Evolution Evolutionary psychology

Orca evolution driven by culture?

Spread the love

Amazing! Human evolution is driven by Darwinism, right? Well, maybe not. From Colin Barras at New Scientist:

Essentially, a few individuals can colonise new habitats and ecological niches thanks to their behavioural flexibility. Group culture then transmits the know-how of surviving on new resources and sets the group on a separate evolutionary track.

“This is an extremely important piece of research,” says Hal Whitehead at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. “The results are fascinating. We now see how in killer whales, as in humans, culture is not only an important factor in the lives of the whales, but also [helps drive] genetic evolution.”

“One of the main conclusions is that variation within killer whales, humans and likely many other species arises from multiple interacting processes rather than being attributed to just culture, ecology or genetics,” says Foote. More.

Translation: We want to back away from Darwinism. We realize that evolutionary psychology is beyond ridiculous. But what to do?

It’s okay if evolution is driven by culture as long as we can find a non-human example!

See also: Human intelligence evolved to care for helpless babies?

and

“The evolutionary psychologist knows why you vote — and shop, and tip at restaurants”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Orca evolution driven by culture?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    A few notes: These following videos are very good for showing the evolution of whales is mathematically impossible

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o

    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excellent excerpt from ‘Living Waters’ video) (2015)
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1161131450566453/?type=2&theater

    Related note:

    Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse – August 2011
    Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....osenhouse/

    In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Richard Sternberg, evolutionary biologist and CSC Senior Fellow, whose discussion of whale origins is featured in Illustra Media’s documentary, Living Waters: Intelligent Design in the Oceans of the Earth.

    Listen: Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg on the Problem of Whale Origins – September 9, 2015
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....99201.html

    podcast – Dr. Richard Sternberg: Whale Evolution and Living Waters, Pt. 2
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....ters-pt-2/
    Sternberg critiques conventional accounts of whale evolution, noting that both natural selection and neutral drift cannot explain the transition between a land mammal and a fully aquatic whale. Standard evolutionary models would either require very large breeding population sizes (greater than that of any species of mammals) or a waiting period four or more times longer than the given 8-9 million years.

    Besides population genetics not supporting Darwinian claims, the fossil record also does not support their claims:

    How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010
    Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-356170

    In the following video, Philip Gingerich, the paleontologist who discovered and reconstructed Rhohocetus, which has been called by evolutionists, ‘the most spectacular intermediary fossil in whale evolution’, personally states this about that “most spectacular intermediary fossil”,,,

    “Well, I told you we don’t have the tail in Rodhocetus. We don’t know for sure whether it had a ball vertebrate indicating a (tail) fluke or not. So I speculated (that) it might have had a (tail) fluke.,,, Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms, the arms in other words of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.,, If you don’t have flippers, I don’t think you can have a fluke tail and really powered swimming. And so I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluke tail.”
    Philip Gingerich paleontologist –
    Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video – fraudulent fossils revealed (11:40 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/VSmO4nQ717U?t=699

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Making up missing links with plaster and body parts from other creatures – April 2014
    Excerpt: The two scientists who found the lion’s share of walking whale fossils essentially created the best fossil proof of evolution using plaster models and drawings and supplied these to museums and science magazines. In each case, they started with incomplete fossils of a land mammal. Whenever a fossil part was missing, they substituted a whale body part (blowholes, fins and flukes) on the skeletal model or skull that they distributed to museums. When these same scientists later found fossils negating their original interpretations, they did not recall the plaster models or drawings. Now museums are full of skulls and skeletons of ‘walking whales’ that are simply false.” Dr. Werner went on to say, “I suspect some curators are not aware of the significance of these substitutions nor are they aware of the updated fossils. Museums should now remove all of the altered skeletons, skulls and drawings since the most important parts of these ‘walking whales’ are admittedly made up. Museums will also have to delete these images from their websites as they are misleading the public.” –
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....creatures/
    &
    http://www.thegrandexperiment......ution.html

    Real Science vs. Bill Nye the “Science” Guy – Casey Luskin – March 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,, found that Ambulocetus had “large feet” and called its mode of swimming “inefficient” — very different from whales. Another paper found that unlike whales, Ambulocetus was tied to freshwater environments and lived near “the mouths of rivers, lunging out at terrestrial prey — analogous to the hunting process of crocodilians.” This mammal had nothing like “whalelike flippers.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94591.html

    Whale Tale Two
    Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales.
    http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~d...../v6i2f.htm

    The following articles also shows how misleading Darwinists can be with the fossil evidence of whales:

    An Email Exchange Regarding “Vestigial Legs” Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
    Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
    In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area – the clitoris, vagina and anus.
    The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.
    James G. Mead, Ph.D. – Curator of Marine Mammals – National Museum of Natural History – Smithsonian Institution
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-454624

    Whale sex: It’s all in the hips – Sept. 8, 2014
    Excerpt: Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, (supposed) evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away,,,
    New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that,, pelvic bones serve a purpose,,,
    “Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,”,,,
    Dean collaborated with fellow co-corresponding author Jim Dines,,, on a painstaking four-year project to analyze cetacean (whale and dolphin) pelvic bones.
    The muscles that control a cetacean’s penis – which has a high degree of mobility – attach directly to its pelvic bones.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-whale-sex-hips.html

    Now It’s Whale Hips: Another Icon of Darwinian Evolution, Vestigial Organs, Takes a Hit – September 15, 2014
    Excerpt: Under selection pressure from reality, Darwinists have already had to back away from Darwin’s own understanding of what it means for a structure to be vestigial. Rather than serving no purpose, writes Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution Is True, now being vestigial can mean serving a different purpose than in one’s distant ancestors.,,,
    You see the problem. Whale hips are “vestigial” yet still extremely important. Comments our colleague Michael Behe, “So doesn’t that make everything a vestigial structure from a Darwinian viewpoint? And if so, of what use is the word?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89811.html

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Papa Giorgio took it upon himself to organize all my notes into a much more aesthetically pleasing blog post

    Whale of a Tale ~ Debating Evolution – June 5, 2016 by Papa Giorgio
    http://religiopoliticaltalk.co.....evolution/

  4. 4
    mahuna says:

    OK, I remain confused here. As far as I know, a Killer Whale is an overgrown porpoise that eats, among other things, other whales. I don’t see that as a “cultural” thing. It makes more sense to assume (in a scientific, theoretical kinda way) that the very first Killer Whale looked and acted the same as modern Killer Whales right up until somebody locates fossils of an intermediate large porpoise/small whale that has most of the features of a modern Killer Whale.

    I have seen articles that point out that virtually ALL research is done on FEMALE Killer Whales because it’s easy to find one of the female-run pods. What adult MALE Killer Whales do after they leave their mom’s pod is largely unknown because locating an individual male or a small bachelor pod is WAY too much like work. So the culture of adult male Killer Whales is simply unknown.

    The same is true for any number of other species, including lions and elephants. Individual males are dangerous and they don’t stake out a fixed territory, in part because they need to hang close to groups with females in case they detect a chance to mate.

    Again, this doesn’t seem like a “cultural” thing that developed from an archaic style where mature males were NOT driven away.

    The same is rue

Leave a Reply