i would have liked to share this video series with my evolutionary psychology class, however as Cjones below mentioned, the narrator goes a little too fast. In addition. im surprised by the defensive and condescending response made to her constructive criticism. Clearly, the intention of the presenter was to TEACH people about how evolution works. If the way that your teaching it isnt working, then you are not succeeding. no one wants to ask questions of someone that makes them feel stupid.
he was wrong when he said "this is gene flow". Gene flow is transfer of genetic material between populations that are partially isolated from each other (by a physical barrier or weak mating incompatibility)
I understand how natural selection works, and the whole green and brown beetles thing makes sense to me, but how do these small mutations lead to new species? Cos a colour change would be a relatively minor DNA change (i'm assuming - i'm by no means a scientist or whatever), but to create new species, and therefore more/different limbs/organs etc, wouldn't you need a massive DNA change?? Any websites I could read up on this?
@alskees Speciation will occur after the long term accumulation of these DNA changes within populations. The two beetle populations may continue to undergo mutation, selection and genetic drift. Further environmental changes and isolation could also stimulate this. Eventually the populations may become too genetically distinct to interbreed, and continue to drift further apart as a result of even greater restriction on gene flow. There is no real limit on how different they could become.
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
I am not sure if this is fact or myth. I've heard that species will get 'hit' by some universe evolution wave that speeds up evolution. I've heard that 2012 will be when these waves will be hitting us. What is your opinion on this? And if this is true, will all of us evolve the same way or will we all evolve differently? or will our children, and so on evolve?
@LovinLearnin Don't believe anyone who tells you anything about 2012. 2012 is going to be just like every other year.
And no, there is no "universe evolution wave." The human race is evolving, but too slowly for anyone to notice. For example, if you look at suits of armor from the middle ages, they're all made for guys who were 5 feet tall. These were the great warriors of their day. Obviously we've gotten taller since then.
@coltharpnicholas I hope so, I am a little scared about the incrase in earthquakes. I am leaning towards the 2012 thing just being b.s. I remember in h.s. everyone said the world would end in 1997, so maybe this is just a topic that gets a lot of attention and makes money. It is a little scary tho. I appreciate your response!
How about the Italian wall lizards from part one? Which are a completely new species! I don't even think you have watched this video nobody is that stupid!!
@RUKEAL Thats exactly what they have a hard time understanding, the lizards are still lizards, the beetles are still beetles, the fish are still fish, there is no species changes just an adaptation.
@RespectMyHate are you fucking serious? he said that we share a common ancestor not that we derived from that life form, thats the stupidest argument ive ever heard.... why doesnt a cat give birth to a dog? > because dumb shit its a CAT!!, however the cat can and most likely evolve to suit its enviroment and become a Largunat in the future... lol
@RespectMyHate Do you understand what the law of monophyly is?
the Theory of evolution does not dispute that cats will ever stop being cats.
It only indicates that over time Cats will diversify into more types of cats.
The Same principle extends across all life throughout biological history. Cats for example originate from eariler feliformes, those in turn originate from eariler Carnivora. Yet at the same time Modern cats are still both feliforms today and Carnivora today.
@AcanLord Yes so we agree that cats will always be cats, and will never turn into something thats not a cat. God put all life forms into place and gave then the ability to adapt. there is no way the human brain evolved and is the product of millions of years of evolution, or eyes, or hearts etc.
@RespectMyHate You are correct in that cats will never become non-cats. Evolution does not dispute that. Your concept of what the theory of evolution indicates is incorrect. Monophyly is a law of evolution.
Everything that evolution generates is merely a modified version of what came before it and is never
completely different, infact it can never be, no matter how much it changes.
@RespectMyHate I`m not sure you exactly understand what it is i`m trying to tell you. Evolution DOES happen. new species DO emerge, but you must remember that new species always retain some basic fundemental traits of its predecessor, it simply adds to them. these fundemental traits are called synapomorphies. These are part of the way we can trace an organisms lineage. Its also the reason why we know that humans are still hominids, hominids are still apes and apes are still primates.
@RespectMyHate This trend of being able to trace the ancestral lineage using these fundemental characteristics can trace back often indeffinantly. For example.. Humans are -->hominid -->Great ape-->Simiiform-->Haplorrhine-->primate--->eutharian-->therian-->mammalian-->mammaliaform-->therapsid-->synapsid--->Amniote-->tetropod-->stegacephalian-->sarcopterygiian-->chordate-->deuterostome-->bilatarian-->metazoans......etc..etc.. None of these can be disputed, we are part of all of these.
@WhiteCrazyPeople Because those systems are encoded within the DNA, If you have ever done any type of computer programing, you would know that you need a Mind to put the code together for even a simple program, so with that in mind try creating a code that makes eyes, or hearts.
@RespectMyHate Computer code is static, and the OS will deny any erroneous change to the software. DNA works differently. The "Operating System" of DNA, which doesn't really exist, accepts the code whatever that code is.
@Helge129 You still miss the Big picture, If I had to create a code the made eyes, or any organ of the body I wouldn't even know where to start, but modern day science teaches that the miraculous code of life somehow evolved.
A code far more advance than any computer code, or operating system.
@RUKEAL -- Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'-- They do actualy. Characteristics which are inherited and then passed throughout the gene pool according to selective pressures
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal valves - amazing adaptation - but not 'evolution of the species'
Well I am an evolutionary creationist! I believe life evolved in 6 days. My evidence is this.................DARWIN has 6 letters! haha PROVE ME WRONG!
Anyone who can will win a goldfish! Well, some bacteria which will evolve into a goldfish in a few days.
Small print: warning, the odds of bacteria evolving into a goldfish are very low, maskofmystery does not accept any responsibility for your depression if it takes millions of years or doesn't happen at all. Enjoy your goldfish!
It is interesting that nobody is discussing about how it came into existence for the first time. To evolve or to progress, there has to be basic substance(matter) at the first place. It may be DNA or any thing else for that matter
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
@RespectMyHate No no you are watching the wrong set of videos mate you want to watch this "3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy " also by DonExodus and then watch the subsequent videos. But judging by the apparent tone of your comments I fear that even if you evolved a penis in the centre of your forehead (assuming there isnt one there already) you still would refuse to accept the evidence.
Question :), how can gene mutations be labled as harmful, neutral, or benificial? Doesn't the environment determine how benificial or not the mutation is? So how can a mutation be labled as one of these without taking into account the environmental factors?
Well, from an evolutionist point of view, the object of life is to reproduce, so a "beneficial" mutation would be one that results in more successful reproduction, a harmful mutation would be one that results in death or at least less successful reproduction, and a neutral mutation would be one that doesn't seem to make much difference in that area.
@mosquitobight what about sickle cell? Sickle cell is a mutation that leads to death, however those affected with it are immune to malaria, which is in high concentration in the same location. It allows people in those areas the ability to live through malaria in order to reproduce. I guess i was trying to make the statement that you can't lable a mutation without considaring the environment it is occuring in. Sickle cell wouldn't serve any purpose in other areas of the world ya know?
We'll discuss evolution in biology class this year. excited for it. I'm using this to get a little bit of a head start because I can not wait. Science is awesome!
R.A. Fisher made an interesting contribution to evolution theory: the utility of a mutation for survival is inversely proportional the magnitude of the mutation.
@RespectMyHate Yes, reject the consensus of an army of scientists (who are FAR more intelligent than you or I) and say "goddidit". Very fulfilling answer. Besides, the origins of life don't affect evolutionary theory; evolution began to occur AFTER the first cells arose. Abiogenesis makes sense when you here the gist of it; monomials, such as amino and nucleic acids, lipids, etc. formed polynomials (proteins, lipid bilayers, RNA) which formed a very simple self-replicating organic mechanism.
@daftpunkrulerfan1 Yeah but non of what you just said can be replicated in a lab, also how did this first cell reproduce, you mean to tell me that it had all the mechanisms to reproduce right from the start? also how did it acquire its energy, how did it take the energry it aquired and convert it into energy that it could use? your telling me that it had all those systems as well. either way you look at it life is supernatural. God makes far more sense to me.
@RespectMyHate also, the complex machinery that modern cells use to replicate into almost perfect clones and special replication programs like meiosis, did not have to exist for the first proto-organisms to divide.
@RespectMyHate to answer part of your question, meiosis does not exist in all organisms. bacteria do not employ meiosis. Some protozoa utilize even weirder nucleic manipulations and multiple nuclei (ie. small and large nuclei in ciliates like paramecium).
the rest is too complex to explain with the limited character count.
look at the video by cdk007 :: abiogenesis -- watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
@RespectMyHate but to answer the question yes, bacterial division IS still somewhat complex. It lacks any steps involving a nulceus since bacteria don't have nuclei. (thus early steps required for eukaryotic division don't exist) Also bacteria have circular chromosomes that are normally anchored to the membrane. their division process is much less complex than eukaryotic division, but does in fact still have complex machinery.
@RespectMyHate The point of my describing protozoan nuclear manipulations like micronuclei being used to form macronuclei is to show a clear example that new manipulations of genetic material (that are similar in some ways to reproductive division, and likely were derived from the same mechanisms) have evolved in some organisms.
@RespectMyHate Wow, what a useless response. just watch cdk007 and comment there if you have a problem with it, if you can't do that much, then you're not interested in having a real conversation, just talking at me.
It has been estimated that humans suffer about 150 mutations per lifetime. The vast majority affect somatic (non-germ cells), and so are lost when the human dies. Also, it only affected one in his trillions of cells, so its results are inconsequential, even if it was horribly fatal. Occasionally, a mutation happens to a germ cell. If that cell actually becomes another human (and the vast majority don't), then the mutation has past the first hurdle on its way to success.
...is whether the mutation is beneficial. All genes either turn one another on/off or provide the pattern for a protein to be built within cells. If the mutation causes a change to the protein, then the question is whether it changed some basic functionality about the protein. Most protein can be built a huge number of different ways and still accomplish their basic task....
...so those kind of changes are neutral. If the change affects the protein's active area, then it may be good or bad. At this level bad is more often the case, as it is easier to tear down a functionality than build one up. If it is bad, then, because it is now in every cell within the human, then that failure is manifest throughout, and will either cause the death of the human early on (most often in the womb before birth) or it will manifest less fatally, ...
...but will interfere with the human's ability to function in his environment.
If it is beneficial, then it enhances the human. A good example is color vision. Our ancestors developed monochrome vision, and then at some point our chromosomes underwent a "gene duplication", where the gene that creates the visual purple protein that is sensitive to light gets doubled. Two such sites building visual purple are OK, this is a neutral mutation (but turns out to be beneficial in the long run). ...
Later on, a mutation to one of the copies changes visual purple to "visual green" which is sensitive to green light rather than just light in general. This eye can see as before, but green light is especially enhanced. Further mutations in the eye's physical features exploits this change, and later on allows for red and blue to also be added. Some females today even have retinas that are sensitive a ways into the ultraviolet that most of us do not have.
to say that theirs advanced civilizations in space is a stretch, mainly because we dont know true origin of life and 2ndly we dont know exactly how many planets are out their that can feed a species to become civilized but my opinion is that believing in probability says their are to many planets out their not to hold multiple forms of life, and that the life could have evolved to be like us and use technology to help it survive considering how easy to live on earth (earth is easy is a guess) :D
Think how interesting it is, how quickly life can reach high levels of intelligence, once initially triggered and then allowing this natural evolutionary process to decide what works. If it happened way out here, in a boon docks area of the galaxy, how far along could they be closer to the center. Our sun's only 5 billion yrs old. The Galaxy's like 13 billion. There's a vastly advanced civilization out there, has to be, and more than one, it's logical. Is it not?
Indeed. We really need to police our language without being really pedantic. We ARE apes. I mean all the features are there. It is a fact that there is not a single structure in humans that is not in chimps.
No gland, no node, no muscle in one but not the other. This is really a good thing for medical research. It's the reason why we can test drugs on chimps say like see if a drug causes birth defects and be somewhat certain when human trials start.
We Are Apes? Maybe apes came from us, have you thought about that? My opinion is each planet will create 2 or 3 primary human species and the ones that don't turn into the primary humans species, degenerate and turn into apes.
Your hypothesis has a number of holes that are better addressed by the consensus. Your idea doesn't stand up to the comparative method and maximum parsimony
...nobody cares about my opinion that nobody cares about my opinion that nobody cares about your opinion that nobody cares about whomevers opinion you were talking about in your comment. If you thought my comment was redundant and pointless, guess what? So was yours...
you "wore" a monkey before, just as you "wore" a monkey last week, you "ore" a monkey today, you are a monkey at this very second that you're reading this.
monkey is a class of species, including many different species, the great apes and ourselves are included in that.
Regarding the 4 forces that drive evolution - Did you forget sexual selection or do you lump that in with natural selection or something? Just curious.
no dna wise but YES when and if you facter in the enviroment.which is like behavior and then what about after generations of inhanced brain musle activity compared to other musles being worked??
you are excluding horizontal evolution and attempting to explain all change as vertical change. Excluding this concept flaws interpretations of observations.. Often as a result abstractions not matching reality are used. Genes are not a flowing river drifting about and such descriptions seem to serve as an emotional appeal to jump a logical gaps. It's a generic and abstract term and reminds me of religious metaphor.
Thank you for brining up population size DonExodus2.
The video states that there are some Dogs that CAN breed with wolves and that there are some dogs that CANT breed with wolves. The dogs that CAN breed with wolves can also breed with the dogs that CANT breed with wolves. Hope that clears that up.
Horses can breed with donkeys too, but just like wolf-dog breeding, their offsprings are always sterile therefore they can't actually produce a new specie.
Actually I'd use Lion Tiger mating to argue that DNA has gender(precedent antecedent). That lions and Tigers have a gender flip in their growth factor... I'd guess the flip is in lions.
I'd also use angelman's \ prader willi syndromes.
Somebody will probably see this and say that's epigenetics, but I strongly disagree.. I think it's gene gender not simply expression vs. non expression and that is different.
That's where mules comes from. Depending on which parent was female, it will look different as a result of which chromosomes contain what information, but both results are sterile. (At least, I think they're both sterile. I could be mistaken there.)
Dogs are wolfs.. their offspring are not even hybrids as they often incorrectly called and yes they can produce offspring that can then mate and have offspring. There is little difference between them other then breading cycles and that plays into why wolfs aren't good around children except a few months of the year.
Who doesn't understand evolution?
I'm not the moron that thinks that a wolf and a dog produce sterile offspring.
When people argue Evolution they rarely understand it.
hell, there is so much variation in how evolutionary science classifies things today, it's becoming hard to say anything at all. somebody just needs to sit down and determine where to draw the lines.
Dogs could be arguably be called hybrids. The whole species concept is a term of convenience. All populations to more or less of a degree are a distribution of phenotypes around a mean as opposed to something that can be discretely described. This is infact what evolution would predict/
verzen: What is there to explain? The things which bring about speciation are not only razor edged things like change in chromosome number which makes former mates now incompatible; they also include ify things like sheer organ size, change in diurnal habits, display requirements to excite the partners, and so on. It's not always an open and shut case that speciation has occurred; after all, it is the organism telling the world it is divorcing its former species, not the world imposing a rule.
There are oddities out there: witness the liger (lion/tiger), or the cama (camel/llama). These work because the species, very definitely separated, still have the hardware necessary to make an offspring, but now they inhabit different environments and and don't interbreed naturally. That is as much speciation as between chimps and humans, who have differing chromosome counts.
So if the mutations are really that random how did that lizard produce a mutation so suitable for the environment this quickly? Does the species have mutations that change its digestive system that often in general, or did it just happen on unlikely random chance??
Hi Alex. Generally speaking when we see features like this evolve we know that one of two things has happened. Either the environment has changed to favor an existing trait causing that trait to flourish and become fixed within the population. Or a "de novo" trait has emerged from a series of mutations, each beneficial in their own right, but not as easily identifiable as the functioning valve. In neither case do traits such as the cecal valve just randomly appear. Hope that helps.
In the video you state that the lizards were examined before that and the trait didn't exist, and you say that it is too complex to have been formed spontaneously "by chance" .And there is almost no chance of a series of beneficial mutations in 30 years. So the "upgrade" in the digestive system must have consisted of "components" that were already there and used to perform other functions.
I trust you understand this is not my video, and I do not speak for the video's producer. I'm just replying to your questions.
It's important to understand your statement of "evolutionary upgrades consisting of existing components" is true for ALL traits. Natural selection only works with what's there.
Since a cecal valve is a muscle, if the cells lining the small intestine could not differentiate into muscle tissue then something like a cecal valve simply could not have evolved.
(cont..) Identifying the individual steps that led to an existing trait is not always possible. Less efficient cecal valves (or valve-like structures) which may help to identify the evolutionary pathway may no longer exist in the population, meaning that information is lost. Only in controlled experiments can we begin to analyze each mutation and delineate when and how certain traits emerged. I encourage you to read the E. coli Citrate and Nylonase metabolism experiments which did exactly that.
"And there is almost no chance of a series of beneficial mutations in 30 years"--> The appearance of such a complex organ out of nothing from random mutations in a couple of generations is impossible.
"So the "upgrade" in the digestive system must have consisted of "components" that were already there and used to perform other functions."
-->That is EXACTLY what you understand from his explanations about mutations.
All evolutionary traits exist as a reconfiguring of what is already there. Nothing in evolution ever arisen de novo. It has been proven mathematically that every gene sequenced to date is a modified copy of every other gene. So much so that every gene falls into a family of other similar genes. Genes come about ONLY from duplication and then ONLY from subsequent modification.
Strictly speaking every evolutionary novelty is an exaptation.
Yes new alleles may arise. But whole new organs and complex functional structures don't arise from scratch in only a few generations. As far as I know every new complex organ with a new function arises from simpler organs performing other functions.
maybe the natural variation in that particular population of lizards was very large. Their were some offspring with larger stomachs than others, but they weren't mutated. Those were the ones who survived and passed on their traits.
its call adaption you homos, you dont call a blind man getting better smell and hearing evolution , so you cant call a lizzard adapting to process food slower evolution, u knw how he said that sum people are just fully nt open minded and shut out , well take a look at the people hu believe there fully close minded and shut out from the fact that wee can produce.
"its call adaption you homos, you dont call a blind man getting better smell and hearing evolution , so you cant call a lizzard adapting to process food slower evolution"
That's what evolution is! Animals evolve to adapt to their environment. The lizards evolved an expanded gut and also developed cecal valves. These are new structures that an individual cannot just grow as a result of dietary change. It occurs over generations. These adaptations ARE evolutionary.
LOL. It's adaptation in this context. And you are honestly comparing the body compansating for the lack of vision to an animal that changed how fast it digests its food??? An ability is gained over generations??? And really you should reallly learn how to spell. lizzard, hu, wee??? And the homo was a nice touch. You are a bigot and not very smart. Which I guess go hand and hand which eachother.
What you're referring to are plastic adaptations. These are not passed on to the offspring and so are not able to evolve. We're talking about adaptations that have been assimilated into the population because of a selection among possibilities. That's evolution and what we are proposing.
Blind people don't get 'better smell and hearing' they get more reliant on these senses and so they focus more on them allowing them to pick out smaller differences. also, that is in one person, not over a generation and it isn't passed on as a genetic trait to the offspring. your ideas are akin to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's, they have been proven incorrect.
Wouldn't the development of such evolution changes as a butterflies wings looking like an owl suggest that their is some sort of subconscious control over evolution?
Please don't confuse me with this stuff. God created us. Easy.
Only joking. Great job man.
nsugathadasa 2 months ago
Thanks for this video. You explain things better than I could ever hope to. Seriously... :-(
KawaiiKemonomimi 2 months ago
i would have liked to share this video series with my evolutionary psychology class, however as Cjones below mentioned, the narrator goes a little too fast. In addition. im surprised by the defensive and condescending response made to her constructive criticism. Clearly, the intention of the presenter was to TEACH people about how evolution works. If the way that your teaching it isnt working, then you are not succeeding. no one wants to ask questions of someone that makes them feel stupid.
tiphicups 5 months ago
@tiphicups i was replying to respectmyhate not cjones
sundayshopping88 5 months ago
Comment removed
tiphicups 5 months ago
Comment removed
tiphicups 5 months ago
Comment removed
tiphicups 5 months ago
You go a little too fast and you speak while there is material to be read on the slides. It's quite difficult to keep up with you. :/
CJones990 6 months ago
he was wrong when he said "this is gene flow". Gene flow is transfer of genetic material between populations that are partially isolated from each other (by a physical barrier or weak mating incompatibility)
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto but then he went on to discuss it correctly
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
I understand how natural selection works, and the whole green and brown beetles thing makes sense to me, but how do these small mutations lead to new species? Cos a colour change would be a relatively minor DNA change (i'm assuming - i'm by no means a scientist or whatever), but to create new species, and therefore more/different limbs/organs etc, wouldn't you need a massive DNA change?? Any websites I could read up on this?
alskees 8 months ago
@alskees Speciation will occur after the long term accumulation of these DNA changes within populations. The two beetle populations may continue to undergo mutation, selection and genetic drift. Further environmental changes and isolation could also stimulate this. Eventually the populations may become too genetically distinct to interbreed, and continue to drift further apart as a result of even greater restriction on gene flow. There is no real limit on how different they could become.
FactThis 8 months ago
click for free cake :D
14starflower14 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
achilles197474 8 months ago
I feel like im getting smarter with each passing second. :D
TheJizznet 10 months ago
U explain the details well but, talk really, really fast.
Msholyangel17 10 months ago
0:08 you misspelled the word "Jean" 0:14 You found my sisters baby picture ;D 0:48 my sperm is on my chest!
Introspective91 10 months ago
Are there beatles that can evolve to resist a human stepping on them?.............
starsheild7 10 months ago
I am not sure if this is fact or myth. I've heard that species will get 'hit' by some universe evolution wave that speeds up evolution. I've heard that 2012 will be when these waves will be hitting us. What is your opinion on this? And if this is true, will all of us evolve the same way or will we all evolve differently? or will our children, and so on evolve?
LovinLearnin 10 months ago
@LovinLearnin Don't believe anyone who tells you anything about 2012. 2012 is going to be just like every other year.
And no, there is no "universe evolution wave." The human race is evolving, but too slowly for anyone to notice. For example, if you look at suits of armor from the middle ages, they're all made for guys who were 5 feet tall. These were the great warriors of their day. Obviously we've gotten taller since then.
coltharpnicholas 9 months ago
@coltharpnicholas I hope so, I am a little scared about the incrase in earthquakes. I am leaning towards the 2012 thing just being b.s. I remember in h.s. everyone said the world would end in 1997, so maybe this is just a topic that gets a lot of attention and makes money. It is a little scary tho. I appreciate your response!
LovinLearnin 9 months ago
How about the Italian wall lizards from part one? Which are a completely new species! I don't even think you have watched this video nobody is that stupid!!
Jell28able 11 months ago
Come on evolutionists: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin!
There are cash rewards out on the internet for an authentic answer - never been claimed yet though!
Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
@RUKEAL Thats exactly what they have a hard time understanding, the lizards are still lizards, the beetles are still beetles, the fish are still fish, there is no species changes just an adaptation.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate are you fucking serious? he said that we share a common ancestor not that we derived from that life form, thats the stupidest argument ive ever heard.... why doesnt a cat give birth to a dog? > because dumb shit its a CAT!!, however the cat can and most likely evolve to suit its enviroment and become a Largunat in the future... lol
dechav1 11 months ago
@dechav1 No in the future a cat will still be a fucking cat you stupid piece of shit.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate Do you understand what the law of monophyly is?
the Theory of evolution does not dispute that cats will ever stop being cats.
It only indicates that over time Cats will diversify into more types of cats.
The Same principle extends across all life throughout biological history. Cats for example originate from eariler feliformes, those in turn originate from eariler Carnivora. Yet at the same time Modern cats are still both feliforms today and Carnivora today.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord Yes so we agree that cats will always be cats, and will never turn into something thats not a cat. God put all life forms into place and gave then the ability to adapt. there is no way the human brain evolved and is the product of millions of years of evolution, or eyes, or hearts etc.
GOD IS THE CREATOR.
RespectMyHate 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate You are correct in that cats will never become non-cats. Evolution does not dispute that. Your concept of what the theory of evolution indicates is incorrect. Monophyly is a law of evolution.
Everything that evolution generates is merely a modified version of what came before it and is never
completely different, infact it can never be, no matter how much it changes.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate I`m not sure you exactly understand what it is i`m trying to tell you. Evolution DOES happen. new species DO emerge, but you must remember that new species always retain some basic fundemental traits of its predecessor, it simply adds to them. these fundemental traits are called synapomorphies. These are part of the way we can trace an organisms lineage. Its also the reason why we know that humans are still hominids, hominids are still apes and apes are still primates.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate This trend of being able to trace the ancestral lineage using these fundemental characteristics can trace back often indeffinantly. For example.. Humans are -->hominid -->Great ape-->Simiiform-->Haplorrhine-->primate--->eutharian-->therian-->mammalian-->mammaliaform-->therapsid-->synapsid--->Amniote-->tetropod-->stegacephalian-->sarcopterygiian-->chordate-->deuterostome-->bilatarian-->metazoans......etc..etc.. None of these can be disputed, we are part of all of these.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate Additionaly.
I suggest abandoning Irreducible complexity as an arguement.
it does not actualy mean what you likely believe it does.
its a creationist favorite so i understand your reluctance, but you must understand
that just because something will not function if you remove components does not equate to it
being impossible to emerge via evolution. Infact The original coinage of the term irreducible complexity was
used to describe in emergient property of evolution itself.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@RespectMyHate How is it impossible for the brain/eye/heart to have evolved?
WhiteCrazyPeople 7 months ago
@WhiteCrazyPeople Because those systems are encoded within the DNA, If you have ever done any type of computer programing, you would know that you need a Mind to put the code together for even a simple program, so with that in mind try creating a code that makes eyes, or hearts.
RespectMyHate 7 months ago
@RespectMyHate Comparing DNA with computer code is...idiotic at best.
Helge129 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Computer code is static, and the OS will deny any erroneous change to the software. DNA works differently. The "Operating System" of DNA, which doesn't really exist, accepts the code whatever that code is.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 You still miss the Big picture, If I had to create a code the made eyes, or any organ of the body I wouldn't even know where to start, but modern day science teaches that the miraculous code of life somehow evolved.
A code far more advance than any computer code, or operating system.
Open your eyes dude.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RUKEAL -- Remember adaptation of moths, lizards and such like do not count as 'evolution of the species'-- They do actualy. Characteristics which are inherited and then passed throughout the gene pool according to selective pressures
is the very deffinition of evolution.
AcanLord 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal glands - amazing but not 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pop Quiz: Name one authentic example of evolution since Darwin.
p.s. Adaptation by moths on trees does not count - that's simply the same as Africans developing dark skin or Nordic people having barrel chests. Lizards developing cecal valves - amazing adaptation - but not 'evolution of the species'
RUKEAL 11 months ago
Well I am an evolutionary creationist! I believe life evolved in 6 days. My evidence is this.................DARWIN has 6 letters! haha PROVE ME WRONG!
Anyone who can will win a goldfish! Well, some bacteria which will evolve into a goldfish in a few days.
Small print: warning, the odds of bacteria evolving into a goldfish are very low, maskofmystery does not accept any responsibility for your depression if it takes millions of years or doesn't happen at all. Enjoy your goldfish!
MaskofMystery 1 year ago
It is interesting that nobody is discussing about how it came into existence for the first time. To evolve or to progress, there has to be basic substance(matter) at the first place. It may be DNA or any thing else for that matter
praneshkn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also diescovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
Hey why don't you go on to explain how DNA got hear in the first place. or how DNA synthesis evolved.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Because thats not evolution!!!!!!
greeny202a 1 year ago
@greeny202a LOL yes it is, becuase DNA supposedly evolved.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate No no you are watching the wrong set of videos mate you want to watch this "3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy " also by DonExodus and then watch the subsequent videos. But judging by the apparent tone of your comments I fear that even if you evolved a penis in the centre of your forehead (assuming there isnt one there already) you still would refuse to accept the evidence.
greeny202a 1 year ago
confusing! no wonder many people just end up accepting god as the creator :P its alot easier.
Armzan 1 year ago
@Armzan lol
strawswirls 1 year ago
You're missing Lysine! NOOOO
SCRulerShinoda 1 year ago
Question :), how can gene mutations be labled as harmful, neutral, or benificial? Doesn't the environment determine how benificial or not the mutation is? So how can a mutation be labled as one of these without taking into account the environmental factors?
MsAshBe 1 year ago
@MsAshBe
Well, from an evolutionist point of view, the object of life is to reproduce, so a "beneficial" mutation would be one that results in more successful reproduction, a harmful mutation would be one that results in death or at least less successful reproduction, and a neutral mutation would be one that doesn't seem to make much difference in that area.
mosquitobight 1 year ago
@mosquitobight what about sickle cell? Sickle cell is a mutation that leads to death, however those affected with it are immune to malaria, which is in high concentration in the same location. It allows people in those areas the ability to live through malaria in order to reproduce. I guess i was trying to make the statement that you can't lable a mutation without considaring the environment it is occuring in. Sickle cell wouldn't serve any purpose in other areas of the world ya know?
MsAshBe 1 year ago
160 people watched this video with their hands over their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA!!!!".
steagle1017 1 year ago 6
We'll discuss evolution in biology class this year. excited for it. I'm using this to get a little bit of a head start because I can not wait. Science is awesome!
timocool 1 year ago
good vid.
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
my professor had me refer to this video for a study guide that I was completing. Haha.
iOLY32 1 year ago 17
R.A. Fisher made an interesting contribution to evolution theory: the utility of a mutation for survival is inversely proportional the magnitude of the mutation.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
Science is interesting, and if u disagree you can fuck off!!
(tongue in cheek)
daftpunkrulerfan1 1 year ago 42
@daftpunkrulerfan1 Modern ay science is full of shit when I come to origins, and if you don't believe that, you can eat a dick.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Yes, reject the consensus of an army of scientists (who are FAR more intelligent than you or I) and say "goddidit". Very fulfilling answer. Besides, the origins of life don't affect evolutionary theory; evolution began to occur AFTER the first cells arose. Abiogenesis makes sense when you here the gist of it; monomials, such as amino and nucleic acids, lipids, etc. formed polynomials (proteins, lipid bilayers, RNA) which formed a very simple self-replicating organic mechanism.
daftpunkrulerfan1 6 months ago
@daftpunkrulerfan1 Yeah but non of what you just said can be replicated in a lab, also how did this first cell reproduce, you mean to tell me that it had all the mechanisms to reproduce right from the start? also how did it acquire its energy, how did it take the energry it aquired and convert it into energy that it could use? your telling me that it had all those systems as well. either way you look at it life is supernatural. God makes far more sense to me.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate thats just a failing of your personal psychology. what makes sense to you doesn't necessarily reflect what is real in the world.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate also, the complex machinery that modern cells use to replicate into almost perfect clones and special replication programs like meiosis, did not have to exist for the first proto-organisms to divide.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto how do you know that?
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate to answer part of your question, meiosis does not exist in all organisms. bacteria do not employ meiosis. Some protozoa utilize even weirder nucleic manipulations and multiple nuclei (ie. small and large nuclei in ciliates like paramecium).
the rest is too complex to explain with the limited character count.
look at the video by cdk007 :: abiogenesis -- watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto would you agree that the division mechanisms bacteria use are still highly complex?
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate watch the video link i posted before coming back. You clearly didn't
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate but to answer the question yes, bacterial division IS still somewhat complex. It lacks any steps involving a nulceus since bacteria don't have nuclei. (thus early steps required for eukaryotic division don't exist) Also bacteria have circular chromosomes that are normally anchored to the membrane. their division process is much less complex than eukaryotic division, but does in fact still have complex machinery.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate The point of my describing protozoan nuclear manipulations like micronuclei being used to form macronuclei is to show a clear example that new manipulations of genetic material (that are similar in some ways to reproductive division, and likely were derived from the same mechanisms) have evolved in some organisms.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
@kotoroshinoto If I could talk to you in person, and we had a debate, I would destroy all your arguments.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Wow, what a useless response. just watch cdk007 and comment there if you have a problem with it, if you can't do that much, then you're not interested in having a real conversation, just talking at me.
kotoroshinoto 6 months ago
Comment removed
tiphicups 5 months ago
science is amazing!
robertchflynn 2 years ago 3
Well of course they say that. its called a lie. Duh.
godworkshere 2 years ago
You will be resposable for your words
godworkshere 2 years ago
Nope its not a opinion no matter how much you want it to be.
godworkshere 2 years ago
Only if you are blind and can not see.
godworkshere 2 years ago
Why'd you finally reveal yourself as a poe, gwh? I'm disappointed.
coasterpro 2 years ago
I thought the first rule of Poe club was that you don't talk about Poe club...
CBlargh 2 years ago
It has been estimated that humans suffer about 150 mutations per lifetime. The vast majority affect somatic (non-germ cells), and so are lost when the human dies. Also, it only affected one in his trillions of cells, so its results are inconsequential, even if it was horribly fatal. Occasionally, a mutation happens to a germ cell. If that cell actually becomes another human (and the vast majority don't), then the mutation has past the first hurdle on its way to success.
The second hurdle...
puncheex 2 years ago
...is whether the mutation is beneficial. All genes either turn one another on/off or provide the pattern for a protein to be built within cells. If the mutation causes a change to the protein, then the question is whether it changed some basic functionality about the protein. Most protein can be built a huge number of different ways and still accomplish their basic task....
puncheex 2 years ago
...so those kind of changes are neutral. If the change affects the protein's active area, then it may be good or bad. At this level bad is more often the case, as it is easier to tear down a functionality than build one up. If it is bad, then, because it is now in every cell within the human, then that failure is manifest throughout, and will either cause the death of the human early on (most often in the womb before birth) or it will manifest less fatally, ...
puncheex 2 years ago
...but will interfere with the human's ability to function in his environment.
If it is beneficial, then it enhances the human. A good example is color vision. Our ancestors developed monochrome vision, and then at some point our chromosomes underwent a "gene duplication", where the gene that creates the visual purple protein that is sensitive to light gets doubled. Two such sites building visual purple are OK, this is a neutral mutation (but turns out to be beneficial in the long run). ...
puncheex 2 years ago
Later on, a mutation to one of the copies changes visual purple to "visual green" which is sensitive to green light rather than just light in general. This eye can see as before, but green light is especially enhanced. Further mutations in the eye's physical features exploits this change, and later on allows for red and blue to also be added. Some females today even have retinas that are sensitive a ways into the ultraviolet that most of us do not have.
puncheex 2 years ago
Man... I wish I could pay you for this information!
knowinginfinity 2 years ago
brown jeans...
jCwel 2 years ago
to say that theirs advanced civilizations in space is a stretch, mainly because we dont know true origin of life and 2ndly we dont know exactly how many planets are out their that can feed a species to become civilized but my opinion is that believing in probability says their are to many planets out their not to hold multiple forms of life, and that the life could have evolved to be like us and use technology to help it survive considering how easy to live on earth (earth is easy is a guess) :D
majikninja07 2 years ago
Think how interesting it is, how quickly life can reach high levels of intelligence, once initially triggered and then allowing this natural evolutionary process to decide what works. If it happened way out here, in a boon docks area of the galaxy, how far along could they be closer to the center. Our sun's only 5 billion yrs old. The Galaxy's like 13 billion. There's a vastly advanced civilization out there, has to be, and more than one, it's logical. Is it not?
musicequalstruth 2 years ago 2
Excellent overview. Very informative. Thanks
Jord4300 2 years ago
i believe were not that that advanced to know wats going on
donkykongWoW 2 years ago
Maybe you aren't, but more intelligent people are.
JaeEffingKae 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how wore u once a monkey, or a fish, or what ever you wore before?
WorldIslamicOrder 2 years ago
what? What the hell are you asking?
seanbrockest 2 years ago
No, not an individual. Our ancestors were as you put it "monkeys, fish, etc."...
June28July 2 years ago 2
Look at the fossil record. We are still apes.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
Indeed. We really need to police our language without being really pedantic. We ARE apes. I mean all the features are there. It is a fact that there is not a single structure in humans that is not in chimps.
No gland, no node, no muscle in one but not the other. This is really a good thing for medical research. It's the reason why we can test drugs on chimps say like see if a drug causes birth defects and be somewhat certain when human trials start.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
We Are Apes? Maybe apes came from us, have you thought about that? My opinion is each planet will create 2 or 3 primary human species and the ones that don't turn into the primary humans species, degenerate and turn into apes.
controlpopulation 2 years ago
Your hypothesis has a number of holes that are better addressed by the consensus. Your idea doesn't stand up to the comparative method and maximum parsimony
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
for god sakes, nobody cares for your opinion.
professorM 2 years ago
And right back at ya professorM. Opinions are like assholes... well, you know the rest.
controlpopulation 2 years ago
...nobody cares about my opinion that nobody cares about my opinion that nobody cares about your opinion that nobody cares about whomevers opinion you were talking about in your comment. If you thought my comment was redundant and pointless, guess what? So was yours...
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
@controlpopulation
Ridiculous and is better said in a science fiction novel.
spiderpig85 2 years ago
you "wore" a monkey before, just as you "wore" a monkey last week, you "ore" a monkey today, you are a monkey at this very second that you're reading this.
monkey is a class of species, including many different species, the great apes and ourselves are included in that.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ur the ape monkey looser kant mother fucker athiest chimp gorilla sub human specie.
WorldIslamicOrder 2 years ago
4/10
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
WorldIslamicOrder
Do you feel like growing up sometime soon?
manhunt48 2 years ago 2
Fale
Krippers 2 years ago
have africans especiated yet?
LordHines420 2 years ago
you will be baked and there will be cake
princeofexcess 2 years ago 2
which means that cake is not a lie!
kristijan12 2 years ago
The only people who deny evolution failed their GCSE's.
KingsEcho 2 years ago 23
Regarding the 4 forces that drive evolution - Did you forget sexual selection or do you lump that in with natural selection or something? Just curious.
Ripley747 2 years ago
does good exist? can you see it with a telescope. hold it.// I know relgion has arrogently put me in a box. I am that I am
destylebaby 2 years ago
Does my butt not itching exist?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
forgiveness is the way- its been tested, heathier but-how do u have God figured out??
destylebaby 2 years ago
no dna wise but YES when and if you facter in the enviroment.which is like behavior and then what about after generations of inhanced brain musle activity compared to other musles being worked??
destylebaby 2 years ago
you are excluding horizontal evolution and attempting to explain all change as vertical change. Excluding this concept flaws interpretations of observations.. Often as a result abstractions not matching reality are used. Genes are not a flowing river drifting about and such descriptions seem to serve as an emotional appeal to jump a logical gaps. It's a generic and abstract term and reminds me of religious metaphor.
Thank you for brining up population size DonExodus2.
abram730 2 years ago
HGT is beyond the scope of this presentation, and rather inconsequential at the higher levels we are discussing here.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
I would argue that the methods you describe as the cause evolution are inconsequential as there is no direct evidence of them causing speciation..
A poodle can breed with a wolf after all.
The method I mentioned can however cause instant speciation within one generation.
Why ignore the only observed cause of speciation? Isn't that's disingenuous?
I'd also point out that selective breeding was not first practiced by man and has been observed in the lab.
abram730 2 years ago
I thought I'd clarify that I was talking about speciation of multi cellular life from HGT and not just in regards to single celled life.
I'd give arthropods and their interaction with Walbachia as an observed example on instant speciation.
abram730 2 years ago
However there are some dogs who cant breed with wolves.. But they can breed with dogs that CAN breed with wolves.. Can you explain that?
verzen 2 years ago
can you source that?
abram730 2 years ago
What did I say again? Cant find it.
verzen 2 years ago
you would not have just asked that if you watched these videos and i dont blame DonExodus for laughing at your comment.
evozoocorey28 2 years ago
The video states that there are some Dogs that CAN breed with wolves and that there are some dogs that CANT breed with wolves. The dogs that CAN breed with wolves can also breed with the dogs that CANT breed with wolves. Hope that clears that up.
verzen 2 years ago
Horses can breed with donkeys too, but just like wolf-dog breeding, their offsprings are always sterile therefore they can't actually produce a new specie.
CvijaFaQ 2 years ago
lol you left him speechless :)
chip279 2 years ago
Not really... It just proves my point. He doesnt understand evolution at all.
verzen 2 years ago
Are you sure that horses can breed with donkeys? Because they are to diferent species.....They shouldn't be able to breed with donkeys....
NuclearMouse94 2 years ago
Yes, I'm sure
CvijaFaQ 2 years ago
When you breed horses with donkeys you get a mule.
Krow147 2 years ago
Yes it's a fact that they can breed...
Actually I'd use Lion Tiger mating to argue that DNA has gender(precedent antecedent). That lions and Tigers have a gender flip in their growth factor... I'd guess the flip is in lions.
I'd also use angelman's \ prader willi syndromes.
Somebody will probably see this and say that's epigenetics, but I strongly disagree.. I think it's gene gender not simply expression vs. non expression and that is different.
abram730 2 years ago
That's where mules comes from. Depending on which parent was female, it will look different as a result of which chromosomes contain what information, but both results are sterile. (At least, I think they're both sterile. I could be mistaken there.)
pyxlated 2 years ago
Mules are not always sterile. Normally yes, but not always. Hybrids (ligers, mules, etc.) are, for the most part, sterile.
sleepingsound 2 years ago
Dogs are wolfs.. their offspring are not even hybrids as they often incorrectly called and yes they can produce offspring that can then mate and have offspring. There is little difference between them other then breading cycles and that plays into why wolfs aren't good around children except a few months of the year.
Who doesn't understand evolution?
I'm not the moron that thinks that a wolf and a dog produce sterile offspring.
When people argue Evolution they rarely understand it.
abram730 2 years ago
Thanks for calling me a moron, and I wasn't trying to disprove evolution, I know that it's not a theory but a fact.
CvijaFaQ 2 years ago 2
hell, there is so much variation in how evolutionary science classifies things today, it's becoming hard to say anything at all. somebody just needs to sit down and determine where to draw the lines.
oneismorethannone 2 years ago
Dogs could be arguably be called hybrids. The whole species concept is a term of convenience. All populations to more or less of a degree are a distribution of phenotypes around a mean as opposed to something that can be discretely described. This is infact what evolution would predict/
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
verzen: What is there to explain? The things which bring about speciation are not only razor edged things like change in chromosome number which makes former mates now incompatible; they also include ify things like sheer organ size, change in diurnal habits, display requirements to excite the partners, and so on. It's not always an open and shut case that speciation has occurred; after all, it is the organism telling the world it is divorcing its former species, not the world imposing a rule.
puncheex 2 years ago
There are oddities out there: witness the liger (lion/tiger), or the cama (camel/llama). These work because the species, very definitely separated, still have the hardware necessary to make an offspring, but now they inhabit different environments and and don't interbreed naturally. That is as much speciation as between chimps and humans, who have differing chromosome counts.
puncheex 2 years ago
could you please watch the video before you comment
P.s. When you do watch the video pay attention.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
So if the mutations are really that random how did that lizard produce a mutation so suitable for the environment this quickly? Does the species have mutations that change its digestive system that often in general, or did it just happen on unlikely random chance??
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Hi Alex. Generally speaking when we see features like this evolve we know that one of two things has happened. Either the environment has changed to favor an existing trait causing that trait to flourish and become fixed within the population. Or a "de novo" trait has emerged from a series of mutations, each beneficial in their own right, but not as easily identifiable as the functioning valve. In neither case do traits such as the cecal valve just randomly appear. Hope that helps.
coasterpro 2 years ago
In the video you state that the lizards were examined before that and the trait didn't exist, and you say that it is too complex to have been formed spontaneously "by chance" .And there is almost no chance of a series of beneficial mutations in 30 years. So the "upgrade" in the digestive system must have consisted of "components" that were already there and used to perform other functions.
What were they?
AlexGruev 2 years ago
I trust you understand this is not my video, and I do not speak for the video's producer. I'm just replying to your questions.
It's important to understand your statement of "evolutionary upgrades consisting of existing components" is true for ALL traits. Natural selection only works with what's there.
Since a cecal valve is a muscle, if the cells lining the small intestine could not differentiate into muscle tissue then something like a cecal valve simply could not have evolved.
coasterpro 2 years ago
(cont..) Identifying the individual steps that led to an existing trait is not always possible. Less efficient cecal valves (or valve-like structures) which may help to identify the evolutionary pathway may no longer exist in the population, meaning that information is lost. Only in controlled experiments can we begin to analyze each mutation and delineate when and how certain traits emerged. I encourage you to read the E. coli Citrate and Nylonase metabolism experiments which did exactly that.
coasterpro 2 years ago
"And there is almost no chance of a series of beneficial mutations in 30 years"
He didn't say this part.; you made it up.
"So the "upgrade" in the digestive system must have consisted of "components" that were already there and used to perform other functions."
See his explanation of mutations and you might understand
ikvsabre 2 years ago
"And there is almost no chance of a series of beneficial mutations in 30 years"--> The appearance of such a complex organ out of nothing from random mutations in a couple of generations is impossible.
"So the "upgrade" in the digestive system must have consisted of "components" that were already there and used to perform other functions."
-->That is EXACTLY what you understand from his explanations about mutations.
I don't see the point of your comment...
AlexGruev 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The appearance of such a complex organ out of nothing from random mutations in a couple of generations is impossible.
"
Random mutation (or more accurately, a series of them most likely) IS the "something"
"-->That is EXACTLY what you understand from his explanations about mutations."
No, it isn't. You might, but then you don't UNDERSTAND at all.
What he said is that we KNOW they didn't have these valves before, because we have the original population.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
maybe the lizard ancestors ate plants at one time and those organs became useful again.
bouiglob 2 years ago
@bouiglob no, the parent population doesnt have the traits or the genes, they were not atavistic
patrickledford420 1 year ago
All evolutionary traits exist as a reconfiguring of what is already there. Nothing in evolution ever arisen de novo. It has been proven mathematically that every gene sequenced to date is a modified copy of every other gene. So much so that every gene falls into a family of other similar genes. Genes come about ONLY from duplication and then ONLY from subsequent modification.
Strictly speaking every evolutionary novelty is an exaptation.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@AlexGruev
You don't know population genetics. New alleles arise all the time and get passed around. New phenotypes arise all the time.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Yes new alleles may arise. But whole new organs and complex functional structures don't arise from scratch in only a few generations. As far as I know every new complex organ with a new function arises from simpler organs performing other functions.
AlexGruev 1 year ago
@AlexGruev
That is correct. The prostate evolved out of tiny glands in the wall of the urethra as did say the cowpers gland down there.
fins in fish originated from a genetic duplication and ectopic expression of bony gills.
The pineal gland in the middle of the skull is a duplicated and modified eye. Sort of like what the tuatara has.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
@AlexGruev yes, no new structures evolve in a few generations but over many many generations new structures do evolve
patrickledford420 1 year ago
maybe the natural variation in that particular population of lizards was very large. Their were some offspring with larger stomachs than others, but they weren't mutated. Those were the ones who survived and passed on their traits.
bouiglob 2 years ago
No, the lizards that were transplanted did not have the feature. The change since then is part plasticity and part quantitative genetic change.
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
its call adaption you homos, you dont call a blind man getting better smell and hearing evolution , so you cant call a lizzard adapting to process food slower evolution, u knw how he said that sum people are just fully nt open minded and shut out , well take a look at the people hu believe there fully close minded and shut out from the fact that wee can produce.
ShirmyJay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
English is not your friend.
tend 2 years ago
"its call adaption you homos, you dont call a blind man getting better smell and hearing evolution , so you cant call a lizzard adapting to process food slower evolution"
That's what evolution is! Animals evolve to adapt to their environment. The lizards evolved an expanded gut and also developed cecal valves. These are new structures that an individual cannot just grow as a result of dietary change. It occurs over generations. These adaptations ARE evolutionary.
adkinsjr 2 years ago 3
LOL. It's adaptation in this context. And you are honestly comparing the body compansating for the lack of vision to an animal that changed how fast it digests its food??? An ability is gained over generations??? And really you should reallly learn how to spell. lizzard, hu, wee??? And the homo was a nice touch. You are a bigot and not very smart. Which I guess go hand and hand which eachother.
Jedibron 2 years ago
What you're referring to are plastic adaptations. These are not passed on to the offspring and so are not able to evolve. We're talking about adaptations that have been assimilated into the population because of a selection among possibilities. That's evolution and what we are proposing.
Do you understand now?
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
Blind people don't get 'better smell and hearing' they get more reliant on these senses and so they focus more on them allowing them to pick out smaller differences. also, that is in one person, not over a generation and it isn't passed on as a genetic trait to the offspring. your ideas are akin to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's, they have been proven incorrect.
will070361 2 years ago
Homo Sapients? Yes. Yes we are.
And Adaptation is at the very Core of Evolutionary Theory.
And Theories in Science are the highest form of proof you can have.
Theories in Science aren't random guesses.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 3
An excellent response sabertooth
Baldurpet 2 years ago
Wouldn't the development of such evolution changes as a butterflies wings looking like an owl suggest that their is some sort of subconscious control over evolution?
tend 2 years ago
subconscious control over evolution?
Answer
Yep.
There are more of these examples.
wannabeebee 2 years ago
not really. does it look THAT much like an owl?
RaustBD 2 years ago
do a google search...there are some pretty convincing owls that evolution has painted on the wings of butterflies...