Biological Evolution (part 1 of ?)

[Ripley747]

I apologize if any of this is too soon. I haven't watched your other vids yet.

1) We know Darwin was wrong...about MANY things. That is one reason why evo bio's refer to it as evolutionary biology and NOT Neo-Darwinism.

2) Natural selection is NOT the only driving force. Darwin also proposed another called sexual selection. If you've never heard of it, look it up. It's actually interesting.

3) The symbiotic relationship you mentioned is a form of natural selection and not separate from.

[StAndAl0neCompl3x]

It's well accepted by Darwinists already that Punctuated Equilibrium is the most common mechanism of evolution. Gradual accumulation of adaptation has already been admitted as a secondary - rather, rarer - mechanism. So I'm not quite sure why you distinguish between this and "neo-Darwinism." I do know that creationists are fond of that term, so watch yourself there, ;-) Other than that, you are right that Natural Selection as a mechanism is still debated in biology circles.

[Howie47]

You don't "know" any such thing. Neither does anyone else. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that there was no single or "universal common ancestor". Life incorporates a systematic way of rearranging it's DNA to meet environmental changes (pressures). It is known and been scientifically proven, that it can happen very quickly. That's why catastrophes cause sudden changes in life. Why life before the flood were huge in comparison to after.

[aramhampson]

you "know" i speculate that speciation is part of the biologial/genetic/chemical process regardless of mutation and environmental influences. Biology when viewed with fractal algorythms will diverge and form its own path

[Ripley747]

A couple points.

1) You make it sound like natural selection says, "Hey, I need to kill some of these guys. Let's select for a predator." It's WAY more complicated and there itricate (you go on later to explain why-well, sort of).

2) If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, please stop saying "Darwinist" and start saying "Proponents of evolution" or "Evolutionary biologists."

[twinkazz]

I agree with in that people possibly think too much about gradual evolution. From what i have seen an learned at university, evolution and adaptation fall in between punctual and gradual. Small changes occur over time, until major innovations happen (such as changing from 2 tissues layers to 3, or the adaptation of a jaw, or amniotic eggs etc) and this allows a huge amount of speciation as they are able to exploit more niches in the world and so natural selection will run in more directions.

[asianphones]

Evolution is not against god parts of the bible are symbolic not to be taken literately. Evolution unities all species ect. Did you expect people to understand evolutionism 1000bc when Moses explained adam and eve? Look at an embryo developing it goes through a fish stage with gill, then reptilian phase into a mammalian phase that is evolution.. Men haven't got one less rib because Adam took his out eve we have same amount of ribs you can count!..WE aren't separate from nature we are nature....

[benthemiester]

Your understanding of the cambrian explosion is kind of limited. We see not only complex phyla appearing abruptly but already in categorized order. The Chinese are using words like genesis to describe what being found in Cambrian rock, and their atheist.

[ssurfur]

This guy is saying nothing new. the modern theory of evolution does take all this into account. such as speciation occuring due to symbiosis, I thought that was an old idea. This fellow shoud study evolution more thoroughly before he atempts to make his own theories. As of now he is only wasting his time, may just end up rediscovering the wheel, time and again.

[ssurfur]

after all the evidence there is in support of the theory evolution, it is impossible for ay thinking person to deny it. It can only be modified or refined, the fundamentals of the theory will stay there!

All creationists are irrational and ignorant!!

[fareedfilms]

Much literature has been written opposing evolution such as 'The evolution Deciet' By Harun Yahya and also many geneticists/ Biologists who have noticed it's flaws, many of which do not follow any religion, but base their opinion upon not only logic but their scientific understanding on the origin of life.

[bojoben]

And you failed to share your so called 'evidence' against the theory of evolution. Why is that?

[Tahnz86]

DO some research from some scientists who are AGAINST evolution. I am sending you a link via personal message of a petition signed by scientists against darwin. Do some research into why they are against it.. I have done research on both sides to come to my conclusion.. but its obvious you have done little research on intelligent design.

[Dubhuir]

You just said "research" 4 times. Are you trying to make yourself sound smart?

We have more evidence for evolution than we have for gravity... Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, and is not worth even mentioning in any serious debate.

[patrickledford420]

@Tahnz86 what the 0.5 percent send me the list u obviously havnt studied common sense

[fareedfilms]

i disagree on this one, in that, i completely (through critical analysis) deny Darwinism in every form, i personally believe it is a convincing theory that draws us closer to the equally plausible view that God made his creation with similarities in order for us to ponder upon and wonder about his greatness. The philosophy this theory breeds lacks any significance to our current and former condition, and seems impossible to follow as a blind faith which it evidently is.

[bojoben]

Its not a philosophy, it is a proven scientific theory. Idiot!

[fareedfilms]

Here is a dictionary definition of a theory,

'A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment'

So going by that you can't have a 'scientific proven theory' because something has to become a fact to be proven. Evolution is a theory, there aren't proven theories. So who's an idiot?

[bojoben]

You are.

A scientific theory is different to a regular theory. First an idea becomes a hypothesis, then after testing and evidence it may be classed as a scientific theory.

Do you know what else is just a 'theory'? The theory of gravity, and the cell theory. The round earth theory. You obviously know nothing about science, so please don't feel yourself better qualified to make judgment than the vast majority of the scientific community who accept the theory of evolution as the fact it is.

[fareedfilms]

There is so much evidence against all evolution, the difference is people dont deny gravity because they can see it around them. Many still deny evolution (some being scientists), because we don't see it happening around us, and plus nothing proves human evolution from apes, there are many theories of were we evolved from, many agree with evolution but say we evolved from other things such as meteorites and water. If evolution is completely proven, why do many deny and make room for discussion?

[bojoben]

Really. What evidence is that? Please share. Four times more historians deny the holocaust than scientists deny evolution. Evolution states nothing about humans evolving from apes, only that we share a common ancestor, one of which has recently been discovered. Shows how little you really know!

And how the fuck can a non living substance evolve? Shit! How can you deny something you know so very little about.

It is not open for discussion in the scientific community. Another Creationist fail.

[fareedfilms]

A common ancestor being what? Reptilian creatures from the planet niburu who will return some time very soon??

Evolution is nothing more than a good idea for a sci-fi book, someone had a good imagination ill give them that. The intricacies of human life and the universe are proof alone that it couldn't of come into existence without an intelligent design. Who created the first thing something evolved from? Something would of had to have evolved from nothing at all for your argument to be right

[bojoben]

Right. Not quite sure what sort of education you have recieved. The recently discovered common ancestor is the fossil named Ida, a 47m year old primate. Take a look.

Of course a 2000 year old fairytale with no credible author made up of recycled myths and pregnant virgins holds more evidence and proof than a widely accepted unifying scientific theory.

Nobody created the first thing something evolved from. Most likely the 'first thing' was a self replicating biological molecule. Not a silly myth

[Tahnz86]

Really. What evidence is that? Please share. Four times more historians deny the holocaust than scientists deny evolution. Evolution states nothing about humans evolving from apes, only that we share a common ancestor ----- ummmm evolutionists belief is that humans DID evolve from apes.. lol.

And how the fuck can a non living substance evolve? Shit! How can you deny something you know so very little

[Tahnz86]

about. --------- obviously they are talking about non living matter changing to living matter... whick had to happen for evolution to be true.. but as much as they have tried they still are yet to figure out how something non living turned to life... not to mention how that complex non living organism even managed to put itself together to even have the chance to become living. Evolution is NOT a fact.. i have a link to a list of scientists who

[Tahnz86]

signed a petition AGAINST darwin.. last updated Aug 2008.. If you would like this please send me a message but i cannot post it on here. :)

[rangerider79]

They are getting closer every day. Be patient.

[patrickledford420]

@Tahnz86 no it didnt have to happen for evolution to be true and abiogenesis (im not saying its true) is simple chemicals to replicating rna than more complicated cells and evolution is a fact

[bojoben]

Ummmm no actually evolution states that we evolved from an ape like ancestor, nothing like a modern ape. Shows how VERY little you know about the proven scientific theory you know more about than the vast majority of scientists. Must know more than them? Also, I study biological sciences at uni, and do a massive portion of evolution. Not Creationism. Wonder why? LOL

What evidence are you looking for? How about the fossil record, carbon dating, genetics. Or would you rather believe a fairytale?

[Tahnz86]

lol nothing like a modern ape? so where have our ancestors disappeared to? And yes its a proven scientific theory, U got that right, not a proven scientific fact! So if u have not done ur study on ID how can u claim it is false? Carbon dating has nothing to do whether the universe was created or not.. nor genetics, and as for your "so called" fossil record lol that does not comprise as evidence. Evolution is a fairy tale made up only 150yrs ago this year, what fairy tale do u think i believe in?

[rangerider79]

Regardless of whether anything you said is true or not, Genesis in the bible is still not the answer.

[patrickledford420]

@Tahnz86 there is the theory of evolution and the fact both are true we evolved from apes we are apes ID has no evidence fossil record is evidence of transition and i think u beleive in a creation myth thats y ur deniing evolution

[Tahnz86]

Yes its a proven scientific theory... not a proven scientific fact!!! What are u thinking????

[bojoben]

You dont understand the nature of a scientific theory, it is a common fact. What are you talking about?!

[renegadeXindustries]

yea, we didnt evolve so gradually, rather in definite mutagenic steps.

[alex0962]

Well, one could say that quantic principles can be applied to the idea. As a photon is changed just by being observed, then it changes the environment of that photon as well.

All particles respond to the expectations of the environment (consciousness). As all matter ultimately is composed by particles, one can imply this is also truth for any biological process (evolution).

[moneycrab]

remember that while punctuated equilibrium can put pressure on the rate of especiation by destabilizing the relative benefit of genetic variation, it does nothing to the underlying rate of genetic change which is brought about through arbitrary copy errors, radiation, chemicals, etc....

[0ThouArtThat0]

are you familiar with the research showing that E. Coli responds to a nutrient poor environment by increasing the rate at which mutations take place, such that new genes that would allow for production of enzymes capable of metabolizing surrounding chemicals are more likely to arise? This shows that there is more than just error involved in mutation. Organisms, even at the bacterial level, are capable of inducing mutation when need be.

[moneycrab]

Did this study indicate that the organism itself began increasing the mutations? Perhaps a nutrient poor environment is just more conducive to mutation.

Because what you are saying is that there are observed processes by which E.Coli begins to arbitrarily alter its own genome.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The study (Cairns et al, 1988) does indeed challenge the central dogma (DNA--->mRNA--->protein) by suggesting something similar to evolution via Lamarckian acquired characteristic is possible. It is controversial, of course. But nonetheless, it shows we have much to learn about the complexities of evolution. I tend to lean more toward the developmental systems paradigm than the neo-Darwinist, which seems to have prematurely defined evolution based on NS alone when other processes may be at work.

[demiz2305]

The example you cite couldn't more clearly contradict your 'intelligentDNA' theory. First isn't it obvious that this is an instence of enviornmental pressures exibhiting a stress on a population of organisms? And isn't this increased stress causing an increase in genetic variability which is then in turn selected against on its ability to nourish itself? What else would that be?

It is in fact a perfect example of SELECTIVE PRESSURES affecting DNA in a heritable way?

[demiz2305]

One of the many ways E. coli and other prokaryotes have been shown to increase genetic variability in the face of mounting environmental stresses is to simply induce a new operon. This triggers a whole new set of translational genes specifically including a more error prone DNA polymerase.

[demiz2305]

'the environment adapts to the organism'

That is nothing more than noting the fact that an organism is in its environment.

IS THERE FISH SHIT IN THE OCEAN????

What genetic variation does the environment adapt?

In what way does an organism exist apart from its environment?

....

(vacummophiles maybe??) .

Reductionist blah blah... but DNA as it applies to evolution is nothing BUT an environment manipulator....

[demiz2305]

In re watching and reading my comments, I didn't mean to come off so hostile sounding, it's just that the subject is definitely an area of interest to me.

So in retrospect I would agree with what you say about an organism and its environment adapting to sorta symbiotically, the fact that the DNA is only in one is sorta irrelevant.

I think a lot of what you described would fit under natural selection. Not enough room to go into much detail.....

Good video

camera back soon maybe we discuss

[intelligentfalling]

U BELIF EVILUTIN??!?!?! U BELIF MUSHROOM GIV BIRF TO SQUIRL-DOG???? LOLOLOLOLOL! ME SMART U NOT SMRT! U DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm joking

[patrickledford420]

nice name i thought it was serious at first there really are creationist that call gravity that

[mediteight]

Look forward to trying to understand your criticism of neo-Darwinism, and intrigued to learn what other laws are suspected to be in operation in evolution apart from natural selection.

So far my main criticism would be that the environmental role you describe, heavily misrepresents neo-darwinists. Especially in particular everyone's favourite Richard Dawkins - whose main book is dedicated to expanding our understanding of phenotype to include the effects of a gene on its environment.

[mediteight]

Biologists might take issue with saying:

"The environment adapts to life as much as life adapts to the environment."

Only replicating entities can adapt in the biological sense. The environment changes but it is clearly not adapting since it is not replicating.

[pungentprincess]

Love the video. I have heard of increasing genetic diversity from phagocytosis, but I didn't ever think it could be a driving 'force' more than natural selection.

The idea that An organism creates the environment as much as the organism, I think (though I'm not sure) that this is widely accepted. When someone describes an environment as shaping an organism, it's more a simplification of the whole process rather than a disregarding the fact that organisms contribute to their environment.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Have you looked into the recent work in epigenetics, or into Developmental Systems Theory? These fields are providing a lot of evidence to suggest that evolution involves more than differential gene selection, and that reducing it to that isa vast oversimplification

I think it is well accepted within science generally that the study of an organism is really the study of an organism-environment field. But I run into a lot of people who learned biology from Richard Dawkins that seem to disagree.

[Iamabigdick2000]

You had me at neo....

[beck8404]

I wouldn't be surprised if through interaction two bodies form a relationship which alters each one's presence. There are orchids which are far too specialized in their symbiotic relationship's for the gene mutation explanation. Relationships are far more powerful than our narrow ego's have allowed us to believe. There is much for us to learn about perception. Considering that Earth is a body may help.

[RoadRrunner]

That damn fan. I'm looking forward to this series, given that you seem to have your head around some of the nuances of where current evolutionary theory is coalescing and frothing over the details.

[HaleyMary]

Great stuff. The environment adapting to life as life adapts to the environment. It's like a cycle. Can't really have one without the other.

[danbit5]

i was drinking as usual, luv your stuff

[elgaed42]

You're right that the terminology used in science is often semantically very stupid (one might say retarded in comparison to where it should be). However, the basic idea of 'the Selfish Gene' is not even inherently incompatible with formative models like Rupert Sheldrake's or Lamarckianism, as the gene can be viewed as a morphogenetic seed. It only needs some adjustment as to what it is that modifies the genes. Right now the only hypothesis is 'randomness', which essentially means 'whatever'.

[elgaed42]

Rupert Sheldrake shows that it is probably better to think that the overall form of the organism does modify the genes, rather than simply the competition of individual genes. This then allows for the possibility that mutations are sometimes caused by feedback from the organism. Perhaps there is even some 'competition' going on between the organism and the genes? Surely humans will quite soon begin to -consciously- compete with their genetic programming (e.g. for aging).

[elgaed42]

Note that it is not in question whatsoever that genes -are- modified by their environment. It is only a question of whether this directly relates to acquired traits or states within an organism which then direct some -active- process to modify the genes, rather than just passive mistakes caused by damage, etc. Although change of form is detrimental to the gene's mission of self-preservation, it may be imposed by the organism it creates! Just look at how language changes humans!

[elgaed42]

Note, I don't believe in reductionism, really, of any kind, but just logic. The 'random mutation' bit certainly does leave a lot of room open for things like catastrophic influences and feedback from the organism itself--consequences of the genetic programming. After all, the genes are only as intelligent as their instincts.

[elgaed42]

Reductionisms are absolutely correct in one respect (that of form and theory), but upon misinterpretation based upon semantic non-sense like 'randomness' they can -mutate- into wholly new creatures.

[easilywow]

This world sprung us to life so that we can keep it alive.

[perfidil]

Thanks for this, you are showing that evolution is more subtle than is generally believed. You might note how difficult it is to change the general opinion of evolution as adaptation/fitness. It is clear that there is a certain desperation in trying to rescue these better notions of evolution and "public opinion" seems recalcitrant. For this a broader idea to explain this recalcitrance, why has, or do we think that, the notion of fitness has become so powerful in evolution: "life is life."

[perfidil]

I understand the idea about the creation of the biosphere and it is well put but when you say that the "environment adapts" do you not think it sounds wrong? I mean why is this not anthropomorphism, or more accurately, biomorphism? Using the environment as a subject in the expression the "Environment adapts" makes it purposeful but its end is not to live & adapt but just to be.

Gould was a respected biologist but who talks of the symbiotic idea? Is involution, ie, regression, also an issue?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Biologists have to resort to teleologic language all the time, but rather than see it as actually referring to purpose, we can call it teleonomic and see it as a feature of our descriptions of the life process.

The environment doesn't adapt, that is not the best way of putting it. The point is just that organisms change their environments and are not victims of them. There are not niches out there waiting to be filled. Life creates and sustains its own environment.

[plenipotentiarius]

A good word for "telenomic" would be Kant's use of the phrase, 'regulative idea.' Better perhaps since 'regulative idea' is not as forced as law/Nomos (ie, as in tele-nomic) nor as disputable as Logic (as in tele-logic, since logic for some is formal but for others more Greek and looser).

Ok, so environment doesn't adapt, as such, it is created, in part or in the most part, one might add, by the lifeforms themselves.

Thanks again.

[CPLains]

sounds good

[jogayot]

the show must adopt, Loi. at least you'll leave digital fossil record for the future alien ai species: this wet-ware homo sapiens weren't half silly ;)

[CousinoMacul]

Just remember that punctuated equilibrium is over *geological* time. It's still sort of gradual. For example, we won't know for thousands of years whether we are currently in a period of punctuation or equilibrium.

[maksiiiskam2]

The difference between Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is indeed that Neo-Darwinism claims natural selection to be the principal responsible of natural selection, but Darwinism does not simply claims the contrary, it claims that the other mechanisms are Lamarckism and Pangenesis, which are rejected by science.

You say are a Darwinist, but I don't think you really mean it.

[maksiiiskam2]

Obviously environment is influenced by organism... I don't think any neo-Darwinist ever claimed the contrary. An organism's envirronment consists in great parts of other organisms, therefore the environment of an organism changes any time another organism change in its ecosystem.

The niche is only a very very useful simplification.

[renaissance21wiseguy]

Neo-darwinism - not darwinianism