"Spetner received his BS degree in mechanical engineering at Washington University in 1945.[2] and his Ph.D in physics from MIT in 1950.
Spetner first became interested in evolution in 1970 after moving to Israel. In Israel he indulged in searching for evidence which contradicted the modern evolutionary synthesis. Spetner was inspired by the rabbi David Luria (1798 - 1855), who calculated that according to Talmudic sources that there was 365 originally created species of beasts and 365 of bird
"it's time to get to work mythbusters. it's time to STOP BLINDLY ACCEPTING the absurdities that WE HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO BELIEVE in a biology classroom"
when this comes out of the mouth of a religious person one cannot stop to laugh :))
Why are other animals different from humans? What are these 'intrinsic' regulatory mechanisms? Because it seems to me that animal growth is limited by predation, disease etc, whereas human exponential growth is so precisely because we have overcome these things, through medicine and weapons etc. The point Malthus was making was that eventually these limiting factors will catch up with us, and so far it has primarily been the work of scientists that has stopped this from happening.
@Kanbei85 If you say so, but I'd still like to know what these intrinsic mechanisms are, and from reading some other comments it's apparent that other people would like to know as well.
Even if you comments are right this doesn't make the evolution theory wrong. Its just becoming complexer.
It's strange when i meet religious people that they have changed their belief with knowledge that the science, making selection which one they can us and which one don't. And suddenly after adapting attack science again. And they still believe in the delusion.
Religions in relation to science is as a person which wearing a shoe which grows tide, and get a new brush.
Well you are right about that people behave different then the animal population. To give you one example:
Animals will kill what scienctist call the "weakest"animals. Human hunters have (I don't now when they started with that) killed the strongest animals. Example: The big male deers instead of weaker ones.
This made place survival of the fittest into another prespective. The fittest and the weakest are being killed. What happens is that humans behaviour tips nature's harmony of the scale.
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. humans and chimps share 98,000 ERVs locations in common. What other conclusion can one come to?
I hope you elaborate on what it actually means for animal populations to be regulated by mechanisms intrinsic to the animals, rather than the "popularly believed" external mechanisms of starvation, predation, etc.
There are two huge errors in this video. The first is related to Malthus' ideas about human population growth in relation to what we actually see. It is widely known that Malthus lived before the industrial revolution, and his models predicted the "Malthusian catastrophe" to occur at a much lower population because he did not anticipate agricultural and technical innovation which would allow for higher populations. The model which actually takes into account data as societies advance as a whole
is called the "demographic transition model". Human population remained relatively static throughout most of the one million year human history where both high birth and death rates were the norm (called stage 1 of the demographic transition), and it was not until societies transitioned out of the first stage and were no longer limited by very high death rates resulting from famine and disease that populations took off into the multi-billions we see today. The demographic transition model
clearly shows that life expectancy can greatly increase while death rates decrease due to access to health care and nutrition. Geographers are thinking about introducing a fifth stage to describe some very advanced countries where the population pyramid actually looks upside-down. People in these countries view children as a liability rather than an asset because they invest heavily in them and do not need many children for their welfare. There is no need for many children when you are not
living in an society which relies upon subsistence agriculture. The point of this is that you are ignoring the fact that human population in developed countries is regulated by economic factors which relate indirectly to the availability of resources. It is no longer common to have 8-10 kids in a MDC for that reason. Despite current human population levels, human ecumene is still very much concentrated in fertile, coastal, temperate areas. If you took all 6.5 billion people and arranged them on
a grid, giving each a square of 2 * 2 feet of space, they would occupy a 30 * 30 mile square. This population could be fed with current agricultural technology by an area of arable land about the size of Texas. Most current problems have to do with the way we distribute resources, rather than the availability of such resources. The second error is that animals being "built to remain at healthy population levels" IS the result of evolution. Though Darwin used Malthus' model, he did not have a
correct view of population genetics. See the Hardy-weinberg equilibrium for a modern view of how changes in population affect genetics. Humans are not intrinsically different when it comes to animals in the way populations are regulated - as was pointed out by undescript0. Animals don't achieve population equilibrium because some god whispered in their ear to quit screwing around with other attractive animals of the opposite sex.
Genetics really is the nail in the coffin when it comes to any theory opposing evolution. Anyone who has studied genetics knows that it would be absolutely insane to dismiss it as invalid.
In fact Mendel didn't even technically discover genes. He called the genetic material "Elementin" but couldn't speculate very much about its actual mechanism. Mendel came up with the laws of segregation and of independent assortment.
His work wasn't widely known until after his death, and wasn't rediscovered until many years later. Darwin didn't know about it, even though they lived during the same period.
There is no need for a population to be on the verge of catastrophe for beneficial variations to be selected for. A trait will tend to become fixed within a population if it provides a reproductive advantage, an advantage in evading predators, or an advantage in obtaining limited food resources. So long as animals eat, reproduce and kill each other (which happens even in a well-balanced ecosystem), those slightly better at it will pass on their genes at greater frequency than the rest.
Guess again, Ormaaj. I'm in actuarial science, and Malthusian principles underly all morbidity, mortality, and other factors used every day. Next time don't parrot what you don't know yourself.
Malthus wrote specifically with regards to human population growth. His models are valid in the case of unrestricted growth and are useful, but I am speaking with regards to population in the field of human geography, not biology or ecology. If you read my comment regarding demographic transition, I think you will agree. No need to be hostile, I have studied the subject.
Malthus' argument really has nothing to do with it. The important thing is that it was an influencing factor on Darwin's ideas, and that it was an invalid inference. Animals and humans do not behave the same way, and animal populations are controlled in a much more sophisticated way than Darwin imagined.
Disagree, Kanbei. Mutation is affected by population crowding or sparseness, be it the mutation of cold germs, or the bigger idea of DNA mutation, evolutionary or no. The ideas are related.
"Animals and humans do not behave the same way" - If you say so ;-) Would you like slapping round the head with a jesus fish now? Or later? You know, even if EVERYTHING Darwin relied on was WRONG right now. It still would not question evolution. It happens, we have over 150 years of further science since then. Even if you ripped Darwin apart from the limbs and stopped him printing the book it wouldn't change anything. So what are you doing? Absolutely nothing at all.
Ormaaj, the hostility came from you, and you made a comment only someone ignorant would make. So pardon me if I didn't believe you've not studied the subject in any depth, given the petulant nature of your first comment.
Your second one here is more intelligently worded, but still not worth further reply. The point is that DNA replication and mutuation are very much affected by population numbers, restricted or not. Malthusian theory is very much related to the evolution question, therefore.
This has been flagged as spam show
"Spetner received his BS degree in mechanical engineering at Washington University in 1945.[2] and his Ph.D in physics from MIT in 1950.
Spetner first became interested in evolution in 1970 after moving to Israel. In Israel he indulged in searching for evidence which contradicted the modern evolutionary synthesis. Spetner was inspired by the rabbi David Luria (1798 - 1855), who calculated that according to Talmudic sources that there was 365 originally created species of beasts and 365 of bird
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't the science confirm your religious assertions?
odinata 5 months ago
"it's time to get to work mythbusters. it's time to STOP BLINDLY ACCEPTING the absurdities that WE HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO BELIEVE in a biology classroom"
when this comes out of the mouth of a religious person one cannot stop to laugh :))
peace everyone ;P
prsaledja 11 months ago
Why are other animals different from humans? What are these 'intrinsic' regulatory mechanisms? Because it seems to me that animal growth is limited by predation, disease etc, whereas human exponential growth is so precisely because we have overcome these things, through medicine and weapons etc. The point Malthus was making was that eventually these limiting factors will catch up with us, and so far it has primarily been the work of scientists that has stopped this from happening.
PrinceOfSpane 2 years ago
The theories of Malthus are not really the topic of this video, they were merely mentioned in it.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
@Kanbei85 If you say so, but I'd still like to know what these intrinsic mechanisms are, and from reading some other comments it's apparent that other people would like to know as well.
PrinceOfSpane 2 years ago
Darwin is cool :D
Rivera3689 2 years ago
Even if you comments are right this doesn't make the evolution theory wrong. Its just becoming complexer.
It's strange when i meet religious people that they have changed their belief with knowledge that the science, making selection which one they can us and which one don't. And suddenly after adapting attack science again. And they still believe in the delusion.
Religions in relation to science is as a person which wearing a shoe which grows tide, and get a new brush.
RoadlessPath 2 years ago
Well you are right about that people behave different then the animal population. To give you one example:
Animals will kill what scienctist call the "weakest"animals. Human hunters have (I don't now when they started with that) killed the strongest animals. Example: The big male deers instead of weaker ones.
This made place survival of the fittest into another prespective. The fittest and the weakest are being killed. What happens is that humans behaviour tips nature's harmony of the scale.
RoadlessPath 2 years ago
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. humans and chimps share 98,000 ERVs locations in common. What other conclusion can one come to?
gregrutz 2 years ago
I hope you elaborate on what it actually means for animal populations to be regulated by mechanisms intrinsic to the animals, rather than the "popularly believed" external mechanisms of starvation, predation, etc.
jagmarz 2 years ago
There are two huge errors in this video. The first is related to Malthus' ideas about human population growth in relation to what we actually see. It is widely known that Malthus lived before the industrial revolution, and his models predicted the "Malthusian catastrophe" to occur at a much lower population because he did not anticipate agricultural and technical innovation which would allow for higher populations. The model which actually takes into account data as societies advance as a whole
Ormaaj 2 years ago
is called the "demographic transition model". Human population remained relatively static throughout most of the one million year human history where both high birth and death rates were the norm (called stage 1 of the demographic transition), and it was not until societies transitioned out of the first stage and were no longer limited by very high death rates resulting from famine and disease that populations took off into the multi-billions we see today. The demographic transition model
Ormaaj 2 years ago
clearly shows that life expectancy can greatly increase while death rates decrease due to access to health care and nutrition. Geographers are thinking about introducing a fifth stage to describe some very advanced countries where the population pyramid actually looks upside-down. People in these countries view children as a liability rather than an asset because they invest heavily in them and do not need many children for their welfare. There is no need for many children when you are not
Ormaaj 2 years ago
living in an society which relies upon subsistence agriculture. The point of this is that you are ignoring the fact that human population in developed countries is regulated by economic factors which relate indirectly to the availability of resources. It is no longer common to have 8-10 kids in a MDC for that reason. Despite current human population levels, human ecumene is still very much concentrated in fertile, coastal, temperate areas. If you took all 6.5 billion people and arranged them on
Ormaaj 2 years ago
a grid, giving each a square of 2 * 2 feet of space, they would occupy a 30 * 30 mile square. This population could be fed with current agricultural technology by an area of arable land about the size of Texas. Most current problems have to do with the way we distribute resources, rather than the availability of such resources. The second error is that animals being "built to remain at healthy population levels" IS the result of evolution. Though Darwin used Malthus' model, he did not have a
Ormaaj 2 years ago
correct view of population genetics. See the Hardy-weinberg equilibrium for a modern view of how changes in population affect genetics. Humans are not intrinsically different when it comes to animals in the way populations are regulated - as was pointed out by undescript0. Animals don't achieve population equilibrium because some god whispered in their ear to quit screwing around with other attractive animals of the opposite sex.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Genetics really is the nail in the coffin when it comes to any theory opposing evolution. Anyone who has studied genetics knows that it would be absolutely insane to dismiss it as invalid.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
In fact Mendel didn't even technically discover genes. He called the genetic material "Elementin" but couldn't speculate very much about its actual mechanism. Mendel came up with the laws of segregation and of independent assortment.
His work wasn't widely known until after his death, and wasn't rediscovered until many years later. Darwin didn't know about it, even though they lived during the same period.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Its like the truth is right there in front of your face, and you're just ignoring it.
perditiontheelder 2 years ago
great video Kanbel85.. it makes me wonder what facts/falsehood theyll put in the movie about him, 'Creation'
iToyRobot 2 years ago
There is no need for a population to be on the verge of catastrophe for beneficial variations to be selected for. A trait will tend to become fixed within a population if it provides a reproductive advantage, an advantage in evading predators, or an advantage in obtaining limited food resources. So long as animals eat, reproduce and kill each other (which happens even in a well-balanced ecosystem), those slightly better at it will pass on their genes at greater frequency than the rest.
Daytimeofnight 2 years ago
Bingo, Kanbei! Malthus is the key! Well said!
brainouty 2 years ago
Malthus also lived in the 18th-19th century prior to the industrial revolution. His ideas about human population growth are largely invalid today.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Guess again, Ormaaj. I'm in actuarial science, and Malthusian principles underly all morbidity, mortality, and other factors used every day. Next time don't parrot what you don't know yourself.
brainouty 2 years ago
Malthus wrote specifically with regards to human population growth. His models are valid in the case of unrestricted growth and are useful, but I am speaking with regards to population in the field of human geography, not biology or ecology. If you read my comment regarding demographic transition, I think you will agree. No need to be hostile, I have studied the subject.
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Malthus' argument really has nothing to do with it. The important thing is that it was an influencing factor on Darwin's ideas, and that it was an invalid inference. Animals and humans do not behave the same way, and animal populations are controlled in a much more sophisticated way than Darwin imagined.
Kanbei85 2 years ago
Ah yep, true true. :)
Ormaaj 2 years ago
Disagree, Kanbei. Mutation is affected by population crowding or sparseness, be it the mutation of cold germs, or the bigger idea of DNA mutation, evolutionary or no. The ideas are related.
brainouty 2 years ago
"Animals and humans do not behave the same way" - If you say so ;-) Would you like slapping round the head with a jesus fish now? Or later? You know, even if EVERYTHING Darwin relied on was WRONG right now. It still would not question evolution. It happens, we have over 150 years of further science since then. Even if you ripped Darwin apart from the limbs and stopped him printing the book it wouldn't change anything. So what are you doing? Absolutely nothing at all.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago
Ormaaj, the hostility came from you, and you made a comment only someone ignorant would make. So pardon me if I didn't believe you've not studied the subject in any depth, given the petulant nature of your first comment.
Your second one here is more intelligently worded, but still not worth further reply. The point is that DNA replication and mutuation are very much affected by population numbers, restricted or not. Malthusian theory is very much related to the evolution question, therefore.
brainouty 2 years ago
Very interesting.
TheEdge012 2 years ago