Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin? (Long Story Short, Ep. 2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- SPECIAL OFFER: Get a free book chapter by biologist Jonathan Wells that critically examines the evidence for whale evolution. Get it here: www.discovery.org/whale. This chapter contains reference notes to much of the content mentioned in this video, so it will help you further explore this topic.
Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
Bears turning into whales? Scientists today disagree, instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today’s whales.
“Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified,” says biologist Richard Sternberg, “and then multiply that by, I don’t know - a thousandfold, or more than that. That’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with.”
“Long Story Short," is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format: concise, accessible, and funny.
Be sure to check out episode 1 in the Long Story Short series, "Is Homology Evidence for Evolution?" • Is Homology Evidence f...
For more see: evolutionnews.org/2020/04/wha...
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official TH-cam channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: / alfredrwallaceid - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D2 | Summer | ร่วมส่งแรงใจ เชียร์ไทยไปพร้อมกัน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dN2gLsCJ0T0/mqdefault.jpg)
Being old, I remember this exact issue debated on William F. Buckley's TV show.
At the time there wasn't as much quantified data available, so the debate was pretty thin, consisting mostly of:
"Whales evolved from land mammals."
"No, they didn't."
As usual, the accumulation and quantification of evidence does Darwin no service.
Nobody:
Fishes:
I dont know but I wanna walk
This is excellent! It's funny, cute, devastating and thought provoking all at the same time. Great work to everyone involved! I just want it to be twice as long with even more details. More Please!
Shoving evidence or lack of it to the side for a moment one of the things that baffles me about evolution is some of the unimaginable transitions proposed. In this video he mentions the Giraffe, it's easy to imagine how a small deer like animal could evolve into a giraffe. Legs getting longer, extra speed increasing survival chance, longer neck allows for reach of higher food increasing survival chance, that seems all quite logical and intuitive.
When you get to something like a small land mammal evolving into a large aquatic whale it no longer becomes intuitive, even if you don't require evidence for it and you leave it to your imagination, nobody seems able to even imagine a transitionary pathway.
Take just one single difference, reproduction for example. For the land mammal the testis is on the outside, they need to be on the outside to keep them cool, if they don't drop they overheat and cause infertility. On the whale however they are on the inside with a complex cooling system in which blood is cooled in the fluke and piped down to the testis and spiralled round them to keep them cooled.
Using natural selection acting upon random mutation how do the testis move from outside to inside in small beneficial incremental steps.
I've asked this question loads of times and not only have I never found someone with the answer, I've never found anyone that can even imagine an answer. I think if you can't even imagine how something happens never mind prove how it happened I think that's and issue.
A lot of things stated here is just..... well, wrong. Ill try to keep this simple.
1-Just because other creatures learned to walk first, doesn't mean that no other creatures are allowed to learn to walk and move onto land
2-Just because some dinosaurs evolved into birds does not mean that all dinosaurs did- Many dinosaurs had feathers but never became birds, and near the end, birds and dinos lived together. Just because dinos existed after the transitional species does not mean it wasn't transitional.
3-Just because the creature was basically a whale does not make it no longer a transitional species, evolution has no goal or stopping point
4-Everything is a transitional species in the end, but there is a reason we don't call you a transitional to a basketball player- you two are obviously of the same species. We call them transitional fossils, but we ar not talking about them as individuals. They should be regarded to as a species.
And so what do you make of time it takes to get two beneficial mutations?
@Moon ShadowValid points yet you are not playing the same game. Thus: You hit, and it is a miss.
1: irrelevant. because see after 2
2: irrelevant because:
It is "evolution science" that brings forward the chain. They use the chain as a support for their argument. In such a case such a chain should bear up to critical observation. If it does not, it is not a valid support and thus cannot be used to validate/make likely evolution.
The point is here is: If this faulty chain is the best support/evidence, then there is no evidence. Or come up with a better one.
This is actually a scientific method. The evidence chain has been falsified and as such either a different theory/hypothesis or a different evidence chain is needed.
3: Correct and yet not. It is not a whale, it was a Basilothingy (not going to look up the name). And it was a stand alone fossil, one invalidating the chain.
On the one hand this allows for higher probability of the evolutionary hyptohesis, as less intermediary steps are required for a longer time scale. (Even if it is a subject for debate whether the time is sufficient).
On the other hand it weakens the evolutianary hypothesis as there is a complete lack of chains/transitional forms and it becomes more like a magician: See here Specimen A.
These atheist are so good at believing in miracles
Not the ones that count
So you don't believe in miracles?
Good to know.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231you guys are the ones that don’t
@@matteomastrodomenico1231yeah we believe but we didnt act like we didnt but believe in the most Bizzare miracle ever exist on earth
The biggest problem with this video is the fact that the fossil evidence works as proof as long a you allow for branching, the baby isn't your grandfather, it's a cousin morphologically similar to you grandfather.
The short guy - tall guy analogy fails too, since we can take a multitude of features and determine relationships, it's not one dimensional.
And whale fossils aren't our best proof, we have some pretty rigourous reasons not to treat it as a mere hypothesis. ERVs are probably one of the best examples among many.
Wait a minute
I thought everything came out of the water?
So, it came out. It it went back in?
😂
Yes Jim, that's correct.
Yes, yes it did, and im sorry to break it to you that this video wasn't 100% correct. But on your comment- just because at one point the land was the best place to be for a species doesn't mean there will NEVER be a time where land turns less hospitable. Also, he tried to make it seem like dinos and the intermediate to birds couldn't live at the same time- when dinos and birds DID live at the same time for the last bit there.
Yep! We have the evidence soooo.......
Jim Martin Yeah, that’s how evolution works. If there’s a selective pressure for a species to be more aquatic then it will happen.
That is precisely what was proposed.
If _Y_ evolved from _X,_ why did they exist at the same time? Tough question. Let's try a related question...
If white Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
It wasn't so hard to answer, after all.
There's an even bigger problem with the _"why did they exist at the same time?"_ part. The "same time" is probably deduced from their relative position in the mythical geologic column. The problem with that is that the whole column was laid down in a very short period of time, like a few days to a year. Even if evolution could work, there wouldn't be enough time to evolve in days.
Lol but in your case your talking about colonisation not evolution but yeh Ik what u mean for example we evolved from chimps but chimpanzees still exist
@@carpinchipedia7009 We didn't evolve from chimps.
BuffaloBoom We didn’t evolve from chimps, chimps and humans both evolved from great apes. We’re like cousins in the great family tree of earth
Okay, if that's you're argument, then let me ask this: If homo sapiens evolved from homo habilis, why aren't there still any homo habilis? Or homo erectus? Or homo heidelbergensis? Or homo neanderthalensis? Or homo floresiensis? Or homo luzonensis?
Why could Americans "evolve" from Europeans into a new niche, leaving the old Europeans in place, but such a thing couldn't have happened in the case of hominids, not even once?
Maybe it's harder than you thought.
It would be great to see a more detailed look at how DNA refutes Darwinism, and explain how Darwinist's use micro evolution or adaption to prove the assumption of macro evolution.
Yes exactly Dean, In my post above i suggested Bio Chemistry should be taught at all high schools. Perhaps History could make way for it. You could have science 1 and science 2, the latter being bio chemistry instead of history. But the text books would have to be specially prepared in as lay language as possible. And teachers stick to the text as it is. Sigh. sigh.
Whales and bears share a common ancestor
If today's life evolved from a microbe, fossils would have a *continuous gradient of change* which would make taxonomic classifications impossible.
Tremendous job! Informative,, funny, and well produced.
whole theory is dependent on random mutations and transitional fossils as a clear indicator for it to maintain its pattern. That’s the whole problem: mutations are not necessarily good if not frankly negligent or malignant and tend to occur without a positive direction from the species it belongs to.
This is why its ludicrous: probability, lack of personal direction, lack of beneficial environmental factors, lack of time. Its insane considering all factors and without a literal God at work to make sure there is adaptations nevermind species changes
Cetaceans evolved when there was a gargantuan sized shallow sea, the Tethys sea, and mammals traveled from nearby island to island seeking prey. That sea eventually disappeared, leaving some of the earliest early Cetacean fossils in the mountains of Southern Asia after India merged with Asia. A number of mammalian species returned to the sea, not just cetaceans, the cetaceans are simply the species of mammal that became most well adapted to living full time in the ocean. Even dugongs or sea cows, didn’t evolve full oceanic adaptations, preferring bays and rivers near shore. Seals, otters, and others are semi-aquatic, also spending time on land. The earliest cetaceans breathed through nostrils at the tips of their snouts, but their nostrils migrated to the tops of their heads and their hind limbs became increasingly reduced as they evolved into the only fully oceanic adapted mammal species that returned to the sea. Even Kurt Wise the extremely rare creationist with a Ph.D. In paleontology from Harvard, admits that the evidence of transitional fossils is something creationist can’t ignore and that creationism didn’t predict. One can argue mutation frequencies all one likes. But the evidence for common ancestry is not something one can easily explain away. Especially now that retroviral genes and pseudogenes provide evidence of common shared genetic errors between species, as Behe admits exist. He supports the common ancestry view, even between humans and great apes.
"The fact that early cetaceans fossils are clustered together in geologic time with similarly shaped skulls and intermediary earbones unlike modern day whales, and that they were all mammals adapted in varying degrees to a water habitat during the time the enormous shallow sea (Tethys Sea) existed, and that they all preceded modern cetaceans, speaks louder than the Discovery Institute’s reliance on dating haggles. Moreover, there is solid evidence that many more species of cetacean existed and swam about in the Tethys Sea than we will ever be able to reconstruct, nor is it any more odd for multiple species to continue to exist simultaneously than it is odd for humans and great apes to exist simultaneously. Note what Zimmer says about the evidence:
"It's tempting to build this story like a totem pole, with trotting Pakicetus at the base, Ambulocetus laying its humming jaw on top of it, and Rodhocetus, the earliest whale to swim like a whale, sitting above the two. It seems like such a smooth progression toward today's cetaceans that it must be right. But such a version would only be a vertical slice of the story. Life doesn't proceed from one point to another -- it forks and radiates like the cladograms that represent it. Paleontologists have found many other whale bones in Eocene rocks of Pakistan and India. Mostly they are teeth -- the rock surrenders a few skulls as well -- but even teeth clearly show that their owners were not clones of Pakicetus or the other better-known whales. Ambulocetus kept to brackish deltas and coastal water, but Thewissen has found whale teeth from about the same age in what at the time was the open ocean. Gingerich has found at least three contemporaries of Rodhocetus a few million years younger than Ambulocetus: Takracetus, with a wide, flat head; Gavinocetus, with a slender skull and loose hips; and Dalanistes, a whale with a head as long and narrows as a heron's set on a long neck, with hips cemented firmly enough to its spine to walk on land. If this is a confusing picture, it should be. As time passed, certain whale species emerged that were more and more adapted to life in the water, but other species simultaneoulsy branched away in many directions. Walking and swimming whales lived side by side, or in some cases traded homes as the buckling birth of the Himalayas shuffled their habitats. Some were only a minor variation on a theme that would carry through to modern whales, but others -- heron-headed Dalamistes, for example -- belonged to strange branches unilke anything alive today. "-- Carl Zimmer, At the Water's Edge
“The first to state his case seems right,Until the other party comes and cross-examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17) Nice video! I really appreciate it. I never heard about this discrepancy in “intermediate” definitions. Where can I find more info on that topic?
Even if intermediate definition discrepancy wasn't there, the killer blow is just pure math using real science. No way in hell anyone can prove that all those genetic and body and population level changes happened in that short time for a mammal that breeds so much slower smaller life forms. No amount of math or biological logic can prove that using the timeframes and start and end point animals
@@ADF366 the study of population genetics is completely undermining darwinism. It's amazing to see how fast things are flipping. I estimate the global science community will have completely abandoned it within 30 years. Maybe 20.
The A’s are going to blow a fuse.
Well, this video delivered on "something silly", but not in way author intended...
More unsupported claims made by proponents of evolution. Definitely seeing a pattern here!
2:23 The answer to this is pretty simple. It's a more basal species, an example of what the early whale relatives may have looked like but not actually the direct ancestor itself. It's relatively common for species to remain similar to earlier, basal forms.
this video reconfirms what small minds needed to be reconfirmed.
So you have been reconfirmed that I have a small mind. Kinda paradoxical dont you think
Farzan Danish not really no
Farzan Danish There is nothing paradoxical about how small your mind is.
I’m just a random dude but couldn’t the ancestors species still be around while the whale things where? Playing devils advocate, they still wouldn’t have enough time right?
You are absolutely correct in thinking this. The Discovery Institute is making the error of viewing ancestry as a line (as opposed to a tree), and assuming that "basal species" have to be the DIRECT ancestor, and can't be a relative with comparable traits to what a common ancestor would have for its features, taxonomically speaking. In this regard, the "basal" species would go off in one direction, continuing to do what works while it can, while the adventurous lineage continues to do its own, newer thing in tandem.
The time thing is based on one paper and we don't really know enough to say for sure that it would have taken too long.
But good thinking there, fossils will mostly be branches off of an ancestry, not the ancestry itself, making time ordering less crucial.
You hit the nail pretty much on the head there. This video is basically "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" just with whales and other animals. So, yeah, it's pretty unimpressive as an argument, about on the same level as saying that you can't have cheese if you still have milk in your fridge.
How many changes have to happen in increments just to change fur bearing skin with no blubber into a thick doesn't get waterlogged, smooth hydrodynamic skin with a thick layer of blubber underneath to stay warm? It has to be small increments which are hard to come by in the fossil record.
A good analogy for a wolf like creature turning into a whale would be the number of changes it would take to change a Model T car into a non-nuclear submarine time a thousand. They both run off an internal combustion engine and have batteries, but one swims underwater without leaking.
Science: Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.
Fascinating!
There is no problem for evolutionary theory with the fact that Indohyus is younger than Pakicetus because it is not hypothesised that there is a direct evolutionary line between Indohyus and Pakicetus. If you look at the evolutionary tree in Understanding Evolution (evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 ) the diagram clearly show that Indohyus and Pakicetus share a common ancestor. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor but this does not mean we evolved from a chimp.
Next the video states that the theropod dinosaurs that archaeopteryx is supposed to have evolved from appeared after archaeopteryx. The first theropods appeared 231 million years ago, archyopteryx lived about150 million years ago. Earliest fossils of the first feathered theropods date 161-148 million years ago (www.britannica.com/animal/feathered-dinosaur ) So it looks like the makers of the video get their facts wrong again. Unfortunately they do not give references, so fact checking is a bit difficult.
It always pays to fact check, the video shows a paper by Rick Durrel and Deena Scmitt (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581952/ ) The paper they show in the video actually says “In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.” It goes on to say “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years” (Behe 2007, p. 61), which is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given. Ken Miller points out “Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation “of the same complexity” occurring in the human line. He hasn't. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive darwinian evolution.” ( www.nature.com/articles/4471055a ) So it looks like not only did Behe get his maths wrong he basic premiss on which he based his argument was also wrong,
Yes, thank you!
And I don't understand why they don't include their sources in the description, it just makes them look very unprofessional.
Perhaps they should correct their obvious manipulated chart showing the sequence of evolutionery
steps based on these time frames that your now claiming have no relevance. So many of these traits
when taken out of the "Real True" sequence have steps of revolving devolving , but thats seems to
the normal tactic of materialists. Deny the evidence for years and decades and spin these endless
just so stories and when that can't shroud the deficit of their claim , well lets make up some more nonsensical stories to support these completely speculative claims and make more excuses for our
decades of adamant arguments and then claim it's irrelevant and the only thing missing is are these
thousands of transitions that were needed to change the entire physiology of a wolf like animals genre into a whale and thus by doing so defy s "All Known or Empirical Science.
As far Ken Miller points out , Say isn't he the same guy that made that embarrassingly lackless
argument of a mousetrap for Behe's Theory of Irreducible Complexity. The same logical research
technique thats used quite regularly in the field of evolutionery biology?
As far as your expose of the incorrect evolutionery time periods quoted by Professor Behe , well you
may want to research it bit more because there's been many other papers published showing even
greater time periods required because many of these changes are lost and never fixed into the species.
Your first point doesn't work against the video. He was showing how whale evolution isn't the slam dunk evolutionists say it is, and he's right. The fossils we have show traits that might indicate how evolution went, but unless we can actually find that common ancestor you mentioned, this comparison is purely theoretical. The point is, we *don't* see a timeline of the evolution of whales in the fossil record. Maybe the video doesn't mention all the details, but the additional stuff you bring up doesn't change anything. We don't have that evolutionary timeline.
There are still millions and millions and millions of years between these very few fossils. Where are are all the billions of intermediate forms that should have evolved between them?
@@geobla6600 But... life exists... and it's diverse.. and God doesn't exist... therefore evolution. It's not hard to fathom, evidence is irrelevant. If the facts don't fit the story, the facts must be wrong, we simply haven't figured out how yet. There's nothing ideological about evolution, it's pure science. You start with a conclusion and squeeze all the science into it, like any good scientist should.
Hope that cleared things up for you.
Accepting the claims of evolution is like enjoying an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie--it requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
Explaining evolution to some people is like trying to explain quantum field theory to Arnold Schwarzenegger. They just don't get it.
Questions for Discovery Science or anyone else...I'm seeking answers on a few evolution/atheist arguments that I lack sufficient understanding to counter.
1) Why does the Grand Canyon have meandering channels if they were cut out by trillions of tons of water? Is there anything from Mt St Helens that duplicated this phenomenon? Any scientific explanation?
2) How do I counter arguments that claim that the Egyptians and Sumerians were in existence when the flood was supposed to be destroying the entire earth? I think they state that there are artifacts from 14,000 years ago or cuneiform. I know their timelines are messed up but I don't know a resource that can disprove their claims. Thank you!
Maybe consider the fact that if you can't disprove an argument then the argument is right
1. Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, s.8.
2. Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, s.103.
3. Derek Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record." Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No:2, 1976, s. 132.
4. SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, Nisan 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland.
5. Lewis Thomas, "On the Uncertainty of Science", Key Reporter, vol.46 (Sonbahar 1980), s.2.
6. H.A. Orr ve Jerry Coyne (1992), "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment", American Naturalist, 140, 726.
7. H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Look at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), s. 138.
8. Gregory Alan Pesely, "The Epistomological Status of Natural Selection", Laval Theologique et Philosophique, vol. 38 (Şubat 1982), s. 74.
9. Dr. Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism", American Museum of Natural History'deki konuşmasından, New York City, 5 Kasım 1981.
10. SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, Nisan 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland,34. Charles Darwin, Origin Of The Species (Türlerin Kökeni) kitabının "Everyman's Library" baskısının Önsöz'ü, 1965.
11. Charles Darwin, Origin Of The Species (Türlerin Kökeni) kitabının "Everyman's Library" baskısının Önsöz'ü, 1965.
12. E.O.Wiley, "Review of Darwin Retried by MacBeth" Systematic Zoology, cilt 24 (Haz.1975), s. 270.
13. Roger Lewin, In the Age of Mankind, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988. s.22.
14. Herribert Nillson, Synthetische Artbildung (lund, İsveç: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), s. 31.
15. Introduction: De (Evolution), Encyclopedie Française, Vol.5 (1937) s.6.
16. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Gambit, 1971, s. 147.
17. Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık, Bilgi Yayınevi, Ocak 1989, s.56-57.
18. Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık, s.134.
19. C.D. Darlington, "Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Mayıs 1959, s.68.
20. Christopher Wills, Genlerin Bilgeliği, Sarmal Yayınevi, Mart 1997, s.86.
If ‘a whale is an evolution tale’, why do some members of Discovery Institute accept common descent, or are only sceptical of it? By what mechanism do they explain the descent of a five pound land walking mammal into a fifty ton whale, if Darwinian mechanism isn't adequate enough? By the “First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness”, as coined by Behe?
Are you somehow trying to defend an idea by stating that there are some that oppose it less than others? What a weird appeal to authority.
@@2strokesimulation68 I'm just stating the fact some may not be aware of. If one is skeptical of Darwinian mechanism, and yet accepts common descent, he'd better have an explanation for the mechanism responsible for common descent to avoid an oxymoron...
Excellent video. I think this is a much more informative video than those “anonymous, we will not be silent videos”. All the animation props are helpful in enhancing the information and making it clearer than distracting.
Do you use adobe animate to make these videos?
Imagine thinking that the land-dwelling ancestors of whales (whose fossils are undoubtedly those of terrestrial, amphibious mammals) resembled anything like bears
Well for one thing, Winnie the Pooh would be an entirely different story.
If you guys don’t think morphologically transitional species should count as transitional forms and you think that they must be direct ancestors, then I don’t know what you are expecting when you ask for transitional fossils.
The point is that morphologically intermediate forms are being called ancestral when they don't appear chronologically in the fossil record.
How can an ancestor come AFTER its descendent? It's illogical. And it's used to support whale evolution.
Evidence for Darwin? I thought everyone agreed that Darwin was a real person.
The biggest problem for the fossil record is the discovery of species thought to be extinct 300 million years earlier or later than they were supposed to show up. There are many examples of this happening on timescales larger than 4-8 million years. If you need something to evolve over 8 million years but the margin of error for finding fossils is +/- 100 million years give or take then it doesn't matter what order we find them in. I suspect this is why we keep getting "surprised" by finding fossils out of sequence and so on.
How did the octopus come to be? 100 million years ago, eight worms had a meeting...
And here is how a video evolves from the Dunning-Kruger kind..
Very well done!
Please make more of these cartoons!
Easy-to-understand and fun.
What about the legs like bones in Basilosaurus and modern whales? isn't that evidence for evolving from land?
No, it isn't. The fact that evolution offers an explanation doesn't mean that it's the best or only explanation. Evolution asserts that there is no aspect of life that cannot be explained by random chance, so any one aspect of the story means it can't falsify evolution, not that random chance best explains it.
Those bones have actually been found to be vital in reproduction, and are thus not vestigial relics: news.usc.edu/68144/whale-reproduction-its-all-in-the-hips/
@@kamahmah fair enough, thanks guys.
@@joshuawine1451 thx for the link, very illuminating.
I wonder, is there a book or a youtube video or anything of the kind; that instead of giving evidence for ID; it takes the top evidence for evolution and examine them one by one to see if they are really real evidence?
Dorudon had actual stubby little legs that would be useless for walking on land. Were those even better for whale sex?
The speed with which mutations become fixed in a population varies, a lot. it depends how benficial they are. It depends on how much the environment changes. It depends on how fast the environment changes. It depends on the population size. It depends on whether a section of the population becomes physically separated from their kin. It depends on the prevailing weather. In other words, it depends on a wide variety of things. As fas as two mutations becoming fixed in the human population taking 200 million years, I'll just point out that humans haven't existed for 200 million years. We have clear evidence of the common ancestor of humans and other primates separating about 6 million years ago. As far as transitional fossils, remember that new species can exist alongside the older species they sprang from. They can both be transitional in the morphological sense, and living, and even becoming extinct, before the older species becomes extinct (to use your example, your grandparents could easily outlive you, and in fact it happens all the time). As far as whales, it is interesting that the closest relatives to whales on lnad are hippopotamuses. From Sept. 1999: ".A study published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the whale and the hippo are each other's closest living relatives. The genetic analysis was conducted by Masato Nikaido and Norihiro Okada of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, and by Alejandro P. Rooney in the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics at Penn State."
All mammals have roots in an earlier form that came from the sea. It is reasonable to assume that some of the genes needed were already there. They just needed to be reorganized and activated as the original ones were organized.
I can imagine that special use of organs can lead to a drive for change, it may be that there are mechanisms that are still undiscovered, when it comes to change in DNA and the amount of information that lies there.
There is definitely something going on, there is some sort of punctuated equilibrium.... but evo doesnt explain everything
How about, evo doesn't explain much. Why do two separated colonies of the same strains of E. Coli come up with the same strategy to combat an antibiotic at about the same time frame? If it were a random solution, wouldn't we expect a random difference in time as well?
@@kevinmorgan8782 That depends on a myriad of factors. Is there a particular paper you're referencing?
Just wondering once thing...how do they connect these different finds? Similarity of anatomy/location? What else?
This series haven't even got to it's third part and it's phenomenal already, keep up the good work!
This is gold.
Evolution/atheism require more faith than creation.
No, you just don't understand the science, and neither did the non scientist who made this video. What a joke.
@@redpandawrestler Your arguments of "nuh uh" and "you're wrong" are not compelling. Please enlighten us with some specifics. I'm guessing you won't but you will reply with Bible bad or if you disagree with me you disagree with 'THE SCIENCE'.
Atheism is irrational. Purely based on emotion not scientific evidence. Why is there something instead of nothing? I don't know. How, where and why did life begin? I don't know. What was the cause of the Big Bang where matter, space and time itself began? I don't know but I do know that there is no intelligent agent, no creator or God. Something from nothing is unscientific.
@@bigmajestic3697 I don´t know - therefore god. Yes, sounds just like your usual apologist.
@@Gruftkriecher You're the one who claims you know.
Great video and well presented.
"Turned into" annoys me
Do you mean saying "a land mammal _'turned into'_ a whale" irritates you? It's just shortcut terminology for "evolved and it's descendants became".
I find it extremely ironic that evolutionists are irritated about terminology while they use the sloppiest, most imprecise, most ambiguous set of terms of all of science.
So... We're on a three month cycle for video releases. Should I'll set my calendar 📅.
Romans 1:20
No excuses!
3:32 Whether or not those prints are actually tetrapods prints is debated.
With obvious digits easily discernable? No, the experts admit they are real. Only those who have a vested interest in making the lineage believable are disputing the trackways in Poland.
After watching this video I watched everybody love it and what I found was interesting, the only thing they had a good case against was your estimates of why whales could not have evolved in the given time scale. Which was admittedly your weakest argument.
What I found particularly interesting part was the attack on the use and the fact that Indohyus is dated as younger than some of the others, but it is first in the chain. What argument was that a species last longer than individuals, and while this is true the problem is the lack of evidence of Indohyus being older than Pakicetus, but it is just assumed. They also presented a polygenic tree pointing out that in reality none of these are believed to be ancestors but that evolved from a common ancestor for which they have zero fossils. This means that the only evidence for evolution is a line drawn on the charts. The dental procedure ridicule you about not providing an adequate explanation for the origin, with blatantly biased ridicule of the idea of a creator.
@Chuck Creager Jr.
The reason we don't call one species the ancestor of another, but instead say they share a common ancestor, is honesty. You can never know, if a fossil is the direct ancestor, or if an unknown species is in between these two. as soon as you find a new fossil that fits in there, you get two theoretical new missing links. It doesn't change we can prove species to be related tho. Just because I can't find your parents does not mean, I can't find out if person X is your sister.
"This means that the only evidence for evolution is a line drawn on the charts" fossils are the very weakest of all evidence in favor of evolution available to us. Please look up the actual body of evidence supporting evolution, like DNA insertion by Virus etc.
This video conflates undirected evolution with directed evolution, putting them under the one category of evolution. Yet it is quite possible that whales evolved from land mammals via directed evolution, which could speed up the rate of acquiring needed mutations.
Speed up? Would you have a time associated? It would seem the times are increasing based on complexity and complexity increases daily with relation to our technology.
Why must intelligent design and common descent be mutually exclusive? Couldn't an intelligent designer use a previously designed species as a template for a new one, not unlike Chevrolet in the Corvette analogy?
It just depends on who your designer is.
I'm just blown away at how well done these videos are, and how easy they are to share. Please keep them coming.
Great video.
very nicely done.
Yip! make it up as you go along.
Human knowledge can not make the most simple living cell from chemical soup, how much less random selection which keeps no notebook.
I repeatedly asked a cetation expert how this creature transitioned from land birthing to water birthing, no coherent answer was given.
5:12 The analogy you used is more so looking at it from a general scale instead of more precise morphological features which are used to predict relationships between prehistoric animals.
How about ERVs? I heard that they are found in the same locations in human and ape DNA, indicating that there was a common ancestor?
As with other supposed examples of evolution you end up with a creature in the middle who is not ideally suited for land or water that could prove a sitting duck for predators. So much for survival of the fittest.
I don't think what you said was sufficient. A strong case should involve actual anatomical comparisons, and showing how the intermediates don't fit.
Also, a discussion about the development of dolphins embryos, the migration of the snout to the top of the head, the appearance of whale teeth in embryos, the reduction in size of the limbs etc. should by necessity be included.
The case for evolution in this instance is so strong, that even the renowned creationist Dr Kurt Wise admits its potency so much so he tries to include this whale series into the creationist account.
I am also a Young Earth Creationist, Baptist by faith, and very passionate about this subject. I'm also a Veterinary Medicine student in my 3rd year.
I would therefore appreciate more detailed rebuttal to this supposed evolution series. Your arguments here satisfy very little and rather show how a strong case evolutionist have
Here you have what I ask you to refute :
th-cam.com/video/lIEoO5KdPvg/w-d-xo.html
I think the main point is that lining up these fossils according to bones is subjective, and is not supported by the fossil record at all. There's a lot more that would have to go on than mere bone morphology, many complex systems would have to arise and mutations just can't account for new structures.
bruh look at the dislikes. darwinist sceptics sure dont like it when someone looks at their little theory sceptically
They always brigade things like this
Really enjoyed it! Yes, as you said at the end, evolution is just accepted as a fact and not really criticized as it should be. In fact, even things that we take for granted like gravity is not as simple as large masses attracting other masses. Theres a lot of complex math behind and even scientists don't even know what it is at its fundamental level.
The message at the bottom of the ad about things you need for water! XD
tnx!
Probability of something coming out of nothing : 0
Probability of a fine-tuned solar system coming out randomly : 0,000000afterbillionsofzerosomething
Probability of a successfull random mutation in terms of adaptation: 0,000000afterbillionsofzerosomething
Probability of consciousness and high level funcionalities out of "randomness": 0,00000afterbillionsofzerosomething
Courtesy of the Bureau of made up Statics.
@@isidoreaerys8745 it’s safe and effective
@isidoreaerys8745 So what are the real probabilities of those things mentioned? And while you're at it, throw in Origin of Life, Big Bang, and a habitable earth
And what's the probability of a magical sky wizard creating itself out of nothing and then making everything out of nothing ?
@@SahilShaikh-ex2rxno one said that,finite universe NEEDS infinite creator
You did not present blowhole whales in any layers before the pakicetus or any mammals adapted to the water life in any old marine layers.
And it seems you confuse Indohyus with Ichthyolestes etc.
Fruitflies are not selected by pressure to change forms drastically and adapt to different environments.
Btw. Indohyus is no problem to be found around the same time as it would not be a problem if a descendant would have survived till today actually - like you can today find wolves alongside of dogs, while dogs came from wolves. It would be a problem when pakicetus or modern blowhole whales would be way older than Indohyus forms appearing. This is what you suggest but this is sadly for your ideas not correct.
I would like to read subtitles in Portuguese.
Serious info condensed into a charming package. Been anxiously awaiting this one. Awesome job!
a question always made me think what was the need of evolution in the first place, if its survival of the fittest? Like they say dinosaurs would jump of cliffs and try their luck to fly (LOL) but that would have to kill them or injure them enough they could fall prey before they have enough time to reproduce and also if they could reproduce, eat and survive without any need to jump off cliffs then there is no reason for them to evolve, i mean they wouldn't even try to jump from cliffs right
This is brilliant
Can someone who disliked this video explained what is wrong with its content? I find the ending quite gracious as it does not impute motive to evolutionary scientists. Scientifically, I have found the papers cited and have no objections. So?
th-cam.com/video/RqMiP30IVMQ/w-d-xo.html
I hope you are a person open to critique to the ideas pushed by the Discovery Institute. I disliked this video because the things DI push in this video fail to pose a challenge to evolutionary biology as it claims.
Pakicetus being older than Indohyus doesnt disprove evolution, it only proves that they were cousins. A tetrapod being discovered before Tiktaalik also does not disprove evolution, it only proves that tetrapods evolved earlier than previously thought and that Tiiktaalik wasn't the ancestor of all tetrapods. Also Pakicetus and Tiktaalik remain important transitional fossils that give us clues on how animals gradually evolved over millions of years from one form to another.
It is cherry picking and extremely misleading. It’s smug, supercilious and seemingly unaware of its own profound ignorance on this topic. I’m also really not sure what the video maker thinks is a better alternative hypothesis, even if you take everything in the video as the whole truth. Was every creature created at the same time? The fossil record would be an absolute clusterf*ck for that hypothesis. Was each animal created at various points in time? Then why don’t we see new things being created out of thin air today? And what kind of intelligent designer would create the millions of species that are now clearly extinct?
@@shankz8854 If the designer intended things to go extinct then how is that an argument against intelligence. Also new species are discovered all the time as if they suddenly appeared.
Also Cambrian explosion shows sudden appearance of diversity in the fossil record.
Darwin was widely ridiculed for his "bear to whale" passage. Critics took it to mean he was proposing that bears were direct ancestors of whales. Darwin had done no such thing, but the jeering caused him to modify the passage in subsequent editions of the book. But while preparing the sixth edition, he decided to include a small note about Basilosaurus. Writing to his staunch advocate T.H. Huxley in 1871, Darwin asked whether the ancient whale might represent a transitional form. Huxley replied that there could be little doubt that Basilosaurus provided clues as to the ancestry of whales. The anatomist William Henry Flower pointed out that ungulates, or hoofed mammals, shared some intriguing skeletal similarities with whales. The skull of Basilosaurus had more in common with ancient “pig-like Ungulates” than seals. If ancient omnivorous ungulates could eventually be found, Flower reasoned, it would be likely that at least some would be good candidates for early whale ancestors. The fossil remains of such a creature remained elusive. However, in 1966 while analyzing the relationships of ancient meat-eating mammals the evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was struck by the similarities between an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores called mesonychids and the earliest known whales. Often called “wolves with hooves,” mesonychids were medium-to large-sized predators with long, toothy snouts and toes tipped with hooves rather than sharp claws. They were major predators in the Northern Hemisphere from shortly after the demise of the dinosaurs until about 30 million years ago, and the shape of their teeth resembled those of whales like Protocetus. Then in 1981 a startling discovery was made in Pakistan announced by University of Michigan paleontologists Philip Gingerich and Donald Russell. In freshwater sediments dating to about 53 million years ago, the researchers recovered the fossils of an animal they called Pakicetus inachus. Little more than the back of the animal’s skull had been recovered, but it possessed a feature that unmistakably connected it to cetaceans. Cetaceans, like many other mammals, have ear bones enclosed in a dome of bone on the underside of their skulls called the auditory bulla. Where whales differ is that the margin of the dome closest to the midline of the skull, called the involucrum, is extremely thick, dense, and highly mineralized. This condition is called pachyosteosclerosis, and whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.
Is the point about ghost lineages true? Because If so that sorta tears apart every explanatory example they have come up with?
This video addresses the ideologically motivated misconceptions made by DI th-cam.com/video/RqMiP30IVMQ/w-d-xo.html
Interesting definition of intermediate... Keep up the good work!
The abject failure of macroevolution in light of detailed genetic studies, and especially the epigenetic regulatory networks composing body plans renders stories like these little more than fairy tales. David Berlinski ripped into this issue big time.
Where did whales come from?
Epic animation
Amazing ❤️😅
Wow! This is fantastic! Very informative and well presented.
If I am not mistaken hundreds of species die out every year, why has there never a newly evolved species discovered year after year?
Species take time to evolve while we are going through a human made mass extinction. Basically more species die off than species evolving. This was also the case 65million years ago
They do, but most of them are kinda unimpressive.
Recently we were told about species existing and estimated to exist. I think it was 2,5 million to 11 million or something, maybe higher. Meaning: the majority of species that are assumed to exist are unknown. Who knows, maybe there are newly evolved among those?
Not to mention, some of the creatures in the transitional forms are not at all similar to the others. They gave flippers and a tail to one of the fossils that was not supported by the bones. Dr Marc Surtees also did a great critique of this. Good job also to the maker of this video.
Thank you for these videos
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaw very good .. thank you
Morphology: the science of assumptions.
You are clearly ignorant about how morphology works.
What is evolution? What is a fact? Well, the fact is that hereditary changes happen and that their frequencies fluctuate based on environmental factors. The fact is also that wind, rain, fog or radiation happen. People often fail to understand that the fact that a process happens has nothing to do with imagining what this process can or cannot do. And this is exactly what the theory of evolution does. It imagines that process of evolution can lead to rapid functional changes that are observed in the fossil record or inferred from it. Functional changes are de novo appearances of organs, organ systems or body planes (for e.g. Cambrian explosion) or transformations of pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones (for e.g. imagined whale evolution where forelimbs supposedly transformed into flippers, tail into flukes, nostrils into blowholes, teeth into baleen, etc.). But that what is imagined in the theory never happens in reality.
Namely, from their last divergence point until today, all the existing species have continuously been under the evolution process. That is, they have undergone hereditary changes whose frequencies have fluctuated based on environmental factors. So basically, what we have had is a live experiment that tested whether the evolution process can lead to functional changes. And today, we can observe its results. Without an exception, the results show that not a single species has even started transforming organs into functionally distinct ones, let alone created de novo organs, organ systems or body planes. Take humans for example. We and chimps share the DNA of a species that lived 5 myr ago. At that time, the divergence between us and chimps happened.[1] Since then, we have undergone a lot of evolution. Yet today, all humans are functionally the same. Meaning, not a single human population or subspecies has been observed that would have some novel organ, like the Cambrian species had. Nor the changes lead to transformation of pre-existing organs into functionally distinct ones, like in the imagined whale evolution. Specifically, even when change, such as webbed fingers happened in an individual - which the theory imagines is the first step towards the flipper-like organ, this never got speciated into a separate human subspecies and became the norm, that is, the fixed trait. Rather, it always ended up being just an abnormality that lead to an evolutionary dead-end.
The same is true for all other species, regardless of their last divergence point. For lemurs, this point was 40 myr ago. For fig wasps, rats, crocodiles, coelacanths and nautiluses this point was 60, 100, 200, 350 and 500 myr ago respectively. But again, all the individual changes lead to evolutionary dead-ends instead of becoming traits. That is why not a single population or subspecies within said species has been observed that would have de novo organs or functional transformations of the existing ones. So the live experiment has shown that regardless of time, the evolution process literally never leads to functional changes. That means, first, that the evolution process is not the cause of rapid functional changes that are observed in the fossil record. Second, that the evolution theory imagines the opposite to what is observed in reality. Imagining the opposite to what is observed in reality is called pseudoscience.
---------
1. Given the experiment presented here - which shows the complete creative powerlessness of evolution, it logically follows that the divergence was designed. Namely, the designer used the DNA of a species that lived 5 myr ago to produce two separate species - chimps and humans. This is how design operates. New things are not created from scratch but are rather just updated with new functional information. That is why we observe, for e.g., shared ERVs among human and chimps. Or the progression from a land animal to whales in the fossil record. In the creation of whales the designer simply decided to use the DNA of some pre-existing land animal to see what kind of aquatic animal will turn out. So both the fossil record and patterns observed in the DNA are in line with the Intelligent Design view of biological development.
I don't think you understand how evolution is supposed to work. You're not taking in account how the world changed over the years and natural selection. Also, evolution is not about organs becoming other organs, more about organs changing function. A whale's fin is still an arm.
Thanks
Great presentation! Very enjoyable and informative.
Bu bu bu but things are NEVER out of order. They said so! Good job, brace for the trolling. GREAT JOB!
This was an excellent presentation showing the very obvious flaws in evolution
They need to do one for the supposed birds from dinosaurs fairytale.
Amazing! I enjoyed the watch.
This is a very good explanation why the fossil record cannot be used to prove anything. Basically, the argument as provided by evolutionists restates assumptions as evidence.
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
--- Dr. Ronald West, at Kansas State University.
Everything about evolution is based on assumptions and looking for puzzle pieces to fit a presupposed narrative rather than looking at evidence and reading what is plainly evident.
As Sherlock Holmes always said, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
I think he said this several times but the one time that really sticks out is when he was wrong.
The problem was he thought there was 4 explanations and when he eliminated 3 of them then the last one had to be true.
Of course he never realized that there was actually 5 explanations.
If he just followed his own rule he could have eliminated the 4th explanation leaving the improbable remnant to be a 5th unknown explanation and not just whatever was last on the list.
I think the whole point of this story was even the great Sherlock Holmes could be wrong sometimes and you can't assume you have thought of everything.
Excellent point!
It's like having the 4 corner pieces of a 5000 piece puzzle and claiming victory.
And half the time they are not sure if one corner piece is really a corner piece.
Good, information.
Nice video
Wow. You got almost everything wrong! And none of those scientific papers were quoted accurately. Did you bother reading them?
How did he get it wrong? Are you just gonna call it that because you believe him to be wrong?
Just think
If you still believe this way then ok but have some evidence
I would be more open about these sensitive topics because otherwise you never get to learn anything and arrogance will only hurt a person’s thinking more than it will benefit him. I don’t lean in either direction of evolution being true or false but I nonetheless seek to know the truth about evolution and prefer not to let my emotions to get in the way.
@@captainhd9741 So you agree that actually reading the papers cited would be a good start? You know, to get to the truth and not let emotions get in the way?
Well, by your own calculations, giraffes should have evolved apart from okapis, some billion years before the big bang... So, Good try.. And good waste of a great video editing.
Ah okay, so there aren’t enough fossils to document the evolution of the whale, therefore some bloke in the sky put them there.
Sounds about right, lack of evidence immediately proves the other side right
It’s unfortunate people nowadays are trying to push scientific thought process backwards with this ‘god’ fellow I keep hearing about.
but evolutionists claim that no other option but theirs is right, in spite of the empirical evidence that supports creationism and contradicts evolution.
Ah yes, the most common argument for evolution: "God doesn't exist therefore evolution must be true." No evidence, no plausible mechanism for how it works, it just has to be true because atheism.
They weren't necessarily arguing for their side, only making it a better hypothesis. Both Evolution and Creation are paradigms.