When a Tail Isn't Enough: Why Castorocauda is Not Evidence of Modern Mammals with Dinosaurs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- A fossil named Castorocauda lutrasimilis, meaning beaver-tailed (Castor is the genus for Beavers) is also otter-like (Lutra is the genus for otters). The scientists who named the fossils are paying homage to the fact that one feature, the tail looks a bit like a beaver, and the habit and diet of the animals seems a bit like a river otter. It was sometimes called the "Jurassic beaver" by some popular press articles though they noted it was also like an otter and a platypus. Does than mean that this animals was "like" a modern mammal. Well, I suppose it was but only in the sense that flying squirrels are like marsupials because they have some features similar to sugar gliders or that the Ichthyosaurs of the Jurassic are called the dolphins of the dinosaur age because they have some features of dolphins despite being reptiles rather than mammals.
So, no, there is no evidence to date that an organism related to a beaver or any other rodent form is found preserved alongside dinosaurs. Yet many creationist speakers say that modern mammals such as beavers have been found with dinosaurs. Carl Werner, the originator of the idea that fossil evidence of beavers with dinosaurs may have been found does, at times, ad the caveat that it looks like (spoiler alert - no it really doesn't other than in a very superficial way) or similar to modern beavers but, well, let me allow him to put it in his own words from an interview on Creation.com: “At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists have found many unusual extinct mammal forms such as the multituberculates2 but they have also found fossilized mammals that look like squirrels, possums, Tasmanian devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, primates, and duck-billed platypus. I don’t know how close these mammals are to the modern forms because I was not able to see most of these, even after going to so many museums.”
Here Werner adds the caveat that he does not know how close these mammals are to the modern forms. He says he was unable to see most of these fossils. However, he had access to the research paper describing these fossils and the "beaver" in particular. In this video we look at that very paper and you will see that this paper makes it clear it is not closely related at all to beavers or rodents in general. Werner should know that rather than saying he can't know how close they are to other mammals he absolutely should know if he had done his homework.
Article discussed: www.science.or...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources:
About: joelduff.org
Blog: thenaturalhist...
Twitter: / naturalhistoria
Facebook: / thenaturalhi. .
Photography "Portraits of Creation:" www.beechnutph...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Baby Kia - GLOVES & DRACS (BLACK AF1s) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajm8LeB0qQk/mqdefault.jpg)
Correction: In the video I referenced the fossil of Castorocauda as the largest mammaliaforma found with dinosaurs forgetting that this is the largest known one found in the Jurassic but there is another mammal fossil from the Cretaceous that is larger.
Neither AiG nor Apologetics 101 will admit their mistake or apologize for their deception imo. Neither have a track record for it. Great video!
Thanks. I think this will be my last word but I expect that a someone we know may really take Werner to task for more than just this Beaver example and I look forward to that.
@@DrJoelDuff You misrepresented both me and Dr. Werner. I will be responding to this video, probably within the next few weeks. If you really don't want to correctly represent our position, then it'll be a good idea for you not to keep this up. Stay tune for my, hopefully, last response video responding to you. It's coming soon... God bless!
Erika, I'm disappointed in you. Dr. Duff had deliberately misrepresented our position. You are aware of that, aren't you? It's documented in my original response video on this. Btw, I admit my mistakes all the time, but where have I made them? Neither me nor Dr. Werner is claiming it was a beaver. We said it was "beaver-like" meaning that it has similarities to a beaver. What do the evolutionists admit to? They admit that it has the similarities of a beaver. Where have I made any mistakes or been deceptive at all? Just be glad it's Dr. Duff I'm coming after, and not you this time! :) LOL! God bless!
@@apologetics-101 So you understand that it's not a problem for evolution and should not continue being referenced as such, yes?
@@danielfitzpatrick4873 It is a problem for evolution if any of these mammals are found to be the case. This is why Dr. Duff is so adamant against it, whereas I'm not dogmatic about it like he is. Here's my position: I am open to the concepts that it could be a beaver, related to a beaver, and even not a beaver at all, while at the same time not be dogmatic or latched to anyone of these. Right now, based upon the available evidence given by other evolutionists themselves, that the animal was beaver-like, meaning it has similarities to a beaver, that even evolutionists would agree on, and THAT is ALL we are arguing. Dr. Duff has latched onto this to misrepresent our position and argue against this being a beaver, and try to claim this as our position and argument, when it's not. I am open to the idea that it is a beaver, and I am even open to it not being a beaver--my paradigm doesn't crumble one way or the other--but neither me nor Dr. Carl Werner argues that it's a beaver. This is spelled out in my original response video to Dr. Duff, in the comments of my Werner video, in Dr. Duff's community page, and to many critics across both of our channels, but still he persist in misrepresenting our position. This was also caught on camera in my response video. You know, I've spoken with many critics, and, although they try to defend Dr. Joel Duff and his positions on things, none of them offered any defense for his integrity, even though that was the main thrust of my challenge on my response video.
Also, no one is referencing it that way per se, unless the evidence is really good with a side-by-side comparison like in case of the nautilus. Certain mammals Dr. Werner was not allowed to see or touch nor photograph the fossil to do a side-by-side comparison to it such as the beaver-like mammal, Tasmanian Devil-like mammal, and a hedgehog-like mammal. As a result Werner followed what the evolutionists, themselves, was saying about these fossils. This is what Dr. Duff is failing to understand. I will make one more response video, but I am hoping this will end the discussion on this. Hopefully, Dr. Duff will watch this video.
Thanks for replying and God bless!
Joel, this beaver tale gets a mention in Vol 2 of “The Rocks Were There”, towit:
The notion that “modern” species of animals coexisted with dinosaurs is a trope that keeps bobbing up in YEC apologetics, to the point where Joel Duff 2024h has felt obliged to take them to task on their repeat offences. In this instance, secondary apologists like AiG, Brian Bowen (Apologetics 101) and Calvin Smith channeling Carl Werner’s eyeballing-level claims that there were 10 species of modern-appearing animals from the 400 mammals found in the Mesozoic, like beavers, hedgehogs and Tasmanian devils. Werner hedges his bets in his books by admitting he wasn’t claiming they were exactly current species (or even genera), but in constantly reminding his readers and viewers how similar they are to modern ones the ambiguity of creationist systematics (where kinds are families most of the time, and so well above genus level) can impress secondary source addicts like Bowen who let Werner parse the field for them.
Except the fossils were nothing of the sort, from the small beaver-like Docodontidae mammaliaform Castorocauda (Qiang Ji et al. 2006) to a pair of Gobiconodontidae mammals, the hedgehog-like Spinolestes (Thomas Martin et al. 2015) and Repenomamus (Yaoming Hu et al. 2005, noted in Vol 1)-most definitely not a Tasmanian Devil. As all three are from extinct families they could hardly reflect any living kind unless there is a lot of baraminological goalpost moving here, which neither Werner nor AiG were offering, and may not have realized they would need to do.
The fuzzy mindset was reflected by Brian Bowen 2024 (in a video running nearly three hours) who accepted without investigation Werner’s jaundiced view that evolutionary systematics was supposedly prone to arbitrarily reclassifying things, and accusing Duff of misrepresenting Werner’s oh-so-flexible position. Most tendentiously, Bowen bristled that neither he nor Werner were making any claims about what kinds they might have been (!), yet constantly stressing how in a “side by side comparison” how “exactly alike” they appeared, while never at any time pressing beyond Werner’s secondary source field of popular press accounts instead of diving into the original technical papers.
Duff 2024i offered one last attempt to explain to Werner (and by extension the creationists relying on him) how undefendable his take on beavers was, this time explicitly fielding the 2006 Ji paper, noting the many anatomical features (including its teeth and jaws) that are not at all rodent-like, the group beavers belong to. As it happened, a paper appearing at the same time as this flap (Elsa Panciroli et al. 2024) underscored how docodontids were not interchangeable with modern mammals, as they found that the growth rate in the small Jurassic Krusatodon appears to be slower in that group than is typical for extant mammals of similar size.
New source:
Panciroli, Elsa, Roger B. J. Benson, Vincent Fernandez, Nicholas C. Fraser, Matt Humpage, Zhe-Xi Luo, Elis Newham, & Stig Walsh. 2024. “Jurassic fossil juvenile reveals prolonged life history in early mammals.” Nature 632 (22 August): 815-822.
Thank you for your excellent background information and for sharing the verifiable references. As you noted these claims are unverified, and in my uneducated opinion, there is no background to my engineering work here, will be extremely difficult to meet any peer review and Laboratory review. This really seems to be a "definitely not a Tasmanian Devil here" situation. Cheers from Canada 😊
Since this reply is referring directly to me on multiple occasions, I'm going to respond to it.
*Joel, this beaver tale gets a mention in Vol 2 of “The Rocks Were There”, towit:*
That book was written by you, and it's not even found on Amazon yet, so my guess is that's unpublished resource, and an appeal to your own "authority" (and perhaps an appeal to false authority as well). However, since you told me that you reference me directly, I might get that book to review it.
*The notion that “modern” species of animals coexisted with dinosaurs is a trope that keeps bobbing up in YEC apologetics...*
We do believe that modern animals, not necessarily species since we do believe in speciation, existed along side of the dinosaurs. However, this doesn't mean that these modern-appearing animals that were in the same strata as dinosaurs were modern mammals, although I am open to it. However, my paradigm doesn't require mammals to be in the same strata as dinosaur fossils, but yours does, so I can see why you have an issue on that and why you are more dogmatic concerning it. I am open to all possibilities (modern mammals, same kind as modern mammals, or not modern mammals), but dogmatic about none of them. However, I am careful not to express more than the evidence would allow. Are you?
*to the point where Joel Duff 2024h has felt obliged to take them to task on their repeat offences.*
Dr. Joel Duff had misrepresented our position in his first response to me, on purpose, and, although I haven't saw the above video yet but I will, I am predicting that he will continue that misrepresentation of our position. Especially since he failed to even watch my video response on this which he had referenced in his own Community Page on his channel.
*In this instance, secondary apologists like AiG, Brian Bowen (Apologetics 101) and Calvin Smith...*
This is an _ad hominem_ fallacy. We're not "secondary apologist" just bc you don't agree with us. I have a college degree and I am a trained scholar, and I have been an apologist for 18 to 19 years. I am very knowledgeable on Christian apologetics and Biblical scholarship. Mike Licona is a historian and is a Resurrection apologist. I assume you don't agree with the Resurrection of Jesus. Is he a secondary apologist? If every apologist is "secondary" then the term is meaningless. You can't just think someone is a "secondary" anything just bc you don't agree with them. This is special pleading. Likewise, I can argue that you are a secondary atheist (or whatever worldview system you hold to--fill in the blanks with whatever you like) just bc I don't agree with your beliefs, arguments, nor position. You'd have a serious problem with that, and rightly so, bc a person's disagreements is not a qualifier to their level as a Christian apologist.
*channeling Carl Werner’s eyeballing-level claims that there were 10 species of modern-appearing animals from the 400 mammals found in the Mesozoic, like beavers, hedgehogs and Tasmanian devils.*
Notice the shift? The first part correctly represents our position. We do claim "modern-appearing" or "modern-like" mammals appear in the same strata layers as dinosaurs, but then you referenced "beavers, hedgehogs and Tasmanian Devils" when the arguments is: "beaver-like", "hedgehog-like", and "Tasmanian Devil-like" mammals. You almost made it sound like our position until you shifted to the position we don't hold to. The later of which even other evolutionists hold to. No one is doubting that these mammals have similarities with modern mammals. That doesn't mean that they are modern mammals, but everyone agrees they at least have some similarities. I've tried getting that across to both you and Joel. If Joel can stop the strawman arguments for two seconds he'd see that we are not making the claim that he's so dogmatically against, but we're just less dogmatic about it than he is.
*Werner hedges his bets in his books by admitting he wasn’t claiming they were exactly current species (or even genera), but in constantly reminding his readers and viewers how similar they are to modern ones the ambiguity of creationist systematics (where kinds are families most of the time, and so well above genus level) can impress secondary source addicts like Bowen who let Werner parse the field for them.*
This is not entirely true. Dr. Werner is open to the possibility that they were modern mammals, as I am, but like me, does not argue that they were, at least not with the ones he was not allowed to see the fossils and photographed them (the beaver-like mammal, the hedgehog-like mammal, and the Tasmanian Devil-like animal are all examples of one where he wasn't allowed to see the fossils and photograph them). The ones he was allowed to compared upped his confidence that they were likely to be the same (such as in the case of the Nautilus). However, even then you notice him using language like "possum-like" or "modern-like" in order correspond to the same language used by other evolutionists. Dr. Werner is not using any language for these that other evolutionists, themselves, are not also using.
There's nothing ambiguous about saying something is similar. If I say that vehicle is similar to a car, nobody would have any doubt what I mean: I saw a vehicle that had similar attributes with a car. If I didn't know cars, there's always that possibility of being a car until I get more information and evidence otherwise. It's also possible of not being a car. Again, I would need more information.
The reference "where kinds are families most of the time, and so well above genus level" is unusual here. Neither Dr. Werner or myself has argued for them being the same created kinds. It's possible, but neither of us had argued that. Joel has tried to argue against that, but since we're not trying to argue that, it's a misrepresentation. Also, the modern classification system is invented not discovered (more on that below), we choose how to group these organisms. However, since created kinds comes from the Bible, it becomes a word study fallacy called semantic anachronism fallacy to apply it to the original meaning to created kinds. When YECs do it, we try to find the closest comparisons to our modern-day classification system. Most of the time it may fall into family, but many reptiles it falls into the genus level, the primates, for the most part, are species-leveled (this is bc they are monotypical animals like the duckbill platypus where only one surviving species existed with those kinds), many birds fall into the Order level. Btw, genus is right below family, so it family isn't way above genus. LOL!
I don't use secondary sources. I had already refuted you on this in our previous discussion. Since my video was a response to Dr. Duff's misrepresentation of Dr. Carl Werner's, and my own, positions, the primary source for Carl Werner's position would be--don don don--Dr. Carl Werner! Which I used in my video. How's that not a primary source? Btw, I didn't let Dr. parse any field for me, and what field would that be? All we are doing is looking at the evidence. I'm sure that doesn't require any study in an particular field other than your own knowledge about these things.
*Except the fossils were nothing of the sort, from the small beaver-like Docodontidae mammaliaform Castorocauda (Qiang Ji et al. 2006) to a pair of Gobiconodontidae mammals, the hedgehog-like Spinolestes (Thomas Martin et al. 2015) and Repenomamus (Yaoming Hu et al. 2005, noted in Vol 1)-most definitely not a Tasmanian Devil.*
Strawman argument. Who said that it was a Tasmanian Devil? Not Dr. Carl Werner, nor myself. We're saying what the evolutionists are saying, that has similarities with a Tasmanian Devil. I've corrected you on these misrepresentations in our other conversations over on my channel. I think you just figured you could get away with them more on Joel's channel, except you didn't take into consideration that I might see it and call you out on it. Btw, these fossils do hold similarities to modern mammals. Do you deny this fact?
*As all three are from extinct families they could hardly reflect any living kind unless there is a lot of baraminological goalpost moving here, which neither Werner nor AiG were offering, and may not have realized they would need to do.*
There are no "goal post moving" at all. I don't think you fully understand what a created kind is. You just kind of assumed the modern-day classification system. However, nobody is arguing that these animals are the modern versions, or even related, although they could be, but no one saying that for sure. I am open to any of those possibilities, but dogmatic about none of them. In order to argue from the modern classification system as Joel has, and that you had, you'd need to argue in a circle by assuming your position first. We have chosen how these things ought to be grouped, not discovered the way in which they ought to be grouped. For example, modern scientists have chosen to group beavers as rodents and this beaver-like mammal as a docodont. However, who's to say what we call a "rodent" and what we call a "docodont" wasn't closely related, possibly in the same kinds. Well, you and Joel do bc rodents and docodonts are not closely related according to the evolutionary view of history, but this renders the argument circular. I'm not saying that they were related or not related, I'm only pointing out that this kind of argument is circular bc you have to assume your conclusion. I tried to get Joel to understand, but he would not.
*The fuzzy mindset was reflected by Brian Bowen 2024 (in a video running nearly three hours) who accepted without investigation Werner’s jaundiced view that evolutionary systematics was supposedly prone to arbitrarily reclassifying things, and accusing Duff of misrepresenting Werner’s oh-so-flexible position.*
This is false. First, even if I was influenced by Werner, and I wasn't (more on that in a minute), this would make the genetic fallacy. Second, it's speculation. You have no idea of what I investigated or not. Third, I didn't get this from Werner. Like I said in my video response, I've said this several times in videos (ruclips.net/video/p5jb6MsRpO0/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/EApKvFZyDLk/видео.html, and ruclips.net/video/vdAv7eJJEPY/видео.html to name but a few) and even said that in that same video response you are referring to where I had mentioned that I had said the same thing previously. I've always said the modern-day classification system was invented not discovered. Me and Dr. Werner are on the same page on it, but I didn't get that idea from him. In fact, others such as Donny Budinsky from Standing for Truth, Kent Hovind, and even AiG has referenced the same. This view isn't unique to Dr. Werner. Btw, I have investigated it. The Linnaeus classification system is less than 300 years old. We have chosen how to classify them, not to say this choice was entirely arbitrary, but it is when it comes to cladistics and renaming and reclassifying things according to their presupposed common ancestry, but most of it is grouped based upon certain characteristic traits, which I have no problem with one doing that, but my problem is when evolutionists began to treat this way of classifying things in our present world to arguing for relationships, especially in the past or when they regroup them based upon their presuppositions of common descent. Also, the use of the word "arbitrary", neither me nor Carl Werner had claimed that. That's another strawman. Carl Werner claimed he didn't trust how they were classifying these things, and I agreed, my own reason centered around evolutionary presuppositions filtering your decisions on how to group some of the organisms such as grouping humans with primates or grouping birds with dinosaurs.
Btw, Dr. Werner doesn't have an "oh-so-flexible position" either. He has never argued that it was a beaver, only beaver-like. This was spelled out in my response video. Dr. Joel Duff did intentionally strawman Dr. Carl Werner, as documented in my video, and this is a fact. It was caught on camera. It became so obvious that even now, you as a critic of my position and a supporter of Joel's position, has trouble denying that's what Dr. Duff had done. It's undeniable.
*Most tendentiously, Bowen bristled that neither he nor Werner were making any claims about what kinds they might have been (!), yet constantly stressing how in a “side by side comparison” how “exactly alike” they appeared, while never at any time pressing beyond Werner’s secondary source field of popular press accounts instead of diving into the original technical papers.*
This is a strawman argument, as pointed out in my video response to Dr. Joel Duff, and previously pointed out to you as well. I said in a side-by-side comparison they *_look_* exactly alike, not that they were exactly alike. This was pointed out to Joel, both in my comments, and in my video. I even placed, in my video, all of mine and Dr. Duff's comments in a Word document to use the "Find" feature to show a contrast, on screen, of all the times I said "look exactly" alike over and over again in my responses to Dr. Duff. I don't think Dr. Duff meant to strawman my position there, but he did, and now you have twice. This idea of "popular press" is incorrect. Even in peer-reviewed papers they stress similarities. I really don't see the point in bringing up these papers unless you guys think I am arguing that it was a modern beaver, which I'm not. Btw, I could find no technical papers on the Tasmanian Devil-like mammal, and I've searched for it. If Joel knows where one is he can certainly drop me a line, but I have no phobias about looking at papers, even from secular literature, and have done so many times even on my channel, but what Joel thinks will happen is if I see that they had reclassify it as something else, he think I'm going to jump what they reclassify it to, but I'm not that gullible, or gullible at all. I know that is dependent upon how they choose to group it.*Duff 2024i offered one last attempt to explain to Werner (and by extension the creationists relying on him) how undefendable his take on beavers was...*
This is a strawman argument. No one is claiming it was a beaver, including Dr. Carl Werner, only that it has similarities to one, which the peer-reviewed paper would agree on, and even Joel at least admitted that the tail was similar. All you did here was borrowed from Dr. Duff's strawman argument. I haven't seen the above video yet, but if what you said was true about the above video, then my predictions and fears had been realized, Dr. Duff has continued in his misrepresentation of our position.
*how undefendable his take on beavers was, this time explicitly fielding the 2006 Ji paper, noting the many anatomical features (including its teeth and jaws) that are not at all rodent-like, the group beavers belong to.*
I'm going to have to review that for my upcoming response video of the above video, but when I looked at the only available picture of this fossil online, it's teeth was similar to a beaver's, and the molars in the back of it's mouth did not look like a docodont's molars, the later of which is pointed backwards, while, from the picture the molars were straight up like ours is. I will need to investigate this further to be sure. Btw, how do you know how rodents might's looked back then? You only know what modern rodents look like, but not rodents during the alleged Jurassic period since you think they didn't exist at the time. I'm not saying that what is is or is not, but I am pointing out your clear assumptions here. However, the whole argument misrepresents our position here.
Btw, there's no such word as "undefendable." My spell-checker is even red-lining that word. It's "indefensible" which is kind of like it isn't "eatable" its edible. Just something I had to scratch there. Also, clearly we are not trying to defend a claim we aren't even making.
*As it happened, a paper appearing at the same time as this flap (Elsa Panciroli et al. 2024) underscored how docodontids were not interchangeable with modern mammals, as they found that the growth rate in the small Jurassic Krusatodon appears to be slower in that group than is typical for extant mammals of similar size.*
I'd have to look at that specific paper, but since you are dealing with fossils and not with living organisms how would you know what their growth rate were. It sounds more like an interpretation based on nothing more than the docodonts they had found. Again, I would have to look at the paper, but all fossils are interpreted.
Yeah, there was nothing in this reply that defeated anything I said. A lot of errors were made, and even some repeated misrepresentations, but that's it. God bless!
@@apologetics-101 Such a long response without substantive detail, merely reworking your talking points. But the question so far is whether you will ever look at any of the original papers, Mr. Bowen ... but decades of record (which I study, likely reading more creationist apologetics than you do) show YEC has no credibility on systematics, for the simple reason is that their underlying model is not in fact true.
Fools shocked by examples of parallel evolution, should be required to memorise and be able to recite from memory & in detail the number of times something crablike has evolved. Also bless you Joel as your tolerance for this sort of foolishness blessed be he who tries to educate the wilfully ignorant
they are neither shocked, nor fooled.
They are deliberate, wilful, liars, charlatans and frauds.
{:o:O:}
Maybe Werner thinks that an original "beaver" kind got off the ark and hyper-evolved into the modern beaver. But that's like saying that a bee fly (Diptera) hyper-evolved into an actual bee (Hymenoptera). The big problem for young-earth creationists is that looking further back in the fossil record more and more groups of organisms are found that are now extinct.
Bee fly, I like that example. I will have to remember that.
Not really. Dogs acquired large degree of variation in just 2 centuries.
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 But Dr. Duff's point is that the ancient so-called "beaver" and the modern beaver belong to different taxonomic groups. By definition, a fly could not hyper-evolve into a bee because flies and bees are different "kinds" of organisms (different orders). Are you a creationist?
Lol... hi...
New Subscriber, here... 😅
Did You know Human Evolution is a Myth?
So they just doubled-down on being demonstrably wrong.
Exactly as expected which is pretty sad
Regarding your question in the beginning of this video. Sometimes the algorimth do strange things and this video came up in the top of videos when I pressed the yt logo, so I pressed play, because I like when scientists explains science and dunk on religious liars. The answer is yes, I have never seen another video by you, and it is worth explaining the science. I learned something new, which I like.
Last week's development. Apparently, Dr. Mary Schweitzer (the soft tissue in fossils researcher) in her original paper, and in subsequent interviews admitted that what she found was "like" blood and blood vessels. But she would not say it with deliberate certainty, in other words, she "hedged"". AiG however says it was definite when they used her paper to expound on their young earth theory.
yes, I pressed her on this when I had lunch with here at one time and she seemed pretty clear about this way back then.
Yes, even though Castorocauda lutrasimilis means "beaver tailed otter" they're closet living relative is the platypus.
Someone should suggest to Carl Werner that he can pet their two domestic cats. And when he agrees, let a Siberian tiger and a leopard in his room.
I predict that the time it takes for linguistic clarity and accurate classification suddenly starting to matter to him, can be given in milliseconds.
As a creationist i appreciate this. I hope it pushes creationists to be honest and accurate and not to play fast and loose
So you're not a proper creationist liar for the baby jesus then?
I appreciate that and I can assure you that I personally know many creationists who are not happy with Werner and recognize that his sloppiness is not helping creation science but adding further roadblocks to their work being taking seriously.
@@DrJoelDuff Hi!
Are You a "Creationist," or an "Atheist?" 😅
@@SeaScienceFilmLabs Creationist. I'm not sure why you have to ask that question given you have asked this before and I have answered before. Therefore I think you motive his is not curiosity and desire to know what I think.
@@DrJoelDuff I don't think We've Met...
I have new findings I just uploaded about the "Lucy" discovery...
You'll definitely appreciate it, if You find the Time to review it...
👋 👍
Remember, these creationists are the same people who say that Homo Sapiens is not "of a kind" with Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Desinova, or Homo Floresiensis.
Joel, is this response to the channel that called you the “real deceiver?” I’m sensing some righteous indignation, maybe almost anger, from you in this video, which is unlike any of your other videos I’ve listened to. If so - IT’S JUSTIFIED!
It felt like some of Dan McClellan’s recent videos, in which there is a very palpable sense of, “Are you kidding me? This nonsense AGAIN???”
That guy honestly isn’t worth a response, but you do such a phenomenal job at communicating scientific research, at emphasizing the importance of nuance, and at explaining the details of what the research *really* says by going directly to the source.
But what you’re asking of those lying liars at AiG? Come on, man. You can’t actually expect that of them, right? ( 45:48 ok, you know they won’t change. Whew!)
They’re lying liars for god.
You CAN convince people. It won't happen immediately, but slowly they can come to understand thanks to what you tell them.
I think many of us struggle to accept when we're being lied to and sometimes will defend the liar or brush their deceptions under the rug.
Even if we haven't become deeply invested in the lies or tied them to the foundations of our morality or justification of our personal beliefs as the likes of Ken Ham encourages people to do.
It can just be personally insulting to have someone suggest we've been lied to and we bought it. Add on top of that maybe you and your whole family bought into it. People you love and trust and you know they're not stupid or gullible. And then some person comes along and tells you that you all fell for a lie. And the more obvious, insulting and easily revealed the lie is... just makes it all the harder to swallow.
All these "where is the evolution" claims are killed by one single reply.
Name the genus and species.
Because it's never the same.
It's not about grasping an idea. It's about people's identity being that they believe things.
Calling this thing a beaver ... I kind of feel like a good analogy is the way they used to write science fiction where people would go to another planet and start a space colony, and there are animals that kind of look like things that they recognize, so they just call them those things. Or maybe they call them those things but with the spelling a little bit wrong. There's a Larry Niven book called The legacy of Heorot where they have these things called samlon, for example, instead of salmon.
😁👍👍
Spoilers: The larval stage of grendels. Great books!
Niven is one of the best alien character creators. Up there with David Brin.
I do not know the phylogeny, but I would hazard a guess that beavers are more closely related to us, monkeys, than they are to this fossil. Am I right?
(edited for typo)
I looked it up, beavers and monkeys are in different Orders, but both are in the clade euarchontoglires, which is itself a subset of mammalia.
Castorocaude are in the order of Docodonta, but while the Wikipedia summary puts them in Mammalia, the text specifies they're just mammaliaformes, which would be an outgroup to true mammals.
In other words, not just humans and beavers are more closely related than to this "beaver/otter-like" guy, but *any two mammals* are.
Most probably you are. I didn't read up on most of mentioned fossils, but considering their age they might not even be placental mammals like beavers and humans. Closely related, but an extinct branch of mammalian evolutionary tree.
@@borisbauwens7133 Thank you for confirming my inkling!
In life I try to live by the creed, "always assume foolishness before malice."
However this is a case where malice is the only realistic option. These speakers intend to deceive , plain and simple.
Funnily enough, the best example I can think of an animal that showed up weirdly early in the fossil record is waterfowl. There were animals that were essentially just geese walking around while T. rex was. I always assumed that most bird groups evolved after the extinction event, but apparently multiple different groups of birds actually survived and that included the waterfowl. Prehistoric waterfowl would be a way better example because they don't just LOOK like a modern group of animals (waterfowl,) they ARE waterfowl. I don't know why they'd latch on to the tail of some random mammal when there's way better grounds for argument in other animals.
I wonder what happened to those "four-legged fowl" that were mentioned in the bible.
Did they make the Ark, did they go extinct? 🤔
@@johnrap7203 I had no idea the Bible mentioned four-legged fowl. Wonder what animal they were referencing, if they were real at all? I know there's a bird that can barely stand at all, so when it's on land, it just scoots on its belly instead. It's called the loon. They can sometimes use their wings to help themselves scoot, I think, so maybe that's what they were talking about? Were there loons around in the areas the writers of the Bible lived? Not sure.
EDIT: I totally forgot bats used to be considered birds. They were talking about bats.
Debunk videos of this type are a service. They don't need to be justified. They aren't effective in changing the minds of answers in Genesis creators. They will never get them to admit they are wrong or lying. So it is a waste of time to mention it. It makes the video longer when i just want to get to the point of what they are saying and why it is wrong.
I've done looking this video over. I am going to try and make my response video today, and upload it by early next week. Things of interest that I noted was:
1) You continued your misrepresentation of Dr. Carl Werner's, as well as my, positions even though we've continually corrected you on this.
2) You played a clip of the AiG speaker, which was the only clip played in this video (my video wasn't played at all), and then applied it to Dr. Carl Werner and me when we don't represent that speaker. That's like me looking at something that Dr. Bart Ehrman had argued, and then try to apply it to you and then respond to it accordingly. If you are responding to me or Dr. Werner, then you respond to us, not to a different speaker and then treat it like you're responding to us.
3) You kept wanting Dr. Werner to have a dogmatic position one way or the other, like you do, but we don't. Like I told you: I am open to it being a beaver, related to a beaver, or not a beaver at all, but dogmatic about none of it. Dr. Werner isn't saying it's a beaver, nor is he saying it's not a beaver, nor is he saying its related to a beaver, nor is he saying that it's not related to a beaver, he's saying he doesn't know. He is clear on this. We are just not as certain one way or the other.
4) "Like a beaver" or "beaver-like" just conveys similarities to a beaver, it DOES NOT mean we're calling it a beaver. You said that early on in your video, but this is false. That's not what that means.
5) We are not saying it's a modern mammal, and we're not saying it's not a modern mammal. We're saying what other evolutionists are saying, that it is similar to a modern mammal, or we'd call it a "modern-like" mammal, which ONLY conveys similarities to a modern mammal, not necessarily equality to it.
6) The fact that others have taken that extra step to saying it's a modern mammal, doesn't mean that Dr. Carl Werner is saying that. Since the question is open, some have opted to taking that extra step, but Dr. Werner hasn't bc some of them he wasn't allowed to see the fossil, photograph it, nor were able to do a side-by-side comparison to it. This isn't them misunderstanding Dr. Werner, this is them taking that extra step.
7) I have looked at the paper, and it uses stronger language than the newsreels on these similarities. The paper reports webbed feet, tail, fur and I think it might mention it's size, and these are all features similar to a beaver. The paper even gave me the evidence to why they thought it had webbed feet--tissue was found between the digits of its hind feet. The evidence for the fur I already knew about. I didn't find anything different from what I had claimed nor expected. It classified them according to how we had chosen to group these things, and use language of similarities with a beaver. Even you admitted the tail to be similar, so I don't know what you were hoping for. Like I said, and been saying this whole time, I'm not saying anything revolutionary here that other evolutionists themselves are not saying.
Anyhow, that's all for now. I will present this, and other things I have to say on it, in my response video. God bless!
Taxonomy is a very boring (for most) science, but it is VERY exact and very much dependent on studying the smallest details. You NEVER classify by superficial similarity of a few traits as convergence is so common and adaptations can be co-opted by unrelated taxa. You don't even need to take evolution into account to see this creature is not even close to a beaver. Just look at the animal beyond "it swims, has fur, and has a flat tail". I know of zero creationists that can do or understand taxonomy (and systematics), hence we never know what a kind is defined as.
For me personally, I would love to see you use every single one of these claims as a jumping off point for a video in which you go through the paper(s) that describe the actual fossil animal they're confused about. It'd be a great source of paleo biodiversity knowledge and essentially conclusively show that the AiG folks truly don't know what they're talking about and either refuse to do the slightest amount of research, or just lie about it. :-)
Do you support evolution or creationism? I don't want to watch the whole video before I know which side you're on. Thank you.
A lie is a lie. Correct! Screw the easily offended (for others).
"Nice beaver!" [/Frank Drebin]
I'm sorry, the devil made me do it.
I have some SeaStars to show Ya.
I'm sure they are nice but not sure how they relate the question of whether this fossil represents a beaver?
What do you mean by “kind?"
"kind" is a bit tricky but most creationists think of a kind as the members of the same taxonomic family. So for example all canines are the same "kind" and therefore are related to one another through a common ancestor on the ark. Here I am pointing out that this fossil is not even similar to a rodent and so surely should not be considered the same "kind" as a beaver which creationists put in its own kind, the beaver family kind.
@@DrJoelDuff I think a better definition of created kind would be:
'A nested set that by some means can be determined to only concern micro-evolution, and that any immediate parent nest which happens to include two or more similar kinds must concern some means which separates them by "impossible macroevolution".'
All that really needs to be asked from creationists is a single, concrete, unifying principle that distinguishes micro from macro to then justify whatever taxonomic rank their created kind turns out to be. That's because creationists use the family taxonomy inconsistently.
This "hyperevolution" model of the creationists doesn't make sense. I can see God creating in creation week "animal kinds with a lot of variation", but the Ark ruins that model. This forces the worst genetic bottleneck possible and eliminates most of the genetic variation created into that kind. So where is the variation coming from from hyperevolution of 8,000 kinds into millions of species so rapidly? I just don't see how this creation genetics works. Even if we took a gray wolf and a rottweiler on the Ark (same kind but different looking), you would only get puppies with alleles from a rottweiler and a gray wolf. You won't get any of the genetic variation of any of the other breeds after the flood because the gene pool has been catastrophically bottlenecked and inbred. If there were some magical supergenomes off the Ark, what happened to them and how did that even work with recombination? Their species diversification model predicts single polymorphic species (kinds) with tons of variation, not speciation.
Thank for this, I'm sorry but for your own benefit please stop being so long winded , and repeating yourself . still appreciate your videos
Young earthers aren't watching this. Sorry. Your message will never get to them.
The average YEC fan will definitely not watch this. That is true. They are not my audience. I know who watches these videos and it includes many influential people inside the YEC movement so the ones that really need to hear this will hear it. And it will cause some change, just not publicly acknowledged change.
@@DrJoelDuff you've got more faith than I do. Lol
I'm sorry, but you're in denial. You're trying to hold an ideological position against hard physical evidence.
Who are you addressing?
Certainly not evolution proponents, or an actual scientist.
Evolutionists still pretending and distracting from dinosaur soft tissue.
Game is over
They actually were very excited about the find, and it led to them discovering a new form of iron cross linking preservation. YECs, on the other hand, still have no answer to the heat problem.
Too bad you can’t accept reality, simpleton.
Creationist still ignoring the actual facts and pretending that the creationists' pseudoscience and misrepresentations, and blindly believing.
Did you even read the actual scientific publication by Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues?
What made the fossil material "soft" was an unintended long acid bath, over several weeks, which removed all the minerals in the hard material. It was then hydrated. Only after all that did a soft tissue come into being.
You havent even got into the game, ignorant spectator.
Interesting. The same line of reasoning you use to discredit link between both mammals can be used to discredit link between dinosaurs and birds. Similarity does not imply descent.
So we have a good fossil record of the time period that mammals lived contemporaneously with the dinosaurs, where are the transitional fossils, (there should be as many as other fossils), that show reptile to mammals ??????
The 400 or so species of mammals so far identified from the the same rocks that dinosaurs are found in are very much intermediates. They fall in variation of features between synapsids which are more similar to reptile and modern mammals.
@@DrJoelDuff "are very much intermediates."
So you are saying that there is a continuous strata that shows
the transition from reptile to mammal ? If that is the case why is there any discussion anymore?
Not an expert, but "good fossil record" is not a good record of the fauna and flora of the time. A good fossil record for the period is relative to the fossil records of other periods. Few organisms are fossilised, few fossils are discovered and recognised for what they are. Fossil records are always incredibly incomplete.
Then according to the theory all species are potentially transitional.
@@psychologicalprojectionist "Then according to the theory all species are potentially transitional."
"Not an expert, but "good fossil record" is not a good record of the fauna and flora of the time."
So this is a good example of you can't have your cake and eat it too.
See evolutionists make many claims based on the fossil record, Many might have beens, could have beens and in many cases allude to the evidence as evolution, (Darwinian) as a fact. Science should be a level playing field. What we see instead is a push to either accept the status quo or be ignored. Not everything is a conspiracy theory.
@@psychologicalprojectionist oh the fossil record is great it shows all these transitional fossils, oh well the fossil record isn't that complete with few examples of good fossils being found..
So which is it? Do you have a good semi complete fossil record or not? Funny how Darwin even said that was the big flaw that would falsify his idea. That there was not the transitional forms needed to prove his idea. Have you bothered to compare this to a muskrat? Just curious of the similarities of the muskrat and the beaver. This is a much better way to say someone is wrong then just saying he is a liar and showing no proof of where they are wrong. Also drawn pictures do not work as evidence as artist interpretation can change a lot.
False
lol
yer tinfoil hat is WAAAYYYYYY too tight ................. YOU are the very sort of conspiracy theorist, reality denying fundie wacko he is worried about.............. and rightfully so............... you live outside reality in a paranoid delusion where 'science' is the enemy and wacko lying cult leaders like bent hovind the heros.............
good luck with that, eh?