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!
A few notes: These following videos are very good for showing the evolution of whales is mathematically impossible
Related note:
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.
Besides population genetics not supporting Darwinian claims, the fossil record also does not support their claims:
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”,,,
The following articles also shows how misleading Darwinists can be with the fossil evidence of whales:
Papa Giorgio took it upon himself to organize all my notes into a much more aesthetically pleasing blog post
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