Added: 2 years ago
From: cdk007
Views: 96,210
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (545)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Sex. It is the evolved thing to do.

  • Bro it wasnt 50 generations of humans...... worms dont live that long.

  • YAWN!

  • The creator of this video has a persecution complex. ;)

  • Because it feels good.

  • what this video ignores is crossing over events during meiosis, which also contributes to genetic variation! which might be at least as much important as mutations

  • hahahaa we do it deer do it dogs do it cats do it lizards do it turtles do it frogs do it hahhhaha its shuld be just a video of things that do it! it would be THE best video ever!!!!!!!

  • 215 people are still monkeys

  • So the worms had their genes artificially mutated and were put in an artificial environment with an artificial challenge. That doesn't sound very ecologically valid.

    Interfering in the process you are trying to observe is the hand of design. As the worm does not reproduce solely in a hermaphrodite manner then it's not suprising that it failed to suceed in it's artificially mutated state.

    imo.

  • what you freaks trying to prove??? evolution. hahaha!!!!! look at all the universe, theres no end, its infinite!!! you with your so small brain trying to figure out what god created!!!! DON'T UNDERESTIMATE GOD,S POWER!!! even if things changed to suit the enviroment, that is GOD'S WILL!!!!!! The question is??? have you changed??? THINK ABOUT-IT!!!!!!!...........

  • @mrjonkitsu actually we know the length of the universe. Google it. If you meant the time span of the Universe, we don't know when the Universal Microwave will ding and the lights will go out, but thermodynamics (an accepted science) predicts the end. Google it.

    And we're not directly saying god didn't have a hand..he merely put the smallest amount of effort into it then walked away for 13+ billion years...

  • "There is no way such a complex multicomponent system could have evolved naturally"

    If I had a dollar for every time I heard that....

  • who wouldda thought worms were hermofadites

  • @gilpp10 hermaphodites have both male and female organ things so the can do it both ways.

  • im 10 and what is this?

  • i love sex

  • Hey man, loved the video.

  • uploader seems to be craving for something

  • I'm gonna have to use that! Go self yourself. lol

  • Omg... Videos been attacking(Sicence's been attackin!!!) by religion/BS again? Ohh for fucks sake, allready....

  • hahihi i uploaded a new pic any guys want to chat and maybe more

  • The video says "added information to their genomes", but does not specify what genes, what base pairs .

    This video proves that "mountain climbing" ability was already in the genome and the experiment selected for it.

    If we took Huskies from the Artic to the equator we would select them to extinction but this would not increase the dog genome.

  • @Mdebacle knowing the exact mutations of genes that occurred in the process of the experiment is irrelevant. by starting off with a single population and altering the reproduction genes, the experiment eliminated the variables to show only the effect of sexual vs asexual reproduction - which was the point of the experiment (not to see what mutations might be beneficial).

  • @Mdebacle there is no "mountain climbing" ability. that was just a metaphor. they were just moving across a difficult obstacle the way they normally move. the fact that the worms can move is a given, not something proven by the video itself. the point of the experiment was to show that sexual reproduction is more advantageous for increasing variation and thus speeding evolution (which was needed in this experiment)

  • @sauronjag [increasing variation and thus speeding evolution]

    If all that is meant is evolution within species, then that , like the song says, "nobody can deny". The video claims added information in the genome, which is not at all what is demonstrated..

  • @Mdebacle how is it not demonstrated? the sexual reproduction worms demonstrated it by mutating (using the increased genetic variation) and were able to do something MUCH more effectively than they did before the experiment started. there were novel changes within the sexual group. these changes CLEARLY allowed them to be much more efficient at traversing the terrain. this wasn't due to them "learning" with their brains, it was due to added information via evolution which they were able2 utilize

  • @sauronjag [how is it not demonstrated?]

    It is using information in the genome which already exists. It is increasing the percentage of the species which possess an already existent gene.

    Napoleon reduced the stature of French men by 3 inches by killing off tall soldiers. This was not adding info to the genome. It was subtracting info from the genome.

  • @Mdebacle but it didn't exist in the genome before. that is shown by the asexual group. they can only make EXACT copies of themselves with only small mutations over generations. this means that essentially we can compare any acheivements of the sexual group vs what happened in the asexual group (which was no change or added information - or close to none). we can attribute what happened in the sexual group to added information (novel gene changes). if i'm understanding your question correctly.

  • @Mdebacle also, the example with napolean was completely unrelated to anything we've discussed as we're talking about increased or decreased fitness via asexual vs sexual reproduction in a nematode...

    if when you say no added information, you mean that there were no more base pairs added to the genetic code etc, then you're misunderstanding "added information" as a metaphor for changes in gene sequences.

    genes can be changed in any # of ways with base pairs from other parts of the genome

  • @Mdebacle genes can be changed in any # of ways with base pairs from other parts of the genome, which happens frequently in sexually reproducing species. translocation of base pairs from other areas of the genome is one example, but there are many. this is akin to having a nonfunction gene which is "misspelled". like a misspelled word, a nonfunctioning gene does not produce a protein. however, if, due to sexual reproduction, the gene is rearranged to become functional, this is added information

  • @sauronjag [genes can be changed in any # of ways ]

    But , again, nothing in this video tells us what genes were changed. Which chromosome ? What gene ? What locus ?

    It would be nonsense to believe that repeating this expermiment would result in the same mutation.

    What this experiment shows is evolution within species using already existent genes. This is nothing more than what Darwin observed in the size of finch beaks on Galapagos.

  • @Mdebacle I'm not well versed in indexing and finding articles in peer reviewed journals, so i'm afraid i can't do that particular job for you. denying its existence simply because no one has put the evidence in front of you is not a particularly reasonable position.

    taken from the first line in wikipedia, "Sexual reproduction is characterized by processes that pass a combination of genetic material to offspring, resulting in increased genetic diversity." also, please read XGralgrathor's commnt

  • @Mdebacle I did, in a previous comment, also state how "new" genes are formed via sexual reproduction. even via mutation. suppose that the letters of the word "train" are each a nucleotide, which form a small protein. before reproduction, only "traxn" existed. "traxn" is a nonfunctional gene, as it's spelled incorrectly. due to a mutation, the "x" nucleotide was bumped out and an "i" nucleotide replaced it, forming the "train" gene. this gene is new, or added, and now functions to make a protein

  • @Mdebacle here is another video, from cdk007, which describes this "added information." the video is called "origin of intelligence", unfortunately i can't post the link for you. please go to 3:31 to about 4:10. this is an example SIMPLY by asexual reproduction - only mutation and natural selection. to see how sexual reproduction does this and more, look up some videos on sexual reproduction (full process of meiosis, especially recombination/crossover)

  • @Mdebacle

    You're ignoring the environmental factors governing speciation. Say a large, genetically stable population of organisms is suddenly split into two groups by the emergence of a river. The smaller groups of the same species will still accumulate mutations and adapt to their natural environments each side of the river but the smaller groups will be less able to dilute the occurring mutations through their gene pools so the genetic drift is exponentially increased bewteen the two...

  • @kieranjones99

    (1) Increasing knowledge of genetic entropy will show nothing but noise is being added to the genome. This will finally put Darwin to rest. The first genes were the best genes in every species.

    (2) This video is based on the notion that asexual (mitosis) could evolve into sexual (meiosis) reproduction.

    Per wikipedia Origin and function of meiosis:

    "four novel steps needed in meiosis not present in mitosis...simultaneous appearance of these steps appears impossible."

  • @Mdebacle

    ... groups. After a certain period of time the genetic drift is large enough that even though the two groups may be able to interbreed, the resulting offspring will be infertile and unable to produce offspring of their own. This is the basic explanation of speciation and therefore evolutionary divergence from one species into two separate descendent species. It's not hard to understand is it?

  • « The video claims added information in the genome, which is not at all what is demonstrated »

    It isn't just a necessary consequence of what we know about genetics that genetic variability leads to new information in the genome, it's also demonstrated experimentally (Lenski et al, 2007) and in field studies (reference to follow).

  • excellent video

  • It is sad to see, while reading the posts, there are people out there who do not get the meaning, put in simple layman's terms, of this video. I would not bash Islam for it's lack of understanding, but rather i would bash it for promoting sex with infants, sex slaves, it's treatment of women, its promotion of poor hygiene, and of wearing pj's all day, even at work. Islam is for small and weak minds, just like any other religion.

  • Wish I was a worm lmao jk

  • @MissGIRluver

    yes.... being a worm however insignificant may feast upon the flesh of one who was great.

  • this video is soooooooooooooo full of assumtions about religious people and evolution. i really dont know where to begin bashing this vid. its full of fail.

    merry x mas.

  • He's not talking about religious people, he's talking about creationists. There's a difference.

  • yeh i can appreciate that. cause his counter argument at creationists dont even fit with the values of islam,

  • oh really?

  • im laughing my ass off here. as a muslim i HAVE NEVER heard of ANYONE AAANNNYYOONNEEE saying that sexual reproduction is bad...

    wtf is this guy on about when he says "creationists" dont like that shit?

    how about instead of making these videos full of jiggeish, he goes and has some real sex.

  • Well now you have heard of it. There are almost 7 billion people on the planet now. We cannot continue at this rate. Everyone thinks they have the right to reproduce as often as they like... mainly the religious. It's NOT GOOD>

  • You should watch the video again. Creationists try to say sexual reproduction is bad *from an evolutionary standpoint*, not from a "behavioral" standpoint.

  • And lets not forget another thing sex is good for: It feels so F*cking great!!!

  • good stuff

  • Thank you for the concise, easy to understand video showing natural selection at work.

    Anyone capable of watching this video from beginning to end without losing focus should have no problem grasping it's point.

  • You provided an explanation that corresponds to the species/individual-centric view of evolution.

    But since a species/individual is not the reproduced entity (a gene is), it is not the best answer. An answer that corresponds to the gene-centric view of evolution is necessary. It's not an easy question. and it's answer is probably not simple either.

  • What on earth are you talking about?

  • gene-centered view of evolution has the gene as the selected unit. Dawkins' brought this to light in his book, the selfish gene

  • awesome. I subscribed.

  • 50 generation?? I have a hard time believing that. That means they did this experiential in year 750 AD...lol, can anyone explain that? Not defuting evolution but wondering

  • I don't know if missed the part (pretty much the entire video) that showed this was done on worms.

  • 50 generations of the worms.... they don't last very long

  • Creationist math is as good as creationist science, apparently.

  • @undiscoveredit Do you Have issues...or do you like looking stupid..if so you did a great Job...these "worms" reproduce in as short as a year...The worms life span normally is for only two to three weeks. thus they you can see thousands of generations in "your life time" not just 50..so study a bit before you talk... every living thing has its life span and own generations cycles for us humans it is about 40 years per cycle so read and also Pay attention next time it will only do you good

  • Comment removed

  • @undiscoveredit the lifespan of the worms is probably like 1 week a piece silly guy. He didn't mean human generation's he meant those worm generations...

  • Magnificent video

  • you have a civilised human being with a soul...you have the animal kingdom...then you have organism's,plants and bacteria...3 distinct groups

    Think about for a while then get back to me...this is the order...

  • Well it looks like this guy didn't read the warning at the beginning of the video.

  • no one would ever fuck your ugly retarded ass.

  • So humans are not part of the animal kingdom??? And what about fungus? You kind of left that whole group out.

    Just a little hint: it was a christian who set up the modern classification system, putting humans not only in the animal kingdom, but also classed as a primate.

    Oh, and we have a soul, great, peer reviewed evidence please.

  • Soul...

    What's a soul?

  • @jubulalau /////pysches voisg

    learn on book/messages from michael

  • So a soul is the ability to think and structure relationships in a society?

  • Gods intention for mankind was to pro-create DUMMY!!!...you don't have to go in to the nerd speech...its all pretty obvious...you are a FOOL!!!

  • gods not real

  • and yet your unwilling to listen to reasoned thought. please move to an island with all your other Christians and starve because your all half retarded.

  • your 21 andy...a young punk...opinions are like assholes...why dont you take the agnostic route???...at 21 you have not experienced anything and your wisdom is rebellious, naive, and mostly daft due to inexperience...these are facts...

  • how would you know anything about me due to my age? ive probably spent a lot more time thinking about and researching "god" than you.

    your ability to take everything and say god did it is stunning.

    so are you going to go to you island yet? go live sin free and riddled with death. i actually really do wish all Christian people would fuck off, everyone else's lives would be so much better.

  • Not really; wisdom comes with knowledge, not with age. If I read more than you on average and have a superior innate ability to understand what I'm reading, I'll clearly overtake you in terms of wisdom early on. The veracity of this statement is proven by a 17 year old boy recognizing and pointing out the logical errors in your statement that you failed to notice yourself. This is a fact.

  • Thanks for not watching the video.

    Fine let's go with your logic: God wants us to procreate. Good. The majority of organisms on this planet do it asexually. Why? We do it sexually. Why?

    Think about that for a while and then come back with something intelligent to say.

  • @cdk007 That's a tall order for a bible beating creationist.

  • @cdk007 what about love?God gave us love feelings that s why

  • @cdk007 Because god wanted it that way, DUH!!!!!

  • @nztexas1 well he messed up, we need less ppl

  • @nztexas1

    "God" wants us to procreate yet it's deemed a sin to do it in the first place and we should flagellate ourselves (in the bad way) afterwards? Double standards much?

  • let me read my youtube download from a book

  • 1:38 Family Guy ftw. Love this video, btw. :)

  • haha i know right..

  • I think there is a different issue altogether from the speed of mutation, and that is the ability of independent rare beneficial mutations to join.

  • nicely done.

  • Sex is Good for Goodness Sake...

    and the genetic health of the species

  • "..Birds do it, frogs do it, worms do it, yeast do it..."

    *sigh*...and wilfred sleeps alone tonight.

  • lmao

  • so do I. but I'm waiting, old man.

  • @wilfredthebold

    God gave you two other choices, the right hand and the left hand.

    And you don't condoms...

    ha ha

  • Reminds me of the argument that "the offspring of Adam and Eve could safely have sex without risking inbreed because Adam and Eve where genetically perfect."

    Sooo... God creates Adam, which is genetically perfect, he places the tree of knowledge in Eden and a lot of animals with more than one sex (all of them have a partner!) which they could have non-homosex with, and then he creates Eve because Adam is jealous of all the happy animals.

    So basically everything was a trap!

  • @Rasayana85

    It's like God was thinking "If I can't get him with the tree of knowledge I can still get him with the left hook and bring him a woman to do the job. I take two flies in one strike really, since I know that they will still be able to go through all the torment I am going to send them through."

  • I had some idea of why humans are sexual, since both men and women are so picky about their mates. But I could never understand why these insects and "lower" animals that would mate with any available partner bothered with sex. Now I have somewhat of an idea--it is beneficial no matter how slutty the organism is!

  • We are picky and "lower" organisms are slutty *because* we sexually reproduce.

    Not the other way around :)

  • I kind of get what your saying, and it's interesting as its own point (I'm terribly deficient in the science of biology). But I think the video confined itself to explaining why sexual reproduction simpliciter, and just sexual reproduction among organisms that are selective about their mates, has benefits. The latter was easier to see (for me, at least) than the former. What you're saying--that overtime these benefits are amplified by selectivity--is also very interesting.

  • @eswyatt

    That was until Treponema pallidum evolved! ;)

  • *sigh* I really wish people could keep the difference between natural selection and evolution straight.... now THAT would be a Christmas present :P

  • Nice holiday touch

  • thank you cdk.

    i will be sending this article to all my friends.

  • Everyone shut the hell up! Why is it that God could not have created evolution.

  • If God "created evolution" then the bible (or other religious book of your choosing) is wrong.

    Hence a fundamentalist christian cannot accept evolution, even if they were to credit evolution to god.

  • @Paulginz

    Very true!

  • @Paulginz

    "If God "created evolution" then the bible (or other religious book of your choosing) is wrong."

    Maybe, but there are lots of other things 'wrong' with the Bible that Christians don't care about... or seem to deal with. Why should this be any different?

  • There are roughly 3 explanations corresponding to 3 types of christian.

    1) Christians differ over which parts of the bible they forget. Same with evolution, since many christians, even deeply religious ones, accept evolution.

    2) We're talking about dismissing the whole of genesis, not some isolated passage. It also has deep implications (we're not necessarily at the center of the animal kingdom.)

    3) Some christians just never read the bible or heard about the other 'wrong' things.

  • Arguably the two main reasons Creationists reject theistic evolution are:

    1) Evolutionary mechanisms lack any foresight. Creationists consider God to be intelligent, and one of the hallmarks of intelligence is foresight. They question why an intelligent being would utilize an unintelligent process.

    2) Evolution involves a lot of waste and destruction; organisms die in the process. Creationists believe God is loving, and a loving god would not use such a process.

  • I would change those reasons actually.

    1) Evolution claims organisms are constantly improving their fit for their environment (natural selection). This would imply that god's original creation was not perfect. If it was, no improvement would be possible.

    2) Of course this ignores the great flood and all the plagues god ravaged the earth with. Seems their own god creates a lot of waste and destruction.

  • If this was ever a God's original creation in the first place, it is actually a perfect one, so perfect that it comes with a self-debugging, auto-patching and self-upgrading system. The best Bio-software ever designed.

    However

    all over thousand years old man-made Instruction Manuals/Sale Brochures are outdated. But they are not totally without any wisdom or truth. Creationism on the other hand is for people that love 3rd grade education and believe that its more than enough for collage entry.

  • A creationist can't think.

    His thoughts are given to God

  • Merry Christmas to you too!

    Love your vids.

  • Merry Christmas to you too! =D

  • I love your videos, they explain very clearly and easily what the science and evidence for evolution is. It's a shame that you're preaching to the converted though, because the Creationists made their minds up long ago!

  • Very interesting stuff.

  • Great video. You just got one more subscriber :)

  • As always, an excellent video. Thanks again, cdk.

  • Gah! is CDK007 brilliant or what? Great v id.

  • Hey dude, thanks for the fairy tale...I like how you Fucking atheists who were never there at the beginning tell a wonderful story of HOW things happened....you are so knowledgeable man

  • @chedachzballz:

    So believing in a magical book written by druggies is much better?

  • Yeah, at least YOU were there.

    Damn you religious people, you're everywhere, foiling the atheists' schemes!

  • How cute. You think that is a valid argument .. yet.. How can a detective figure out who committed a crime when he himself wasn't there? Oh wait... He collects samples of EVIDENCE and performs TESTS using the scientific method. When you follow the scientific method you don't need to be there to observe the event. Cmon... this is elementary school stuff. Didn't you ever have to do that experiment where you had to figure out what was in a box without opening it? It's called SCIENCE. try it.

  • "I like how you Fucking atheists who were never there at the beginning"

    That's what Jesus said!

  • See, we have evidence to back up our claims.

    You, who clearly wasn't there during your creation story, unfortunately have no evidence to back it up.

    Very simple, put up or shut up. Show us the peer reviewed evidence to support your claim or be like all other creationists and be proven wrong, again.

  • Ah, that good old recycled creationist argument. Retarded as hell, and yet recycled, pretty much like all the of the arguments creationists make.

  • were we atheists present at the beginning of this experiment?...yes, i think we were.

    were we atheists present throughout the experiment?...yes, i think we were.

    were we atheists present at the end of the experiment?...yes, i think we were.

    abiogenesis, evolution, it's all been observed and recorded, yet you religious retards insist on swimming in an ocean asking for evidence of water...what would it take for the scientific community to convince you?

  • Sorry, but abiogenesis has never been directly observed.

    We were able to make lots of basic organic chemical compounds (amino acids, nucleotides etc) in simulated early earth conditions...

    We were able to engineer a virus from scratch.

    But no real self-replicating life. (And no, crystals, fat bubbles and the spiegelman monster RNA strand don't count.)

    I'm not saying abiogenesis din't happen (by definition it must have). Just that the evidence isn't overwhelming as with evolution.

  • yes it has...the whole reason why the american hotshot (name escapes me) won an equivilant NPP was because he demonstrated it in a lab.

    ckd007 has another video on the subject...listen to the language,"they were observed to..." ec.

    fat bubbles do count because when they got big the split apart...making 2 "daughter" fat bubbles (pardon the funny imagery) your problem is that your definition of "life" is very narrow. only the basic functions need to be met.

  • Actually, Paulginz is right. Are you referring to Jack Szostak? He was awarded a Nobel prize for his work on telomeres and telomerase, not for abiogenesis. As for having a narrow definition of life, I'm certain no serious biologist anywhere would consider a fat bubble life. That's way too broad a definition.

  • Any definition of life that includes fat bubbles would also include crystals which are capable of growing and multiplying.

    The current official definition of life doesn't even contain viruses. (Which imho should be considered candidates, especially since the discovery of giant viruses with some degree of metabolism blurrs the line.)

  • @Paulginz would these crystals happen to be salt diposits? if not then please point me to a type of crystal that grows by means other than that of accumulation of minerals.

    ok, even if it didn't include fat bubbles, noone said it would take a few years for these nucleic acid-containing bubbles to become cells, it would take millions. the vesicles were showing all of the signs of increasing complexity and natural selection was taking place.

    there is a difference between these and crystals.

  • "Hey dude, thanks for the fairy tale.."

    nice projection : )

  • i must reproduce NOW for the sake of evolution!!

  • Have a nice Christmas CDK, and keep up the good work!

  • Very well done and presented as usual.

    Merry Christmas cdk.

  • "Selfing": giving a new meaning to the phrase "Go eff yourself"!

  • What a neat experiment! :D

  • Interesting video. I liked the worms part most :-).

  • wow... I expected to see tons more comments saying sex feels great!! Good video!

  • What do you mean, "Think About It". I already do, of course! I think about sex all frigging day!

    Oh- wait - you meant to think about... oh. I get it.

  • nice video!

  • "Science is one cold-hearted bitch, with a 14 inch strap on." Vincent Masuka

  • burst out laughing at that quote class

  • YAY! Delicious, delicious science! ^__^

  • Meep.

  • Still "Unregistered PowerVideoMaker"? Seriously?!

    Why are you so lazy, can't you google for crack or serial?

  • "Still "Unregistered PowerVideoMaker"? Seriously?!"

    Oh come on! How else would we know it's a genuine CDK video?

  • Sex is also good for making you feel awesome

  • HA HA HA! One second in, read the disclaimer... 5 stars.

  • "And religion oppresses homosexuals, because, like most ignorant, stupid and evil people.."

    -Actually religions forbid homosex in order to clear our society from aberrant ones exactly like extracting foreign grass from our precious farm.

    -Variation in DNA with asexual reproduction also occur and to put "pre occupied" items to the video don't reflect education.

    -It only reflects the shallow scope of Atheists !

  • @evidencebasedscience That made less than no sense.

  • That was disgusting.

  • poe's law, because i cannot tell if its satire of the creationist mindset or if you are genuinely retarded and bigoted, either ways ROFL!!!!!111!!!!!11!1

  • Yeast sex? Hot.

  • So if a chick has a yeast infection, is she having a threesome all the time?

  • Ugh, an actual human chick? Gross! I prefer the sexiness of yeasts, germs, and viruses

  • The opening disclaimer is worth 5 stars by itself

  • merry christmas :)

  • Wow, complete missing the point fail.

  • "what is sex good for ?"

    -To preserve the species.

    -Not for evolution

    -Therefore religions forbid "homosex" as it don't lead to "preserve species".

    -Fluctuations of quality in ONE generation is observed.That means that one penis can give birth to "Albert Einstein" today and "trisomy 21" after only one year !

    -Also,among ladies,we find one who give birth to 20 child while other who is infertile.

    -So,a link between sex & evolution can't be ascertained.

  • @evidencebasedscience this vid Just Showed how sex helps cause evolution. You're willfull ignorance and ability to hide from the truth is astonishing. Reproduction presearves a species, but sex, with multiple organisms, causes variation in DNA, leading to evolution, allowing creatures to adapt to their enviroment. And religion oppresses homosexuals, because, like most ignorant, stupid and evil people, they fear what is different. Please, educate yourself, lose your stubborness, or die in a fire.

  • You are living proof that mutation can create massive deficits in intelligence.

    Boo Hoo for you.

  • Actually, a penis can't give birth to anything. It the female of our species that give birth.

  • dangerouslytalented:

    -If you revise the last half minute of the video,you will find cdk link between sexual reproduction & evolution.

    -Gage,peach & apricot are well known to come from ONE tree using "graftage" method.

    -The rapid spread of "grapevine" by using small branches as a "root" to the new tree strongly negates the importance of sexual reproduction to preserve species.

    -So,if "differentiation progress" is important,it is not a must to be ascribed to "sex" as cdk tried to show.

  • Personally I think that sex is so widespread for 2 reasons. 1) It's very good at causing variation, so speeds up evolution, so it may be less stable than asexual, but it can get there first. And 2) all the larger creatures we relate to more (Apes, Deer, Frogs, etc) all do it, so we see it as very prevalent, whilst we don't really see division of single cell organisms or the like, without trying.

  • That is alongside the above of course :P

  • That's not the point.

    If you had actually watched just maybe a half-minute more, then you would have realized he was talking about the actual biological worth of our type of reproduction.

  • Asexual reproduction is an alternative you retard.

  • theres nothing like yeast porn! thats shits unreal!

  • meh. German subtitles anyone? :/

  • good vid man.

  • 5* after 3 seconds. Back to the video.