Evolution: The Grand Experiment - A dissection

[Inferno]

Greetings, fellow bored people.

A few days ago, a creationist I talk to sent me the following three videos:
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 1 with Dr. Carl Werner
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 2 with Dr. Carl Werner
Origins - Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part 3 with Dr. Carl Werner

If anyone's bored enough to read it and to possibly correct me on some issues, I've posted a rebuttal of the first video here. Careful, it's 12,000 words long.

I should have a rebuttal of the second one up in a week and a rebuttal of the third in a week after that.

 

[Frenger]

Very enjoyable. That is all

 

[theyounghistorian77]

from what ive seen so-far

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I would rather not start a new account on that forum, so I hope no one minds me posting this here.

Again, please don't get bogged down by the HUGE amounts of "data" that Inferno provided (i.e., smokescreen) and actually SEE Part 2 where Dr. Phil Gingerich (the paleontologist who originally discovered and reconstructed Rodhocetus) admitted that Ambulocetus is not really a transitionary fossil to the whale and that he incorrectly speculated that Rodhocetus had front flippers and a fluke. After that, please tell me how the theory of evolution is so "iron-clad" to where it should not be questioned.

At 14:15 of the second video where Dr. Gingerich says that Ambulocetus "may not be on the main line" is not an admission that it is not a transitional fossil. You are confusing transitional fossil with ancestral animal. It also seems like a quote-mine to me because Dr. Gingerich keeps saying "maybe", as if he was answering a hypothetical question. It would be nice to have a transcript of that interview, but I doubt Duane Gish would make that transcript available to the public.

When was this documentary made? The depiction of Rodhocetus does not look like any of the depictions I have ever seen. However, it seems obvious that Dr. Gingerich only predicted Rodhocetus to have a fluke and flippered hands. I do believe the museum could have done a much better job of rendering the depiction of Rodhocetus by distinguishing what was actually discovered with what was predicted to be discovered. That is just poor museum curation.

Nevertheless, to sum it all up, Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus are both transitional fossils because of the adaptations found in their inner ear and their teeth. Early depictions of both made them more aquatic looking than they actually turned out to be, but that is a failure of paleontologists predictions of what they would look like, not a failure of the geological record producing a transitional fossil.

Also, in part 3, please see where a scientist faked (manufactured) a transitionary bird/dinosaur fossil; how another scientists "discovered" the fossil; how an evolutionary scientist at the University of Texas performed a Cat Scan on the fossil and determined that it was a fraud; and yet the National Geographic magazine did a huge spread proclaiming the "evidence" of dino-to-bird evolution (even though the Cat Scan had been done three months earlier proving it was a fraud). After that, please tell me how the theory of evolution is so "iron-clad" to where it should not be questioned.

First off, the person that created Archaeoraptor was not a scientist; he was a farmer. Second, the person that discovered it, Stephen Czerkas, is not a scientist; he is an artist. The first scientist that actually looked at Archaeoraptor, Phil Currie, noticed that it was most likely a fake. However, by that time Czerkas already had a deal in place in National Geographic (a popular magazine, not a scientific journal) to publish an article about Archaeoraptor. None of the scientists that actually looked at Archaeoraptor ever thought it was real. However, none of these facts can get in the way of a creationist telling a good story about the silly evolutionists looking bad. What we have here is another example of the media being fooled by a fraud, yet the scientific community takes the fall.

 

[Isotelus]

Hi Inferno! Great rebuttal, and I can help you out with one thing here:

Short discussion about dinosaurs, boiling down to one argument. Dr. Werner: Are you aware that all of the major animal and plant groups have been found with dinosaurs, in other words the fauna of the animals with the dinosaurs was similar to today. For example they found ducks with dinosaurs, flamingos, (word I don't understand "avasets"??), hedgehogs, possums, all the plant groups, all of the animal phyla have been found with dinosaurs.

It's Avocets. They're a genus of wading bird with uniquely long and up-turned bills. Here's a picture of an American Avocet I took:


Avocet by Isotelus, on Flickr

I think I know where this claim is coming from. Cimolopteryx was a late Cretaceous bird that was tentatively placed in the order Charadriiformes, which includes all modern waders, as well as gulls and auks. I recall it being described in one book as being "avocet-sized". I also recall another bird described as flamino-like, and may have been an ancestor of modern flamingos. I believe the oldest known true member of the modern flamingo family is from the Eocene. I would also imagine that his duck claim is coming from the fossil Vegavis (my youtube name ), a late Cretaceous Anseriforme that is not considered to be an ancestor to modern ducks.

First off, the person that created Archaeoraptor was not a scientist; he was a farmer. Second, the person that discovered it, Stephen Czerkas, is not a scientist; he is an artist. The first scientist that actually looked at Archaeoraptor, Phil Currie, noticed that it was most likely a fake. However, by that time Czerkas already had a deal in place in National Geographic (a popular magazine, not a scientific journal) to publish an article about Archaeoraptor. None of the scientists that actually looked at Archaeoraptor ever thought it was real. However, none of these facts can get in the way of a creationist telling a good story about the silly evolutionists looking bad. What we have here is another example of the media being fooled by a fraud, yet the scientific community takes the fall.

Plus, Archaeoraptor was actually comprised of two valid fossil taxa; Yanornis and Microraptor.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

from what ive seen so-far

For Debunking?

What I mean is that the videos are approved for debunking.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

For Debunking?

What I mean is that the videos are approved for debunking.

what i meant is i approve and enjoyed Inferno's dissection of those videos

 

[Inferno]

Thank you, TYH77.
The guy (John B) has since responded and I've had the immense pleasure of writing a 3 post rebuttal.
I'll also try to finish the debunking of the second video in the next week.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If you tell the same lie BILLIONS and BILLIONS of times, people will believe it. ~ one of Carl Sagan's mottos

That is his signature.

I do not see a point of conversing with someone this dishonest.

 

[Inferno]

If you tell the same lie BILLIONS and BILLIONS of times, people will believe it. ~ one of Carl Sagan's mottos

That is his signature.

I do not see a point of conversing with someone this dishonest.

I pointed out the same thing. His response? "Well, Carl Sagan ACTED on that motto, though he never said it." My response to that: "So basically you're acting on what it says in your signature? You're telling the myth (that Carl Sagan said such a thing) often enough to make people think that he actually said it? Well done."