AutoVideoSearch.info

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

Uploaded by: DonExodus2
Video Description:
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=-

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
See more videos uploaded by DonExodus2

Related Videos

Sharks	450 pound Black Marlin eaten by shark	5 Questions about evolution I need answered.

The Theory of Evolution in 2 Minutes.	Disproving Abiogenesis- SeanmPWH style	SMK:DD Rainbow Road (Unchanged) - Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

Migration is a ... ( 6 months ago by uberjinks)

Migration is a fairly large factor on islands.. Because a population of Canadian geese live in Nova Scotia doesn't mean they aren't going to migrate because they live on an island.
Flight is better in an area where land mass is minimal. That's just how it is. It provides mobility and space to move around in. Especially if the area is land separated by tracts of water (an archipelago).
Food may come from the ocean, other islands, the island itself, the mainland and more.

Birds may cover ... ( 6 months ago by uberjinks)

Birds may cover thousands of miles in a migration. There is plenty of space to migrate to. Warmer tropical conditions will allow the bird to survive better than its counterparts that must endure the harsher winter.
Escaping predators at, almost, any cost is better than dying.

"Food may come from ... ( 6 months ago by Cyrathil)

"Food may come from the ocean, other islands, the island itself, the mainland and more."
And again, that extra food comes at the cost of having to burn up that extra food just to be able to maintain the ability to fly.
"Because a population of Canadian geese live in Nova Scotia doesn't mean they aren't going to migrate because they live on an island."
If they migrate off the island, they are no longer on the island, which "I'm sorry I thought we were still in an island environment"

There is a price to ... ( 6 months ago by Cyrathil)

There is a price to flight. If the extremes of a phenotype are selected for, due to environmental pressures, either genetic drift, migration, or selection, then it's not hard to imagine that the group which were least able to fly getting what strengths they do have accented.
For whatever reason (this is where we would look to the fossil record if we were actual biologists) a species of bird gets selected for size. Size is detrimental to flight, since size is being selected for, flight is lost

"If the extremes of ... ( 6 months ago by uberjinks)

"If the extremes of a phenotype are selected for[...]"
That is exactly what I am arguing against. Would flightlessness ever be selected for? Everything else I agree with. And a fossil record would be very nice.

Maybe we should ... ( 6 months ago by uberjinks)

Maybe we should just agree to disagree, due to a lack of evidence.

hell yeah,sharks ... ( 6 months ago by ViralMessiah)

hell yeah,sharks are completely unchanged! sure,the Megladon was 60 feet long or so,i mean,thats only 3 times bigger than a great white,they're EXACTLY the same. see,what probably happened is the same thing that happened in the US during the 70s,only instead of oil,it was seals and fish. see,there was an embargo on fish and seals,so all of the giant sharks changed to subcompacts,probably helps a shitload with their carbon debt too..................

mcqueen you simply ... ( 6 months ago by guild1981)

mcqueen you simply don't understand evolution, in fact the 'primitive' sharks that seem less evolved than other sharks have still changed to their environment but their environment has not changed all that much so their changes have not been so dramatic. i never said they are what they are, i said they are what they are due to their environment and the pressures they face for survival. Sexual selection in nature can also play a role to changes. please study and come back.

Birds on Islands ... ( 6 months ago by LeopardFrogPilboxhat)

Birds on Islands have almost no predators. At most they have egg theives and ones that grab nestlings.
Every feature comes at a cost. Flight has many costs and so abandoning one aspect for slight can be an advantage that can increase in a population over time.

There are other ... ( 6 months ago by uberjinks)

There are other positive attributes of flight besides escapability.

Is it just me, or ... ( 6 months ago by bdf2718)

Is it just me, or does this fucktard resemble an orang utan?

"why aren't ... ( 6 months ago by agentorange20)

"why aren't complicated lifeforms all rapidly reproducing creatures like the fruit fly?"
Uber, some of it is related to the given gestation, maturity and metabolic rates.

"why aren't ... ( 6 months ago by AtheistBrit)

"why aren't complicated lifeforms all rapidly reproducing creatures like the fruit fly?"
Because to produce a complicated life form takes a huge amount of time and energy. Simple as that.
An example of flightlessness evolving (in bats, not birds), is being seen now in New Zealand - the bats have found it easier to find food on the ground. Whilst they *can* fly, they don't need to. Over time we could well see them losing their expensive-to-make wings.

Nah, orangutans ... ( 5 months ago by Bardlettt)

Nah, orangutans have an intelligent gleam in their eye.

To Donexodus: I ... ( 5 months ago by pandapalace11)

To Donexodus: I believe in evolution, but i still have a question. If lampreys and other jawless fish were among the first jawless fish, why did they need to evolve? They are still around, the enviroment changed, but they are still around. Some adapted, but others didn't. i am only a freshmen in cp bio, but i hope you can answer my question please

@pandapalace11 ... ( 5 months ago by suicideking344)

@pandapalace11 That's a simple answer. For the same reason there are still apes. Don't think of evolution as a biological imperative. It doesn't have a "will" or "need". It is mutation. In this instance with jawless fish, both the jawless and jawed were able to survive in spite of the mutation. Just because one becomes MORE suited for survival than another doesn't mean the other can't or won't survive. A species doesn't "decide" to mutate because it needs to. It just happens.

Thanks for the ... ( 5 months ago by pandapalace11)

Thanks for the answer. It is so much more clear to me now.

@suicideking344 ... ( 5 months ago by EricZombie)

@suicideking344 MORE suited in the niche it fills. Lampreys fill one niche very well, jawed fish fill another.

There's actually ... ( 4 months ago by LeopardFrogPilboxhat)

There's actually very few jawless fish left.
They both became specialists. Hagfish live off tiny debris and were on the ocean bottom first. Lamprey don't need jaws because they suck blood.
For either of them a gain of a jaw really wouldn't be a selectable benefit. Probably would make it more difficult actually.
There used to be a huge diversity of jawless fish, the few ones left are in specialized niches and we're pushed out by competition between species

Your evolution ... ( 4 months ago by deram)

Your evolution lesson was a waste of time. I could come up with quite good counter arguments for everything you said if I was a creationist.
Why? Because creationism doesn't care for proof - so you can never disprove it. Just like religion.
Of course I believe it is a lot of babble, and from a logical point of view evolution clearly is the choice. However, completely disprove creationism is impossible.
BUT - the last bit about Amsterdam was worth the whole video. Great stuff.

@ViralMessiah Very ... ( 3 months ago by atchisrj1)

@ViralMessiah Very close. The rise of the Orca resulted in a shortage of large prey. Before the Orca the Megladon's only true competition was the Biting Whale. The Orca being smaller then the other two mega predators was able to get closer two the land for food and ate up most of the food that Megladon and the Bitting Whale ate. The result was a Mass reduction of the sharks which became Great whites and an extinction of Biting Whales. :)

@ViralMessiah Im ... ( 3 months ago by atchisrj1)

@ViralMessiah Im sorry I meant to type Megalodon. lol

It's a bloody ... ( 1 month ago by biggest23)

It's a bloody crying shame what happened in New Zealand. The Moa in all 11 separate species was hunted to extinction within 100 years of Polynesian colonisation and by the time Captain Cook arrived 500 years later the Maori had burnt down 50% of the forests and had wiped out roughly 50% of the "unique to New Zealand" wildlife. Pisses me off every time I take a wander in the forests here knowing the devastation wreaked on these shores by Maori and is uncommented on due to political correctness.

Array ( 11 hours ago by JamesThWilliams)

@atchisrj1
It's not entire clear that Megalodon is a direct ancestor of the the Great White. The number of teeth in it's jaws don't match up. So it's difficult to say exactly where megalodon fits. It certainly is related to great whites but exactly how isn't certain.

URL
Embed Code