Unchanged Sharks- Flightless Birds- A response to seanmPWH -=PART I=-

I describe why sharks appear unchanged, and many animals appear similarly throughout the fossil record. I use specific fossils, as well as pictures of those fossils to illustrate the point I am making.
Flightless birds are discussed as well, and there is an enormous amount of literature on it. Sean, if you want to prepare yourself for next week, look up newzealand's history, as well as the energetics of flight.
I intended this to be civil, but after watching the end of your video, it appears you are of another sort. As a consequence, for next week, I suggest you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Also, for next week, you may wish to pick up a nice soothing ointment to place on the new orifice you shall find yourself with- complements of myself. (the orifice, not the ointment. Pay for the ointment with your own financial means.
Regards,
-=DonExodus=-


Uploaded by: DonExodus2
Tags for this video: why dont animals evolve unchanged sharks crocodiles evolution flightless birds moa ostrich creationism creationist intelligent design darwin to the face

Find more videos in the "Tech" category

Related Videos
Shark Attack 3 MegalodonShark Week 2007 Hypnotizing a Deadly SharkLeonardo ei psiu
Falsifying Phylogeny II Evolutionary Law5 Questions about evolution I need answeredGeerups Terrible Lizard Classification


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
@realhomosapiens ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens You are slightly wrong; if you are referring to lampreys and hagfish, whilst they do bare many similarities to their ancestors, they are not 'unchanged'. And evolution doesn't state everything has to change, only if it has the environmental pressure to. As for a link, the two groups I mentioned lead to the of Ostracoderms, jawless fish of which there were quite a few groups, the development of the head seen in Pikaia and Branchiostoma in the Cambria also.
@realhomosapiens ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens And if anything that DNA evidence proves my point; even that tiny 15% different in DNA of sheep and human creates a very different animal, so the slight variation in genes can produce very different animals, especially when it;s extended and increases over many generations. I'd like to point out that bonobos are a species of chimp; though I'm interested in where you got that figure comparing bonobos to common chimpanzees, as I cannot find it anywhere.
@realhomosapiens In ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens In fact, having a look around, most information I've found seem to refute you, as the differences in bonobo and chimpanzee genomes is put at just 0.3 %. But, if you have the study where you got your figure from, I'd been happy to look at it and the relevant material..
Array ( 1 week ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
So the environment changes affected some species and no others...come on, give me a break, did those unchanged creatures lived in an unchanging buble or what? that´s explanation is ludicrous, at least I don't even buy i for free...in an everchanging planet there were some very special areas (bubles) so no change will take place...so there should have been a thousands of bubles since we have many plants and animals that have no changed at all throughout time
@realhomosapiens ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens Well that's the point, evolution doesn't dictate that things have to change. This is part of the 'natural selection'; if a particular variation or a mutation is beneficial to the survival of that individual and it's offspring then it's genes will be more likely to pass on and spread around the surviving population.
And, as pointed out in this very video, so many of the 'unchanged' creatures are not actually 'unchanged', just similiar, so that argument is false.
Array ( 1 week ago by xochitlcitlali)
@TheBanile
Wrooooooon again, MORE & MORE frequently diabetis is present in humans being, the gene causing this disease is getting widely spread to humans race and don´t tell me that this mutation is beneficial to the survival of any human being offspring...now the next obvious question is: Why natural selection has not eliminated this gene in any given human population?
Nooope, nautilus are the very same nautilus than when they appeared the very fist time in the fossil record...wrong again
@xochitlcitlali For ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@xochitlcitlali For your diabetes argument I'd like to present the fact that diabetes can be caused by environmental factors rather than just genetics, so it doesn't affect genes that affect adaptation. And also, modern medicine counter-acts the diabetic selection process, it's no longer a factor in the breeding survival of humans.
Also, nautili are an entire family and, from what I gather, none of the original species remain. Morphologically they are similar but not identical.
@TheBanile For ... ( 1 week ago by TheBanile)
@TheBanile For example, our current surviving nautiloids have a much thicker shells than their ancestor, hypothesised to be an adaptation for greater depths than their ancestors, possibly because of out-competition with new predators. Nautiloids, whilst very similar to their ancestors, are not identical and therefore so say they are the same is incorrect. Many species of nautiloids and some of the offshoots of that family also died out many years ago.
Array ( 6 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Much thicker shells than their ancestors? hmmm but did you notice that both are 100% nautilus...
I bet you´r teeth are not identical neither to your father nor to you mother, that and therefor you´re not the same as your pa and ma? what kind or reasoning is that?
Nooope my friend your tonteory is just a scientific hallucination whether you admit it or not
Now if you haven´t seen any video about the living fossils, I highly encourage you to do that, that´ll give a high education
Array ( 6 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Banile, Banile, Banile, please give up, there is no way to deffend the most stupid idea ever pronounced by a human being...there is no way to provide any evidence that given enough time to a worm like cambrian marine creature it could chang, turn or evolve into humans, LET ALONE all the creatures along the road, there is not.
Now if you willfully wish to believe in that, that´s up to you, but you know deep in your soul that such a believe is an outright lie
@realhomosapiens ... ( 6 days ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens They are both in the family of nautili this is correct, but they are certainly not the same species (for example, none of the straight-shells species survive to this day) and have various pronounced morphological differences to their ancestors, though not as a dramatic. They are different, regardless of severity; insects for example have many similarities to their ancestors but they are not the same, so to conclude them as so is completely is incorrect.
@realhomosapiens I ... ( 6 days ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens I have provided countless evidence, answered your questions and correct your fallacies. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence whatsoever and have been entirely dismissive of any evidence presented to you, providing no actual facts or data other than arguing that because you won't understand or cannot understand the concept, that it must then be wrong. I'm sorry, but the science does not agree with you and I grow tried of your repetitive ignorance.
Array ( 6 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Hmmm, tell me, all the dogs in the world nowadays are the same species or not?
Array ( 6 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Even assuming that those nautilus are a little bit different than their ancestors, actually you don´t expect your son to be exactly the same as you, do you?...now, I´ll give you point, they are not exactly the same but nevertheless they are 100% nautilus, right? AND you´re offering this as evidence that long time ago your great-great-great-granpa was one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creatures? you´ve got to be kidding, something is extremely wrong with your theory
Array ( 6 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Imaginations, assumptions or hallucinations in a drawing right at the begining of this video ARE NOT not evidence.
DNA similarities is not evidence at all, sheeps are 85% plus similar to humans and frankly we´re quite different, and What about the banana, we´re 60% plus similar and nobody in a right mind would say we´re related, wouldn´t you? and the list goes and on...
Give up there is no evidence that your great-great-great-granpa was a worm like cambrian marine creature, NONE
@realhomosapiens ... ( 3 days ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens Saying something is 100% nautilus is like saying 100% mammal; it's a very broad topic covering a very large number of species. And even if it i still, a nautilus classes creature, so what? Evolutionary doesn't say everything must change drastically; these creatures have only only changed a small amount have adapted well and have continued to be able to respond to change. No evolutionary law is broken, your point is moot and rather silly...
@realhomosapiens ... ( 3 days ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens DNA similarities does provide evidence of evolution. We've already established that small genetic changes mean large morphological ones, so is it really so hard to imagine a Cambrian ancestor?
Why does the notion that one of your most distant ancestors was a simple marine-dwelling creature offend you so? You have established that you have no evidence or arguments by you just resorting to poor understandings of science and fallacious comments of no value.
Array ( 2 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Small genetic changes mean larg morphological ones?
Hmmm, I don´t think so, What is ultimatelly cause of cancer, diabetis, leukemia, malformations, etc, etc, etc? small genetics changes, right?
Why insist in small genetic changes is the way a worm like cambrian marine creature changed, turned or evolved into humans? that´s stupid...
Now, if you willfully wish to believe in such a stupidity, it´s up to you, but please don´t call it science...open your mind to the real world
Array ( 2 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile
Let´s assume that you´re right, 100% nautilus is like saying bla bla bla...and they changed just a small amount and have adapted, THAT IS NOT evidence that given you descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creature, not a bit...
Your theory of evolution as to how humans and everything else came into being is plain non-sense let alone anti-scientific, finches produces finches, gulls gulls, pigeons pigeons but you insist that a worm like creature evolved into you
@TheBanile Let´s ... ( 2 days ago by realhomosapiens)
@TheBanile Let´s assume that you´re right, 100% nautilus is like saying bla bla bla...and they changed just a small amount and have adapted, THAT IS NOT evidence that given you descend from one of those weird worm like cambrian marine creature, not a bit...
Your theory of evolution as to how humans and everything else came into being is plain non-sense let alone anti-scientific, finches produces finches, gulls gulls, pigeons pigeons but you insist that a worm like creature evolved into you
@realhomosapiens ... ( 14 minutes ago by TheBanile)
@realhomosapiens If you believe that that is the case, then I'm afraid you are simply ignorant of genetics and evolutionary theory.
You have made it quite obvious you have little desire to learn or listen, have provided no evidence for you claims (especially when the science is stacked very much against you) and have provided little input in general other than a series of fallacies and fallacious comments.
I'm afraid, we are done; I'm not able to educate a closed mind.


URL