Debunking Whale Evolution: good evidence for Darwin or not?

Back in the 80s and 90s a series of fossils were found that rocked the evolutionary landscape, paleontologists thought they had found a clear transitional series of fossils documenting the evolution of whales.
University of Chicago Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne says in his book, Why Evolution is True: “This is one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition...”
Wow, one of the best... let’s take a look at the story behind whale evolution, is it a good argument?
References:
Origin of Species
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. Penguin Books (2010)
Robert A. Martin, Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions Through Time, pg. 153
Muddy tetrapod origins Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément Nature volume 463, pages 40-41(2010) www.nature.com/articles/463040a
Interview with paleontologist Günter Bechly
• The Paradox of Origin ...
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Very interesting discussion with Behe, Durrett & Schmidt regarding their calculations: www.discovery.org/a/9611/
Giraffe genome sequence reveals clues to its unique morphology and physiology
Morris Agaba, et al. Nature Communications volume 7, Article number: 11519 (2016) www.nature.com/articles/ncomm...
Eocene basilosaurid whales from the la Meseta formation, Marambio (Seymour) Island, Antarctica www.researchgate.net/publicat...
evolutionnews.org/2020/03/res...
Questions, comments, hate mail? [e-mail]

[@Burningfiretaco]

The critical thing is that just because one species is said to have descended from another, doesn’t imply linearity. An animal can live at the same time as it’s “descendent”, since the “descendent” is just an offshoot of that prior body plan. If the original body plan is still evolutionarily viable, it can stick around in the environment even after other species branched off.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

therefore meaning we can't use the "fossil timeline" all evolutionists use as proof..... How will you know what came first?

[@EdmundSkye]

@@shaunmeyer8822 i dunno maybe dating the fossils

[@introductories]

@@EdmundSkye That's not what he means. He is referring to different 'species' living at the same time but being represented as branching off of one another in the evolutionary tree.

[@marcusmuse4787]

@@EdmundSkye there are some who argue that radiometric dating is not accurate, and that it produces grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process. Additionally, radiometric dating is founded on unprovable assumptions, such as the decay rate has remained constant and there has been no contamination. In addition to the assumptions that are built into radiometric dating, another problem is that the different radiometric methods drastically disagree with one another at times. On occasion, the same sample of rock can be dated by different methods, and the dates can differ by several hundred million years.

[@HW-sw5gb]

@@marcusmuse4787 Absolutely none who argue that are taken seriously, because the actual data does not support this claim. Also this can be easily fixed by using multiple samples from different locations

[@v0rtvixen]

I have no problem with healthy questioning. As a science student myself, you SHOULD research the claims of scientists! And i appreciate your skepticism. BUT there is one major problem with this, and it’s that you misunderstand the claims of evolution. You interpret it in the linear way (yeah just like that dumb march of progress pic that youve probably been shown all your life as representative of evolution- its wrong). I dont blame you because it is often presented like a “morphing” of one species into another- this is false, its all about the branching. Some creatures retain basal morphologies while some are more derived. It’s a classic “how are there still monkeys if we came from monkeys” argument, just applied in a different way. I saw you made some critic response vids so maybe you address this in those, sorry if you do and im just writing this for no reason lol. I’d like to see what you have to say about hominin fossils, radiometric dating, and nested hierarchies of mutations and endogenous retroviruses. I am assuming you are creationist but you seem a lot more intelligent than the AiG people so i’m more interested in what you have to say.

[@Groggle7141]

A species can evolve into another while still existing as that species. A good example are dogs and wolves, dogs evolved from wolves but wolves are still around. This can also answer Tiktaalik still possibly being a transitioning fossil. 3:22 The first Theropods appeared 230 million years ago, and Archaeopteryx first appeared 150 million years ago. But Darwinism isnt supposed to show us a neat lineage of ancestors and descendants, but branches of closely related cousins that can reveal characteristics of their ancestors and how they might have evolved. That's the purpose of morphological intermediates.

[@marcusmuse4787]

microevolution has been observed but it's only variation within kinds or families and explains how Noah had the ancestors of all the animal species we have today. Archaeopteryx is just an extinct bird species.

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

​@@marcusmuse4787 Yet it didn't have a beak. _Curious._ Also explain all those other feathered dinosaurs.

[@Groggle7141]

@@marcusmuse4787”variation within kinds.” What’s a kind, an order? A genus? And why is microevolution true and not macro?

[@fjccommish]

Similarity doesn't prove one evolved into the other.

[@jimfoard5671]

I think you missed the part in the video where they state that it would take over 200 million years for only TWO beneficial mutations to occur in a mammal, and yet by your evolution fantasy within only a quarter of that time thousands of complex genetic mutations would take place, miraculously, all of them beneficial, by chance, by accident. They stated "Okay, so where would whales and their supposed ancestors fall in that time scale? They are not as quick to reproduce as flies, but quicker than humans. So for two, simple, beneficial mutations that's supposed to take roughly 43.3 million years. So the evidence shows using their own assumptions and calculations they don't even have ONE QUARTER of the time needed for even two simple mutations. So, how many mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? It takes quite a lot of changes [for a land animal] to [go from living on the land to living in] the water" TAKE FOR INSTANCE - The Pakicetus would need to develop: 1) A counter-current heat exchange system for intra-abdominal testes, (kind of a big deal) 2) Ball vertebra for vertical swimming motion 3) Tail flukes and musculature for efficient, powered swimming 4) A layer of blubber under the outer skin for temperature insulation 5) Modified mammae to nurse young underwater 6) Fetus in breech position for labor underwater, since being born as protocetids would lead to fetal drowning. 7) Special lung surfactants to be able to take in air after swimming at crushing depths 8) Forelimbs transformed into flippers & reduction of hindlimbs 9 ) Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae 10) Reorganization of the musculature for reproductive organs 11) Radical modification of the teeth. 12) Modification of the eye for underwater vision 13) Hydrodynamic properties of the skin 14) Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution. 15) Reorganization of skull bones and musculature 16) Modification of ear bones 17) Decoupling of esophagus and trachea 18) Emergence of blowhole and musculature and their neurogical control 19) Synthesie and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals) So how many chance, favorable mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? Thousands, and they would each have to take place consecutively, all in order, and only one gene change that would be out of wack would screw the entire process up and you would need to go back to ground zero. Now, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT calling you an idiot. Again, just to re-emphasize, I AM NOT CALLING YOU AN IDIOT! Okay? You're not an idiot, you can believe in whatever fantasy story you want to believe in and call it reality. I really don't care.

[@Drspoe]

This video is misleading to say the least. The evolutionary history of the whale is actually very well understood. Biologists don't claim Indohyus is the direct ancestor of modern whales. It's a species that's closely related to a common ancestor. It's a cousin of the whale lineage, and thus demonstrates traits possibly possessed by the predecasor of the earliest whale ancestor. Look at this phylogenetic tree, it's not misleading at all: thewhalesevolution.weebly.com/the-whale-evolutionary-tree.html. Also, how does this negate from the clear fossil record showing a gradual transition from land to aquatic? The study you cited about rates of mutation fixation are also misleading. The rate at which a beneficial mutation fixates in a population is dependent upon a lot of factors. Population size for example is very significant. A very small population will have much higher rates of fixation than very large populations. Fruit flies have VERY large populations, and the human population is about over 7 billion, so rates of fixation are going to be long (see: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.genetics.org/content/genetics/61/3/763.full.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiBypug8NbpAhVnU98KHWiFCSsQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3O8q2XQ8ImSPaH6psuVrM8&cshid=1590680294816). There is also the prospect of environmental pressure on a specific beneficial trait. There exists a mutation in humans that makes people immune from HIV, which is undoubtably beneficial. But it won't fixate in the population because the selection for it is too low; not enough people are contracting HIV and spreading it though the population for natural selection to really weed out the weak. This video is skewed in it's analysis of studies cited, and is classic creationist propaganda. You even cited the Discovery Institute

[@miburo7]

Why is the Indohyus a "cousin" but the Pakicetus an "ancestor"? Is there anything besides conjecture to support this claim? Is it because of homology which in itself is an assumption? Also, the ancient whale jawbone dated back to 49 million years ago does not help the imaginary evolutionary tree (being contemporaneous to the alleged whale ancestor Pakicetus). As for your last sentence, I think your opponents can say the same thing: Evolutionary papers are skewed in their analysis of data, and are classic darwinist propaganda.

[@Drspoe]

@@miburo7 it's considered a cousin and not a direct ancestor because it was a land mammal that lived around the same time the ancestors of whales were already in their transition to becoming aquatic. It lived in a period that dates past the ambulocetus, which is known to be an aquatic ancestor of the whale. You just have to analyze fossils and the geological layers they occupy.

[@Drspoe]

@@miburo7 And there really isn't another way to interpret it in the face of the evidence that has been accumulated. The fact that you throw around the term "darwinist propaganda" just shows you don't actually understand evolutionary theory. Just to put things in perspective, no accredited biologist will claim that evolutionary theory is unfounded. In fact, biology doesn't make sense without evolutionary theory.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

A response video is up now addressing your points, thanks! kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3bVfXqup7iXrZI

[@johngeverett]

Just because you found some fossils that resemble supposed transitional forms does not mean they actually ARE transitional forms. In all candor, I find the leap from nostrils at the end of the muzzle to a blowhole BEHIND THE HEAD to be unbelievable. Where are the many (many, many) transitional forms showing the breathing opening moving gradually from the front of the muzzle to BEHIND THE HEAD? I don't need a PHD in culinary arts to be able to tell when someone is trying to feed me a baloney sandwich.

[@brandongregory6869]

Slowly read this....because a portion of a species can remain in the previous form, while the other portion continues to diverge and following generations continue to evolve to survive in the new environment. And through natural selection over vast amounts of time become a different animal that's more suited to it's surroundings.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

therefore meaning we can't use the "fossil timeline" all evolutionists use as proof..... How will you know what came first?

[@ipadbossbaby4558]

​@@shaunmeyer8822radiometric dating....the answer is radiometric dating....

[@animacionesamericanas272]

So based on that you think we have still no way to say how species the different species came to be?

[@Pyr0Ben]

maybe... just maybe..... they were created??? it would fit the evidence better.

[@danieldeluca4936]

Perhaps they descended in a different order than what was proposed, but it is a forest, not a single tree, so not all creatures descended from the same ancestor.

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@danieldeluca4936 Careful! You might become a YEC ;)

[@danieldeluca4936]

@@Pyr0Ben I am. As a YEC I embrace the fact that certain species most likely descended from other species, but that in no way proves that all species have a common ancestor.

[@jacoblewis1807]

Well we do have one pretty good idea that perfectly explains it. It's the first chapter of the Bible.

[@nicolasannawn5715]

I was curious but from the start, there are so many mistakes. You tend to think in a linear way. As if one family disappears when a new one appears. Theropods are a big family, in which a lot of genuses appeared and disappeared. Traits are evolving in some genus, which evolve in a way that some will become ancestors to bird. Not all theropods became birds, most lineage ended up completely disappearing. A population from one species, can evolve, while the rest of the population remains the same. This is what sub-species are, a group, isolated or ended up living in a area which is changing over centuries, which gain specifics traits from the individual who survives and breed better. It can be an evolution in colors and size (which is very common nowadays), a change in body ratios (anolis species adapt very fast, under 15 years of isolation in islands they will change drastically) etc... A species can exist for 4 millions years, and within that species, a branch can evolve more or less differently after within a thousand years, to the point 3 millions years later, a split occured. Foxes are a good example. In cities, they gain shorter and wider snouts, more efficient to feed from our garbage. It doesn't mean every red foxes are all becoming like this. If tomorrow the cities were to collapse, they would be well less suited for a return to their natural way of life, and would most likely end up dying, except from the ones which would have kept more original traits ending up breeding to regular foxes. Btw, when fossils are discovered, scientists keep track of everything, geological layers, traces of accurately dated species which are found with them... There is no agenda to forcefully create a lineage. Also you used very dated arcticle, and things have changed a lot in our comprehension compared to 2009-2010

[@owenduck]

There may not be an agenda, but there sure as hell is a religious belief. Evolution is a religion, in every sense of the word. At some point there are alot of things you have to basically 'have faith' in.

[@nicolasannawn5715]

@@owenduck It false. The more techs are improving the more it is accurate. We are now able to see pigments, blood cells, collagene structures... Which are typical to a family, a genus. And see these structures spread. It is what makes taxonomiv changes, revisions over time. Lineages are proposed, some can't be related to anything and left as such. In a religion, everything is static, it is a dogma. In theories, everything is proposed, proven, disproven, left until new elements are shown. The only people I saw reacted in such a way you do are almost all people which religious belief is hurt. There is no gain in evolution, but there is always gain with religion which are, systems used to control people.

[@jameswright...]

@@owenduck Religion has dogma rules and leaders and is faith based. Faith by definition means to believe without evidence. Evolution is science and science works on evidence so no faith needed and it has no leaders and no dogma so not a religion. Especially when you know that most Christians for example accept evolutionary biology/science on top of their religious beliefs.

[@owenduck]

@@jameswright... whether u like it or not everyone has faith at some point, u have faith that the scientific worldview is the best one to follow. There is no universally clear evidence that that is the case. Oh you definitely need faith to believe evolution if you examine it you will find the gaps in the tree of evidence are enormous. It's officially called the THEORY of evolution it isnt called the fact of evolution so by definition it isn't a fact. Therefore if you believe it to be true you are exercising faith. You should look up the definition of the word theory.

[@jameswright...]

@@owenduck you should learn about science and the definitions it uses and you should also learn what faith is. What you just said allows me to know what religion your in and denomination. And you haven't put anything about your beliefs. You write the standard uneducated science denial Christianitan creationist script assertions backed by nothing spewed out the propaganda mills of places like answers in genisis, living waters or the delusional mind of Kent hovind.

[@spatrk6634]

did you notice that one of the sources in description is debunking Behe claims, and another article is from Behe you just cherry picked a quote from abstract. and yet in the next sentence in that abstarct it says that they "use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution. "

[@AchHadda]

Ok and did he manage to refute the calculation ? After all someone can be correct on one thing and wrong on another

[@spatrk6634]

@@AchHadda The paper "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution" by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt is a mathematical modeling study that examines the probability of beneficial mutations arising in the evolution of proteins. The authors use a mathematical model to calculate the probability that two specific mutations will occur in a given protein sequence, and estimate the time it would take for such mutations to arise. They then apply this model to the evolution of regulatory sequences, which control the expression of genes in cells. The study's findings suggest that the probability of beneficial mutations arising may be higher than previously thought, which challenges some of the arguments made by Michael Behe regarding the limits of Darwinian evolution. Specifically, the study suggests that the probability of certain beneficial mutations arising may be much higher than Behe had estimated, which could allow for the evolution of complex biological features over relatively short timescales. Overall, the paper provides a mathematical framework for examining the probability and timing of mutations in protein and regulatory sequences, and suggests that the probability of beneficial mutations arising may be higher than previously thought. And this video has these papers listed as evidence that supports them. Which it doesn't. They directly contradict one of the Behe arguments. I mean, these people dont even read.

[@rocktoo7603]

Ok the whole fossil date thing. The same species could’ve evolved into another one while still existing as a species.

[@battman505]

Exactly.

[@GeorgiaEnglish88]

He actually addresses that in the next video. I think he does a pretty decent job.

[@micaiahweaver1346]

That's what he calls the 'ghost lineages'

[@Fanboy1222]

so there is no actually evidence for evolution and you tryna solve the problem by putting animals somewhere in the line?

[@pauldirc..]

​@@Fanboy1222 search erv virus genome see it with open mind i think you will convince of evolution

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

What will be the next episode about?

[@TUFF93ryley]

Your jockey and basketball player example highlights an incredible difficulty behind looking at fossils. How would one know if they’re looking at transitional fossils of species related through time or variation in one species at one time or variations in age of the same species (adult, child, teenager) at the same time. Is it important that the jockey fossil is the oldest and then you and then the basketball player. probably not but I don’t know that for sure.

[@trilobite3120]

I'd just like to point out that all species would either be transitional or the last of a lineage.

[@nesslig2025]

@Long Story Short Just to give you a heads up, Jackson published a video on this: *"Misunderstanding transitional (whale) fossils"*

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the heads up Nesslig!

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Hey Nesslig, response video is up: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3bVfXqup7iXrZI

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Alright...I watched...I have one question though. At 1:17 You cite one paper *"Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India* From that you highlighted two paragraphs. While highlighting one paragraph, you noted that Indohyus is considered to have a common ancestor with whales because they share several synapomorphies (e.g the inner ear bone, tooth features, etc). But you say this is not "A slam dunk" since, while highlighting the other paragraph, the authors of the paper acknowledged that the synapomorphies of cetacea are all found in other mammals, unrelated to whales. I have trouble understanding the structure of your argument. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying this: *Indohyus having shared characteristics with whales (paragraph 1) is not evidence for them sharing common ancestry, because these shared characteristics are also found in other mammals, unrelated to whales (paragraph 2).* If I am wrong, could you explain what argument you were actually making there?

[@commonsense0692]

What is your claim ? If u don’t believe in evolution

[@danorris5235]

If someone claimed peanut butter wizardry was real I don't need to offer anything up as an alternative aside from that peanut butter wizardry doesn't exist. The onus falls upon the clown claiming peanut butter wizardry is real, just like if someone accused someone else of peanut butter wizardry. Trying to make a theist talk about their belief in a sky spirit doesn't do anything for your magic rocks, self writing coding language, or magical thinking involving the spontaneous avoidance of irreducible complexity in cellular life. This is one of the reasons third parties think y'all are hilarious from the onset. This is basic stuff.

[@commonsense0692]

@@danorris5235 ditto, see the evidence for evolution is so strong that more ppl agree it’s fact than not! Even Vatican agrees ergo catholics (biggest denomination of Christianity) who laugh at gullible YEC, Flatearther Christians & whatever u are! Yet u still deny based on a faith based disproven fairytale book. The hypocrisy that evolution should provide evidence, which it has done via the scientific method, tests & archaeological & genetics, DNA….yet u still unable to provide any evidence for ur entire faith based religion except, lies, ignorance & poor arguments! Ur concept of a god based on your dogma is by definition manmade & imaginary, ur bible has been disproven as unreliable & unhistorical agreed by majority of even Christian scholars 😂🤦‍♂️ I pity ur ignorance & indoctrination

[@gamarzogaming6374]

Next video?

[@truthforthemasses4443]

I cackled at the grandpa baby 😂

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

The updated opening gave me the false impression that you've also updated the arguments of the video.... But then i realized it's all the same a the previous installment. 3:45 As for *Tiktaalik* , it seems like the only time an ID proponent would acknowledge *Evolutionary Stasis* is when they think it suits their arguments... and i highly doubt they'd ever get around to understanding how to read a Cladogram. *Tiktaalik: Still A Transitional Form* kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqjVZXaPj5yBitk

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

How many transitional forms are there between dog and whale?

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@KhalilKhan-kg9ox not a single one. You understand how lineages diverge under Evolution right??

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

@@Call_Me_Emo1 perhaps you don't understand my point. A mammal transform from a dog to a whale is a big claim which need hard evidence to prove. We don't know whether these fossils are related with whales or not.

[@Call_Me_Emo1]

@@KhalilKhan-kg9ox Dogs didn't "transform" into Whales. Look whenever you get the lineages and the terminology correct, then we can have a discussion.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

@@Call_Me_Emo1 he is being sarcastic about the dog part, obviously he meant the dog like animal you believe a Whale came from.

[@nathan2friendly887]

I love how much effort you put into these animations! Keep it up man. I've been entertained and educated in the same video. If I may ask, when is your next video rolling out?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks Nathan, hopefully next month (they take while to research and produce)

[@nathan2friendly887]

@@LongStoryShortVideos sweet! Is there any way I can support you and your work?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks, just like and share it with people, not in it for the money :)

[@withlessAsbestos]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Bro Darwin was real. He wrote to books about how much he loved white people… That’s twice as many as hitler…

[@pgvinny]

I wouldnt call it educated , misinformed and bigoted is more accurate.

[@floptaxie68]

So we just dont know with the existing data?

[@msvh-l9616]

When are you going to upload more videos? Pls make a video on DNA

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

I'm still making videos, they're being posted first on the Discovery Science channel: kzbin.infovideos Next response video is coming next week hopefully, and the next main video is coming next month or so. Anything in particular about DNA that interests you?

[@msvh-l9616]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I see, interesting. Well.. Darwinists often claim our DNA is 95-98% similar to that of an ape's DNA so does this prove common descent?

[@BibleResearchTools]

MSVH - L, you wrote, "Darwinists often claim our DNA is 95-98% similar to that of an ape's DNA so does this prove common descent?" That only proves that Darwinists are good at cherry-picking. The 98.5% number was supposedly derived from less that 3% of the total genome using a fairly crude technique. This is a paper critiquing the original paper that claims the data was manipulated to make the DNA appear more similar than it really was: webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb/Sibley%20revisited.pdf That researcher, Jonathan Marks from UNC Charlotte, was ostracized by the establishment for exposing the fraud, which he summarized in the conclusion, and included this point: _"The exposure of fraud is worse than the commission of fraud. The latter is perceived as a blip - the insane uncle locked away in the attic - but the former involves calling undue attention to that blip." [p.28]_ Human-Chimp common ancestry has become an Icon of Evolution, and evolution icons die hard! Dan

[@shaunmeyer8822]

They made a video, Have you seen it?

[@SpiceWyrm]

Yeah this video is full of I’ll informed data…. Birds branched off from other theropods and there are many examples in that family of “near-birds”.

[@ddexter8723]

Thanks for your work, I really enjoy your videos. I am surprised that your videos don't have more views even if they're from people who just want to argue your points...

[@Jwilhoftstg]

Okay, so are you a creationist? I myself am a young earth creationist, so I'm just curious.

[@patldennis]

😅😅😅😅

[@Jwilhoftstg]

@@patldennis since I made this comment a few months ago I've come to the conclusion that I don't care whether the earth was created 6000 or 6 billion years ago, it's not something that should impact my life in any way. Not totally sure why you're commenting with laughing emojis, but I don't think I would consider myself a young earth creationist. More like an apathetic creationist.

[@patldennis]

@@Jwilhoftstg that's an improvement. However I happen to derive great satisfaction from understanding the reality I exist in for a few short decades.. The age of the Earth has nothing to do with metaphysical matters but instead on reality, abd practical matters. W/ respect to practical applications petroleum companies that spend money in order to make money wager on conventional "OE" geology. Like wise with respect to reality, YE is a trivial curiosity comparable to flat Earth. Flat Earthisn really diesn't impact anything either. However the next generation of scientists and researchers are endangered by this stuff.

[@txi8844]

*The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth. God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only. As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth. for those who want the truth..

[@AAAAAA-qs1bv]

@@txi8844 Possibly it's not considered or published due to it not being science.

[@cmathias4993]

I love your videos. Can you tell me more about your education background?

[@ayamayamblackwhite3190]

A religious nuthead, shamelessly promoting videos for the gullible & lazy thinkers

[@ThomasBomb45]

"5 PhD students" with no mention of names, institution, or field. Very suspicious

[@cmathias4993]

@@ThomasBomb45 That’s because most people who actually question evolution are attacked or fired. This happens frequently, my organic chemistry professor in college told me that evolution is protected like some kind of Holy religion that you can’t question. He says the school would be pressured to deny him tenure or remove him from his position if he openly spoke about the problems with evolution. You aren’t even allowed to publish articles demonstrating the flaws in evolution because their gatekeepers wont allow it. There have been very well documented accounts of people just getting made up studies published in these “peer reviewed” journals, “but don’t dare question evolution, because we don’t want anyone to see the flaws in it!” It’s a joke. And it’s a disgusting flaw in current academia. I can send you multiple links if interested to the fake studies that people have gotten published to prove this point.

[@treelore7266]

but what about different dog breeds? do they change genes to change appearance, and if not, then what?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Dog breeds came about mostly by breaking genes found in wolves. Many purebred dog breeds are very sickly and heavily inbred.

[@roseschaefer5079]

Microevolution within a species has lots of evidence to support it. Your example of dogs is a good one, but really any animal that has been selectively bred by humans is an example of this. What this video is debunking is called macroevolution, which is the theory that given enough time, one species can become something else entirely different, leading to the conclusion that all life came from bacteria and that a fish became a bird and then a lizard and then a frog and then a cow and then a horse became a giraffe. That theory of macroevolution has almost no scientific backing, as the supposed whale fossils are the best evidence available. Even if this were true, there is no other evidence to support macroevolution.

[@TheStarflight41]

nice job LSS

[@TUFF93ryley]

Omg how could this skeleton be the father of this other skeleton if the son clearly died before the father.. analogy of the confusion over the chronological order. The population of a species doesn’t all go and evolve somewhere else, a portion of the species goes and evolves, while the origin species lives on.

[@trilobite3120]

Yeah. A better analogy would be: Hey guy's, look at my cousin. He looks a lot like my grandpa.

[@TUFF93ryley]

In science when you show evidence against a theory or show limitations of a hypothesis. You then present your own hypothesis or work together with others to create another. But you never do that and I think it’s disappointing because it sounds like you’d present your arguments quit well

[@ThomasBomb45]

They don't show their own view because it will expose that their views are actually unscientific. It is much easier to make a bullshit argument against something than to make a believable argument for something. Other videos indicate they are proponents of intelligent design. Which goes against the fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, and astrophysics

[@floptaxie68]

Why would an animal go back to sea? Do all sea mammals evolved from land animals?

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

Correct

[@floptaxie68]

@@matteomastrodomenico1231 this video is like skeptic about that, do we have good reasons to doubt about that?

[@matteomastrodomenico1231]

​@@floptaxie68 Not really

[@geirtwo]

An animal goes back to the sea because it is already semiaquatic and the ocean in its habitat has much more resources than the land.

[@ThomasBomb45]

Same reasons that humans eat seafood. Sometimes there's a niche open in a new ecosystem so it is advantageous to have traits which allow a species/individual to get those resources in that niche. Note that this isn't a conscious process, it's a matter of individual organisms which have those necessary traits having more reproductive success

[@PixelsofLight]

The moody teen (balding/bearded) Darwin intro is the single funniest thing in this series. My kids have watched this over and over. Thank you for the great videos!

[@PattyIce16]

These videos are using ambiguity in specific lineages to shed doubt on the OVERALL theory of evolution. This is a warning for anyone watching that this thinking is false and dangerous in scientific settings. We may not be certain who or what whales came from before, but we know they are mammals and at one point spent most time out of water. Everything points to that, even genetics. It is not a coincidence that genetics shows us whales closest LIVING relative is a hippo. A large animal that spends its time in water but not completely. Current ideas and theories should always be challenged and scrutinized. If not, that leads to bad science too! This is how we continually improve our ideas of the world to be more accurate, and to change our ideas on things that were wrong. This has been happening with the theory of evolution for 200 years. These videos are quite concerning with their misleading ideas about the general theory of evolution. It is not a hypothesis as one video stated, it is a theory with massive, massive amounts of supporting data from fields that aren't trying to prove the same thing. It's called consilience and we see it in many scientific fields. They all point to evolution as the reason for varried life on Earth.

[@jimfoard5671]

I think you missed the part in the video where they state that it would take over 200 million years for only TWO beneficial mutations to occur in a mammal, and yet by your evolution fantasy within only a quarter of that time thousands of complex genetic mutations would take place, miraculously, all of them beneficial, by chance, by accident. They stated "Okay, so where would whales and their supposed ancestors fall in that time scale? They are not as quick to reproduce as flies, but quicker than humans. So for two, simple, beneficial mutations that's supposed to take roughly 43.3 million years. So the evidence shows using their own assumptions and calculations they don't even have ONE QUARTER of the time needed for even two simple mutations. So, how many mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? It takes quite a lot of changes [for a land animal] to [go from living on the land to living in] the water" TAKE FOR INSTANCE - The Pakicetus would need to develop: 1) A counter-current heat exchange system for intra-abdominal testes, (kind of a big deal) 2) Ball vertebra for vertical swimming motion 3) Tail flukes and musculature for efficient, powered swimming 4) A layer of blubber under the outer skin for temperature insulation 5) Modified mammae to nurse young underwater 6) Fetus in breech position for labor underwater, since being born as protocetids would lead to fetal drowning. 7) Special lung surfactants to be able to take in air after swimming at crushing depths 8) Forelimbs transformed into flippers & reduction of hindlimbs 9 ) Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae 10) Reorganization of the musculature for reproductive organs 11) Radical modification of the teeth. 12) Modification of the eye for underwater vision 13) Hydrodynamic properties of the skin 14) Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution. 15) Reorganization of skull bones and musculature 16) Modification of ear bones 17) Decoupling of esophagus and trachea 18) Emergence of blowhole and musculature and their neurogical control 19) Synthesie and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals) So how many chance, favorable mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? Thousands, and they would each have to take place consecutively, all in order, and only one gene change that would be out of wack would screw the entire process up and you would need to go back to ground zero. Now, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT calling you an idiot. Again, just to re-emphasize, I AM NOT CALLING YOU AN IDIOT! Okay? You're not an idiot, you can believe in whatever fantasy story you want to believe in and call it reality. I really don't care.

[@FaffyWaffles]

I think you misunderstand what a "Transitional" species is. "Transitional" does NOT mean "Ancestral".

[@shaunmeyer8822]

Then how the () did a dog like creature become a whale?

[@stephenolan5539]

​@@shaunmeyer8822 Very slowly over many generations.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

@@stephenolan5539 You do realize that we have literally never seen a mutation in which there is an increase of information, it is always either a loss or resorting of information. To believe in evolution, you have to ignore ALL the well understood laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

@@stephenolan5539 And that doesn't answer "how it happened", that answers "how long did it take to happen"

[@stephenolan5539]

@@shaunmeyer8822 It happened by offspring not being exactly like their parents. It happened by not all individuals reproducing. It happened by new gene combinations appearing. What would you expect to happen over time?

[@firecloud77]

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are assigned the task of selectively breeding a pack of dogs into a whale species -- in similitude of Pakicetus evolving into modern whales. You will live for as many years as it takes to accomplish this feat. You can even select a team of the world's best evolutionary biologists to join you. Your team will be taking the place of natural selection as you intelligently select the random genetic mutations that are most likely to lead to the invention of, for example, the blow hole, baleen, dorsal fin, fore flipper, tail flukes, etc. Then you will selectively breed the dogs in favor of those mutations -- those "numerous, successive, slight modifications," as Darwin put it. Unlike natural selection, you have a goal in mind. You have foresight and foreknowledge. So it should, presumably, take you less time than it took Pakicetus. How long do you think it would take your team to accomplish this goal?

[@danorris5235]

Can't. The genetic coding parameters required for turning a dog into a whale are not present, don't write themselves, and if enough of it changes the dog will no longer function and fail out as a lifeform. I would, however, be able to give you a fantastic array of all manner of dogs. I challenge the abiogenesis crowd in a thought experiment: start with one cell and explain how it evaded the irreducible complexity necessary for it exist in the first place and how it evolved to get there by single mutations occuring. Or how self replication glitched itself into requiring other organisms that didn't exist yet for genders in reproduction. I'll even take spontaneously occuring coding languages for $500. Yup. Leads to a lot of funny stuff we already know isn't possible. I'm not saying don't research it. I'm just saying we need someone serious examples and irrefutablely concrete proof before we start making claims about this stuff like it's fact.

[@TUFF93ryley]

Meager isn’t a term use in science, that would be an emotional judgment.

[@naveedali1406]

I don't agree with the contents of the video, but I appreciate the effort

[@dnm3732]

But long story short what about time travel maybe the fossils used a time machine and that's why they are out of order

[@justalaborer713]

If I had a time machine and the means, I would totally screw with archaeologists, historians, and paleoanthropologists by putting things in the wrong times. Mwahaha!!

[@ChrstphreCampbell]

I don’t really have a problem with Evolutionary Displacement- because you’re assuming that where you’ve found The Fossil is where it always existed, along with The idea that as soon as one animal evolves into animal (B, then animal (A immediately dies off ( as an entire species ) a lot of these transitional species exited simultaneously. So The fossil you found might have exited for millions & millions of years over a period of several evolutionary steps, but because fossils are so rare, The one you found, was at The end of its evolutionary species period. I’m more interested in species life spans, Not individuals, but how long was a species’ life span was, since each species life span is only about a million years, that means that humans evolved from rats in only 66 steps ? Of from flat worms in only 530 steps. Also all of The funky animals 500 million years ago, were just as functional & ‘evolved’ as any animal alive today.

[@sophisticatednebula4236]

Such a high quality video!! Was totally expecting the channel to be at least 100k strong, you'll definitely get there soon though!!

[@shaunmeyer8822]

if only... it is only at 4k which is so sad considering how much work they put in to make it factual and entertaining

[@muadsaleh1061]

Interesting

[@charliepeck4353]

Great stuff! Keep it up! I wish more would see the lunacy of Darwinian.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

So, apart from egregiously misrepresenting the Cornel paper (written by people who absolutely accept the theory of Evolution) and hand waving away the excellent fossil evidence for the evolution of Whales, its a convincing video.

[@jimfoard5671]

I think you missed the part in the video where they state that it would take over 200 million years for only TWO beneficial mutations to occur in a mammal, and yet by your evolution fantasy within only a quarter of that time thousands of complex genetic mutations would take place, miraculously, all of them beneficial, by chance, by accident. They stated "Okay, so where would whales and their supposed ancestors fall in that time scale? They are not as quick to reproduce as flies, but quicker than humans. So for two, simple, beneficial mutations that's supposed to take roughly 43.3 million years. So the evidence shows using their own assumptions and calculations they don't even have ONE QUARTER of the time needed for even two simple mutations. So, how many mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? It takes quite a lot of changes [for a land animal] to [go from living on the land to living in] the water" TAKE FOR INSTANCE - The Pakicetus would need to develop: 1) A counter-current heat exchange system for intra-abdominal testes, (kind of a big deal) 2) Ball vertebra for vertical swimming motion 3) Tail flukes and musculature for efficient, powered swimming 4) A layer of blubber under the outer skin for temperature insulation 5) Modified mammae to nurse young underwater 6) Fetus in breech position for labor underwater, since being born as protocetids would lead to fetal drowning. 7) Special lung surfactants to be able to take in air after swimming at crushing depths 8) Forelimbs transformed into flippers & reduction of hindlimbs 9 ) Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae 10) Reorganization of the musculature for reproductive organs 11) Radical modification of the teeth. 12) Modification of the eye for underwater vision 13) Hydrodynamic properties of the skin 14) Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution. 15) Reorganization of skull bones and musculature 16) Modification of ear bones 17) Decoupling of esophagus and trachea 18) Emergence of blowhole and musculature and their neurogical control 19) Synthesie and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals) So how many chance, favorable mutations does it take to change a Pakicetus to a whale? Thousands, and they would each have to take place consecutively, all in order, and only one gene change that would be out of wack would screw the entire process up and you would need to go back to ground zero. Now, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT calling you an idiot. Again, just to re-emphasize, I AM NOT CALLING YOU AN IDIOT! Okay? You're not an idiot, you can believe in whatever fantasy story you want to believe in and call it reality. I really don't care.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@jimfoard5671 It's completely speculation. Clearly there have been millions of mutations, we simply do not understand the complete mechanisms involved in evolution, and that is fine. The fact is there is no other theory or model that fits the facts.

[@jimfoard5671]

But evolution DOESN'T "fit the facts". Clearly there is much that we don't understand about evolution is the understatement of the century. There are no major transitional forms among the five major types of phyla. Darwin proposed that flying fish might have turned into birds. All of the supposed "ape men" have been debunked. God created the animals. He is the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Evolution is complete speculation. Darwin thought it was possible for flying fish to turn into birds. All of the evidence for whale evolution is speculation. You would need an entire re-organization of the creature, with kidneys redesigned to filter salt water, blow holes moving to the top of the head, and I listed, from the video, the other changes. In each so-called transitional stage there would be no use for the aquatic characteristics,, Tail flukes and musculature for efficient, powered swimming 4) A layer of blubber under the outer skin for temperature insulation 5) Modified mammae to nurse young underwater 6) Fetus in breech position for labor underwater, since being born as protocetids would lead to fetal drowning. 7) Special lung surfactants to be able to take in air after swimming at crushing depths 8) Forelimbs transformed into flippers & reduction of hindlimbs 9 ) Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae 10) Reorganization of the musculature for reproductive organs Each of these changes would require thousands of beneficial genetic mutations, and in consecutive order, with one wrong change destroying the entire sequence. The odds against that are impossible. Each mutation, one after the other, being the "right" mutation, like flipping a coin heads hundreds of times in a row. You might as well believe that Californian surfers in Santa Cruz would eventually develop flippers and taii flukes hydrodynamic skin with blubber to survive in the ocean. You are believing in a fantasy world and calling it science.

[@Fearless......]

Simply simply simply brilliant !

[@andoapata2216]

Amazing !

[@levihuttner3260]

You don’t understand evolution

[@roberttormey4312]

No one who understands evolution understands evolution.

[@levihuttner3260]

@@roberttormey4312 oh no! It hurt itself in its confusion

[@roberttormey4312]

So you don’t either. Thought not.

[@levihuttner3260]

@@roberttormey4312 I’m not going to explain advanced concepts to you in a KZbin comment. Would you like me to teach you calculus and organic chemistry too? How about computer science? Or perhaps you could make the slightest effort to educate yourself…

[@roberttormey4312]

No Thanks, quite comfortable with my knowledge in that respect. Where’d you go to College?

[@ldswife5339]

Nice

[@michaelprice5847]

So much B.S. in this video. It takes longer to evolve two beneficial mutations than animals have lived on land🤣🤣

[@mahathirmoon5010]

Touch some grass,Darwin bro

[@Greenie-43x]

I seriously can watch these repeatedly. So much great information, and very entertaining‼

[@marksandsmith6778]

Nit picking for Jesus.

[@anthonyoctaviano9055]

haha wow

[@MorrisDrummond]

cool a science video! Oh, it’s another “god of the gaps” video.

[@csmoviles]

Thank you so much for sharing information ❤❤❤❤

[@RaptorofRex07]

Love your video God bless

[@marksandsmith6778]

8million years! Thats a lot of time. READ A real biology book.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

they have PHD's in this stuff, you probably don't🤣

[@marksandsmith6778]

@@shaunmeyer8822 Doctorates of Divinity don't count

[@spatrk6634]

lol, what a bunch of nonsense. i suspect this is sort of video shown to creationist in sunday schools

[@GeorgiaEnglish88]

Why is it nonsense? I found it well researched and compelling. I’ve watched all of his videos and he never mentions god or anything religious. He’s just interrogating a hypothesis.

[@spatrk6634]

@@GeorgiaEnglish88 its well researched so that they can lie to you. he doesnt need to mention god. thats how discovery institute works. by pretending that they are doing science. and they pretend that everything is impossible, that scientists are bunch of idiots and DI implying that its magic instead. they dont need to mention god. they cant actually, because then they would need to substantiate their god claim. whale evolution is not a hypothesis. its well established fact. also, one of the articles he linked in description is specifically debunking michael behe from discovery institute. and another article he linked is from michael behe.

[@GeorgiaEnglish88]

@@spatrk6634 I understand they have a religious viewpoint, but the numbers are still accurate. I’ve watched a few whale evolution videos so it was nice seeing a critical review. Regardless, it’s good having scientists with different viewpoints to interrogate theories with sufficient rigor. That’s why I appreciate them. If all scientists just agreed with evolution then no one would push these questions. Theories should be pushed to answer the hard questions.

[@spatrk6634]

@@GeorgiaEnglish88 there is nothing to push. what numbers are accurate? discovery institute is bunch of christian apologists pretending that they are doing science. when in reality they are trying to make you doubt actual already established science. its good to have scientists with different viewpoints. but DI viewpoint is that science is conspiracy against their religion. even tho they dont openly say it. that is what you get from listening to them its what they imply without saying it. you either get that science is conspiracy, or that scientists are bunch of idiots that make up stories.... DI is not doing science... there are no hard questions regarding whale evolution. its already explained in great detail because we found numerous fossils of them. but DI will want you to believe that those are separately created kinds because bible said so. not because of evidence. in fact, they will lie about the evidence. and misinterpret it to people who dont know any better, of which most dont even want to know better

[@GeorgiaEnglish88]

@@spatrk6634 I assume he quotes accurate numbers from the papers. if it’s true that the first complete whale is older than the majority of the supposed precursor then that’s interesting. I would hope scientists would investigate further to see if it can be reconciled. If it can’t be then maybe we have the lineage wrong. Re discovery institute, the narrator seems to accept that the earth is millions of years old. Creationists generally say it was made in 6 days several thousand years ago. That’s not what he’s saying.

[@GPerihelion]

Excellent 👍 so science is just like religion and built ultimately upon ‘belief’ 😂😂I have often thought this but no one will usually say it. 😂. I think it is because people in general ignore the real meaning of words. Theory = fact and experiment = safe 😂 in todays society . Unsurprising that people begin to mistake men for women I guess. What a house of cards? 😂

[@floptaxie68]

They just look at fossils and make theories

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

You wouldn't say this when science saves your life one day, would you? Would it be belief that would ensure your survival, or concrete proof and empirical knowledge? Perhaps you should reflect on your understanding of science.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@floptaxie68 I hope you don't think that it's that simple!

[@pog519]

Nope... science is about making models with predictive capabilities. Like this guy in the video makes it sound like we need whale fossils to prove evolution, meanwhile you can prove it in a lab, because there are organisms that can evolve rapidly. Not to mention the other 20 fields of study that can't work if evolution wasn't true. Most of virology also depends on evolution exclusively, that is why there are people that predicted the coronavirus 10 years before it happened...

[@MarcoH72]

More creationists nonsense

[@shaunmeyer8822]

at least they give proof unlike you....

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

Intelligent Design Creationism collapses under the merest hint of scrutiny. This is why creationists can only attack the numerous straw men they have created.

[@pgvinny]

Your not presenting all the evidence , are making misleading over simplified statements and dishonest in general . What a good Christian 👍

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Specifics or you are bluffing.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

bro, that is what you are doing now.... @longstoryshortvideos came with facts unlike evolutionists

[@mileswithau]

@@LongStoryShortVideos You actively misrepresent research (and seem to not actually read the papers you cite), and don't seem to have a good grasp of the science you attempt to "debunk". I decided to investigate two papers you referenced in two of your videos, as I knew you where misrepresenting them: (1) The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except all the others) You completely misrepresent this one in your recent RNA world video. It is actually arguing for the RNA world, but you frame it as research that goes against it. To quote from the conclusion of the paper: "I have argued that the RNA world hypothesis, while certainly imperfect, is the best model we currently have for the early evolution of life." Beyond that, this paper was written in 2012; a lot has happened in the last 11 years of research, which has specifically addressed the biggest complaints that this paper posed about the RNA world (related mostly to the emergence of RNA itself and the exhibition of self replication and other functions within it). This contextualised the title: it is saying that it is the worst idea if you ignore all the worse ideas, or it is actually the best idea we have. (2) The whole "two beneficial mutations" thing - again, the paper you cite is not actually about this, but instead about two specific mutations occuring in sequence. No wonder it's a long time. You would realise this if you, again, read the paper. So your research for this point is immediately invalid; it would be like claiming that the dishwasher doesn't work while reading the manual for the fridge. The paper is about something complete different. Quoting from this papers' conclusion: "To be precise, the last argument shows that it takes a long time to wait for two prespecified mutations with the indicated probabilities.". In reality, the mutation rates of organisms are subject to a huge number of variables, and are not constants, temporal or otherwise. You cannot put a singular number to the amount of time it takes for "two beneficial mutations" to occur, due largely to the ambiguity of what that even means. You would understand this if you actually understood evolutionary principles. In reality, beneficial mutations can arise very quickly with sufficient pressure, and very slowly if there isn't. Mutations in some group of individuals can also change how ecosystems function, which again, makes assigning a singular time essentially impossible. The evolution of white skin (which is favoured selectively in climates further from the equator) only took a few thousand years, but required many tens, if not hundreds, of individual beneficial mutations. Despite that, the people occupying those climates have experienced mostly stabilising selection for the last 20 thousand years or so, with far lower rates of "beneficial mutations" occuring. You have also quoted papers from the likes of writers at the Discovery Institute, as well as claiming to have had your "RNA world" video produced in association with "5 PhD scientists". Given that you fail to list who these scientists or their fields of study are, I have begun to suspect that this channel is another mouthpiece of the Discovery Institute, a fraudulent desseminator of creationist propaganda. My suspicions are further reinforced by the use of similar terms and phraseology among other linguistic and stylistic features. Perhaps "scientists" of the DI even have hands in the writing of this nonsense? Edit: after some further investigation this channel is actually run by the Discovery Institute. Oh no. I cannot believe I guessed that, you can almost smell the stench of fraud and academic misconduct from a mile away.

[@txi8844]

*The truth about man is that he was created from clay* : water and dirt I don't know why this real scientific theory is not considered or published until people know the truth. God created Adam from (mud) and Eve from Adam’s rib and breathed into them from his spirit, and made our real and supposed goal in this life to be worship, but you deny that and the truth is that God created us from clay. And we are made into this world for worship only. As He said in the Noble Qur’an, God Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an: (I created the jinn and humans to worship Me) meaning we were created for this universe for worship, and this is the truth. for those who want the truth..

[@seal9390]

Allah also said to the angels to bow down to Adam.

[@txi8844]

@@seal9390 yes ,

[@richtomlinson7090]

If Adam was created from clay, why is there still clay.

[@shaunmeyer8822]

@@seal9390 I am glad you didn't start a debate about Christianity and Islam...

[@nickpuencho]

U rooooooooooooock 😤

[@jontherevelator9663]

We evolved from whales obviously.. 250 million yes from fish to ichthyosaur o whale to ARTIODACTYL to marsupial to ape. The end

[@TUFF93ryley]

Your jockey and basketball player example highlights an incredible difficulty behind looking at fossils. How would one know if they’re looking at transitional fossils of species related through time or variation in one species at one time or variations in age of the same species (adult, child, teenager) at the same time. Is it important that the jockey fossil is the oldest and then you and then the basketball player. probably not but I don’t know that for sure.

[@lenroystewart2904]

Nice