Added: 1 year ago
From: StanfordUniversity
Views: 54,376
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (144)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @JungleJargon I don't know where you are from, but I guess you're from U.S. since it is the only (developed) country I have visited where there are so many people who don't believe in the evolution theory. I'm Italian and I live in a country where the catholic Church is very influent and where the majoirity of the people are catholic or christian, but even the most ignorant priest wouldn't deny the Evolution.

  • LOL you don't pluralize Pokemon LOL LOL what an IDIOT. HOW did this moron become a PROFESSOR? IT'S POKEON, NOT "POKEMONS" MORON.

  • Click click

    Bang bang

    This poem will not rhyme

    Paper clip.

  • To the guy doing the summary; i wouldnt entirely be safe putting "individual selection" with selfish genes, as that are kinda two different domains. I might be wrong but; I consider "selfish genes" to be a postulated "optimization bias" that manifests so easily in nature, and even more so in theoretical math, and I consider "individual selection" to be a pragmatic abstraction. Reason why? selfish genes explains ALL KINDS OF SELECTION, degrees of reciprocity which u could call kin sel. etc etc.

  • Comment removed

  • I don't understand the evolutionary reasoning behind the urge to do good to my non-close relatives. Why should I, evolutionarily, give a crap about starving children in India, Africa, other developing countries? Why should I care if they die? Why should I give to charity that doesn't help me or my kin? It in no way affects my individual, sexual, or kin selection.

  • @pkosh1

    Ah, it could be a misfiring or simply the implied benefit of people thinking the same. Again, taking care of pets is kinda some of the same thing, unless those pets provide a direct utility.

  • @pkosh1 you may have some indirect benefits like feeling good, or bragging rights ;)

  • Thanks for putting these video up. Now life makes a little more sense to me. It shows why people do what they do in certain situations and how to deal with difficult social and relationship problems.

  • Summary:

    It's not survival of the fittest or behaving for the good of the species, but increasing copies of one's genes in next generation.

    1) Individual selection - selfish genes- behav is a way of passing on the genes

    2)Kin selection- help relatives reproduce (how do you know who you're related to?)

    3)Reciprocal altruism, spotting cheats, cheating when you can

    Game Theory- tit for tat, fTfT, Pavlov, role diversification

    Comparing big and equal males.Differences in species with/out dimorphism.

  • like feminism ruining society

  • behavior? More like behaviour!

  • Arguing with people who simply insist that evolution is "wrong" is a waste of time. Genuine questions should be answered, but individuals (in my observations, primarily religious) who refuse to accept the evidence and insist on dogmatic, ideological ideas about biology should simply be ignored. If one is to interact with them at all, it should only be to point them in the direction of a book or database.

  • Evolution is a fact. It is the most basic and, amongst educated individuals, the least.controversial fact in all of biology.

    You don't believe in evolution? Go away and read a book.

  • @jcgiron89 Evolution is an insult and a disgrace to science.

    Objects did not make or refine what you are. They only destroy what you are and you will eventually die because of what objects do to you.

    Biology is the result of a preexisting word that orders most of the most common elements inside of life forms.

    It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of observation.

    All function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker equal to or greater than what was made.

  • I googled "naked mole rat".

  • Every once in a while, when he's on a roll when trying to make a point, he'll stop words mid.. word, like @ 1:25:46

  • I bet the camera guy is agitated. ^.^

  • Someone has the link to the Daniel Esllsberg Paper? I cont find it.. is it "the optimal benefits of perceived madness"?

  • Dorothy, y u no die in the Wizard of Oz?

  • I know that guy from the 'Stress Physiology' video course, fun guy; I believe he's the long lost twin of Dr. de Grey.

  • what would you gather if the female's skull was bigger than the male's? granted, that only occurs in an extremely small amount of species, but i wonder how much those results would change.

  • ...so what happens if the females aren't attracted to the males? how can homosexual behavior be explained in this whole process of selecting reproductive partners? if the end goal is to make sure your genes are passed on, then having sex with a person of the same gender wouldn't be ideal. (i'm totally not saying i don't believe in homosexuality i am just curious to see where this fits in)

  • @LH2Films I don't think Sapolsky means to say that passing on one's own genes is the SOLE goal of life.

  • @LH2Films It's mostly genetic that someone is homosexual; so in essence they're still interested in human interaction, both physical and non, it's just that their biology tells them which way to go. It's not to say that homosexuals don't actually have intercourse, you know? They are just biologically attracted to the same sex. No animal goes around thinking "I want to spread my genes"; it's more compulsion-based. :)

  • @nanyacura There's a joke about that too :

    In the case of homosexuality, it is said that around 70% of them are predisposed to have this behavior, the other 30% were sucked into it.

  • @gblueslover2 Damn, that's actually a good one. Thanks man ;)

  • Interesting he's talking about animals cheating...Marc Hauser, who he sites for data on primates displaying altruistic behavior, was himself outed as a cheater and forced to resign his position at Harvard. Happened after this lecture was recorded, but adds another layer to the mix of deciding what is really going on with animal behavior, much less human behavior.

  • @briancarnell Outed as a cheater in what way? I couldn't find anything specific.

  • Gotta love his pacing...

  • Comment removed

  • Why are you taking this class? Yes.

  • The recipient of the first computer science Ph.D was John Henry Holland In 1959.

  • I sure wish I knew what the textbook for this class is...

  • @PatrickPatchCarr

    If you watch the previous video he lists them all off.

  • this guys sees altruism where there is none. 4 wheels of my car cooperate with each other altruistically to bring my car forward.

  • notjustatheory . org there is even dna evidence of evolution....and technology that we have made (like vaccines) from the "assumptions, conjectures, imagination, and fantasy" that you speak of. i would say that evolution has a lot more usefulness to it unlike something like say....jesus

  • Fascinating

  • "like Pokemon?" lol i was so focused on this vide until i heard that.

  • @JungleJargon Note, all scientist would disagree with your religious statement. Evolution is a scientific theory. Look up the phrase, the definition fits, despite how you feel about it.

  • @freethinkerer It is the scientist's conclusions that are in question.

    Evolution is not science. It is a fantasy that is a baseless belief.

    watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM

  • @JungleJargon Evolution is More then just a Science... it's an "Intuition". It's hard to function in the world without acknowledging Evolution in ALL branches of Science and everyday Life. Even Pope John Paul II accepted the validity Evolution. Your thinking is blinded by Confirmation Bias.

  • @JungleJargon Honestly, I'm not trying to offend you, but you cannot begin to understand how ridiculous you seem to people who are well-enough educated to understand the theory and evidence for evolution. If you are open-minded enough to consider this a possibility, I hope it will shame you into better educating yourself on the topic. -Peace.

  • @JungleJargon I agree that evolution is not a fact, but I'd like to know what makes you say it's not science

  • @Noovil25 Only proven facts or things that actually have a basis for saying so are science. Evolution is fantasy and fantasy is not science.

    There is no possible way to get from an ape like thing to a human. Mutations are driving us extinct at this very moment. That is a scientific fact.

  • @JungleJargon Science is not the facts, because no one has proven anything to be absolute. Science is process, which is indefinitely evolutionary, because you continually update your hypotheses.

    Quoted off of Wikipedia: "[Science is] the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself." This is why science is evolutionary.

    I even think it is the same spirit as the living evolution of the entire Universe.

  • @RSFO You have one thing right, there is nothing absolute in science.

    It is all observations of a physical fabrication that is all relative and subject to change.

    In theology, there are absolutes because the physical fabrication that science observes has function inside of us *only* when ordered to have function.

    All function, working parts and mechanisms *always* have a maker equal to or greater than whatever is made to work.

    Spirit is from the formed capacity to know and understand.

  • @JungleJargon If so, I guess we can safely say that all scientists are magicians

  • @Noovil25 You can safely say a lot of scientists believe in the magic that objects made and refined what they are.

  • @JungleJargon or do you mean "defined"? Anyway, we may not whether evolution is true or not, but keeping an open mind is definitely important, as the truth is always counter-intuitive

  • @Noovil25 "Defined" is a good word. How can objects "translate" into being life forms when they have no "definition" or directives?

    Someone has to be wrong because both views cannot possibly be valid.

    Sometimes, I suppose, it just takes a long time for the truth to sink in.

  • @JungleJargon so if you think evolution is "wrong", what theory do you suggest to explain the genetic similarities between species?

  • @Noovil25 Different kinds of species have the same Maker.

    There is One Maker of one set of elements made to work in one set of life forms.

    The function of hydrogen working as ordered inside of us proves the entire universe consisting initially and primarily of hydrogen has the same Maker that ordered hydrogen to make energy for us to live.

  • @JungleJargon Even though I'm still not convinced about the idea of a Maker, I can say that neither theories are better than the other, let's just continue learning and observing.. thanks for your views.

  • @Noovil25 Thanks,

    Your problem with a Maker seems to be the greatness of such a Maker we cannot possible see if we wanted to. We can't even see the entire universe much less the Maker of the universe. That does not prove that we do not have such a great Maker.

    You always need to leave room for saying, "What if", what if the evidence of a very great Maker is true?

    The function of hydrogen and most of the most common elements have a Maker greater than the working parts.

  • @JungleJargon It is tru that the existance of a maker(I say ''a'' because the debate of which name we give him doesn't matter) can not be rebuted by science. BUT the existance of a maker doesn't mean evolution is false. Remember that the ''Holy textes'' are not written by a maker himself, they were written by human inspired by a maker(only a few of them are claimed to have been written by a maker).

    I for example believe in ''God'' and that evolution was his tool for creation.

  • @itsinmyvein The problem is that there is no mechanism for evolution. There is no possible way for one genome of one life form to change into another genome of another life form. "Natural selection" can only select what already has been reorganized by the genome.

  • @JungleJargon ''Evolution'' is just an other word for ''long term adaptation''. Adaptation has been proven to be tru and even the most adept scientist of creationisme conceded that adaption was real.

  • @itsinmyvein You are jumping in your logic from superficial changes to entire uniform design changes and there is no way to get here from there. There is no comparison between the two.

    The possible changes to the genome are limited because the genome is limited and it cannot sustain too many random changes without becoming no longer viable. That is just a fact. We are losing the Tasmanian Devil because of changes to the genome.

  • @JungleJargon Thats why all organisms possess Orthologous genes, that can be found across multiple species - like the luteinizing hormone gene found in all primates including humans

  • @IndigoApostle Listen, if everything has to grow into being what it is, there is a limited number of ways that it could happen. Each life form is a marvel of engineering.

    It's not like we can just make whatever life form we want, we can't even reverse engineer the ones that do exist!

    Each life form is an entirely different unrelated design so it's not that we have a common anscestor, we have a common Maker.

    Science has to keep fantasy in check.Objects did not make or refine us.

  • @JungleJargon Why were we made then? and why were we made rather imperfectly? why does our retina attach at the center to form a blind spot, why do our teeth not properly fit in our jaw, why do we have an appendix? If evolution had no merit we would see no vestigial structures.

  • @IndigoApostle The only problems we have are the result fo mutations.

    You still cannot do better. You don't even know what you are talking about.

    You work well enough to know that only your Maker is able to remake you again.

  • @JungleJargon lol idiot 

  • Thank you, I learned a lot watching this.

  • Lol at 33:09 "So they're like pokemons or something." XDD

  • I think that an act of altruism, that starts off a tit for tat ESS, must have selfish origins. But some humans do perform random acts of kindness to random strangers they will never meet again, if as a by-product of this altruistic act they feel good about themselves (inside), does that turn this act of altruism into something else?

  • I have a question for professor Sapolsky, how long did it take to grow the beard?

  • I may not have the money to go there and I may not have the piece of paper that says I graduated from there, but I can still absorb as much knowledge I can. Props to Stanford for putting these up.

  • Sapolsky is a great prof to learn from.

  • Comment removed

  • Why did have you taken this course?

    Yes.

  • THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium theory. Read my article on Pravda: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, biological similarities between species.

  • Thank you so much for this lecture series - I love this stuff!

  • So much to learn! So little time! Thank you, Prof. Sapolsky.

  • I love this series of lectures. Brilliant.

  • The use of the word Altruist here is a bit deceptive. There is no altruism taking place. As he points out, it's the optimization of natural functions for maximum benefit. Well doing something for benefit is not altruism. Maybe I'm just being a stickler.

  • @JaysThoughts "Well doing something for benefit is not altruism"

    Doing something for sombody ELSE's benefit IS altruism.

  • @Bax7a But, is there really such a thing a truly altruistic act? Or is feeling good/getting a buzz about giving to charity etc meaning that really you are doing it for slightly selfish reasons, whether known or unknown? 

  • @Bax7a But if benefitting someone else is beneficial to me, it's still not altruism. And if that wasn't the case, the organism wouldn't do it.

  • Thank you for making this enlightening lecture available to those of us who could never hope to afford a tuition at Stanford :)

  • 1 Person was stabbed in the back

    

  • how do university students usually take notes? sound recorder? typing? writing?? how!

  • @DEIMOSLOL i dont

  • The info on cheating (around the 40 minute mark) explains to me why sports fans (like me) get so enraged over perceived cheating by refs or opponents. In the context of a sports contest it's relatively insignificant to our own lives. But triggering a trait that evolved over millions of years? No wonder people still gripe about Kings-Lakers '02...

  • Wow. The part about hte two different pairs of primates explains why everyone thinks my boyfriend is my brother...

  • 1 person is fairly dumb

  • This is amazing, free education. Schools posting these types of lectures feed a global hunger for knowledge and understanding. I can think of no more noble of an effort.

  • does this mean i go to stanford

  • Can you get us the CC for this please ?

  • UUUUGH why aren't the CC here ???

  • Oh my mythical being in the clouds !!! he is just talking too fast.

  • This is some of the best of the internet. I'm loving this course. It's keeping my curiosity focused during the summer break. Thanks so much for posting these Professor Sapolsky. All the best from Manitoba.

  • Love this man...all the best from Portugal..=)

  • It saddens me that someone can watch these lectures, accept the basic principles of evolution (that trait frequencies in a population can change over time), and suddenly say 'But speciation is impossible'. It just shows that you either didn't watch, or completely ignored, the first video in the series. Species differences are not as great as you think. Stop being so anthropocentric. Stop living in the 'us and the rest of the animal kingdom' bucket.

  • the fact that he referenced pokemon automatically makes him the coolest professor of all time.

  • Dorothy,

    Have you taken a college level bio or geology class? If you had, you would be knowledgeable about LUCY, the human specimen found in Africa that was 3.7'' tall and 3 million years old. This is just one example of fossil evidence.

    Please for the sake of the human race, submerge yourself in the wonderful world of education.

  • @TheBalancedEnergy well said, im currently in 11th and people always call me a Nerd because i like to learn and i have always wondered if there is people like me out there...

    good to know that there is people out there who likes likes to learn just like me... :)

  • @TheBalancedEnergy I'm pretty sure LUCY was over 3 feet tall. Not under 1 foot as you indicate.

  • As a 17 year old looking to get into stanford this give a great out look on how the experience will be. Fantastic teacher, well educated and also quite funny.

    Thanks Stanford!

  • Comment removed

  • Dorothy, please, please learn some basic biology before you make sweeping statements about evolution.

  • Comment removed

  • @aafeisty you are a complete idiot, how can u look at facts and call them false? what pretense do you have

  • @aafeisty One of the things you should learn from the introductionary lecture in this course (the first clip in this series) is that most categorisation in different categories (or "kinds") are more arbitrary than you think. If you accept "microevolution", full scale evolution is no big deal.

  • i'm happy cauze no one disliked this :)

  • well sorry.. fucked up site.. did not want to post the same content again & again - but I did!

  • Keep posting these lectures by Robert Sapolsky. Great share.

  • Keep posting these lectures by Robert Sapolsky - he is a fascinating man with some inspiring attitude to the question of life. Thank you again & again :)

  • Keep posting these lectures by Robert Sapolsky - he is a fascinating man with some inspiring attitude to the question of life. Thank you again & again :)

  • Zero people that watched this are dumb :)

  • Thanks for sharing this, and other lectures from Liverpool

  • thx for this from germany

  • woooww.

  • thank you for uploading this

  • When I get into Stanford for grad school I am so going to TA this class.

  • Free science. I love you Internet!

    Really interesting course... thank you from Serbia.

  • What an incredibly fluid understanding of the subject .

    Every solitary sentence imparts knowledge.

    Fantastic !

  • Thank YOOO SOOO MUCHHH

  • This is great. I studied zoology at university including behavioural ecology, it was one of my favourite subjects, but I've felt like I've been forgetting bits of it recently. It's really great to have fantastic resources like this to rekindle that knowledge.

  • Im not an educated person, but i love this kind of stuff...wonderfull...

  • I Love this class and this is just the second lecture! It's just so magnetic!

  • This is great stuff, thank you so much :). This professor makes things sound very interesting.

  • I love these!

  • Thank you, Professor Sapolsky

  • ZOOM OUT

  • wow thanks for making my teachers at Worcester state look stupid. now i am going to feel like im getting a second or even third best education

  • @insulatedmemory relax , man! The wonderful thing about the internet is that you can have access to this stuff. Even someone like me , from a different continent. So .. thank you, Stanford!

  • @insulatedmemory so.... would you rather live in ignorance?

  • @Martcapt I don't think he meant it in a bad way... I think he was complimenting Sapolsky. :P

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more