A whopper of a creationist tale

The Discovery Institute tackles the evolution of whales with a very silly creationist argument.
A few papers referenced:
Durrett R, Schmidt D (2008) Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution. Genetics 180(3):1501-9.
Lynch M (2005) Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins.P rotein Sci. 14(9):2217-25.
Mcgowen M, Gatesy J, Wildman D (2014) Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29(6).
The bogus creationist video: • Whale Evolution: Good ...

[@tinnagigja3723]

"How could you have met your aunt when she was born way before you?"

[@tomashull9805]

PZ. Myers is a time traveler... ;-) Never heard of the grandfather paradox?

[@RandallWilks]

Tinna Gigja Gee Tinna, you think maybe she was younger than his mother?

[@davidwood8730]

Yet to explain why we have so many species, YEC often argue for a very high mutation rate to explain the "microevolution" of the few "kinds" on the Ark few thousand years ago to the many "variations" present now.

[@sombodysdad]

Yes. They also have the mechanism of evolution by means of telic processes.

[@cauldronofstardust4113]

Hi everybody. Was wondering: Is Pakicetus a member of Mesonychidae? My National Geographic “Our Fragile Eart” (with awesome hologram cover-a childhood favorite magazine of mine which I’ve always kept) from 1988 has a whale article featuring a nifty centerfold that shows whales stemming from a common ancestor of Mesonychidae, & I hear a lot about Pakicetus & whale evolution, so I’m kinda confused. I don’t possess much knowledge on the topic (or about evolution as a whole) but I’m always eager to learn more.

[@LoneWildDog]

I thought you said there's not going to b a laugh anywhere. That bit about the spiders made me laugh.

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

I see that whale evolution chart frequently, but what in the world made its original makers use a baleen whale instead of a modern toothed whale for the last image?

[@garysturgess6757]

Really good content there PZ; I like how you used the jumping off point to teach a bit about clades.

[@jonneexplorer]

PZ Thank you for the great vid, and thank you for the hug... I am all on my own as well, and even something so little really touched me (appropriately distanced of course) Best of luck to you!

[@c.guydubois8270]

"stuck with me" an honor sir!

[@markvonwisco7369]

"Hello fellow kids!"

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

It's always a great laugh watching DI - but afterwards, it always saddens me that there's people who take them seriously!

[@AardvarkHill]

I think that the style of the "Long Story Short" videos are intended to be reminiscent of the very popular "Stated Clearly" KZbin videos, like this one: What is the Evidence for Evolution? kzbin.info/www/bejne/onqooIJrgMmDrMk They both appeal to younger, high school/collage viewers (I've even seen them used often in college courses by physics professors). Not a bad way to communicate basic ideas in an overview sort of way. Not that there are no similarities to some PregerU videos, but less so in my mind than the Stated Clearly series. I like the production style of all three and don't see them as a negative, or cheesy. But I realize everyone has different tastes and preferences in this way.

[@Astrostevo]

Re : Your question at the 4 min 50 seconds; I can read the key and see it clearly on my desktop computer FWIW. Nice informative illustration there. Good infomative video thanks.

[@walkergarya]

Keep up the good work!!!

[@kakarot6627]

I’m debating Kent Hovind on the Modern Day Debate Channel on May 14th at 8:00PM eastern Time. This should be interesting.

[@PZMyersBiology]

Hovind is never interesting, sorry.

[@kakarot6627]

PZ Myers You’re right. I guarantee he’s going to repeat his talking points like that evolution teaches we came from rocks or that there are six levels of evolution.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the review, working on a response.

Nice vídeo!! Thanks a Lot!

[@ambulocetusnatans]

Oh man, they talkin shit bout my homies.

[@vishnuas1842]

Great video sir.

[@davidmoran4675]

Damn! You have a TON of Patreon supporters! What happened to your left eye?

[@dancingnature]

Thanks PZ

[@MrYTGuy1]

I'm sorry, but do creationists ever make non trivially stupid arguments? I've been trying to find one for years to no avail.

[@dstatton]

I have given up being shocked by the sheer level of dishonesty of these Christians.

[@ambulocetusnatans]

It's not dishonest when jeebus told you to do it.

[@user-lv1ze3ng9s]

@@ambulocetusnatans "Lying for Jesus"?

[@BibleResearchTools]

​@@ambulocetusnatans, have you seen these interviews with the Ambulocetus discoverer? kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5TGlZikaNdsbqM kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWXKnph_brl5gaM Dan

[@ambulocetusnatans]

@@BibleResearchTools Sorry, I'm a busy guy. I have a limited amount of time for videos of unknown provenance. Would you care to summarize?

[@BibleResearchTools]

Ambulocetus, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools Sorry, I'm a busy guy. I have a limited amount of time for videos of unknown provenance. Would you care to summarize?" They are only a few minutes long, each. But, in a nutshell, when the actual fossils are examined (rather than the creative museum mock-ups,) there is no clearly-defined evidence the Ambulocetus was a whale ancestor. If you strongly believe evolution to be true, you can imagine it to be an ancestor, but there is no evidence to support that belief. Dan

[@heathenwizard]

Well done and thanks for putting this out there. We had some creationists come through our science open house and knowing what they are gonna say is enormously useful in highlighting to the non-creationists there just how stupid it is.

[@johnlukejasko9362]

I like how this man TOTALLY attacks the facts and not the other channel in this video. Especially in the beginning.

[@MarkC88]

I disagree that the presentation of the video is bad. I think it has a lot of appeal to certain audiences and it's well put together and easy watching. The content is terrible though and sadly I think it will be quite a "successful" series for spreading misinformation (the author has planned many more).

[@UAM-]

Sob about it

[@BibleResearchTools]

At the 11:01 mark you state, "[Durrett and Schmidt] don't mention that one of the major points of this paper is that Michael Behe is a very bad mathematician." I believe it is important to note that Behe had no need to rely on his own limited mathematical skills to derive his numbers. While Durrent and Schmidt relied on a model, Behe's numbers were derived from real-world empirical data. This is Behe: _"We estimated the odds of a CCC -one in a hundred billion billion (10^20)-by looking at the number of malarial parasites needed to develop the double mutation of a particular protein of a particular gene." [Michael J. Behe, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism." Free Press, 2007, p.61]_ That number came from this review article: _"Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years. This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20." [Nicholas J. White, "Antimalarial Drug Resistance." Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol.113, No.8; April, 2004, p.1085]_ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC385418/ During a "back-and-forth" discussion, Durrent and Schmidt conceded in a reply that the length of the waiting time is highly dependent upon the degree to which the first mutation is deleterious. Behe pointed out that even if Durrent and Schmidt's mathematical model was correct, the waiting time would still be unreasonable, a point that Durrent and Schmidt acknowledged in the paper you cited; _"Our previous work has shown that, in humans, a new transcription factor binding site can be created by a single mutation in an average of 60,000 years, but, as our new results show, a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." [Durrett & Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution." Genetics, Vol.180, No.3; Nov 1, 2008, p.1507]_ Dan

[@jeffb1106]

Excellent clarification. Thank you! I've lost confidence in anything evolutionists say.

[@danbarnes8905]

Great point, well done, PZ meyer whole argument was bad to start off with for many reasons, but your quotes are excellent and straight to the point.

[@danbarnes8905]

@César Rabbit that isn't what Behe is trying to do at all, he has shown what the limits of what "evolution" can do, which is only a few amino acid chain differences, which most likely degrades the function of the protein, or at best has neutral change, that is no noticeable effect. Also, you are begging the question in favour of evolution in your last point. There are a number of formidable issues to answer before we can even get to the issue of evolution. I recommend reading "The Mystery of life's origins - the continuing controversy" by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. 1. Evidence points to earth having a reducing atmosphere (oxygen present), to at least 4.1 billion years ago, oxygen is harmful to any chemical reaction for amino acids and proteins. 2. Amino acids or any chemicals needed for life are not thermodynamicaly stable, meaning they degrade fast, not the millions of years required to make amino acid and proteins. 3. Any chemical reaction for amino acid formation to make proteins, requires chemical reactions to be shut off at peak yields at precise temperatures, pressures and times, then the next step requires completely different chemicals, at different temperatures etc. This is implausible in a swap billions of years ago. 4. If chemicals do not get this precise chemical reactions, runaway reactions occur and life cannot happen. 5. Any experiments so far on this, has had heavy agency interference to get any results. 6. No DNA has ever been made in test tubes, let alone in nature. 7. DNA is key in life. 8. DNA is a true information storage system and functions life a digital language. 9. All life has DNA and requires a specific configuration of code. Evolution is far from fact.

[@danbarnes8905]

@César Rabbit not so, the theory has no basis in reality if the very building blocks required via a natralistic explanation is implausible at best, you simply beg the question in favour of evolution if you presuppose because we are here, we must have evolved. The whole point to Behe work is to point out the best "evolution" can do is at best neutral change and often degradative changes or deleterious change or death at worst, if this is the best, it is equally implausible that evolution can bring about new functions in proteins to create new species and body plans. Evolution is far from fact

[@danbarnes8905]

@César Rabbit I don't need to evidence what is common knowledge, oxygen is detrimental to chemistry, no known understanding of abiogenesis, no understanding of how DNA/RNA came about, no known cause of how even if the first cell came about, how it became more complex based on the evidence that mutations tend to degrade over time. these are all facts. You have made an argument, you claim evolution is fact, despite the evidence. Behe doesn't accept evolution as understood by evolutionists, you are simply misinterpreting his point, he rejects any notion of microb to man.

[@henryhansen3662]

Has the Discovery Institute ever discovered anything?

[@jbarn49]

Yes. The TRUTH.

[@thomasneal9291]

Wow. Delusional much?

[@diogeneslamp8004]

How to make money.

[@Mikezzz749]

I actually think both the discovery video and PZs video have fair points about the lineage charts. I think the discovery point about "a very good fossil record" for land creatures to whales, it is important to consider that time is very relevant to the discussion of lineage relationships, if they are being purported. PZs point is also fair, that a creature discovered at one place in the fossil record can exist before and after. However, we are talking about creatures transitioning, then time between intermediaries is relevant to discuss, especially in terms of what needs to be modified within that time period, which ends up being the larger and more damning argument. Still PZ can rightly say that fossils' dates being transposed is not itself damning evidence for a lineage per se. Where this video becomes a whopper itself is the evidence he piles against Behe. I use the word "pile" facetiously because it is mostly a pile of something. The scientific evidence is quoting several others who disagree with Behe, because he uses "bad" math, and is doing "bad" science. ...Please go on "scientists"! What is the evidence? What is the logic? Please don't tell me that the proof is just these guys saying that it is so. An argument from authority? Not from evidence? That is a pile, and a whopper indeed. A side note, but relevant. Obviously jabs get thrown in these arguments. Piles, whoppers, etc. But I think we can still be respectful. And if you are throwing a barb, try to be accurate. PZ repeatedly refers to the discovery video as a creationist video. Now there wouldn't be anything wrong with that except that it is inaccurate. In arguments, words are important, and different terms have different meanings. ID is a movement that deals with design, but much less with a designer. It attempts to deal with questions of design in the universe without the aid of any religious text, which is what a creationist does. Confusing the two is either ignorant or disingenuous.

[@Mikezzz749]

@frankos rooni peer reviewed by partisan atheist/evolutionist scientists? Are they as unbiased as you? (Sarcasm)

[@Mikezzz749]

@frankos rooni also respectful here is talking about civility, fairness, and open-mindedness. Did you notice I pointed out the PZ points that I thought were decently made, and then the ones that weren't? My attempt to see both sides. Let's try to have that attempt go both ways. It's important to have that capacity to be fair and open to discourse, and be civil. There shouldn't be ultimatums "I'll only be respectful and civil when..." If someone claims to have a scientific mind but lacks civility and respect, it makes me doubt their science.

[@thomasneal9291]

Lies are not civil, regardless of how nicely you say them. Egads but you're a moron. No lie.

[@Mikezzz749]

@@thomasneal9291 Thomas, why don't you be specific about what bothers you? Otherwise it kind of sounds like you're intimidated by the arguments and can only resort to childish insults. Let's hear your strongest argument.

[@Serguil]

This video is absolutely wrong, s. rebuttal

[@Fanny-Fanny]

🎶Hey PZ🎵 🎵You're the best 🎶 🎶You're the best🎵 🎵Please sign my chest🎶 🎶Hey PZ👏👏👏🎵 🎵Hey PZ 👏👏👏🎶

[@RoxasAlex]

the comments on the discovery institute video are downright depressing...

[@fleotusbing]

Wow. Foolishly, I thought I'd take a look for myself. Indeed, "downright depressing." SMH

[@Bill_Garthright]

But ignorance _can_ be fixed. Not willful ignorance, admittedly, but some of those people are probably just ignorant because they don't know any better.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Bill Garthright They don't want to know any better!

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

You are being deceived

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

They made 2 videos debunking this nonsense

[@mr51406]

Thanks for the video PZ! Always great to hear from you. And to see you and yours are well. 🌈 Basically that vid you criticize is another “God of the Gaps” thing. What always surprises me is that the various creationist chapels always throw lies laced with vitriol towards real science, but they never seem to criticize each other. There is a huge gap between the God-of-the-Gap’ers and the new-earthers and the biblical literalists. I suggest they use their time to throw anathemas against each other and leave real science alone. These “institutes” are pathetic sideshows. It’s more pathetic that there is money to fund them, and not money for schools and health care.

[@sabr2252]

Here the answer on embryology of Mohammed Hijab to PZ Myers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2jPq3idm7qIetE Minute 38:45.

[@davidandres3689]

Creationism evolved from watching the Flintstones. End of discussion.

[@sombodysdad]

And yet you can't present any scientific and naturalistic explanation for our existence

[@CourageousParenting]

Ehh... sounds made up. Your little tree there and the accompanying explanation.

[@garywalker447]

Your ignorance of science does not refute that science.

[@peipappy615]

I seriously suspect a critical perspective that begins with unapologetic character assassination of its opponent. It may satisfy animal instincts of those who already agree but does little to convince the fence sitter of the validity of the argument, let alone change hearts and minds of the hard core believer.

[@thomasneal9291]

Then your problem is the inability to see past appearances. Most people do not have this problem.

[@peipappy615]

@@thomasneal9291 most people are sheep not shepards. I suspect you know that. Thus your suspect approach.

[@jt2097]

Your sour grapes and desire to counter the Discovery Institute's video has made me want to watch them...

[@danbarnes8905]

Your first objection is personal preference not a scientific claim of dishonesty, the second is too! They never claimed that paleontologists think they are sequential lineages, but that the supposed dates of the dates of the earliest fossils are at best problematic, not fact. You agree the numbers Behe used were correct, but instead Ad hominem attack him, by claiming he is rubbish at maths so he must be wrong! Also they are not creationist, and you continue to strawman the argument, they don't claim angels did it or 'God did it' they claim design is the better explanation. The only erroneous argument is coming from you! You strawman, continually Ad hominem attack discovery institute and its members, the fallacious argument is all coming from you!

[@pleasesubscribe7659]

Takes issue with music and animation typical darwinist red herrings.

[@cauldronofstardust4113]

I love how that’s all you got out of this. It’s like your brain turned off after you heard him criticize the production value. A shame really-had you just bothered to continue listening to where he actually begins noting the flaws peppered throughout the creationist garbage he was dissecting, you might’ve actually learned something. I wish I could be a creationist. It must be nice to tune out & ignore stark reality when it’s served right in front of your face, in favor of continuing to dwell in a magic make believe world built upon ancient fairytales. Having a desire to learn about the world & seek truth through fact & observation can be so annoying, it makes me envious of you who can shun it all without a care.

[@rodneynorfolk9737]

This is cringe worthy. I pity you.

[@garywalker447]

Your ignorance of science does not refute that science.

[@sombodysdad]

@@garywalker447 You don't know what science entails. So stuff it, loser.

[@diogeneslamp8004]

@@sombodysdad You misspelled your handle, “loser.”

[@sombodysdad]

@@diogeneslamp8004 What a devastating response!

[@diogeneslamp8004]

@@sombodysdad Tit for tat.

[@brianhale3678]

Evolution offers everyone a future as dirt. How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you.

[@PZMyersBiology]

No.

[@sombodysdad]

@@PZMyersBiology Still waiting for any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced developmental biology.

[@garywalker447]

@@sombodysdad Your ignorance of science does not refute that science.

[@garywalker447]

Your ignorance of science does not refute that science. Untill there is real evidence for your god and dogma, there is no good reason to believe this crap.

[@sombodysdad]

@@garywalker447 There isn't any science to refute.

[@dr.kenthovind4742]

Heads up PZ, every Wednesday night i do a "Whack an atheist" show on my KZbin channel kenthovindofficial and tonight, 5-27-20, you were honored as the self proclaimed atheist to get whacked. 😊 I would gladly pay my own way to come to Morris and debate you and your followers on the best three evidences for the religion of evolutionism or you can come to Dinosaur adventure land in Lenox Alabama and I'll give you a tour of our science center and then debate you on my channel. Call 855-big-dino ext 3 to talk to me or ext 2 to schedule a debate or ext 1 to order my creation seminar series to learn real science and learn how to have your sins forgiven and become a child of God.

[@OnASeasideMission]

Religion of Evolutionism? What kind of terminological inexactitude is that, Mister Hovind?

[@diogeneslamp8004]

Have you paid your back taxes yet?