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...
Tags for this video: why dont animals evolve unchanged sharks crocodiles evolution flightless birds moa ostrich creationism creationist intelligent design darwin to the face
Category: Tech
About the uploader:
| Full Name | DonExodus2 |
| Age | 29 |
| Gender | Male |
| Location | Chapel Hill, NC, US |
| Hometown | Tampa, FL and Erie, PA |
| Favourite Books | We are eternal, the alchemist, finding Darwin's God. |
| Favourite Music | Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Tupac, Stones, Clapton, etc |
| Favourite Movies | Family guy, Daily Show, Southpark, The Soup, House MD, Nip/Tuck etc |
| Hobbies | Evolutionary biology, hunting, fishing, boxing, movies, cooking, botany, and beer. |
| See more videos uploaded by DonExodus2 | |
Related Videos
| Brief Bible Blunders -- Episode #3 | Tiger Sharks vs. Turtles | Shark Attack 3: Megalodon |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| The Theory of Evolution in 2 Minutes. | Common Misconceptions About Atheism | Shark vs Octopus |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Share this video with a friend:















Escaping predators at, almost, any cost is better than dying.
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"
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
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.
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.
Uber, some of it is related to the given gestation, maturity and metabolic rates.
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.
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
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.