Evolution - giant whales - BBC science

An exploration into the evolution of whales from the Science of Walking With Beasts TV series. From the BBC.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Sperm
• whale
• humpback
• what
• is
• the
• biggest
• animal
• species
• videos
• giant
• animals
• marine
• wildlife
• BBC
• Walking
• Beasts
• Monster
• Science
• Behind
• Scenes
• Awesome
• Vid

[alexandertarangerkin]

@manariwa

limbs have never sprouted...and the film only shows them receding as they become less usefull in the new enviroment.

eyes never sprouted, they are the end-chain of constantly improved organ to take in light, organs which began only as dark/ligh sensitive organs, the earliest eyes were nowhere near anything more than seperating lightness from darkness.

inform yourself, wikipedia is a good tool.

[yaplesyrup]

those bones weren't made for walkin

[manariwa]

"Eventually, their backbones loosened...." Such statements are so loosely used to define and justify adaptation and, thus, evolution. For many years, humans swam using their hands and legs to propel themselves. Until one day, "The Man from Atlantis" introduced the dolphin-style swimming style. Man learned to loosen his backbones? Thinking in order to adapt is one thing; adapting without thinking is another. Expecting animals to grow limbs or sprout eyes is like trying to teach animals to talk.

[x0xDarthWyylokx0x]

wow, people really cant troll to save their lives.

[gregrutz]

"insert religion comment here"

[transtlantic]

@MorganMarvinson

"Philosophy that interprets data"? you mean the scientific method?

You clearly do not understand how Natural selection works. even if "vulnerable", you have deers walking around the woods and wolves hunting the,. Doesn't mean the wolves will clean the deers just for the sake of it. PLUS who knows, maybe the whale ancestors lived in protected regions.

Your denial doesn't help your case.

[MorganMarvinson]

@419Films "no amount of scientific data will convince you of the validity of evolutionary theory." We aren't talking about data, we are talking about the philosophy that interprets data and the inference of something that data cannot tell us. I understand how natural selection DOES work; what I don't accept is what is claimed for it that cannot be demonstrated.

[419Films]

@MorganMarvinson This just shows me that a) you didn't read the rest of my post and b) have no clue as to how natural selection truly works. Whether through a lack of understanding or actual willful ignorance, I do not know.. Until you do understand it (or choose not to ignore the facts), no amount of scientific data will convince you of the validity of evolutionary theory.

[MorganMarvinson]

@419Films "IF they were vulnerable, I could understand your point." Then you must understand my point. How is a clubfooted land dweller NOT vulnerable? How is a animal with legs or partial flippers NOT vulnerable in the water? Yet, these are necessities in the gradualistic evolutionary scenario. To assume otherwise is to paint a totally Pollyannish and rosie scenario for the sake of the natural selection argument alone.

[419Films]

@MorganMarvinson IF they were vulnerable, I could understand your point. As it is, the way natural selection works is that those best adapted to survive pass on their genes to the next generation. Obviously, those that are vulnerable are less likely to reproduce.