No, I am not claiming manatees evolved into humans.
Homology - such as the flipper skeleton of manatees and the forelimb and hand skeletons of humans, and other terrestrial tetrapods - is due to sharing a common ancester. Trace human and manatee evolutionary lineages back far enough and you will come to a common ancestor that had a stylopod, zeugopod, and autopod. That basic arrangement has been modified over time as it was adapted for different functions.
A couple of questions need to be asked. One, why would a quadruped evolve sirenian ribs? I know you did not mention Pakicetus, but why would a land mammal evolve a cetacean inner ear? Both of these traits are like finger prints, but why would natural selection select them for land mammals?
"Pakicetus is interesting and important because it is one of the oldest cetaceans known anywhere, it is found in continental red beds, it is found with a land-mammal fauna, and it has a basicranium and ear region little modified for hearing in water." (Gingerich et al., 1990)
“The otic region of the cranium lacks characteristic specializations of whales necessary for efficient directional hearing under water." (Gingerich et al., 1983)
As for dense ribs, I believe I mentioned in the video that they are used for balast.
The same is true of bones in general in early pakicetid cetaceans -- see next post, where the quote comes from the abstract for THE POSTCRANIAL SKELETON OF EARLY EOCENE PAKICETID CETACEANS, Journal of Paleontology, Jan 2007, v.81, no 1, p176-200.
"The three pakicetid genera can be distinguished by size, proportion, and details of articular morphology. ... The most striking modification is the presence of systemic increased bone density, likely used as skeletal ballast. "
Just because you posted a video supporting macroevolution doesnt mean you should bash God at the end. You can believe in evolution and still believe in God. Not all theists are closed-minded and not all evolutionists are atheists. It was completely unecessary to insult religion at the end of a completely secular informative video.
One does not *believe in* relativistic time dilation: they either accept it as true or they are wrong. Similarly, one does not *believe in* evolution: they either accept it as true or they are wrong.
People *believe in* things for which there is no valid, objective, positive evidence ... like God/god/gods and the Loch Ness Monster. Or worse, things for which, in addition, evidence actually goes against ... which includes the God of the Bible.
@DNAunion how is is that you are still a total argumentative stubborn jerk after I AGREED with you? I just said im an evolutionist but you couldn't leave that alone, could you? Because you're always right, and you know everything, I'm sure. There's something wrong with narcissists like you...
You agreed with me about macroevolution. You were wrong about one "believing in" evolution, and your equivocation of "believe in" (using it for both evolution and God). I pointed that out. Don't cry because you don't know what you are talking about and I pointed that out.
@DNAunion im guessing you for posting this crap. im not sure if this is a video u made, or one u just posted, but it really shows ignorance of species genetics
How many fish do you know of that have an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, a small cluster of wrist bones, hand bones, and 5 finger bones, encased within a flipper???? None.
But ... cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.) have the most similar anatomy, and they are mammals.
In addition, I make the link between manatees and terrestrial tetrapods: fish are not terrestrial tetrapods.
@DNAunion I know what you're trying to say but just to be picky, isn't Tiktaalik a fish. This will not lessen your argument at all, but I had to clarify this for my own sake.
If we are being technical, then when considering classification based on monophyletic groups (cladistics), the term "fish" is not meaningful anymore. (Or, we have to include animals which people don't consider to be fish -such as whales, bats, and even humans - in with them).
But when not being technical, Tiktaalik would be a fish, although calling it a "fish-a-pod" makes sense too.
@DNAunion Obviously you know more of this than I do. I read the book by Neil Shubin and thought that Tiktaalik was not that far removed from lobed fin fish. Being only an avid admirer of scientific findings, I don't always grasp the intracate details.
Neil Shubin has done, and continues to do, a lot of research on the embryonic development of fins in fish (chondrichthyans, such as sharks, mostly), showing that the main "master" genes/proteins -- FGF10, FGF8, Shh, HoxD9-13, etc. -- used to oversee the development of tetrapod limbs (like our arms/hands and legs/feet) are also used in forming the paired fins of sharks.
So we have both the fossil evidence of transitionals and the shared genetics.
Let's assume you have a transitional form here, and there was a real evolutionary pathway. What caused the transition, which judging by your list of characteristics surely involved many coordinated genetic mutations?
Maybe they need hipsockets. But now you are speculating, which seems a bit ironic, don't you think? Where do the genes come from? How about genetic expression itself? Perhaps evolution did occur to some degree. Organisms adapted to different environments, they chose to behave certain ways within groups, they struggled and learned. But is that the whole story? Selection, mutation, replication? No design what so ever? No mental processes behind nature? Materialism, chance, necessity?
I did watch the video, and the evidence is fairly compelling that there is a link. But my question is how did this occur, if it indeed was common ancestry? Was it just the accumulation of the right mutations, natural selection sifting out the bad ones? It just doesn't seem mathematically or scientifically possible.
@DNAunion Eg tail bone in humans, hip bones way off by themselves in whales etc. No Darwinian advantage to completely losing them, hence it never happened.
Great stuff. Was this used for a class? I am going to use it in my Kentucky high school biology classes as well as an entry level college course I teach. Thanks so much and keep up the good work. Idots are everywhere!!!!
Maybe there was an intelligent designer but he had so many things to create he decided to create a DNA string that could be adjusted to create a great veriety of types - the downside to using the same basic DNA string was that many of the creations would have redundant parts, but as it saved time and didn't hinder the different kinds, he decided it was the best solution!
Designers often simply use a meterial or system they have successfully used before - you see this in car design and architecture to mention a few. A good example is the electronic control system in a car - some manufacturers will use the same electronic controller on the full range of cars even when many of the systems it can control are not features of the car. The fixing points for a large engine might exist in a small engine version, the bulbs in a tractor may be identical to those in a boat!
Limited designers, like humans, will reuse existing designs to save time, save effort, or reduce the chance of introducing new errors.
The Intelligent Designer is not a limited being; it is God. God does not suffer from the limitations human and other natural designers have and so it makes no sense to have Him using our limited design patterns.
PS: Please feel free to offer a plausible alternative to God. You can't, but you can give it a shot.
So you believe that manatees are a type of elephant that evolved to live under the water. There is no evidence supporting this theory, and yet this is what is taught in schools at a very early age. Nothing bridges the gap between manatees and elephants. There are manatees, and there are elephants, but nothing in between. Why are there no intermediate forms?
Great video!! This is my favor. area, in making the case 4 Evolution.
Xians are constantly claiming that they never see Macro-E. Even when you give them examples of species to species Evolution, they offer some idiotic explanation of denial.
They don't care about seeing any evidence! I'm convinced they know damn well Evol. is true. They simply act the part to convince their fellow Xians that Evol. is false!
They are dishonest & despicable AHs. They deceive their own to keep their BS going!
This video deserves all five stars for describing a process that makes sense. Unfortunately, IDiotic creationists will blindly scream, "Fake and gay," like mindless dumbasses.
So, you claim that life has come out of the ocean and gone from simple to complex, and your best evidence is an animal that has Lost hind limbs and gone back into the ocean?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You aren't describing evolution with manatees. You are describing devolution. a decrease in complexity and function. Where is your evidence for increasing from simple organisms to complex. After all you evolutionists claim it happened quadrillions of times through wild historical accidents.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No. I am admitting that even if Manatees used to have four legs, that is no evidence at all for evolution from simple to complex organisms. It is actually evidence against simple to complex. If it ever happened it is evidence for the loss of function. It is evidence that evolution DOES NOT happen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
correct I am saying that losing function or changing shape as in dog's with no tails or short tails etc, is not evolution at all. Therefore, a manatee losing limbs is no evidence of Darwinian evolution at all. Not only isn't it evidence for Macro evolution it is evidence against the entire theory of simple to complex.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whales did not evolve from four legged animals. What if aliens seeded the planet? what if the universe was created 3 seconds ago and all of our knowledge and memories was planted in our brains? What about multiverses? what about the Oort cloud?
the fool has more questions than the wise man can answer.
Your personal opinion (which goes against both what scientists and even Creationists say) was that if manatees evolved from four-legged land animals, that would not be an example of MACROevolution.
So I asked you if whales evolved from four-legged land animals, would that be an example of MACROevolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It would depend. IF whales evolved from four legged land animals. and evolved the thousands of new features needed to change them into sea dwellers instead of land mammals then that would be and example of Macro evolution. However since that never happened the point is moot.
Evolution above the species level is definitiely MACROevolution. A whale and its 4-legged land mammal ancestor would be at least different species. MACROevolution.
@mejc2 There is no such thing as devolution it is a biological fallacy . Evolution is not concerned at all with complexity it is concerned with fitness. Hind legs for a 100% sea dwelling creature are a waste of resources and therefore decrease fitness. That is why they gradually disappeared.
There is no biological mechanism known to generate the genetic programming to create new tissue, organs or body plans. Random mutation and genetic drift are inadequate.
@mejc2 It is inadequate because you say it is in adequate?
By saying that manatees losing their hind legs is not an example of evolution because it is complex to simple (which it is not) shows you really don't have a proper understand of how natural selection works.
I did not say it was complex to simple. I said it was a loss of function. No new tissue or organ is produced. Also, there is no known mechanism to generate the complex genetic code necessary to create new tissue, organs or body plans.
There is no known mechanism to create new tissue, organs or body plans in any organism. Losing function or form is no evidence whatsoever that new genetic programs can be written by accidental mutations to form new organisms.Just as copying errors do not make computer programs add new features, mutations do not add new features animals.
There are natural mechanisms that can add genetic information to genomes, two of which are gene duplication followed by divergence and exon shuffling.
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
@mejc2 really? what about humans being born with tails (working complete tails), snakes with legs (again, complete legs that function) or nylonase? nylonase is a new protein, does that count as "tissue"? certainly tails and legs count as change in the body plan
3. Bacteria are hearty little creatures able to adapt to many different food sources. that's really good because they don't get around much to look for food.
Also loss of function is not an example of ascending to a new organism with new morphological novel features.
After billions of years you produce hoaxes, and pointless nonsense. Great! Real scientific.
@mejc2 no, humans dont, but sometimes people are born with perfect tails with bone and full muscle control, google atavistic tales in humans. again, they are sometimes born with full functioning legs, google it, its called an atavism. bacteria has evolved, nylonase is an example of evolution and now structures being made. what hoaxes exactly? the literally thousands of fossils or erv's or geographic distribution? of coarse there have been frauds, in all branches of science scientists pointem out
It's good info and accurate, it doesn't get 5 stars because...well it's just boring. But most educational videos are, NATGEO and a few others have done a good job trying. but it's just hard to make a lecture entertaining.
Well, that can't be. Education is the enemy. Supress all knowledge and anything that can make human kind advance. Yeah. Let's go back to live like the 14th Century.
I don't get it. How can someone votebot a video that teaches something.
My fav is horses. Excellent totally gradual fossil evidence, plus they still have their side toes (under the skin) I believe where as eohippus had three toes.
What is interesting is how morphology and genetics can be unrelated, but in a way genetics is molecular morphology. From a purely Darwinian view, it would seem that genes are only affected by copying errors and radiation, when in fact catostrophic events and psychological stresses can causes rapid and massive genetic changes. But evolution doesn't explain the latter mechanism.
Much of the progressive adaptation in species is witnessed by events such as mammal herds where the dominant male with greatest survival traits in terms of strength etc. passes on it's genes.
In the arctic, a white bear quite simply has the best chance of surviving by it;s ability to sneak up on it's prey. Darker bears stand no chance and remain away from the snow and ice, while polar bears proliferate in the environment where they are able to.
In my opinion, the examples you use, while excellent, don't explain how life builds ecosystems, and how those systems adapt to extreme environmental shifts. I think the answer to macroevolution lies outside (at least for the most part) of the Darwinian view of gradual changes in homogenius populations.
The manatee is a definite example of macro-evolution. The evidence shows that it evolved from a terrestrial tetrapod to a marine mammal. The same can be said tor today's seals, sea lions, dolphins, porpoises and whales.
The evidence shows this extremely impressive transformation did happen, and the key element was time and the number of generations involved.
Mankind's place in biology was mistakenly assumed to only span the time frame of our own oral history .
@bencubed the evidence I have seen does not show that the key element was time and numbers of generations, that is just something that is assumed. I would suggest that life can adapt, and when the environment is abruptly changed, it is forced to do so. Just look at simple bacteria that can cut up and reorganize their genomes under extreme conditions, you are missing the real science by blindly embracing the old Darwinian paradigm
Wow, you guys get fired up over things that may or may not have happened in a certain way millions and millions of years ago... As the show "South Park" put it, "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and why?"Not saying that thats necessarily the way it is, but at least keep an open mind, or at the very least stop attacking those who don't agree. Oh, and I hate to disagree with ole' sbliss554's post but a science professor once had students take pamphlets from some evangelists and burn them.
Its kinda funny that only people of faith attack these theories. Most of the people who discovered these things are men of faith. Scientist don't attack religion for the fact that it cant be tested they cant give a definite answer.
Show me two different cars that have the very same nonfunctional part, in the very same location, that was made nonfunctional because of the very same set of multiple errors, and I'll show you a piss poor designer.
I can show you "that" for the human and chimp genomes. So you worship an incompetent designer? A dullard? An idiot?
Boomerangs do not reproduce. That alone completely destroys the analogy: it breaks down at the MOST IMPORTANT part.
Boomerangs also are not built from internally stored genetic information, which is passed one from one generation to the next, with small differences occuring at random, which then are sifted by natural selection.
I'm not sure you could have picked a WORSE analogy. Fail is written all over this.
Actually, if people watched this video and didn't just vote-bot it they wouldn't do it anyway. If you understand evolution, why not accept it? It has more proof than... Gravity!
DNA it appears that with only 2 stars out of 362 votes now... the majority of people do not agree with your assumption or like your video. I guess this is also reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people in this world don't believe in the ridiculousness of Evolution. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." - Psalms 14:1 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." - Hebrews 9:27
bravetoday, it appears that none of those anti-science religious nutjobs who voted down my video could give a better explanation than MACROevolution for the evidences I provided.
If a majority of the people believe Dumbledore is real and show you where in the Harry Potter series it says he runs the entire school, they're all still wrong.
Dear DNAUnion, I would like to make some questions. If you get enough time, I would be glad with you answers.
How did reproductive system evolved? I am quite curious about this subject. How was the first pregnancy? How spermatozoid and ovary evolved? Why did they evolved if some another form of reproduction was already (apparently) working?
I would appreciate a lot any reference you send me, or (much better) your direct answer.
Sex was a gradual process, and older than gender. Bacteria have a mechanism by which they can inject or steal genes from other bacteria. They do this because it increases their diversity, something they desperately needed due to asexual reproduction.
To further enhance this, some became slower and bigger, a larger target easier to find. Others became smaller and faster, so they could move quicker to seek that target.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Re: Manatee pelvis. In whales, the pelvis is used to support internal organs and serves as an attachment point for muscles—very similar to the function of the coccyx (tailbone) in humans. Manatee pelvic bones are near reproductive organs and the bladder. The pelvis is likely used to support internal organs and serve in muscle attachment.
The coccyx that you mention is vestigial, even though it is not non-functional. Our coccyx is a VESTIGE of what it used to be in an ancestor. All human embryos form a postanal tail, which then has its # of vertebrae reduced and resorption leaves us with our coccyx. Rarely, a human is born with a tail. Our (non-ape) ancestors had tails, and we still have a vestige of that: our coccyx.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Re: DNA There is NO scientific or fossil evidence to date that supports the claim of the human coccyx as a "vestige tail". It is a crucial attachment point of nine muscles that allow for a number of movements, most important of which is for the act of defecation. It aids in the immune system. It also assists us in the act of sitting and shock absorption. Furthermore, the coccyx acts as a support system for our internal organs. The old Darwinian propagandic "tail myth" has been disproven.
1) Human embryos start off with a postanal tail containing about twice as many vertebrae as end up in our coccyx. Our coccyx does not simply form: we start with the makings of a long postanal tail & then it gets reduced during further embyonic development.
2) Rarely, a human is born with a postanal tail: not a flap of skin either - it contains vertebrae and muscles.
3) You missed the fact that a vestigial structure can perform a function. Vestigial does not mean nonfunctional.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Human embryos start off with a postanal tail? You are referring back to German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel's "sketched drawings" on embryology. An English medical expert revealed those sketches to be totally fake. And amazingly enough on Jan. 9, 1909 in a letter to Münchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly for Science, Ernst himself CONFESSED to his own fraud of the drawings! Ontogeny recapitulation phylogeny has long been "medically disproven" by embryologists and x-ray imagery.
No, I am not referring back the Haeckel's drawings.
Human embryos have a postanal tail. This is an empirical fact, known through direct observation. There are photos of human embryos with postanal tails. Look in a biology text, or on the web.
It is now obvious that you are completely ignorant when it comes to biology. All you can do is parrot refuted Creationists bu||$h!t.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
RE: DNA empirical fact? Give me a break. Where? Give me a link to these images? Show us all what you are looking at. By the way, cussing at me only shows that I am getting under your skin and that your writings are motivated by emotion rather than fact.
I keep trying to post a link to a series of photos of human embryos in different stages, in which stages 12 - 16 clearly show the human embryos possessing a postanal tail. But the post is not making it.
You can simply go to Google and use "human embryo stages" and click on the image with a URL showing e m b r y o l o g y . m e d . u n s w . e d u . a u
RE: DNA Postanal tail? Vestigial postanal tail? Interesting how I can't find any of those phrases on the site you posted to Dr. Mark Hill's Embryology web site or even in his glossary of terms. Still no evidence of proof there. What you are seeing is the starting formation of the spine and neural complex not a monkey tail.
I told you to look at the PICTURES, which clearly show a postanal tail. Are you too stupid to do something that simple? You could f' up a wet dream! LOL!
And if it is words you want, I already gave you a quote from a college biology text explicitly stating that humans have a postanal tail. Are you too stupid to remember that????
Embryonic recapitulation of a postanal tail? No, no, no wrong again. You are trying to hang on to a subject that has long been disproven sir! Most everyone in the past "70 years" has realized that the recapitulation theory is totally false. Ernst Haeckel's doctored embryos is one of the WORST cases of scientific fraud.
I did not put forward Hacekel's recapitulation. Why are you attacking a strawman?
The problem is that you are like all the other stupid Creationists. You don't know jack $h!t about biology: all you know is Creationist bu||Sh!t, which you blindly swallow because of your ignorance of science.
Re: DNA As the fossil record confirms? COMPLETELY WRONG. Where are these mysterious fossils? You are blurting out fossils that don't even exist. Just because you personally think something is a fact doesn't mean it is. You must produce the proof. Show everyone here the ACTUAL photos (not sketches) of these transitional fossils that confirm a record as you say.
Nope. I posted a photo of a reconstruction and a photo of an actual fossil.
In addition, earlier in these comments I posted a quote from a scientific journal that stated we have a series of transitional fossils of manatees and their ancestors. Here's the reference:
New Species of Protosiren (Mammalia, Sirenia) from the Early Middle Eocene of Balochistan (Pakistan), 2003, Iyad S. Zalmout, Munir Ul-Haq, & Phillip D. Gingerirch
Manatee pectoral flippers have three to four fingernails exposed at the end of each. They will also use their flippers to walk on the "tips" of their flippers as they travel along the bottom. Flexible pectoral flippers are used for steering, touching, scratching (fingernails), holding food, and even embracing. The fingernails are like protective covers or tools just like any other animal that has nails. The fingernails serve the manatee for various functions and are not evolutionary left-overs.
If toenails were given to manatees because they sometimes walk along the bottom, what about octopuses that sometimes walk along the bottom? What about lobsters and crabs, which 'always' walk along the bottom? Why don't they have toenails?
Toenails are better explained by descent with modification, from an four-legged land-mammal ancestor with toenails.
Great video! Apperantly they evolved from some aincent North american Elephant species(or relative). They have always intrigued me by their awesome form and rounded tail fluke.
Chimps and humans share several genetic MISTAKES: pseudogenes having the exact same disablements. Shared mistakes are evidence against common design - unless your designer is a complete idiot of a Great Deceiver - and for common ancestry,
Despite the fact they are marine mammals and have some resemblance to dolphins and whales, dugongs are classified separately from their fellow marine mammals. Incredibly, dugongs are grouped in the same suborder as elephants (Subungulata), largely because they have some similarities in their teeth and in the position of their mammary glands (between the front flippers/legs).9
The chromosome painting data presented here leave little doubt that Tethytheria [elephants and manatees] is a clade within Afrotheria ... Afrotherian karyotypes demonstrate high rates of chromosome evolution and numerous derived inter-chromosomal rearrangements link elephants and manatees.
Of course humans have mammary glands in a similar position—but evolutionists do not propose a common ancestor with dugongs to explain that similarity!
Furthermore, humans have a similar heart artery arrangement (aortic arch) to dugongs, which is different from elephants.10 This shows that the argument from similarity for evolution (common ancestors) is a very selective one—applied where it seems to work, otherwise ignored. Large-scale similarities are due to a common Creator, not common ancestry.
Speaking of aortic arches .... Humans have a very fish-like arrangement of aortic arches - as well as aortae and arteries - in early development. Much remodeling must be done to convert the fish-like arrangement into the human arrangement.
Descent with modification explains this simply.
But why would God make us fish-like in early development? Is God a Pisces? LOL!
Surely you do not believe in Haeckels fraudulent Embryonic recapitulation. That when an embryo develops it retraces its Evoultionary history? "Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false. "Yoke sack" is the blood forming sack. The "gill slits" are the "inner ear and parathyroid gland (Lehman, 1987) " Source: True Origins website.
Surely you know enough about evolution and embryology to know about evo devo? I guess not.
You scientifically ignorant Creationists are a joke. You hear someone mention embryos in relation to evolution and all you know about the two is Haeckel's recapitulation from the late 1800s.
1) Why are you trying to get science from a religious website?
2) I mentioned aortic arches, but you didn't. Why not?
3) I didn't mention either our vestigial yolk nor our pharyngeal/gill "slits" here. So why did YOU bring them up?
Anyway, our embryonic pharyngeal SLITS do not develop into anything: they are transient passageways between the inside of the embryo and the outside of the embryo in the pharyngeal (neck for us) region: they very quickly close right back up.
Dugongs and elephants live in very different environments and diverged millions of years ago. We would expect differences: especially in their adult form.
In their early embryos, dugongs and elephants -- like humans -- have fishlike arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which must then undergo much remodeling to end up with an arrangement appropriate to the species.
Evolution easily explains this. But it flies in the face of Creation and ID Creation.
Sorry, but the common Creator notion is crushed by shared mistakes.
At the same time, evolution/common ancsestry is strongly supoprted by shared mistakes.
If you feel otherwise, then please give a plausible explanatin that is better than common ancestry for the fact that humand and chimps both have a non-functional psi-beta 1 pseudogene ... in the very same location .... disabled by the very same set of mutations.
In classifying dugongs with elephants, evolutionists assume that elephants evolved from water creatures. In other words the evolutionary path would be:
sea creature → land mammal → back to the sea (supposed ancestor of elephants and dugongs) → back to the land (elephants).11
But there is no fossil evidence that dugongs and manatees are related to any creature that now—or ever—walked on land.
There is no reason why the Creator would not have used a similar bone pattern in a wide range of creatures. But the argument for common ancestry collapses in this particular case anyway, because all mammals do not have the same number of neck bones. Most do have seven—but the threetoed sloth has nine, or even 10, while the twotoed sloth and the manatee both have six, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica.
wow,i'm curantly learning about evolution in biology and my teacher has been giving us examples of differant creatures and evandance of evolution in them and this one animal gives examples she was talking about. thankyou this vid really helped.
maybe unlike whales who don't have an ilium, manatees need a pelvis for haemopoeisis because their ribs aren't hemopoeitic . It would make sense that they would retain this for that. I suppose they still do have the top of the skull as well as the humerus but losing those ribs would account for a lot of lost marrow
The people giving this a bad rating probably didn't watch this past 1 minute. If they did, there's no way an intellectually honest (that obviously excludes willingly ignorant theists) person could give it 1 star.
As far as toenails go, Humans don't technically need hair, but no one's complaining. It protects us from our environment. (We don't technically need two arms either, does that make our arms residual?) I have to think (I'm not a Manatee) that when you're grazing aquatic plants near the bottom, which is mostly what they do, the tips of your flippers could get a little roughed up, and "toe nails" are perfect protection. Regrowable toughness.
We did at one point need these traits. Not until recently (recent in relation to evolutionary time) do we have no NEED for these. If you were to live in a cold region without a way to provide heating, do you think you'd survive with a skinny figure and no hair?
Evolution is not about needing traits. Instead, it is about new traits coming into existence and becoming prominent if they help the species to survive. If a species needs a trait nobody happens to have, the species will just die out completely.
We never needed to stand upright (proven by the fact there are still dozens and dozens of species who don't), yet when someone started walking partly upright, it proved benefitial and so it became prominent.
The fact that other species don't stand upright doesn't prove that we didn't.... That's like saying, bird's don't need wings because we don't.
Evolution is about needing traits. The need of a trait keeps a species FROM dieing out... This planet constantly changes, and it's inhabitants change to adapt to it when they have no choice, or else die out. Both of those scenarios happens.
The dislikes on this video really scares me.
DoubterApe 1 month ago
Excelent video. One question, what conditions caused the manatees to loose their hind limbs and almost their toe nails? Thanks for the video.
davcar23 2 months ago
No, I am not claiming manatees evolved into humans.
Homology - such as the flipper skeleton of manatees and the forelimb and hand skeletons of humans, and other terrestrial tetrapods - is due to sharing a common ancester. Trace human and manatee evolutionary lineages back far enough and you will come to a common ancestor that had a stylopod, zeugopod, and autopod. That basic arrangement has been modified over time as it was adapted for different functions.
DNAunion 3 months ago
Are you claiming manatees evolved over millions of years into men? the reason i ask is you pointed out the bones in the flippers.
modernrocks 3 months ago
@modernrocks Thank you for hurting my brain. Now I'm going to have a migraine all day.
iz2sicc 1 month ago in playlist Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design
A couple of questions need to be asked. One, why would a quadruped evolve sirenian ribs? I know you did not mention Pakicetus, but why would a land mammal evolve a cetacean inner ear? Both of these traits are like finger prints, but why would natural selection select them for land mammals?
doulos1981 5 months ago
@doulos1981
"Pakicetus is interesting and important because it is one of the oldest cetaceans known anywhere, it is found in continental red beds, it is found with a land-mammal fauna, and it has a basicranium and ear region little modified for hearing in water." (Gingerich et al., 1990)
“The otic region of the cranium lacks characteristic specializations of whales necessary for efficient directional hearing under water." (Gingerich et al., 1983)
DNAunion 5 months ago
@doulos1981
1 of 2
As for dense ribs, I believe I mentioned in the video that they are used for balast.
The same is true of bones in general in early pakicetid cetaceans -- see next post, where the quote comes from the abstract for THE POSTCRANIAL SKELETON OF EARLY EOCENE PAKICETID CETACEANS, Journal of Paleontology, Jan 2007, v.81, no 1, p176-200.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@doulos1981
2 of 2
"The three pakicetid genera can be distinguished by size, proportion, and details of articular morphology. ... The most striking modification is the presence of systemic increased bone density, likely used as skeletal ballast. "
DNAunion 5 months ago
Just because you posted a video supporting macroevolution doesnt mean you should bash God at the end. You can believe in evolution and still believe in God. Not all theists are closed-minded and not all evolutionists are atheists. It was completely unecessary to insult religion at the end of a completely secular informative video.
bakedpotat0 7 months ago
@bakedpotat0
One does not *believe in* relativistic time dilation: they either accept it as true or they are wrong. Similarly, one does not *believe in* evolution: they either accept it as true or they are wrong.
People *believe in* things for which there is no valid, objective, positive evidence ... like God/god/gods and the Loch Ness Monster. Or worse, things for which, in addition, evidence actually goes against ... which includes the God of the Bible.
DNAunion 7 months ago
@DNAunion how is is that you are still a total argumentative stubborn jerk after I AGREED with you? I just said im an evolutionist but you couldn't leave that alone, could you? Because you're always right, and you know everything, I'm sure. There's something wrong with narcissists like you...
bakedpotat0 7 months ago
@bakedpotat0
You agreed with me about macroevolution. You were wrong about one "believing in" evolution, and your equivocation of "believe in" (using it for both evolution and God). I pointed that out. Don't cry because you don't know what you are talking about and I pointed that out.
DNAunion 7 months ago
u DO realize the manatee is NOT fish. ITS A MAMMAL. DUH!!!!!!
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
@guineapiggyman
Who is this "u" to whom you are speaking?
DNAunion 7 months ago
@DNAunion im guessing you for posting this crap. im not sure if this is a video u made, or one u just posted, but it really shows ignorance of species genetics
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
@guineapiggyman
The only ignorance shown is by you, and your retarded implication that I think a manatee is a fish.
DNAunion 7 months ago
@DNAunion that is what everyone thinks... because thats what you basically say! you give no indication that you know its a mamml, kid
guineapiggyman 7 months ago
@guineapiggyman
No, that's what stupid people like you conclude from some weird-ass "logic".
1. Toenails ... Elephant-like toenails
@0:18 – 0:23
So, dumbass, tell us … how many fish do you know that have TOENAILS … ELEPHANT-LIKE TOENAILS???
LOL!!!
PS: Toenails are unique to mammals - that is, no other tetrapods (or any other living organism) has them.
Your ignorance is the problem here, not my video.
DNAunion 7 months ago
@guineapiggyman
@guineapiggyman
2. Flipper skeleton homologous to that of terrestrial tetrapods
@0:40 - 0:56
How many fish do you know of that have an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, a small cluster of wrist bones, hand bones, and 5 finger bones, encased within a flipper???? None.
But ... cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.) have the most similar anatomy, and they are mammals.
In addition, I make the link between manatees and terrestrial tetrapods: fish are not terrestrial tetrapods.
DNAunion 7 months ago
@DNAunion I know what you're trying to say but just to be picky, isn't Tiktaalik a fish. This will not lessen your argument at all, but I had to clarify this for my own sake.
toelesshoe 6 months ago
@toelesshoe
If we are being technical, then when considering classification based on monophyletic groups (cladistics), the term "fish" is not meaningful anymore. (Or, we have to include animals which people don't consider to be fish -such as whales, bats, and even humans - in with them).
But when not being technical, Tiktaalik would be a fish, although calling it a "fish-a-pod" makes sense too.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@toelesshoe
While Tiktaalik did have fins, gills, and scales, fere are several features of Tiktaalik that are characteristic of tetrapods and not of fish.
a. Flat skull (fish heads are laterally compressed)
b. Eyes on top of head (fish eyes are on the sides of their head)
c. Neck (fish don't have a neck)
d. Curved ribcage (fish ribs are typically straight; picture a boned fish's bones)
e. ‘Digits’, ‘wrists’, ‘elbows’, ‘shoulders’
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion Obviously you know more of this than I do. I read the book by Neil Shubin and thought that Tiktaalik was not that far removed from lobed fin fish. Being only an avid admirer of scientific findings, I don't always grasp the intracate details.
toelesshoe 5 months ago
@toelesshoe
Your Inner Fish -- good book.
Neil Shubin has done, and continues to do, a lot of research on the embryonic development of fins in fish (chondrichthyans, such as sharks, mostly), showing that the main "master" genes/proteins -- FGF10, FGF8, Shh, HoxD9-13, etc. -- used to oversee the development of tetrapod limbs (like our arms/hands and legs/feet) are also used in forming the paired fins of sharks.
So we have both the fossil evidence of transitionals and the shared genetics.
DNAunion 5 months ago
@DNAunion
Let's assume you have a transitional form here, and there was a real evolutionary pathway. What caused the transition, which judging by your list of characteristics surely involved many coordinated genetic mutations?
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Let's assume there was no evolution - how stupid is your Designer to put hipsockets in manatees?
DNAunion 3 months ago
@DNAunion
Maybe they need hipsockets. But now you are speculating, which seems a bit ironic, don't you think? Where do the genes come from? How about genetic expression itself? Perhaps evolution did occur to some degree. Organisms adapted to different environments, they chose to behave certain ways within groups, they struggled and learned. But is that the whole story? Selection, mutation, replication? No design what so ever? No mental processes behind nature? Materialism, chance, necessity?
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I guess you didn't bother to watch the video. I ask for a better explanatin than MACROevolution for the biological "oddities" in manatees.
So where's your better explanation? Feel free to try to offer one.
DNAunion 3 months ago
@DNAunion
I did watch the video, and the evidence is fairly compelling that there is a link. But my question is how did this occur, if it indeed was common ancestry? Was it just the accumulation of the right mutations, natural selection sifting out the bad ones? It just doesn't seem mathematically or scientifically possible.
circusOFprecision 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
And my question is ... the one I asked in the video, and the one I just asked you again.
What is your better explanation than MACROevolution for the biological "oddities" we find in manatees?
PS: And such biological "oddities" are not limited to just manatees: there are several in birds, in humans, and in whales too, for example.
DNAunion 3 months ago
@DNAunion Eg tail bone in humans, hip bones way off by themselves in whales etc. No Darwinian advantage to completely losing them, hence it never happened.
Churinai 2 weeks ago
@guineapiggyman
3 and so on.
There are numerous other indicators that I never implied in the least that manatees are fish.
a. Hipsockets
b. Fossil skeletons with 4 full-size limbs (legs)
c. Fossil of a proto-SIRENIAN ... sirenians are not fish, they are mammals.
d. My saying that manatees evolved from terrestrial tetrapods.
Only an ignorant moron -- like you -- could possibly come to the retarded conclusion you did.
DNAunion 7 months ago
Great stuff. Was this used for a class? I am going to use it in my Kentucky high school biology classes as well as an entry level college course I teach. Thanks so much and keep up the good work. Idots are everywhere!!!!
loginjon 7 months ago
Maybe there was an intelligent designer but he had so many things to create he decided to create a DNA string that could be adjusted to create a great veriety of types - the downside to using the same basic DNA string was that many of the creations would have redundant parts, but as it saved time and didn't hinder the different kinds, he decided it was the best solution!
TREACLE97 9 months ago
@TREACLE97
Maybe magical unicorns farted and out popped a manatee.
Just as plausible as the bullshit you are spewing.
DNAunion 9 months ago 3
Designers often simply use a meterial or system they have successfully used before - you see this in car design and architecture to mention a few. A good example is the electronic control system in a car - some manufacturers will use the same electronic controller on the full range of cars even when many of the systems it can control are not features of the car. The fixing points for a large engine might exist in a small engine version, the bulbs in a tractor may be identical to those in a boat!
TREACLE97 9 months ago
@TREACLE97
Limited designers, like humans, will reuse existing designs to save time, save effort, or reduce the chance of introducing new errors.
The Intelligent Designer is not a limited being; it is God. God does not suffer from the limitations human and other natural designers have and so it makes no sense to have Him using our limited design patterns.
PS: Please feel free to offer a plausible alternative to God. You can't, but you can give it a shot.
DNAunion 9 months ago
@TREACLE97 I agree this looks like design to me.
glendaweil 6 months ago
So you believe that manatees are a type of elephant that evolved to live under the water. There is no evidence supporting this theory, and yet this is what is taught in schools at a very early age. Nothing bridges the gap between manatees and elephants. There are manatees, and there are elephants, but nothing in between. Why are there no intermediate forms?
robertfusion 10 months ago
@robertfusion
"So you believe that manatees are a type of elephant "
No, I don't.
And I neither claimed nor implied that.
But thanks for showing everyone that all you people can do is stuf words into your opponents' mouths and knock down strawmen.
DNAunion 10 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion So you believe that manatees are a type of elephant "
No, I don't.
glad to hear it unfortunately most darwinists do
robertfusion 10 months ago
@robertfusion what would you like to see as an intermediate form ?
podoau 8 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Why does this video have more dislikes than likes? This is a great video, it was very interesting and educational.
HaveFaithInScience 11 months ago 3
Great video!! This is my favor. area, in making the case 4 Evolution.
Xians are constantly claiming that they never see Macro-E. Even when you give them examples of species to species Evolution, they offer some idiotic explanation of denial.
They don't care about seeing any evidence! I'm convinced they know damn well Evol. is true. They simply act the part to convince their fellow Xians that Evol. is false!
They are dishonest & despicable AHs. They deceive their own to keep their BS going!
Cootabux 1 year ago
Wow! I didnt no that! That is interesting. Are manaties mamals? Can they breath out of water?
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
any creationists that denie "macro" evolution, really called speciation, show them the salamander ring species, its a perfect speciation event
blazereef 1 year ago 3
Manatees totally evolved from land mammals
ofelixdacat 1 year ago
This video deserves all five stars for describing a process that makes sense. Unfortunately, IDiotic creationists will blindly scream, "Fake and gay," like mindless dumbasses.
Give five stars.
SoulSaneAngelis 1 year ago 2
So, you claim that life has come out of the ocean and gone from simple to complex, and your best evidence is an animal that has Lost hind limbs and gone back into the ocean?
mejc2 1 year ago
What's your better explanation than MACROevolution.
DNAunion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You aren't describing evolution with manatees. You are describing devolution. a decrease in complexity and function. Where is your evidence for increasing from simple organisms to complex. After all you evolutionists claim it happened quadrillions of times through wild historical accidents.
mejc2 1 year ago
So you are admitting that manatees evolved from 4-legged land mammals, right?
DNAunion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No. I am admitting that even if Manatees used to have four legs, that is no evidence at all for evolution from simple to complex organisms. It is actually evidence against simple to complex. If it ever happened it is evidence for the loss of function. It is evidence that evolution DOES NOT happen.
mejc2 1 year ago
1) Who said manatees every had four legs?
2) Are you saying that a 4-legged land animal evolving into a manatee would not be an example of MACROevolution?
DNAunion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolution's story is simple to complex four legs to two is complex to simple.
mejc2 1 year ago
Non sequitur
Are you saying that a 4-legged land animal evolving into a manatee would not be an example of MACROevolution?
DNAunion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
correct I am saying that losing function or changing shape as in dog's with no tails or short tails etc, is not evolution at all. Therefore, a manatee losing limbs is no evidence of Darwinian evolution at all. Not only isn't it evidence for Macro evolution it is evidence against the entire theory of simple to complex.
mejc2 1 year ago
It's not?
What about whales evolving from four-legged land animals? Would THAT be an example of MACROevolution?
DNAunion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whales did not evolve from four legged animals. What if aliens seeded the planet? what if the universe was created 3 seconds ago and all of our knowledge and memories was planted in our brains? What about multiverses? what about the Oort cloud?
the fool has more questions than the wise man can answer.
mejc2 1 year ago
You keep dancing around the questions I ask.
Your personal opinion (which goes against both what scientists and even Creationists say) was that if manatees evolved from four-legged land animals, that would not be an example of MACROevolution.
So I asked you if whales evolved from four-legged land animals, would that be an example of MACROevolution.
DNAunion 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It would depend. IF whales evolved from four legged land animals. and evolved the thousands of new features needed to change them into sea dwellers instead of land mammals then that would be and example of Macro evolution. However since that never happened the point is moot.
mejc2 1 year ago
You're wrong.
Evolution above the species level is definitiely MACROevolution. A whale and its 4-legged land mammal ancestor would be at least different species. MACROevolution.
Same with manatees.
DNAunion 1 year ago
@mejc2 There is no such thing as devolution it is a biological fallacy . Evolution is not concerned at all with complexity it is concerned with fitness. Hind legs for a 100% sea dwelling creature are a waste of resources and therefore decrease fitness. That is why they gradually disappeared.
ryan84160 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ryan84160
There is no biological mechanism known to generate the genetic programming to create new tissue, organs or body plans. Random mutation and genetic drift are inadequate.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 It is inadequate because you say it is in adequate?
By saying that manatees losing their hind legs is not an example of evolution because it is complex to simple (which it is not) shows you really don't have a proper understand of how natural selection works.
ryan84160 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ryan84160
I did not say it was complex to simple. I said it was a loss of function. No new tissue or organ is produced. Also, there is no known mechanism to generate the complex genetic code necessary to create new tissue, organs or body plans.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
ryan84160 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 Evolution's story is simple to complex four legs to two is complex to simple.
I don't make shit up.
ryan84160 1 year ago
@mejc2
There are natural mechanisms known capable of adding genetic information to genomes.
Do you accept that biological fact or not?
DNAunion 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DNAunion ]
Notice how you try to slip the issue. I say new tissue organs and body plans you respond with new genetic information.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
Notice how you avoided answering my question.
Why? Are you afraid to?
DNAunion 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DNAunion
There is no known mechanism to create new tissue, organs or body plans in any organism. Losing function or form is no evidence whatsoever that new genetic programs can be written by accidental mutations to form new organisms.Just as copying errors do not make computer programs add new features, mutations do not add new features animals.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2
There are natural mechanisms that can add genetic information to genomes, two of which are gene duplication followed by divergence and exon shuffling.
Do you acknowledge this fact or not?
DNAunion 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DNAunion
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DNAunion
@DNAunion
Did I stutter? I didn't say add genetic information. I said create new tissue, organs, or body plans.
I have an accounts payable accounting module. Maybe I should copy it and make errors a couple million times then I might have an accounts payable and an accounts receivable program.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 really? what about humans being born with tails (working complete tails), snakes with legs (again, complete legs that function) or nylonase? nylonase is a new protein, does that count as "tissue"? certainly tails and legs count as change in the body plan
blazereef 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blazereef
1. humans do not have working tails
2. Snakes do not have functioning legs
3. Bacteria are hearty little creatures able to adapt to many different food sources. that's really good because they don't get around much to look for food.
Also loss of function is not an example of ascending to a new organism with new morphological novel features.
After billions of years you produce hoaxes, and pointless nonsense. Great! Real scientific.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 no, humans dont, but sometimes people are born with perfect tails with bone and full muscle control, google atavistic tales in humans. again, they are sometimes born with full functioning legs, google it, its called an atavism. bacteria has evolved, nylonase is an example of evolution and now structures being made. what hoaxes exactly? the literally thousands of fossils or erv's or geographic distribution? of coarse there have been frauds, in all branches of science scientists pointem out
blazereef 1 year ago 4
@blazereef
Try using Google scholar. You will get better info.
mejc2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mejc2 what? so what you are saying is that you will not accept anything that is not already agreeing with your preconceived notions?
blazereef 1 year ago
It's good info and accurate, it doesn't get 5 stars because...well it's just boring. But most educational videos are, NATGEO and a few others have done a good job trying. but it's just hard to make a lecture entertaining.
slambe1966 2 years ago
Good presentation.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Wow... an educational video?
Well, that can't be. Education is the enemy. Supress all knowledge and anything that can make human kind advance. Yeah. Let's go back to live like the 14th Century.
I don't get it. How can someone votebot a video that teaches something.
PT109Boat 2 years ago 2
Favorite'd. 5 stars! :)
cartmanSPP 2 years ago
Wow the votebots hate this video. I wonder why?
Great video.
My fav is horses. Excellent totally gradual fossil evidence, plus they still have their side toes (under the skin) I believe where as eohippus had three toes.
intelligentfalling 2 years ago 2
Eohippus is no longer used. It has long since been replaced by "Hyracotherium" as the Genus, and it had 4 toes on the front foot and 3 on the back.
3 toes were maintained through most of horse evolution...
Lagomort 2 years ago
What is interesting is how morphology and genetics can be unrelated, but in a way genetics is molecular morphology. From a purely Darwinian view, it would seem that genes are only affected by copying errors and radiation, when in fact catostrophic events and psychological stresses can causes rapid and massive genetic changes. But evolution doesn't explain the latter mechanism.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
Much of the progressive adaptation in species is witnessed by events such as mammal herds where the dominant male with greatest survival traits in terms of strength etc. passes on it's genes.
In the arctic, a white bear quite simply has the best chance of surviving by it;s ability to sneak up on it's prey. Darker bears stand no chance and remain away from the snow and ice, while polar bears proliferate in the environment where they are able to.
bencubed 2 years ago
In my opinion, the examples you use, while excellent, don't explain how life builds ecosystems, and how those systems adapt to extreme environmental shifts. I think the answer to macroevolution lies outside (at least for the most part) of the Darwinian view of gradual changes in homogenius populations.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
The manatee is a definite example of macro-evolution. The evidence shows that it evolved from a terrestrial tetrapod to a marine mammal. The same can be said tor today's seals, sea lions, dolphins, porpoises and whales.
The evidence shows this extremely impressive transformation did happen, and the key element was time and the number of generations involved.
Mankind's place in biology was mistakenly assumed to only span the time frame of our own oral history .
We are now much wiser.
bencubed 2 years ago
@bencubed the evidence I have seen does not show that the key element was time and numbers of generations, that is just something that is assumed. I would suggest that life can adapt, and when the environment is abruptly changed, it is forced to do so. Just look at simple bacteria that can cut up and reorganize their genomes under extreme conditions, you are missing the real science by blindly embracing the old Darwinian paradigm
cruelfate45 2 years ago
Excellent video and choice of subject.
Reminds me of the sealion in many ways.
Evolution just makes sense.
bencubed 2 years ago
Wow, you guys get fired up over things that may or may not have happened in a certain way millions and millions of years ago... As the show "South Park" put it, "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and why?"Not saying that thats necessarily the way it is, but at least keep an open mind, or at the very least stop attacking those who don't agree. Oh, and I hate to disagree with ole' sbliss554's post but a science professor once had students take pamphlets from some evangelists and burn them.
chudanjufood 2 years ago
So I think its safe to say that occasionally, someone who speaks on behalf of scientific believe will attack someone else's believe system.
chudanjufood 2 years ago
Its kinda funny that only people of faith attack these theories. Most of the people who discovered these things are men of faith. Scientist don't attack religion for the fact that it cant be tested they cant give a definite answer.
sbliss554 2 years ago
this is a great presentation, thank you very much!
TeamDarwin1809 2 years ago
Show me two different cars that have the very same nonfunctional part, in the very same location, that was made nonfunctional because of the very same set of multiple errors, and I'll show you a piss poor designer.
I can show you "that" for the human and chimp genomes. So you worship an incompetent designer? A dullard? An idiot?
DNAunion 2 years ago
Terrible analogy.
Boomerangs do not reproduce. That alone completely destroys the analogy: it breaks down at the MOST IMPORTANT part.
Boomerangs also are not built from internally stored genetic information, which is passed one from one generation to the next, with small differences occuring at random, which then are sifted by natural selection.
I'm not sure you could have picked a WORSE analogy. Fail is written all over this.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Why only 2 stars? Did you get vote-boted? Just for the record, I gave you 5 stars!
WntrSolstice2012 2 years ago 2
Yep. Vote-Bot.
justforflag2 2 years ago
Indeed.
And I just noticed that some a-hole voted down a bunch of legitimate posts, and also hid many legitimate posts by flagging them as spam.
RetardedCreationist 2 years ago 2
Thanks 4 letting me know. It must suck to get vote-boted!
WntrSolstice2012 2 years ago
Actually, if people watched this video and didn't just vote-bot it they wouldn't do it anyway. If you understand evolution, why not accept it? It has more proof than... Gravity!
justforflag2 2 years ago
Agreed! Ramen!
WntrSolstice2012 2 years ago 2
DNA it appears that with only 2 stars out of 362 votes now... the majority of people do not agree with your assumption or like your video. I guess this is also reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people in this world don't believe in the ridiculousness of Evolution. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." - Psalms 14:1 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." - Hebrews 9:27
bravetoday 2 years ago
bravetoday, it appears that none of those anti-science religious nutjobs who voted down my video could give a better explanation than MACROevolution for the evidences I provided.
How about you?
DNAunion 2 years ago
If a majority of the people believe Dumbledore is real and show you where in the Harry Potter series it says he runs the entire school, they're all still wrong.
rkyeun 2 years ago
Dear DNAUnion, I would like to make some questions. If you get enough time, I would be glad with you answers.
How did reproductive system evolved? I am quite curious about this subject. How was the first pregnancy? How spermatozoid and ovary evolved? Why did they evolved if some another form of reproduction was already (apparently) working?
I would appreciate a lot any reference you send me, or (much better) your direct answer.
Thanks in advance.
exobr 2 years ago
Sex was a gradual process, and older than gender. Bacteria have a mechanism by which they can inject or steal genes from other bacteria. They do this because it increases their diversity, something they desperately needed due to asexual reproduction.
To further enhance this, some became slower and bigger, a larger target easier to find. Others became smaller and faster, so they could move quicker to seek that target.
The bodies evolved around them.
rkyeun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Re: Manatee pelvis. In whales, the pelvis is used to support internal organs and serves as an attachment point for muscles—very similar to the function of the coccyx (tailbone) in humans. Manatee pelvic bones are near reproductive organs and the bladder. The pelvis is likely used to support internal organs and serve in muscle attachment.
bravetoday 2 years ago
Vestiail does not mean non-functional.
The coccyx that you mention is vestigial, even though it is not non-functional. Our coccyx is a VESTIGE of what it used to be in an ancestor. All human embryos form a postanal tail, which then has its # of vertebrae reduced and resorption leaves us with our coccyx. Rarely, a human is born with a tail. Our (non-ape) ancestors had tails, and we still have a vestige of that: our coccyx.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Vestiail should be Vestigial
DNAunion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Re: DNA There is NO scientific or fossil evidence to date that supports the claim of the human coccyx as a "vestige tail". It is a crucial attachment point of nine muscles that allow for a number of movements, most important of which is for the act of defecation. It aids in the immune system. It also assists us in the act of sitting and shock absorption. Furthermore, the coccyx acts as a support system for our internal organs. The old Darwinian propagandic "tail myth" has been disproven.
bravetoday 2 years ago
Wrong
1) Human embryos start off with a postanal tail containing about twice as many vertebrae as end up in our coccyx. Our coccyx does not simply form: we start with the makings of a long postanal tail & then it gets reduced during further embyonic development.
2) Rarely, a human is born with a postanal tail: not a flap of skin either - it contains vertebrae and muscles.
3) You missed the fact that a vestigial structure can perform a function. Vestigial does not mean nonfunctional.
DNAunion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Human embryos start off with a postanal tail? You are referring back to German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel's "sketched drawings" on embryology. An English medical expert revealed those sketches to be totally fake. And amazingly enough on Jan. 9, 1909 in a letter to Münchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly for Science, Ernst himself CONFESSED to his own fraud of the drawings! Ontogeny recapitulation phylogeny has long been "medically disproven" by embryologists and x-ray imagery.
bravetoday 2 years ago
No, I am not referring back the Haeckel's drawings.
Human embryos have a postanal tail. This is an empirical fact, known through direct observation. There are photos of human embryos with postanal tails. Look in a biology text, or on the web.
It is now obvious that you are completely ignorant when it comes to biology. All you can do is parrot refuted Creationists bu||$h!t.
DNAunion 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RE: DNA empirical fact? Give me a break. Where? Give me a link to these images? Show us all what you are looking at. By the way, cussing at me only shows that I am getting under your skin and that your writings are motivated by emotion rather than fact.
bravetoday 2 years ago
I told you how to find the images. I told you what keywords to use in Google and which of the hits that appear to click on.
If you are too stupid to follow such simple instructions .... do you need someone to remind you to breathe?
DNAunion 2 years ago
Human beings have a vestigial postanal tail early in embryonic development.
(George C. Kent & Robert K. Carr, Comparative Anatomy of the Vertebrates:
Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2001, p2-3)
DNAunion 2 years ago
I keep trying to post a link to a series of photos of human embryos in different stages, in which stages 12 - 16 clearly show the human embryos possessing a postanal tail. But the post is not making it.
You can simply go to Google and use "human embryo stages" and click on the image with a URL showing e m b r y o l o g y . m e d . u n s w . e d u . a u
DNAunion 2 years ago
RE: DNA Postanal tail? Vestigial postanal tail? Interesting how I can't find any of those phrases on the site you posted to Dr. Mark Hill's Embryology web site or even in his glossary of terms. Still no evidence of proof there. What you are seeing is the starting formation of the spine and neural complex not a monkey tail.
bravetoday 2 years ago
I told you to look at the PICTURES, which clearly show a postanal tail. Are you too stupid to do something that simple? You could f' up a wet dream! LOL!
And if it is words you want, I already gave you a quote from a college biology text explicitly stating that humans have a postanal tail. Are you too stupid to remember that????
You sure are making yourself look stupid.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Embryonic recapitulation of a postanal tail? No, no, no wrong again. You are trying to hang on to a subject that has long been disproven sir! Most everyone in the past "70 years" has realized that the recapitulation theory is totally false. Ernst Haeckel's doctored embryos is one of the WORST cases of scientific fraud.
bravetoday 2 years ago
I did not put forward Hacekel's recapitulation. Why are you attacking a strawman?
The problem is that you are like all the other stupid Creationists. You don't know jack $h!t about biology: all you know is Creationist bu||Sh!t, which you blindly swallow because of your ignorance of science.
DNAunion 2 years ago
You also failed to address HIPSOCKETS in manatees.
Manatees have rudimentary pelvis and vestigial hipsockets because they evolved from four-legged land mammals, as the fossil record confirms.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Re: DNA As the fossil record confirms? COMPLETELY WRONG. Where are these mysterious fossils? You are blurting out fossils that don't even exist. Just because you personally think something is a fact doesn't mean it is. You must produce the proof. Show everyone here the ACTUAL photos (not sketches) of these transitional fossils that confirm a record as you say.
bravetoday 2 years ago
Nope. I posted a photo of a reconstruction and a photo of an actual fossil.
In addition, earlier in these comments I posted a quote from a scientific journal that stated we have a series of transitional fossils of manatees and their ancestors. Here's the reference:
New Species of Protosiren (Mammalia, Sirenia) from the Early Middle Eocene of Balochistan (Pakistan), 2003, Iyad S. Zalmout, Munir Ul-Haq, & Phillip D. Gingerirch
DNAunion 2 years ago
So, bravetoday, what is your better explanation than MACROevolution, and what evidence supports it?
DNAunion 2 years ago
Manatee pectoral flippers have three to four fingernails exposed at the end of each. They will also use their flippers to walk on the "tips" of their flippers as they travel along the bottom. Flexible pectoral flippers are used for steering, touching, scratching (fingernails), holding food, and even embracing. The fingernails are like protective covers or tools just like any other animal that has nails. The fingernails serve the manatee for various functions and are not evolutionary left-overs.
bravetoday 2 years ago
If toenails were given to manatees because they sometimes walk along the bottom, what about octopuses that sometimes walk along the bottom? What about lobsters and crabs, which 'always' walk along the bottom? Why don't they have toenails?
Toenails are better explained by descent with modification, from an four-legged land-mammal ancestor with toenails.
DNAunion 2 years ago
You blasphemists just don't get it:
SATAN put those vestigal hip sockets and rudimentary pelvic bones there to test our faith
METALHANGOVER 2 years ago
Great video! Apperantly they evolved from some aincent North american Elephant species(or relative). They have always intrigued me by their awesome form and rounded tail fluke.
BFKAnthony817 2 years ago
Chimps and humans share several genetic MISTAKES: pseudogenes having the exact same disablements. Shared mistakes are evidence against common design - unless your designer is a complete idiot of a Great Deceiver - and for common ancestry,
DNAunion 2 years ago
Dugongs: 'sirens' of the sea
Dugongs, By Paula Weston Creation On The Web
hwd71 2 years ago
Despite the fact they are marine mammals and have some resemblance to dolphins and whales, dugongs are classified separately from their fellow marine mammals. Incredibly, dugongs are grouped in the same suborder as elephants (Subungulata), largely because they have some similarities in their teeth and in the position of their mammary glands (between the front flippers/legs).9
hwd71 2 years ago
Um, and the DNA evidence.
----------------------
The chromosome painting data presented here leave little doubt that Tethytheria [elephants and manatees] is a clade within Afrotheria ... Afrotherian karyotypes demonstrate high rates of chromosome evolution and numerous derived inter-chromosomal rearrangements link elephants and manatees.
----------------------
DNAunion 2 years ago
Of course humans have mammary glands in a similar position—but evolutionists do not propose a common ancestor with dugongs to explain that similarity!
hwd71 2 years ago
Evolutionists do propose common ancestry to explain why both manatees and humans have mammary glands, though.
By the way, have you ever noticed where the mammary glands of other apes are?
DNAunion 2 years ago
Furthermore, humans have a similar heart artery arrangement (aortic arch) to dugongs, which is different from elephants.10 This shows that the argument from similarity for evolution (common ancestors) is a very selective one—applied where it seems to work, otherwise ignored. Large-scale similarities are due to a common Creator, not common ancestry.
hwd71 2 years ago
Speaking of aortic arches .... Humans have a very fish-like arrangement of aortic arches - as well as aortae and arteries - in early development. Much remodeling must be done to convert the fish-like arrangement into the human arrangement.
Descent with modification explains this simply.
But why would God make us fish-like in early development? Is God a Pisces? LOL!
DNAunion 2 years ago
Surely you do not believe in Haeckels fraudulent Embryonic recapitulation. That when an embryo develops it retraces its Evoultionary history? "Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false. "Yoke sack" is the blood forming sack. The "gill slits" are the "inner ear and parathyroid gland (Lehman, 1987) " Source: True Origins website.
hwd71 2 years ago
Surely you know enough about evolution and embryology to know about evo devo? I guess not.
You scientifically ignorant Creationists are a joke. You hear someone mention embryos in relation to evolution and all you know about the two is Haeckel's recapitulation from the late 1800s.
Get up with times dude.
DNAunion 2 years ago
1) Why are you trying to get science from a religious website?
2) I mentioned aortic arches, but you didn't. Why not?
3) I didn't mention either our vestigial yolk nor our pharyngeal/gill "slits" here. So why did YOU bring them up?
Anyway, our embryonic pharyngeal SLITS do not develop into anything: they are transient passageways between the inside of the embryo and the outside of the embryo in the pharyngeal (neck for us) region: they very quickly close right back up.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Typos in 3)
Should be "vestigial yolk sac" and "pharyngeal/'gill' slits" (quotes around "gill").
DNAunion 2 years ago
Dugongs and elephants live in very different environments and diverged millions of years ago. We would expect differences: especially in their adult form.
In their early embryos, dugongs and elephants -- like humans -- have fishlike arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which must then undergo much remodeling to end up with an arrangement appropriate to the species.
Evolution easily explains this. But it flies in the face of Creation and ID Creation.
DNAunion 2 years ago
Sorry, but the common Creator notion is crushed by shared mistakes.
At the same time, evolution/common ancsestry is strongly supoprted by shared mistakes.
If you feel otherwise, then please give a plausible explanatin that is better than common ancestry for the fact that humand and chimps both have a non-functional psi-beta 1 pseudogene ... in the very same location .... disabled by the very same set of mutations.
DNAunion 2 years ago
In classifying dugongs with elephants, evolutionists assume that elephants evolved from water creatures. In other words the evolutionary path would be:
sea creature → land mammal → back to the sea (supposed ancestor of elephants and dugongs) → back to the land (elephants).11
But there is no fossil evidence that dugongs and manatees are related to any creature that now—or ever—walked on land.
hwd71 2 years ago
You must have missed how I noted that we have fossil evidence of manatee ancestors with 4 full size limbs and others with reduced hindlimbs.
So much for your Creationist "science".
DNAunion 2 years ago
1) One reason scientists group manatees with elephants, which you overlooked, is because of DNA evidence.
2) Sorry, but there definitely IS fossil evidence of manatee ancestors that used to walk on land. It was even in the video ... dumbass.
DNAunion 2 years ago
There is no reason why the Creator would not have used a similar bone pattern in a wide range of creatures. But the argument for common ancestry collapses in this particular case anyway, because all mammals do not have the same number of neck bones. Most do have seven—but the threetoed sloth has nine, or even 10, while the twotoed sloth and the manatee both have six, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica.
hwd71 2 years ago
Still avoiding the points I made.
You cannot counter what I noted by noting other things.
Why did God give manatees hipsockets?
I'm waiting ....
DNAunion 2 years ago
WTF?
The vast majority of mammals have 7 cervical vertebrae, but a few don't. Therefore, evolution is wrong?
Put down the crack pipe.
DNAunion 2 years ago
OBVIOUSLY, God made Manatees like that to fool all the liberals and evo-atheists! Sheeesh!
wdgeo 2 years ago
Brothaman evoultion and natural selection are the same thing
natural selection acts on the small changes and those who produce mroe offsrping are what cause the change overtime
dunndudebemelol 2 years ago
wow,i'm curantly learning about evolution in biology and my teacher has been giving us examples of differant creatures and evandance of evolution in them and this one animal gives examples she was talking about. thankyou this vid really helped.
sweetdory16 2 years ago
Sorry to see so many IDiots marking this down.
KrokrX 2 years ago
Right?
brothaman4578 2 years ago
Also, I see what you did there, haha.
brothaman4578 2 years ago
maybe unlike whales who don't have an ilium, manatees need a pelvis for haemopoeisis because their ribs aren't hemopoeitic . It would make sense that they would retain this for that. I suppose they still do have the top of the skull as well as the humerus but losing those ribs would account for a lot of lost marrow
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
IDiot creationist VOTEBOT!
Vote to dilute the effects of the votebot. Apparently that's the only argument creationists have: banning evidence.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
The people giving this a bad rating probably didn't watch this past 1 minute. If they did, there's no way an intellectually honest (that obviously excludes willingly ignorant theists) person could give it 1 star.
2eelShmeal 3 years ago 2
As far as toenails go, Humans don't technically need hair, but no one's complaining. It protects us from our environment. (We don't technically need two arms either, does that make our arms residual?) I have to think (I'm not a Manatee) that when you're grazing aquatic plants near the bottom, which is mostly what they do, the tips of your flippers could get a little roughed up, and "toe nails" are perfect protection. Regrowable toughness.
djdyrekt 3 years ago
We did at one point need these traits. Not until recently (recent in relation to evolutionary time) do we have no NEED for these. If you were to live in a cold region without a way to provide heating, do you think you'd survive with a skinny figure and no hair?
brothaman4578 3 years ago
Evolution is not about needing traits. Instead, it is about new traits coming into existence and becoming prominent if they help the species to survive. If a species needs a trait nobody happens to have, the species will just die out completely.
We never needed to stand upright (proven by the fact there are still dozens and dozens of species who don't), yet when someone started walking partly upright, it proved benefitial and so it became prominent.
IReallyAmMe 3 years ago
The fact that other species don't stand upright doesn't prove that we didn't.... That's like saying, bird's don't need wings because we don't.
Evolution is about needing traits. The need of a trait keeps a species FROM dieing out... This planet constantly changes, and it's inhabitants change to adapt to it when they have no choice, or else die out. Both of those scenarios happens.
brothaman4578 3 years ago