Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution - Part 1 - Richard Sternberg P

  • Share
    Share Video

  • Add
  • More
    Report this video as:
2 0
You have already voted for this video.
This following video is very good, for it uses the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists the...
This following video is very good, for it uses the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales is impossible even by their own methods of predicting change: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4165203 Perhaps one of the most egregious violations to common sense, by the evolutionists, is the evolutionists claim that whales evolved from a terrestrial (land dwelling) mammal in a mere 10 million years. These following videos and articles expose a few of their violations of logic: Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4032568 This following study provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique in the preceding video: How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010 Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on. *******www.uncommondescent****/education/beacon-comes-home-with-the-bacon/#comment-356170 This following sites is a bit more detailed in their dismantling of the whale evolution myth: Whale Tale Two Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales. *******www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i2f.htm "Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/11/6_bones_of_contention_with_nat.html#more Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned: Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive." *******www.arn****/blogs/index.php/2/2009/12/29/whale_evolution_darwinist_trawlers_have This following video takes a honest look at just what evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain whale evolution: What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video *******www.youtube****/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. *******www.discovery****/a/9461 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." *******bio-complexity****/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio *******intelligentdesign.podomatic****/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html