Nature: Whale Evolution and Indohyus

[EqualAndFree]

Whales are FISH and people can live in their stomachs. The Bible says so.

[waysworth]

following this theory it would mean that toothed whales were the first, and that the non-toothed whales evolved from them.  Is this shown in the fossil record?

Do the earliest whale fossils have teeth or not?

If you are unable to answer these questions without looking them up, then you know nothing more about whale evolution than I do, and should therefor be asking questions, rather than offering opinions as though they were facts.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

@waysworth Yes, the earliest fossil whales have teeth. Mysticetes do not appear in the fossil record until much later, and the earliest representatives have both teeth and baleen.

[waysworth]

@SevenSixTwoNato thank you for a bit of factual information. I'm not convinced of this theory of whale evolution, but willing to listen to the clues which make so many believe it to be true. My little rant was no doubt aimed at those bible-bashing, book-burning, know-it-alls who think that, unquestioningly repeating popular opinion makes them seem intelligent, and that my saying that the argument presented was weak and unconvincing, marks me (quite wrongly) as a creationist.

[waysworth]

I guess it would be stupid to suggest, that it actually started as an aquatic animal, and is in fact a transitional ancestor (evolving in the same direction as just about everything else) which later became a wolf.

[info145]

i was hoping they'd go all the way through the evolution, up to a Basilosaurus

[lukebccb]

Oh, and as masturbation will make you go blind, my masturbation - which doesn't exist - is only done to where I need glasses.

[lukebccb]

The bible doesn't mention anything about youtube so therefore youtube doesn't exist.

[lukebccb]

The bible doesn't mention anything about genes and dna so therefore genes and dna don't exist.

[lukebccb]

The bible doesn't mention anything about basketball so therefore basketball doesn't exist.

[lukebccb]

The bible doesn't mention anything about heart defibrillators so therefore heart defibrillators don't exist.



[mmmmmarcus]

@lukebccb the bible is a book written by shepherds in the bronze age. You believe in things that have no evidence supporting them. Faith is inherently dishonest, and requires total, utter ignorance of well-known facts that support natural selection. What'cha gonna do next, claim Atheism is a religion?

[lukebccb]

The bible doesn't mention anything about automobiles so therefore automobiles don't exist.

[Rigelcentauri58]

Evolution tells us that cetaceans came from a land-dwelling mammalian ancestor, but where did that ancestor come from? . From the sea? . Can evolution go backwards? Why haven¨t grizzly and white bears become cetaceans already as they also have during thousands of years hunted their food by and in rivers and lakes?

[Rigelcentauri58]

These people sure have a big imagination. Saying that this anfibious creature is an ancestor of the whale should be an hypothesis NOT AN EVIDENCE since there are still many questions yet awaiting for answers like: this is a small animal, why then are there whales that wheight 60 tons? And: if it was a carnivore, how and when did it switch to being a plancton eater?, is that transition possible?

[Mdebacle]

Many of us who are not well educated think a "transitional" species is a direct ancestor of another species.

Is this video saying that Indohyus is an a ancestor (not just a "relative") of all whales ?

Are any of the older species referrenced the ancestors of anything ?

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle Being a direct ancestor of a modern organism isn't a qualification of what would make one "transitional" but the morphology, location and time in which Indohyus lived does put it in place as a likely candidate ancestor of today's modern whales. However, you don't have to look at the fossil record to discover transitional forms as they exist today as well. Cormorants & penguins- birds who've lost their wings still retain vestiges, and the marine fish family Exocoetidae can almost FLY...

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside

To return to whales for a minute:

watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok

Gingrich claims Pakicetus (wolf-like) is an ancestor.

If Indohyus (deer-rat) is an ancestor, does this put Pakicetus in the category of:

At One Time Believed to be a Transitional Fossil ?

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle I've seen that before and I'm not surprised that the find of Indohyus has rendered the earlier find of Pakicetus more of a cousin to the whale line rather than an actual ancestor. That's the beauty of science- it's always changing, knowledge updated and always improving. Scientists aren't arguing over whether or not evolution actually happened but more about how, when, and why. We know whales evolved from land mammals the same way we know that gravity makes the planets spherical.

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside

Per wikipedia Indohyus: "not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for ..postulates an extinct carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans."

Then Mesonychid: "now indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to hippopotamids " , "gene sequencing suggests that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales "

Theories not being narrowed down.

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle @Mdebacle Once again, science is an ongoing investigation and you speak as if fossilization is so frequent that piecing together the puzzle would be easy. A lot of scientists doubt now that even Indohyus is a direct ancestor for good reasons and a clearer picture will develop. But let's take a moment and ignore all the cross-confirming evidence from fields ranging from genetics to comparative anatomy and suggest that modern cetaceans are NOT descended from land mammals. Then what?

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside

If modern cetaceans are not descended from land mammals, the best explanation would be that some sort of genetic re-design occurred.

Fossilized ancestral species often appear to be larger and more powerful, and could have been exterminated by the flooding that fossilzed them. The layers of sediment can be seen in this video.

Many modern species have evidence of chromosomal alterations, which would support the theory of non-random genetic re-design.

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle That's quite a claim there and you should be more specific on what you mean by the "flooding" that fossilized them. You're not seriously considering that Noah's Ark nonsense into the picture, right? And no, chromosomal alterations do not support "re-design" or an outside factor.

So what exactly is this design you speak of? There's no longer a need to hide behind pretending you're actually interested in uncovering any new knowledge here, but rather eroding it to fit your beliefs.

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside [the flooding the fossilized them] would be the body of water of which the sediment (in the video) was at the bottom.

Chromosomal alterations support re-design because there must have necessity been a first mating pair with the species' chromosomes, certainly not gradual, and not likely random.

The new knowledge being sought is actual ancestors and descendants. As you admit "scientists doubt now that even Indohyus ", you contradict what this video is attempting to teach.

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle That uncertainty doesn't exclude the Indohyus discovery nor the ever improving picture of whale evolution. Chromosomal alterations are quite common but where we disagree on is whether or not life has been re-shaped and re-designed throughout it's development- as if it needed help... right. Such is not the case and it's not like humanity was inevitable nor will anyone or anything notice when we're gone because, well- just look at deep time & history. God is nowhere but in our minds.

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside [doesn't exclude the Indohyus discovery] is saying that a belief, even if false, is good until a better one shows up.

The debilitating effects of random chromosomal aberrations and genetic mutations would tell us that natural selection is a process that preserves the original genes, i.e. the first genes were the best genes in every species.

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle By not excluding Indohyus I mean don't leave a fossil- any fossil out of the picture even if we're not sure where it fits in. Yet again you elude the conversation and won't even tell me if you agree that modern cetaceans evolved from a land-dwelling, mammalian ancestor. This is something 98% of all research biologists accept. Do we have ALL the details? Of course not and probably never will. But the indications throughout many fields have already proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside [modern cetaceans evolved from a land-dwelling, mammalian ancestor]

No, I cannot take such a leap of faith. This would require that 100 or so random mutant base pairs per generation could re-design whole anatomical systems, then do it again

[don't leave a fossil out of the picture] This assumes that adding up the possible theories makes it more likely that at least one is correct. The Gingerich Pakicetus theory had a semblance of structure, then Idohyus sank it before being sunk.

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle Your serious misunderstanding of evolution's genetic mechanisms directly conflict with what's already been well indicated & established under the harshest scrutiny by science. However, I must ask you the next logical question: Since we already know that every single OTHER life form that lives today has developed via evolutionary means, and you say that whales somehow didn't, where did they come from? An alien species specially engineered & brought them to Earth to confuse us, right?

[Mdebacle]

@Cyraside [Since we already know that ] inbreeding genetic mutations are eliminated by natural selection, all that evolution can produce is genetic entropy.

With the discovery of Leviathan melvilleiis we can see what the genes of original species could produce. There is no reason whatsoever to think that such species had ancestor species. The first two came into existence by creation, as did first two wolves (175 lb), first two orangutans (10 ft.), first two crocodiles (40 ft.), cats (900 lb)

[Cyraside]

@Mdebacle "There is no reason whatsoever to think that such species had ancestor species. The first two came into existence by creation..."

With comments like that this conversation can go no where. Your personal assumption that the Bible is the inspired, errant word of God or that Jesus even existed is not only highly questionable but borders on being downright fallacious. Thank you for your maturity, patience, and time. Take care.

[arsjth]

i would like to know the elevation at which these fossils were found. Most of Kashmir is more than 600 metres above sea level.

how do we get whale ancestors buried so as to fossilize at these heights?

[Mickster6988240]

Having these transitional fossils is nice. But it won't do a thing to convince creationists. They "know" that these are all just different animals, not descendants of each other. If, a century from now, we have a hundred transitional fossils between whales and their ancestors, creationists will still deny that they're an evolutionary chain.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@Mickster6988240

"They know that these are all just different animals, not descendants of each other."

Transitional fossils don't even have to be from straight descendants. But don't tell creationists that, or their heads will explode.

[aeg1000]

At 3:27, why does the lady bring up hippopotamus? Hippopotamus has thick leg bones because they have to support its huge mass on land, not because it lives in water. Elephant has thick leg bones also, and it does not live water. In fact, whale bones are soft and spongy. She uses hippopotamus because it is convenient. This kind of evidence would not pass peer review in physics, chemistry, or any other science where scientific integrity is still expected.

[alliancesigns]

to all creationist out there. This is how science work.

[arsjth]

alliancesigns, r u saying that science works by seeing that th bones of a wolf like creature cald indohyus r dense suggesting it was aquatic2some degree like a hippo &then making th quantum leap2 calling it an ancestor of the whale?It sounds like 1900's science where they saw maggots comg out of old meat & concluded that old meat producd maggots.U wld only conclude such a thing if u r lookg4new grant money in my opinion.Its th longest bow i hav seen.Creationist wld b ridiculd4similar statements

[kshackleton]

It was the ear bones that were the telling clue. Did you actually watch the video?

[arsjth]

ofc i watched the video thats how i know how ridiculous it is.

The ear bones that are similar to a shrews ear bones do not mean this creature is ancestral to a whale. its only when you impose your subjective interpretation of the data on to the data that any connection could possibly be made with the whale.

If u do not have a committed belief to common ancestry then u look at this and laugh. Indohyus is a creature that looks similar to creatures we still have with us today.

[GBart]

1:58 hmm. His accent changed a lot all of a sudden

[Terrencje]

Fairly new found whales: Himalaycetus (Pakicetus-like) and Maiacetus (Rhodocetus-like).

Also the 'oldest seal' was published today:

Puijila darwini is his name. A walking Seal.

Fossils are fun :)

Great video btw.

[Hammersley1967]

What about Jesus?

[Cyraside]

Yeah... ur right. What about Jesus? Where does he come in?

[Hammersley1967]

Taht's the problem with these bioevolutionary theorums - they always leave Jesus out of the phylogenetic schemata.

Personally, I think that HE is the missing link...

But that's just me!

[bedabug0]

Yeah ... bioevolutionary theor[e]ms also leave out the tooth fairy, easter bunny, and santa clause, too.

[Hammersley1967]

HOW DARE YOU!!!

[arsjth]

i disagree. Thewissen is a strong believer in the tooth fairy or the dense bone fairy.

where anything with a dense bone and an unusual auditory system turns into a whale.

i bet that kept the grant money coming and gets him plenty of late nights at the lab with lisa noelle cooper.

he draws the longest bow and its laughable, this is more likely an ancestor of the shrew than the whale.

[kshackleton]

Evolution is a fact, get used to it; it's not going away.

[arsjth]

if you mean that things change over time then yes evolution is a fact. If you mean that because things change that all things we see today came from one initial spark of gas then of course u have simply made a subjective interpretation of the data. There is no empirical evidence that proves it to be a fact. Empirical data would be such that u look at it and i look at it and reach the same conclusion becos there is no alternative. what would that be in common ancestry? i will give u a day or2.

[kshackleton]

I expect you to do some research on the following subjects. You will gladly do so if you are actually willing to educate yourself.

The multiple nested hierarchies which end up building the same tree.

Endogenous retroviruses

Human chromosome #2.

That should be a good start. There is more evidence in support of the common ancestry of life than has ever been used to convict any criminal in any trial...ever.

That is the amount of evidence out there if you care to actually look.

[arsjth]

you dont think i know about ERV's and 'fused chromosomes' ?

Both of these are merely subjective interpretations of data that require a common ancestry bias to be interpreted in the way u do.Creationists/ID would say that ERV's will be shown2have purpose& that is starting2b proven they do.just as Vestigial organs were the poster child4evolution now we know they have uses.VO's were a comonly used argument4evolution,they were wrong&should b eliminated from text books.

[arsjth]

"There is more evidence in support of the common ancestry of life than has ever been used to convict any criminal in any trial...ever."

showing your ignorance. no one was ever convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. There has never been an eyewitness2any event remotely like the transition of indohyus to the whale.there never wil b. u have only inference based on your pre existing bias. u wld be eliminated from th jury due2your bias. look up empirical evidence & understand what it is.

[kshackleton]

Ignorance? Eye witness testimony is the least dependable of all evidence there is.

I don't know what you mean by circumstantial evidence. However, people are rightly convicted on forensic evidence all the time.....no witnesses at all are required if other evidence is compelling. In fact, the forensics will be trusted over eye-witness testimony every time.

The reason for this is simple; we all know that people are fallible, and are prone to error. Forensic analysis is far more trustworthy.

[arsjth]

and we have no forensic evidence that connects conclusively indohyus with the whale.

An ear similarity is like convicting a man on the basis that he owned a knife similar to the one used in the murder despite it being clean and having an alibi.

its hardly empirical evidence. let me know what exactly proves without question the connection of Indohyus to the whale?

its speculation and assumption based on pre existing biases.

[kshackleton]

The empirical evidence is that indohyus has an ear structure which is similar to all modern whales and unlike any other surviving mammal lineage.

This suggests [yes, only suggests] that indohyus is part of the lineage which is ancestral to modern whales.

You use terms like "without question" and "connects conclusively". I suspect that no level of evidence will be sufficient for you.

[arsjth]

since when is science about accepting suggestions as evidence?

yes how shocking that i would want evidence that is empirical and not open2 the bias of the interpreter, whose grant rests on his discovery being of major importance.lucky his aid was incompetent & broke the ear off the fossil. other wise it would be just another land dwelling mammal. Lets face it u hav2 want2 believe it. there is insufficient evidence to convince a skeptic. Y do u accept low standards of evidence? confirmation bias?

[kshackleton]

I tell you what, when creationists actually start doing science, perhaps they will find evidence for their claims. If they ever do that, the scientists will examine it eagerly. If the evidence supports their claims, they will win the scientists over.

That's a fact. Until then....go away and live your fantasy.

[arsjth]

"I tell you what, when creationists actually start doing science, perhaps they will find evidence for their claims."

typical evolutionist lies. Plenty of creationists doing science. just because u disagree with the outcomes u claim its not being done. Creationists analyze data &come up with different interpretations.

I am waiting 4 evolutionists2 come up with something that 'proves' common ancestry. Its not there. They are consistently winning scientists/atheists over.

look up antony flew

[kshackleton]

What creationist has ever conducted a test of their hypothesis? A test that had the potential to falsify the creationist claims?

This is what scientists do every day. They look for ways to make their ideas fail. Often their ideas do fail, then they abandoned in favour of better ideas.

Common Ancestry has been tested over, and over, and over again. It has always stood up to scrutiny.

Please tell me what test has the potential to falsify creationism?

[arsjth]

hehe. u live in a dream world. u honestly think Thewissen is trying to make his idea fail? watch the video again. they r stretching the truth as far as possible &drawing th longest bow. Y? do u think he gets additional grants,fame,attractibe research assistants if he proves that after 10 years of hunting he has a fossil of another land mammal with no connection to a whale? lol.

How has common ancestry been tested?

would love to know the experiment that was done.

[kshackleton]

Nice dodge. I asked you what test has ever been performed by a creationist with the potential to falsify creationism.

Human chromosome #2 was a test for common ancestry. It was predicted that a fusion event took place in humans; we have one less chromosome pair than the other great apes.

The prediction could not be tested until both human and chimp genomes were sequenced; they have been recently.

Guess what, the prediction was confirmed by the evidence.

[arsjth]

coincidence is hardly convincing evidence.

yes i heard that an ape had 48 chromosomes and lost one and then inbred with its family who had 47 and it produced the variation with 46. my goodness me. u have to want to believ it. when does inbreeding of mutants produce a highly intelligent species? just one example would help.

How have u eliminated bias from this HC #2 experiment? Is there any other explanation4th different numb of chromosomes & a strange join that appears like a fusion?

[kshackleton]

Let me explain this to you in some detail.

It has been known for some time that the other great apes have one more chromosome pair than us humans; they have 24 pairs and we have 23 pairs. How would Common Ancestry explain this? If we share a common ancestor with the great apes, then our ancestors at one time must have also had 24 pairs of chromosomes.

Commoan ancestry posits that sometime after we diverged from the lineage which led to chimps, we either lost a chromosome [pair]

cont.

[kshackleton]

.....

or, we underwent a fusion event.

Now, we already knew that it would not be possible to lose an entire chromosome and survive.....that is fatal, and probably fatal in fetal development. So, that leaves us with a fusion event.

So, Common Ancetry predicted that we underwent chromosmal fusion sometime in our history.

How to detect this?

Chromosomes have special sequences at their ends called telomeres, and sequences near the middle called centromeres.

cont.

[kshackleton]

We should see a chromosome in which there are telomere sequences in the middle with two centromere sequences on either side, with additional telomere sequences on the ends.

This was the prediction of common ancestry.

The sequencing of both human and chimp genomes allowed scientists to test the prediction.

Failure to find a fusion event would have been big trouble for the theory.

So....it was disocvered that human chromosome #2 had just such a fusion event

cont.

[kshackleton]

We see the telomere sequences where centromere sequences should be and we see two centromere sequences on either side [one is deactivated], we also see the normal telomere sequences on the end.

The genes on this chromosome line up exactly with chimp chromosomes 12 and 13. All other genes on the remaining chromosomes match those of the chimp genome.

This was a dramatic and compelling confirmation of our common ancestry with the other great apes.

[arsjth]

yes i understand that you are willing to let coincidence and circumstantial evidence replace empirical evidence.

I assume you have evidence that chromosomes fuse, other than the proposed fused chromosome btw chimps & us?

i can tell u that a guy was murdered with a knife, i believe that someone did it and now i have a suspect and guess what he owns? yes a knife. my hypothesis is true. i have now found my murderer.

A court will want much more evidence but u accept the answer that confirms yr bias

[kshackleton]

Your analogy is silly.

Chromosome fusion events have been detected in the genomes of other creatures. Apparently, it's not entirely uncommon and does not necessarily have any effect on the organism.

Chromosomes are like volumes of books. You can rearrange the contents of the books [genes] into different numbers of volumes without affecting the information contained within. It's analogous to that.

[arsjth]

not silly. unless you can eliminate alternate explanations then reasonable doubt remains.

your chromosome fusion is nothing more than confirmation bias.

you believe it because it suits you to believe it.

To do appropriate science and look for alternate explanations and possibilities is not part of your agenda. Proving what u believe is paramount. This is scientists having a bias and finding what they are biased towards.

lets go back2 basic science 101 &see what it says about the testers bias.

[kshackleton]

Your analogy is silly because knives do not reproduce, and therefore do not pass their traits on to offspring.

Life does.

Confirmation bias? Are you daft? The prediction was very specific about what would conform, and what would falsify the hypothesis. The sequences discovered are exactly what was predicted by common ancestry.

The only thing confirmed was the hypothesis.

You know nothing about science, or how it operates.

[arsjth]

the analogy is about evidence not about ability to reproduce. but i think u know that.

Confirmation bias is inevitable only someone who knows little about real science would deny the role it plays in experimentation, predictions and results.

you are doing more philosophy.

how do u explain the etchings of the inca's and indians of dinosaurs?

[kshackleton]

Evidence? OK....there are lots of knives, owning one is trivial. That's not enough to convict.

Having ear bones which are unique to whales and exclusive of all other mammals is strong evidence that the creature is closely related to whales.

Etchings? Simple, they were not dinosaurs, they were something else. Humans have great imaginations and often draw real objects in stylized fashion.

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the significance is of art from other cultures.

[arsjth]

"Having ear bones which are unique to whales and exclusive of all other mammals is strong evidence that the creature is closely related to whales."

they are not unique to the whale...the shrew has them as well.

Its only relative if u already accept evolution as fact. if u dont u say it is simply common design.

what is the absolute proof of relatedness?

u dont have any. its simply your theory that they are related & similarity confirms what u believe, as it does what i believe.

[javixm]

Taxonomy bro... taxonomy...

They spend months and months analyzing the taxonomy of the fossil before they decide where it belongs on the record.

[arsjth]

yes they do javixm. the reason they pend months is because its not plainly obvious and then u have issues when you classify by homology & then genetics.

Sometimes the genes that produce homologous structures are different.

How can that be if common ancestry is true? all similar structures must come from the same evolutionary process. or do we say that categorizing based on similar structures is no longer applicable?

[kshackleton]

So, tell me again what science has been performed by creationists?

1. What observations have been made?

2. What falsifiable hypotheses have been made?

3. How were these tested?

4. What were the results?

Can you name one?

[arsjth]

A prediction made by creationists is that no organ is a vestigial organ and that if ID is true then it would be found to have a use. This has been proven in the case of the appendix. Evolutionists looking for proof of evolutionary past made false predictions about the appendix.

Creationist/IDers proved to be correct based on the hypothesis that the world was created by design.

[kshackleton]

How does this support design?

Vestigal does not necessarily mean useless. It means that it no longer serves its former function. This does not preclude new functions.

[arsjth]

second example.

Evolutionists say Junk DNA is proof of evolution. labelled junk by narrow minded biased scientists.

Creationist scientists predict that uses will be found for 'junk dna' if indeed the creation theory is true.

So far this is being confirmed.

A large % of the human genetic material is currently labeled junk dna. At one point, about 95 percent of this material was called junk DNA, though that percentage then fell to 80 percent, and continues to decrease.

support4creation/ID

[kshackleton]

How does this support creation?

[kshackleton]

You also suffer from the most common of creationist fallacies.....the idea that if evolution is somehow wrong, that creationism [or more specifically, your version of creationism] is correct by default.

This is simply wrong.

Even if common ancestry is dead wrong [which seems extremely unlikely at this point], there might be some other naturalistic explanation.

Even if creationism is correct...which version, yours? Or the version put forth by the Hopi Indians, or the Hindus.

[arsjth]

no. u assume i suffer from that fallacy.

i actually am well aware that there could be other explanations.

however if you think i will accept pathetic standards of science and go with the flow of everyones circular reasoning when the evidence does not actually validate it then u are mistaken.

i will simply go with what i see as overwhelming evidence.

of the trillions of humans that must have lived on this earth to make a case for common ancestry from a few fragmented fossils is ludicrous.

[kshackleton]

Your statements clearly indicate that you suffer from the fallacy. You clearly believe that a defeat of evolution is support for creationism. It is not.

[arsjth]

your hung up on creationism.

i am not overly interested in proving it but merely criticizing the obvious flaws in the science behind evolution/common ancestry.

i accept evolution =change over time. i dont accept it therefore means all things came from 1 ancestor. i am willing to accept that there r many possibilities in between that science hasnt considered yet. What is their excuse 4 not considering them?

Their bias is so strong that the evolution industry wil not allow alternatives

[kshackleton]

The fact of the matter is that no creationist has ever done the necessary science to support their claims.

Never, not once.

[arsjth]

just rubbish that u sprout off like all ignorant atheists

[kshackleton]

Creationists make assertions and leave the real scientists to do the actual work.

The creationists then make addition assertions, usually based on mistaken interpretations of the work of real scientists.

[arsjth]

This is a false statement.

your assertion over "real" scientists is such blatant propaganda.

There are many 'real' scientists who believe that life reflects intelligent design.

Michael Behe has tenure and is free to say what he believes and he believes life reflects intelligent design.

Your statement is just a false generalization made by a biased person.

Who is critiquing scientists? Who was first to say Ida was nothing more than part of the lemur family?

[kshackleton]

"Who is critiquing scientists? Who was first to say Ida was nothing more than part of the lemur family? "

Scientists critique each others' work. They look for errors and faulty reasoning. It's a good system.

Creationists use authority.

Ida is a primate which shares traits that are now seen in modern monkeys/apes as well as in modern lemurs.

This is the definition of a transtional species. The bulk of the evidence suggests that Ida belongs in our lineage rather than with lemurs.

[kshackleton]

You must work really hard at being this stupid.

There is no such thing as a "missing link". I said that Ida is an example of a transitional species, and she still is.

I also said that the "bulk of the evidence suggests that Ida belongs in our lineage rather than with lemurs".

Ida is no lemur, lemurs are modern creatures. The new find might change where we place Ida, not surprising since she shares traits of both lineages.

[kshackleton]

Science corrects itself with every new discovery, while creationism gets even wronger.

[arsjth]

"There is no such thing as a "missing link". "

well then have u explained that to David Attenborough & all the hypsters when they launched the Ida charade.

Fancy promoting Ida as a missing link when there is no such thing.

I think u dont know what your side of science is teaching.

Well darwin required links between the species to prove his theory. WHen they werent there they were named the 'missing links' ie to prove evolution. Now we dont even need them cos everything is transitional. lol

[Rhinogradentian]

@kshackleton Ida is more cloesly related to primitive lemur ancestors, it is in the wrong lineage to have given rise to monkeys and humans, Eosimias, Shoshonius and Neocrolemur and even the modern tarsier ARE part of the lineage that eventually produced monkeys, apes, and humans.

[kshackleton]

@Rhinogradentian

I made my comments two years ago, not long after Ida had become public knowledge. Thanks for the update....cheers.

[kshackleton]

*Real* scientists engage in scientific enquiry. The Discovery Institute does not.

Michael Behe accepts Common Descent; however, his claims about Irreducible Complexity have been tested and falsified....all of them.

As a science ID is as dead as Julius Caesar.

[javixm]

1. A perfectly made cell didn't come from nowhere

2. Modern cells are not even remotely alike to what early life was

3. Evolution by means of natural selection explains THE DIVERSITY OF SPECIES... not how life began

4. The theory of ABIOGENESIS is the one that explains how life began... and Darwin was long dead when we figured that one out

ID is not even science... if you look up the definition of "science", you'll see that ID can never, or will ever, be science

Grab a dictionary

[javixm]

ignorant atheists? lol

usually atheism is accompanied by more knowledge... not less

the opposite can be said for creationism... creationism is usually accompanied by lack of proper education or ignorance in general

[arsjth]

"usually atheism is accompanied by more knowledge... not less"

and more superstition and belief in nonsense like ghosts and the lochness monster.

You seem to think u represent all atheists but u dont...plenty of dumb as dog sh....ones out there.

The thing is if you dont believe in God u will fill the void with some weirder belief.

[javixm]

I said usually... not every single time 100% of the time...

I said usually.

You seem to have trouble defining words correctly....

[Riff625]

@arsjth There are plenty of god worshippers that believe in ghosts and the loch ness monster. There are plenty of atheists who reject these claims. To say "you will fill the void with something weirder" is exactly what you started out arguing against: a generalization.

[arsjth]

@Riff625

hey dont get upset at me.

i am just reporting what the survey says.

Atheists are not the highly educated rational logical skeptical beings u think they are.

plenty of loonies who believe in aliens, ghosts, the supernatural & loch ness monsters etc.

trying to define atheists as rational is fraught with danger becos there is no uniform belief amongst them. U can be any lunatic and believe god doesnt exist.

promoting atheism as an alternative is dangerous. it comes with no limits

[Riff625]

@arsjth What makes you think I'm upset? Some kind of bias I presume. You mean there is no uniform belief within atheism, aside from the rejection of gods. You make absolute statements that aren't true, then criticize others for doing so. You speaker from behind the mask. Not all atheists are skeptical thinkers, true. Though, many in fact are. I never equated atheism with rationalism. You can be any lunatic and believe gods do exist, as well.

[arsjth]

@Riff625

"You can be any lunatic and believe gods do exist, as well."

yes i agree.

however the research shows that this is not the case & that in general the more fundamental a christian you are the less likely you are to believe such things.

in other words contrary to the atheist story that christians believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster' it is in fact more likely that atheists would believe in him. Believing in God appears2 b a specific belief that doesnt allow for other whacky beliefs

[Riff625]

@arsjth Each god comes with his or her own set of "wacky" beliefs and in christianity's case not allowing any other wacky beliefs is part of the set. Christianity has symbolic cannibalsim and vampirism. Blood sacrifice and self mutilation have been huge parts of the monotheistic tradition. There's no way an atheist could believe in the FSM. He's a god, thus belief in him would undefine the believer as an atheist.

[arsjth]

@Riff625

lol.

now lets test yor whacky beliefs out.

you wouldnt believe in stupid things like aliens would you?

[Riff625]

@arsjth You'll probably twist the honest response, but here I go anyway. I believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I do not believe any of it has actually been to earth. Note that I believed this when I was a christian.

[arsjth]

@Riff625

why would i twist it?

you have made it plain that u believe in aliens. Its a part of your new philosophy to believe in aliens. It fulfills the spiritual aspect of your beliefs.

A christian has no a priori commitment to being the only life in the universe but we do believe that we are & of course we are right so far.

Its just a whacky belief to believe in something that u have zero proof of. do u get that?

I wont belittle u in the way that atheists belittle christians.

[Riff625]

@arsjth There you go, twisting what I said. I believe in the possiblity of extraterrestrial life, not the existence of extraterrestrial life. Just like I believe in the possibility of some gods. If extraterrestrial life exists, it is natural. I reject your notion of "spiritual" altogether, though. What does that term even mean?

[arsjth]

@Riff625

i apologize.

thats good that u believe in th possibility of things that u dont see yet.Science has already moved on from this notion of nothing exists but what we see.atoms existed b4 we could see them. genes existed b4 we could see them. oxygen existed b4 we could see it.

now physicists are moving on to multiverses, string theory&different dimensions....none of which we can see.

Perhaps God is from one of those dimensions.but the question wil always remain...where did God come from?

[Riff625]

@arsjth The moons of Jupiter existed before we could see them. Perhaps god is in a higher dimension. But I don't want to worship anything so I won't. If god does exist in a higher dimension I still think he won't be worth worshiping. We (that is the entirety of humanity) could be and probably are wrong about everything. All we can do is go with what we have so far. All we have is what our senses tell our brains, and what our brains tell our senses. It can get very confusing at that level.

[nayanmalig]

@Riff625 i agree. spiritual could mean anything depending on one's culture & religion. same goes for morals. there is no absolute morals or spirituality. there is only one absolute truth, but nobody knows it yet. that's why we argue. nobody argues about gravity for example. people who claim they know are either stubborn, deviously cunning for commercial purposes, dumb or a combination of those.

[arsjth]

@Riff625

your beliefs when u professed to be a christian are really irrelevant. Strong fundamental christians tend to believe there are no aliens. But God being sovereign can do as he/she wishes.

The twisting that has gone on here is your talk of blood sacrifices, cannibalism, self mutilation.These r ur justifications for turning on your former beliefs no doubt.

Lets just say u were wrong when u were a christian & so u have the capacity to believe u r right whilst being totally wrong...agreed?

[Zuke696]

Excellent Vid, Thanks 4 the Upload!

[Cyraside]

Your welcome- thanks for the entire playlists YOU upload yourself as I enjoy them very much.

[CHAS1422]

Perhaps the density of bones of aquatic mammals is not so much of an advantage as having light weight and minimalist bone density is an advantage for land running mammals. Heavy bone density of say a hippo would be a form of degeneration of an unused efficiency rather than an adaptation. Since a hippo is essentially bouyant in water, there are fewer flexural, compressive or tensile stresses on the bones. Just a thought.

[glifijuri]

impresive!

[Cyraside]

Very fine observations you've made there. It is almost a kind of disadvantage when you think about it. The bone densities of aquatic mammals do help them sink in some respects, but then again they are bouyant in water anyway.