We've Heard It Allready and the Masters of the Universe

[HimesInu]

I think the confusion on their part is the whole "mankind" thing is used to differentiate humans and alien races in Science Fiction stories.

[SamTay04]

Every time they made us do the whispering thing in elementary school I always wished we could get through it just once with out some smartass cock sucker fucking it up

[Sandokiri]

Slight correction: in 2:06, our genus is Homo, and our species sapiens.

[furbearingbrick]

Hell, to a degree dogs never stopped being wolves the same way we never stopped being apes.

[Trevie3]

wow. you read a lot of Discworld.

[technologysucks]

Think of how you thought about animals and how you personally categorized animals when you were 6 years old.

That's the creationist mentality toward "kind".

[teniguafez]

The alternative domain to eukaryote is prokaryote, which several amoebas and bacteria fall into. It basically means that the genetic material floats around inside the organism's one cell, as opposed to being confined to the nucleus, like ours.

[ffreaver]

What is with the scorpion picture when you said crustacean? Are you saying scorpions are crustaceans? If you are, then you are wrong. Scorpions are arachnids, just like spiders, ticks, mites, sea scorpions, etc.

[malignantpoodle]

good stuff, and funny too hehe. "We can fuck each other and have kids that can fuck each other" lol

[Xorinite]

I managed to isolate kind by having the creationist define a bunch of creatures in a shared kind. They said "cat kind" I asked if this included house cats with lions and cheetahs and so on. They said yes. I said at that level of definition human beings are the same kind as chimps since chimps and humans are closer genetically than lions are to house cats.

We repeated it with 'dog kind' reaching the same conclusion. It killed the kind argument.

[dechha1981]

Excelent!

[rhalas]

Your "Chinese whispers" point is strengthened by the fact that the bible has not only been altered in content several times but it's been translated form one language to another over anf over, from Hebru to German to English etc. Isn't anyone familiar with the term "lost in translation"?

[cosmicjackpot]

good work thx

[Atheistblindchick]

Another brilliant video...

As for the Ankh-Morpork guilt system, it works well, and it's always a relief to know you're being robbed by a genuine guilt member ;)

[Nightbane12]

The alternative to Eukaryote is prokaryote- Basically this is a very very simple bacteria without membrane bound Organelles.

[TheStephenation]

Very, very simple bacteria? What species of bacteria would you describe as "simple"?

[Nightbane12]

....most of them...you know...the ones without...membrane bound organelles- did you read what i said?

[TheStephenation]

What led you to believe bacteria are simple? Are you merely ignorant or are you some superior being capable of easily comprehending information that would overwhelm us mere mortals?

[Nightbane12]

1) they can be comprehended 2)i was saying simple by comparison- compared to the computer i'm typing this with SURE they are EXTREMELY COMPLEX. But compared to other life- eh not so much

[TheStephenation]

So are you saying that you personally comprehend everything there is to know about prokaryotes or that it should, hypothetically, be possible to comprehend them?

You actually didn't say "in comparison to eukaryotes" or anything of that nature. You only described prokaryotes as "simple." Calling a complicated thing simple isn't supported by pointing out that something else is even more complicated.

[dechha1981]

ALLRIGHT! ALLRIGHT! ENOUGH! They're bloody microbes! Who cares? No more flame war here.

[dechha1981]

ALLRIGHT! ALLRIGHT! ENOUGH! They're bloody microbes! Who cares? No more flame war here.

[OccamKant]

Great vid, decha.

Excellent points about "Kinds", and their on-the-fly remapping of what it means.

[DriftingAces87]

the alternative to eukarea is prokariots (i know i spelled it wrong, sue me) which don't have a nucleus. mitochondria are examples of these.

[TheStephenation]

Mitochondria are a pretty bad example. They certainly are descended from prokaryotes. But as for actually being prokaryotes, I don't think taxonomists would ascribe to that view.

[DriftingAces87]

why not?

[TheStephenation]

Because prokaryotes are organisms. Mitochondria aren't typically considered organisms at all. They're organelles and they lack many important features found in prokaryotes (they don't even have the DNA to code for most of their own proteins).

There are, however, obligate intracellular parasites that also lack the equipment to survive outside host cells and they're still considered prokaryotes, although I doubt any of them lack parts on the same scale as mitochondria.

[DriftingAces87]

tell me what characteristics mitochondria are lacking to have them considered not "typical" organisms?

[TheStephenation]

They lack some DNA that is essential in prokaryotes. They do make and code for their own ribosomes (and they make their own tRNA). They also only make 13 of their own membrane proteins out of the thousands they have. Most of the genes that code for mitochondrial parts are located in the nucleus. Typical prokaryotes code for all of their own proteins, as well as synthesizing other biomolecules like nucleotides, lipids, sugars, amino acids, etc.

[TheStephenation]

But I should note that there are plenty of parasitic and symbiotic prokaryotes that also lack features that would normally be essential for them to live. So to be entirely fair, I don't know of any line that divides strictly between obligate symbiotic organisms and organelles.

[Finiras]

already is written with one l, unless your spelling has to do with referring to the word "all" before already

[ThatOneQuestion]

Excellent-as always!

[mconn2112]

Great vid man. I need to catch up on your other installments.

[pienipaha]

A virus is not classified in any domain, but their classification starts from family, (allthough it isuggested they could be a part of the Acytota). This is because they can't really be put in the same locker with living beings, as they have no metabolism of their own, cannot reproduce independently nor have cell structures. Yet they do have genetic information, DNA/RNA. Often they're very specific of their hosts too. Interesting little pests, aren't they?

[mrkurt13]

There are actually three domains, Bacteria and Archaea, and eukaryotes.

They recently(I think about 40 years ago) split prokaryotes into Archaea, and eukaryotes.

[tivibtr3d]

I thought the classification of Archaea was still being debated. I think some text books still identify them as prokaryotes.

[mrkurt13]

They are still prokaryotes, it was just discovered that the prokaryotes needed two groups. For everyone except microbiologists, its not really that important.

[tivibtr3d]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[TheStephenation]

There is a fringe view that archaea and bacteria are not different enough from each other to warrant separating them the same way both are separated from eukaryotes. This view would have a two-domain system (or something) in which prokaryotes are one domain and eukaryotes are the other domain, with archaea and bacteria being separated at a sub-domain level. The argument is purely taxonomic, there's no disagreement as to the features the distinguish between these groups, just their importance.

[TheStephenation]

I mention this because it might have been the source for confusion, although I've never seen an actual textbook that espoused two domains.

[BobbyBBobson]

the problem with the 2-domain system is that it can lead to some misinterpretations. Archae are more closely related to Eukaryotes than to Eubacteria. Grouping the two into eukaryote and prokaryote would ignore this to some degree.

[TheStephenation]

The three-domain system is much younger than 40 years. It was first proposed in 1990.

[mrkurt13]

1990 or 1977, you know, Same thing really. Though if you want to nitpick, I'm going to stick with Carl Woese proposing to divide prokaryotes into the Bacteria and Archaea because of the major differences in structure and genetics in 1977. About 30 years ago.  Ok, exactly 31 years ago last Friday at Noon is when he first had the thought.

[TheStephenation]

31 years ago last Friday at noon? Nonsense. It was much more recent than that. It couldn't have been any less recent than 48 years ago the day before yesterday, around 4:00 in the morning!

[worldlystone]

I killed your mail man...

[Stryder467]

Didn't know that sort of game (Chinese Whispers) had a name. Interesting stuff. Still, entertaining as usual. Good job.

[AmberNightwolf]

The alternative to eukaryote is procatyote. They're organisms that don't have a "true nucleous". Like a bacteria. They just have a single chromosome in a loop along with smaller loops called plasmids.

[dechha1981]

I might actually use you as a consultant on one of these videos one of these days.

[AmberNightwolf]

XD Feel free. All this info in my head might as well be useful to someone. Oh, and I've just spotted a typo. It's procaryote, not procatyote. I really should proof read my comments, you'd think a writer would know better.

[TheStephenation]

Prokaryote.

[AmberNightwolf]

I really can't spell.

[rakshamg]

Luv your vids! "Why do you believe what men say instead of what God says." This is a colossal joke. So God took pen & paper in hand and wrote the bible? All of these books people read about their religion were written by men.

[GoMetricToday]

YAY!!!!

[anzuki]

good good VIDEO

[Johannes9126]

Eucaryotes - Procaryotes. Bacteria.

[Ansonidak]

Another good one :)

[Blitzingtakin]

lolfelhunter

[cozmikzen]

nice!

[technologysucks]

Take yourself back 20 or so years . . . to the mind of your 6 year old self. You had a simplistic view of the world which you didn't understand very well. Your perception of different "kinds" of animals was simply based on . . . what animals had different names. dog and cat were two different kinds while bird was a single kind of animal, and then there was goat, pig, monkey, snake, bug, human, etc. That's the creationist mind and definition of "kind". The simplistic, 6-year-old viewpoint.

[BobbyBBobson]

bacteria/archae have no nuclei, just looped strands of DNA along with other differences when compared to eukaryotes. such organisms are present in two domains archae and Eubacteria.  viruses are not life either. just thought i would clear that up for ya.

[TheStephenation]

"Looped strands of DNA"? That's pretty vague and not technically different from what we have. I guess it's hard to go into detail with only 500 characters, though. So I suppose settling for "no nuclei" and "other differences" is fine.

Considering that there is an ongoing debate as to whether viruses count as life, stating outright that they are not and that you're "clearing that up" is misleading.

[BobbyBBobson]

well, our DNA is arranged in highly compacted, paired chromosomes, contained in the nucleus. bacteria have large loops, as well as small one called plasmids. however, these are not organized, compacted, nor contained in a membrane. I'll admit i was hasty with my virus statement, but the current consensus as i know it is that viruses are not life for they do not fit the current definition of life.

[TheStephenation]

Prokaryotes DO have supercoiling. Their supercoiling is just different from ours. It's true that they don't have paired chromosomes. All of the essential genes are in one circular chromosome, but that doesn't make it disorganized or loose. In order to squeeze it all into the nucleoid region and access it for coding, they need their own special proteins to keep everything in order.

[JohnTraviss]

Hey that's my robot!!

[pinkdog1992]

wow first viewer!!!!

[CentabyteZero]

First

[Blitzingtakin]

first