping on it."
@macolyis Those are a whole lot of word to describe the fact that you don't know anything about which you are talking.
@macolyis Wow, you seem awfully angry about a subject that you have obviously learned nothing about besides some exaggerated and misunderstood statements. Let me start you here, stop thinking of mutation as being a random accident. Life pushes and expands and explores until it is stopped. Nothing "blundered" into the water. a group of land animals (in this case) pushed further and further along food sources until there was water (more realistically is that the animals never ventured far from the water in the first place). There wasn't suddenly a flipper where a leg used to be. Long legs have drag in the water. The shorter legged individuals had an advantage in the water, fed more, lived longer and reproduced more. This happened hundreds of thousands of times a year over 50 or so million years. Shit changes. The Hippo and the Whale are not two different things, they are the same thing that just looks different so it can feed in different places. All mammals are like this. Fossils and bones give us an idea of what happened. The proof is in the DNA. You are more pig and dog in your DNA than you are not. You are almost exactly pig in your DNA structure (not so much RNA, but that is a different thing). A Honda Accord, a limousine, and a Porsche don't look alike, but they are still cars.
@macolyis Dude, I have a degree in mathematics with a minor in genetics. DNA does too show what I am saying. It shows it clearly and with extremely high degrees of certainty and prediction. Just because YOU don't understand it, that is not my problem. You are talking out of your ass, but just to address the point, when you speak of people on islands, you are talking about tens of thousands of years at best, not 50 MILLION years, but people that live in harsh and isolated areas DO have genetic tendencies that are advantageous to survival. The cellular mitochondria in Sherpa people in Nepal process oxygen at a rate 20% higher than normal. They also possess a higher strength microplasticity around their capillaries that prevents altitude sickness that would kill a normal person. This is not just a physical adaptation, this is genetic.
Just because YOU don't know something, that doesn't make it false.
Wingnut
@macolyis Hey awesome, you can cut and paste but you still can't think.
"you are arrogant and a liar" - Fuck you, wingnut. Sure, you're right. The Earth is flat too and only 5000 years old and they faked the moon landing.
What you are is crazy and uneducated.
@macolyis Plus, you have a hell of a lot of gall calling someone else arrogant, and saying my degrees are lies.
And yet, this still wouldn't be enough for Wendy Wrong.
she needs Evidence tho, not truth masquerading as evidence
She needs a brain first
God gave her one. The difference is she does not use her brain to deny her Creator, therefore God has not given her over to a reprobate mind like He has Dawkins.
No, that's not evidence. You still can't show me any evidence. If what you're saying were true you'd be able to show me the evidence.
Wendy watching this video, “Where is the evidence?”
People asking "show me an intermediate fossil" in 2020s are akin people asking to show them that there is usually a period of day light between dawn and dusk.
Yeah. And thats a slow progress too.
"SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!" - Wendy Wrong
Never have my sub box looked this great.
@ Richard Dawkins Foundation: Just to let you know that I can't watch the "Richard Dawkins:Why are there still Chimpanzees? - Nebraska Vignettes #2" video or comment on it as it says "This not available in my country". I live in the UK?
It's showing up just fine in Germany.
I've found, sometimes, that videos, which don't play on my tablet due to content not available, will play on my desktop machine. Most of the time it's one of those annoying copyright notices though. So much for freedom of information.
nztvar
Cheers for that. I'll try and remember that for future reference :)
Racism!
Nature is incredible
I wonder if whales argue with each other, saying, "I didn't come from no hippo!"
hee ;~)
We are all transitional, all intermediate!
True - science and TV teach us that we sit somewhere between protozoa and chuck norris
So macolyis is saying that a dog decides to swim into the ocean and changes into a dolphin, so we’d better tell Dawkins that that’s solved. If he asks for evidence, then tell him that the invisible people in the sky and the voices in their head gave them that genius answer. Now back to the whale. So what kind of dog would be a relative to a whale? The average whale is maybe around a couple of tons, so a really big dog. While being a land animal, this kind of dog should spend considerable time in the water. Lets say 16 hours a day in the water. Hmmm, it’s a tough one. Maybe the invisible people will give me the answer.
@macolyis I think it boils down to your not understanding the concept of evolution. I would suggest reading some good books.
@@Miguelsw I'm seeing a lot of uneducated people discussing something they don't understand, yet they're dismissing it all the same based upon their limited knowledge and "common sense."
@macolyis I guess you don't understand genetics either.
Genetics easily demonstrates the relationships between living and recently living species. We can see our relationship to other primates, and even detect interbreeding with Neanderthals.
Evolution and genetics are fascinating once you grasp them.
Your inability to accurately describe and accept evolution reveals your ignorance of it.
Every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil.
@Grenherb: A totally false and lying post. Darwin changed programs at Edinburough University, since he found himself unable to even watch an operation being performed in the Medical program in which he had enrolled. He changed programs to
Cambridge University studying to become a Minister of God, but was inspired by a
course he took in Botany, and before graduating began collections of natural
specimens that became famous. He graduated with a B.A. in 1831.
He was NOT 'kicked out' of any University, and his Theory of Evolution had NO
impact on his University career. He began to develop the Theory during his voyage
on the Beagle, which did not begin until after he graduated from University (and was
recommended for this journey by his supervising professor from Cambridge
(Henslow). The voyage lasted until 1836, and he began to develop his Theory after his return, but did not publish it until 1859.
Please make at least a minimal effort to tell something resembling the truth,
instead of making up 'facts' with no bearing on reality. Especially when you are
purporting to criticize facts. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@Grenherb
FYI, scientifically literate people interpret use of the word "kinds" in a discussion of the theory of evolution to be evidence that the author terminated his/her science educations in the eighth grade or earlier. I'm one. I didn't even read your last sentence because the first told me all I needed to know about your credibility on this subject.
Why?
@@IPromiseTomorrow
Because.
@@numbersix9477
Oh I meant that reply to the comment at the top of the comment chain.
A new paper was published in nature showing that the so called vestige legs of the whales are actually very important in the reproduction. So without these bones, the whale will never existed. Pleass make an update.
That was one of the proposed uses of those legs. They help in hanky panky.
So you don't have an idea what vestigial organ is;)
I honestly don't know how much more evidence people will need to believe in evolution, you could have a perfect lineage of fossil records but you would still have people saying "Ah yes, but..."
Evolution is awesome and beautiful
EVOLUTION BEEN DEBUNKED THOUSANDS OF TIMES KEEP CRYING
Maddingdong Pop please send evidence
+Maddingdong Pop
Also debunked?
How? The 2nd law of thermodynamics?
No the 2nd law only goes for closed systems, systems that can't rid of their entropy.
What are the other disproofs?
Jake K. EVOLUTION IS MAN MADE
Maddingdong Pop Religion is man made. Evolution is no less real than you or me.
"Where's the evidence?"
RIGHT HERE!... but you just know they'll still ask.
Stan Stevens some skulls and a few drawings of what they might have looked like? I love this evidence. I found a rock outside and I think that’s the missing link between inanimate matter and us. I’ll post a pic up here for you if you want it.
@@pggarcia6703 "..some skulls and a few drawwings..." ROFL! All that comment does is make you look like a complete idiot who clearly hasn't bothered to look into evolution, I suggest some videos by Aron Ra if you dare. And no, live doesn't come from rock, your just making yourself look stupid again with that comment... try looking into abiogenesis. Get your head out of your bible and read some propper books. FFS!! face palm!
Stan Stevens We don't have the technology to study remnants of millions of years yet. All are just theories. You need more faith to believe in this nonsense than the people of religion.
@@dontwastemytime277 Evolution is not a theory but scientific fact based on huge amounts of evidence and research across many diverse fields of study all pointing at the same conclusion.... no faith needed. Evolution has evidence, religion has none. that's why religion requres faith (in religious terms) and science does not.
I can make shit up too . I can show you a dinosaur and show you a lizard too. Guess what, they’re both lizards
Drawin didn’t know about DNA and molecular biology. He did have a marvelous theory for his time, but know scientists know better now. Science is always learning and replacing old outdated theories, once new knowledge is relieved.
All naysayers might want to trade the dunce cap for the intellectual head shoe. He's explaining more than any amount of schooling could give ya .
Ever really think about how long ago we are talking ?
A 75 year human life is sooo short. Enjoy it.
The AfterLife Has Been Proven To Exist.
Evolution Is As True As Creation.
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes Then prove it and stop claiming it.
I'm not even a biologist/geneticist/anthropologist but even with my limited understanding, it is so obvious that evolution is true.
''It's impossible for information to be added to the genome''
Yeah.. all dogs aren't real and just holograms
Ben Sal ohhhh those arguments about the probabilities, they think that. living horganism is the same as a object or something, well thats why the dont believe evolution, because they cant understan it.
Ben Sal and those guys still believe in evolution
it is so obvious that evolution is true.''
The only true thing about your statement is the phrase 'limited understanding'.
th-cam.com/video/8Fo9KW2hQus/w-d-xo.html go forward to 5:25 and listen carefully. Rhodecetus is made up. There are no bones to its fluke or its hind legs. They just added them on.
Ben Sal But "god made everything duh!" Is more logical somehow?
The like/dislike ratio on this is terrifying, how can so many choose willful ignorance.
Laziness.
A: Show me the intermediate fossils.
B: Go to any museum of natural history. They're right THERE.
C: You still haven't shown me the intermediate fossils.
A creationist hippopotamus: if hippopotamus descended from whales why are there still whales?
Natural selection is not binary, it doesn't follow a genetic pattern that can be either this or that. Sometimes an error occurs in the genetic code and if that error gave the offspring an environmental advantage it is more fit to survival. That does not automatically kill of the parent branch though, it continues to reproduce itself as long as nature allows it. However, it is a wasteful process. In fact 99.9% of all the species on earth are no longer here. The more reason for preserving all the ancient species that still roam this earth today.
Natural Selection On History Of Fossils In The World
He was making fun of creationists. Read again.
if cars evolved from horses and carts, why are there still horses and carts?
they aren't
Richard Dawkins summarized many, many volumes of scientific research into a simple diagram. It's interesting and rather pathetic that this somehow becomes click-bait for angry religious fundamentalists.
Richard P'Brien ...
A 50-minute lecture would be wasted on these deniers whose attention-span I would estimate to be about 5 minutes.
HeavyMetal: Richard Dawkins' "just so" stories and narratives of science are just that -- stories and narratives based on faith in evolution. Did you know that there is no evidence for major morphological transition in evolution coupled with higher complexity? Yet, the overarching Darwinian theory tells the story that a self-replicating molecule somehow self-created, even though the simplest DNA life is so complex it took 29 computers working simultaneously and 9 hours just to simulate one instance of cell division. This is the reality. Evolution is a fairy tale. Then furthermore we are told to "just believe" without empirical evidence that this same self-replicating first "simple" life flew over time constantly rising in indescribable complexity through evolution until it culminated in the most complex thing in the known universe -- the human brain (along with the human being). This is a "just so" story based on faith in Naturalism and all atheists embrace it for dear life. If it's wrong...... atheism might be wrong. So it is denial denial denial and the critical thinking is turned off permanently. That's the case with Richard anyway! :D Since you're probably younger you might still have some hope.
Well, Douglas, there is no evidence that evolutionary processes are able to create anything with the magnitude of complexity of the human brain, or even of the genetic code, the virtual computer program more complex than any in existence. Just think about the information content in the genetic code which contains the blueprints for building our brains! Did you know there is no evolutionary explanation for the genetic coding system? No, it's called the "universal enigma" in the peer reviewed literature. Anyway here is an excerpt from an article by Stanford Medical School researchers on the human brain:
*"The brain’s overall complexity is almost beyond belief, said Smith (Professor Stephen Smith). One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor -with both memory-storage and information-processing elements - than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth,” he said.*
med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2010/11/new-imaging-method-developed-at-stanford-reveals-stunning-details-of-brain-connections.html
We don't care what evolution's goal is. We care about whether evolution has the _ability_ to engineer, coordinate & design functional organs perfectly integrated with other preexisting organs to bring about this magnitude of higher complexity! This is a claim of evolution and this claim must be substantiated, regardless of what you might think the "goal" of evolution is. I mean, how do you really know that an intelligent cause didn't seed life here with genomes already designed with their DNA blueprints and programmed to only microevolve. We don't know this if there is no example of evolution building higher complexity. Remember that is the story of evolution. Simplest cell on earth to most complex living organism in universe. Well, prove it -- don't just tell us to "believe". This is science, right? Why shouldn't it be substantiated by documented examples in real life? In the entire history of life, why is it we don't see even one example of evolution bringing about higher complexity or innovations, novelties or body plan changes. I mean, the very beginning stages of higher complexity like light sensitive cells mutating and evolving? Is evolution a faith belief or science?
PS: the loss of limbs would be akin to humans losing a chromosome or losing genes and then being born without legs. This is certainly not higher complexity . This is loss of information -- nor gain. Loss of structures = loss of DNA information.
@@kristenmichelle8303 You know even if evolution was magically capped by some invisible force on "kinds," whatever they are, which has no observable impact on genetic variance or medical conditions somehow, that would not disprove atheism. You could still just believe in the supernatural power of the soul or divinities like those in Jainism, without a universal God. Young earth creationist just assume that all the much more sensible other supernatural explanations are wrong, even though they actually make sense and are not self-contradictory, in order to disprove evolution, which at the very most would only "need" the sensible non-self-contrdictory explanations.
So, whether you call her a hippo or whale, she's still a big girl.
"Show me the evidence" ha ha ha
Evolution a fairytale for grownups
@@oliversmith2207 You're so high on crack dude
@@rafael9886 I've never smoked wats it like
@@oliversmith2207 I don't know, I thought you knew since it seemed you had little to no brain cells when when saying your vague presumption.
Evolutionist:"But where are the fossils."
Museum guide: "In the next room, you can see the fossils".
"There are plenty of intermediate fossils" now let's look at my nice poster of some whales 😂😂😂
Totally legit 🙄
Another unfortunate troll with no attention span, who hoped to see some kind of magic conjuring show involving fossils and dinosaurs but instead got a brief lecture they couldn't follow.
Christians hate knowledge. It's what got them evicted from the Garden of Eden. They believe if they eschew knowledge, they will be back in paradise.
@@grandpaobvious You think a cartoon poster proves anything? Show me real evidence. If this is all due to random mutation you would have far more mutations in the fossil record yet 99% is perfectly formed creatures. Where are the birds with four wings and apes with three legs and six arms, two heads. etc etc. BTW R. Dawkins is on record for not even believing in evolution. He believes earth was seeded with alien life.
I find it kind of funny how the "land" branch of this family STILL ended up adapting to life in the water.
Best comment yet! From the sea to the land then back to the sea?
@@blueduck5589 Instead of "Return to monke," it's "Return to sea." ;)
@@blueduck5589 no, it's land then breaks off into two distinct branches one, one resulting in a modern day sea animal (whales) and the other into an amphibious mammal (hippo). The hippo and the whale are part of distinct lineages that both originate from the same point.
@@austin5944 More nonsense. So whales originated in the sea then, for some reason, climbed onto land, then for some reason, went back into the sea. Sure. Next, you'll be saying hippos evolved from pigs. Maybe you can explain where God came from.
@@blueduck5589 God came from nowhere, because he doesn't exist. And you're oversimplifying billions of years of evolution into "sea then land then sea". Seriously clown stuff. It's not like they "decided for some reason to go on land", millions of years of mutations culminated into land creatures. Also yes I would say hippos evolved from pigs, if they actually evolved from pigs, which they didn't.
You should take this show on the road..It's pretty funny
Let me guess, in one hand you have a bible?
@@hansOrf in my mind I have logic and in your heart nothing but blind pride. This is all you guys got? There should be literally billions of transitional fossils found, of all kinds. There shouldn't be Dinosaur bones found with soft malleable tissue and carbon 14 still in them after 65 million years!!!! The fossil record shouldn't show Dino bones buried in the same layers as modern day animal fossils. When fossils appear in these layers, they are the exact same animals that we find today. They just appear all at once, with no ancestors found what so ever. You can believe that you came from a whale, or primordial slime on a rock, or absolutely nothing at all if you want to. Go ahead and follow these proud men who hate the idea of God, when there's CLEAR evidence that life, even in it's smallest and simplest form is MUCH TOO complicated to just happen randomly! Too complex not to be designed! Theres plenty of proof if you dare look. I know its convenient for you not to believe. Also you shouldn't get upset by this comment. After all what gave you all of you complex emotions and the ability to determine right from wrong? A Big Bang from a super tiny ball of energy? hahaha God instilled these things in you buddy. I used to believe , what you still do. Then I started digging. I don't want to argue, I wish you the best!
Well done Richard Dawkins, keep fighting the good fight. RIP Stephen Jay Gould.
Listening to him teaching makes me feel like a school child again. sort of nice actually haha
Absolutely. We should never stop trying to learn.
Yes indeed. Some really nice artist impressions of the transitional fossils leading to whales. Lovely art and imagination.
Hopefully you have developed some BRAIN since, to notice the BS ...
It has been customary to tell us that mammals actually evolved from WATER to LAND..
You know how they ALWAYS SAY U NEED WATER FOR LIFE TO EVOLVE? Like "Water On Mars" & The Moon?
But this guy is going the other way around... from LAND to SEA!
There is NO WAY for one ANIMAL to change into another!
Gab on Dirt
Show us the intermediate fossils? So he show drawings. And skulls. Lol this is dumb
maarij Belief does not necessarily equal faith. When the belief is in the context of religious beliefs, it is faith. Faith is by definition blind belief, a belief without evidence. Dawkins, however, is talking about belief in non-religious, colloquial and more empirical context, and as such this is a belief based in evidence. Beliefs can either be evidence based (empricial/scientific) or they can be faith (blind, no evidence).
Every fossil is an intermediate fossil🤣
fossils show mass extinctions, not evolution
@@ResurrectingJiriki is it not the absences of fossils in layers of strata that show extinction events though?
@@projectmanagement2356 how would that work? Would't there then not be an 'issue' in finding all those intermediate fossils?
It would seem logic to me, that fossils are formed when animals are buried by big mud slides/floods.
Did your hamster fossilize when you buried it in the garden way back when?
@@ResurrectingJiriki everything gets "fossilized" to a point. Now the nice detailed ones your talking about yes are formed rarely and in special places with special conditions. However ALL fossils are intermediate as nothing has quit changing. Most creatures are getting better and stronger at something and that is evolving
That's a great point!
Show me the evidence, show me the evidence!
I can't believe that adults evolved from babies. If they did, why do we still have babies?
And where are the intermediate fossils between baby and toddler and toddler and child and child and teenager and teenager and adult.?
Thank god for Richard Dawkins
Would love to see Dr. Dawkins debate Dr. Tour.
He probably wouldn't
Man I wonder how they found all those fossils! Those are awesome. I wish I could find one someday!
Check out a natural history museum if you get a chance. The fossils really are impressive close up.
You can actually visit fossil dig sites as volentier and help actual paleontologists! Or you can travel to areas that are known to contain loads of fossils!
The vestigial bones in modern whales were specifically created by God to snare the proud. That's what a tricksy guy God is.
+Scott Wallace So your god set up a trap that he knew would make people fall away from his religion? I thought your god was all loving...I guess not.
Mitchell Dobbs
When did I say he was my god?
***** You didn't. Were you being sarcastic about there being a god?
Mitchell Dobbs
Sorry, I guess it was obvious. I should know from experience that nothing in youtube is obvious.
cheers from sleety Vienna, Scott
look at a skeleton of a whale on google rather than posting an ignorant comment like this
One of the best places that shows evolution is the New York Natural History Museum. Yet it is in a country populated by some people who think the world is only 6,000 years old. Bizarre.
Oh shut up. The museum attaches RED LEGS to the actual fossils, admitting in the fine print that even though we did not find them with legs, we must assume that they were there. Eco is a fairy tale.
"Evo" is a fairy tale.
@@mojo7495 It has evidence to it, provide some for your tooth fairy wannabe in the sky
Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History and high priest of the missing link in the chain of evolution, eventually said: "As for
the descendant of the man in the monkey, there is no fossil exposed in this great museum of New York demonstrating the man's descendants from some ancient anthropoid
- the monkey-man theory is totally false. Darwin was wrong."
Professor Dr. Etheridge of the British Museum, one of the largest fossil experts, in an article entitled "The Evolution Unproven" published in the Miami Herald,
wrote: "The nine-tenths of the evolutionists' speech is total nonsense, unfounded in observation and unbearable by facts. This museum is full of evidence about
complete falsity of their views. In this great museum, there is no evidence of the transmutation of the species."
Prof. Dr.Watts, a distinguished paleontologist, said: "The engraved rocks do not know anything about the evolution of a higher form of a lower one."
Professor La Conte of the University of California said, "Today, the evidence of Geology is that the species have come into existence at once and in full state of perfection."
Prof. Haeckel, probably one of the fiercest fighters for evolution, for
was ready to resort to forgery of embryological similarities, he had to say: "The most modern scientific researchers have come to the conclusion that the doctrine is an error and can not be sustained."
Professor William Bateson, an English biologist, senior scientist, said: "It is impossible for scientists to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of the species. There is no scientific proof."
Professor Fleischmann of the University of Erlangen, Germany, has been an evolutionist for years, but his findings made him repudiate it. He said: "The theory does not
have even a single fact to confirm it. It is simply the product of the imagination."
Keep believing in drawings and the lies of some evolutionists. The imagination is rich, I give them that.
And those 6000 year old believers are alive and well mostly because of a method of thinking that rejects the idea of a 6000 year old world.
Wendy: Show me the evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the simplest way I’ve seen someone explain evolution. How can it be so difficult to understand this? How do we still have people who deny this? Wait, never mind...there are still humans who think the earth is flat. I guess it’s not the lack of evidence then, just people’s unwillingness to accept it as fact.
Exactly! When it comes to whales with cloven hooves the facts are all on the sane people's side.
@@franklinbumgartener1323 whales don't have cloven a hoof.
Willful ignorance is why you're stuck with bronze age beliefs
@@j7bsecond540 Friend, I'm on your side! I agree that our sanity and intelligence is beyond question and that all other viewpoints are hopelessly out of date. I mean with a withering argument like that how could anybody ever call our views into question?
@@franklinbumgartener1323 questioning views is how we progress, but those views need to be taken from our imagination and tested in reality.
The scientific method has - so far - proven to be particularly reliable in doing this.
Do you think creationism is grounded in reality or imagination?
@@j7bsecond540 Are you a troll or something?
How many times do I have to tell you that we're on the same side here?
Like you I believe we can just mock and ridicule anyone who happens to disagree with us because science. People with other viewpoints (viewpoints incidentally, that we haven't ever bothered to understand, let alone seriously consider) are obviously regressive morons, stuck in the bronze age, and driven by their wild imaginations. We on the other hand, are governed by reality and we're inherently the ones with the authority to determine the parameters of said reality.
As we would agree science isn't about seeking to understand alternate explanations of origins - let alone being able to actually refute such explanations! Science is about stubbornly and arrogantly locking ourselves into a narrow truth that we know is true because the powers-that-be told us it's true. Those who disagree are obviously retarded sheep. We're are enlightened thinkers. Why? Because science.
End of story.
I'm done feeding you troll...
I have stood inside the skeleton of a whale and marveled at the similarity of its bones to ours, and how they changed due to their environment. Evolution is an incredibly beautiful thing.
LadyJAtheist could it be that they were all "created" from the same basic blueprint, hence the similarities? We have so many different types of cars "intelligently designed" but all based on the same basic blueprint. You wouldn't say that one evolved from the other.
no action potential, I wouldn't. Cars are not living things responding to stiumli. Please take your apologist, creationist irrationality and go find someone else to try and argue with, the willfully brainwashed who embrace superstition but refuse to acknowledge facts are not worth my time.
LadyJAtheist how did living things learn to respond to stimuli? how did they learn to reproduce? yeah right, couple of random lucky mutations that no evolutionist can demonstrate that got selected by natural selection. makes perfect sense. you really are an idiot.
awww resorting to name calling... how predictable.
so very right Chris, sadly they don't understand that things don't LEARN to respond to stimuli, that response to stimulus is reflexive hence autonomic in nature, but that's why I left the troll to its own devices, once namecalling begins there's really no use wasting another second on them. Thanks for commenting.
A creationist will say " Show me the evidence! Where is your evidence?" even if the evidence is right in front of them.
+MAD STEM MAN What evidence? A third grade collage of a bunch of animals?
LOL
.... even if the evidence is right INSIDE them. IN EVERY CELL.
Atheists too.
MAD STEM MAN ~> Yap pilgrims, exactly like fools gold!
Gotta love how there are 1600 creationists downvoting the video but most of the comments are supporting the video and evolution. Almost as if the creationists don't want to show who they are even on the internet...
This is the “science” that darwinists use to justify their world view!
George Wald (Nov 18, 1906 - April 12, 1997) was an American scientist, atheist, evolutionist, and 1967 Nobel Prize winner.
"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.
This is the definition of pseudoscience, and you have to be on the brink of insanity to believe in a theory that’s scientifically impossible! It’s amazing the level of absurdity people will go to push their lies!
"Hello ladies? Are you from Scotland?"
"Wales, you idiot. It's Wales!"
"Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Are you whales from Scotland?"
Sean Alexandre I love that joke,
lots of land whales in scotland
"SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!" 🤣🤣🤣
You know people have the ability to lie. Dawkins is your god
@@ElijahMendiola Except we dont blindly take their word for granted. His work and that of millions of biologists speak for itself without mentioning even one specific scientist. You are just jelious because your god doesnt exist so you need to project your nonsense onto others.
@@Z4r4sz why are all you atheist so self righteous? you dont know that he doesnt , youre a fool if you think you know that for sure. if you wanna live your smug , close minded life spilling hate towards people who believe in a creator then you got allota baggage. maybe god in your life would do you some good, teach you not be such a prick
@@ElijahMendiola evolution doesn't rest upon what Dawkins says
@@ElijahMendiola Oh could you show us some of your gods magic? Please do it:)
"Show me the evidence! Show me the evidence!"- bobbles head
@macolyis De Pakicetus was theorised to exist in that way, then they found evidence and said "oh look its not what we thougth" and moved on to find more evidence. Fossiles are few and far in between, its really rare that animals get fosilized and even rarer that we manage to dig one up.
@macolyis Do you have any actual evidence for those claims?
@macolyis yes so basically dont trust the chinese government. Good to know.
@macolyis Composite fake fossiles can easily be indentified, by radio carbon dating or other means. You dont even need any fossiles to explain the theory of evolution, by now its become so much more than just what darwin had thought of 300 years ago.
@macolyis Also there are some fake fossiles, that were supposed to be the "missing link" but there have been many genuine finds of dinosaurs with feathers. And Feathers are not really all that important, since the connection between birds and dinosaurs can be established trough analysing the bone structure and similar things.
You really need those cloven hooves for swimming
😂😂😂😂
The evidence of evolution is so staggering at this point. As time continues, more and more evidence continues to be compiled and our picture of life on this planet throughout history is better understood and clarity is gained. I can’t imagine ever going back to thinking evolution didn’t occur. It is so clear it absolutely did.
Evolution can not explain us as being intended.
You and I do not make that assumption but a lot of people cannot drop it.
wow you are gone its been heading the other way for years