Let me ask a question. I just started watching this series, and a question came to mind. Since humans create what is needed to survive (I think we can all agree on that), does that mean human evolution is at an end? Humans are not like a wild animal that has to constantly fight for survival. We create what we need, so do humans keep evolving? I'm talking about modern day humans, not hose living 40,000 year ago
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
@daogdaog Educate yourself about the evidence supproting evolutionary theory, and the scientific meaning of the word "theory", and you'll see that there's no longer any doubt. All life has evolved from simpler organisms.
Google Project Steve NCSE
to see that virtually all scientists know that evolution has been happening for billion of years.
@ndrthrdr1 I dont need all the scientists. Just give me one scientist who had extracted mtDNA evidence from a common ape-like ancestor between chimps and humans. So far, mtDNA evidence has shown that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So, there is a good chance that humans too did not evolve from a so called ape-like common ancestor.
@daogdaog Evolution Theory doesn't claim that humans have descended from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. It describes how humans and all of those are descended from common ancestors that lived millions of years ago, which very gradually branched off into many species that were precursors to these related animals..
@daogdaog mDNA appears not to last that long without deteriorating, but who knows what we'll find in the future? Scientific knowledge is snowballing at an amazing rate.
@ndrthrdr1 So there is no solid mtDNA evidence linking human and chimps common ape-like ancestor. Just speculation. what if the future will say human did not evolve from a common apelike ancestor? How come you stated there is no longer any doubt? Yes, scientific knowledge is snowballing at an amazing rate showing mtDNA evidence that did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. Where is that human-chimp common apelike ancestor anyway?
@kotoroshinoto Ape-like common ancestor became YOU not me. You should have your brain scanned. You may have some vestigial brain from a common ape-like ancestor.
@daogdaog wow, attack the person instead of the topic, thats really gonna do the job. When a population evolves that sometimes includes the ENTIRE EXTANT POPULATION, this would not leave a surviving example of the "parent species" as in a sense there isn't really a solid division. From generation 1 to generation 2, they are the same. The changes occur over MANY generations.
@kotoroshinoto Since over 100 million fossils have been unearthed showing no proof of incremental changes, just go and do some more digging and show me some fossils or mtDNA evidence of chimp-human common ancestor. Show me something tangible, not something you imagined.
@daogdaog so you simply reject the evidence presented out of hand and then claim we have no evidence. mt DNA evidence cannot be used indefinitely all the way back through an ancestral tree, after a point there has been far too much time for that to be a reliable estimation of relatedness and the non-mt genome gives a better estimation. There are portions of chromosomes that we share with other great apes, though theirs have undergone different mutations and do not match up perfectly.
@daogdaog it usually requires comparison of the entire genome and even that doesn't work all that well unless the organisms have a fairly recent divergence. If the divergence is too far back, evolution may have changed the genome so much that the genetic contents may be so different as to be impossible to compare directly for dating purposes. In these cases an aggregate comparison of shared genes rather than the entire genome can help
@kotoroshinoto It is all speculative computations. That is precisely why biologists have so many divergence dates for human-chimp or human-neanderthals. If they get dates too far back then they make another speculation. That is evolution, just speculations after speculations.
@daogdaog why don't you just admit your confirmation bias, and that you will not be swayed by any amount of evidence or logic? The discussion is not constructive because you're not approaching it with an honest intent.
@kotoroshinoto Who is having a bias here? comparison in DNA does not mean one specie evolve from another specie or related to entirely new specie. It simply meant one specie is different from the other specie, That is the most constructive and honest conclusion we can get from such comparison.
@daogdaog by itself in a one to one species comparison if that was the ONLY time it showed relatedness, then I would agree. When it holds up across every organism on the planet its a bit stronger than that.
@kotoroshinoto When it holds up across every organism on the planet? Like a worm which has 75 percent identical to human DNA? Can you say that a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human?
@daogdaog evolution doesn't have a goal. We share ancestry and thus share genes. They've since adapted in different directions for entirely different purposes. So you saying its "a portion into becoming human" is complete nonsense
@daogdaog Its also important to know how essential given genes are, cytochrome c does not change all that much because its function is critical to life, although it does eventually diverge. Humans and chimps have the same amino acid sequence while rhesus monkeys differ by one amino acid. Chickens share theirs with turkeys, and pigs, cows, and sheep all share the same sequence for their version. All of these molecules are different from those in the other groups, yet are still similar.
@daogdaog and before you jump all over how cytochromes don't "blend across phyla" as the bullshit website I just saw claimed, evolution and mutation don't stop, even in bacteria and fish, the longer the species are diverged the more the molecule is different, and the human cytochrome wouldn't be expected to look like a modern fish chromosome + new stuff.
Piltdownman was considerd a hoax for a long time by scientist. Scientist looked at it several times before indeed being able to discard it completly, but that is called being thorough.
You are completely wrong about the second part. But then again you got the information from a creationist website. Maybe even from Kent Hovinds website.
@NathanWubs A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. There never was an evolution. Fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution at all.
@daogdaog //A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly.//
Debunked. /watch?v=TpMhdAnkxrA
//Fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution at all.//
There are plenty of transitional fossils. Two examples are Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik.
Hey, I don't know if you would have chance to read my comment and answer, but if no new traits are developed, then it contradicts with our evolution. We didn't become bipedal just because bipedals survived and others didn't.
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?
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
Someone, somewhere back in the days when Barbara Walters still believed in Uri Geller, did some sort of study and found that people naturally fell into biometric rhythm with Bach compositions (the same people who said Mozart makes you smarter). It's hypnotism and mind control...
... and he's using it to force smart on us, damn him!
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
@achilles197474 the natural tendency for things to go from more to less order applies to closed systems, we are constantly using energy to maintain homeostasis, once we die, entropy wins. Our use of energy increases the disorder of the universe around us to compensate for maintaining/increasing order within our bodies and the energy to do this is supplied by the sun, which generates MASSIVE entropy within itself.
Google "first mammals" and you'll see that they were shrews. From these shrews, all mammals are descended. Not only is your great great grandfather a common ancestor with a chimpanzee, but your great great great great grandfather is a shrew. If you care to make some scientific observations, you'll notice that shrews give birth shrews and that genomes are fixed. In this day and age it is amazing that people still believe this from "goo to you by way of the zoo" fairy tale.
I don't see how people would think natural selection is random when genes that are the most fit are selected, which isn't random. Natural selection keeps the good mutations and the bad either mutates to become more fit or become very insignificant. The mutations aren't entirely random because the environment is what causes them but some unpredictable mutations have occurred in E.Coli, funny The "Discovery" Institute didn't rave about that one.
Any ambiguity in the public is done so on purpose. If it was necessary for the peasants to UNDER stand it would be made sure that they did. You cant pilfer money from landless peasants that dont believe in ghosts.
That Fibonnachi Spiral Clock ( 3:45 ) is really inspired ... and very fitting here, as that pattern (the Golden Ratio) seems to drive all natural processes including life, from the formation of Galaxies, to the formation of snail shells, flower petals, plant and tree branching patterns and even proportions in human anatomy (see the "Da Vinci Man"). Some may have understood its causality, since it appears in so much art and architecture, but at least in Biology, an explanation seems wanting.
the answer is actually simple a flower blooming is describable using mathematics because of the underlying natural forces, and these same emergent properties are at work in say a galaxy.
its the same reason why fractions works in cartesian coordinates, money, and counting apples
Intelligent Design: Not intelligent and it assumes a design which goes against the Scienctific Method, where you make an hypothesis- a guess which is neither right nor wrong until evidence proves it, even then other evidence can come along-quantum physics contradicting Newtonian physics. So never assume you make a u no what.
As a Bio-geneticist that has studied population genetics extensively. Genetic information is always shown to reduce through random mutation. Therefore the possible production of new body plans in a theoretical time span of macro-evolution apears to be a dead ended pathway. I hate to admit this but its true.
@goshawker07 >>>Liar and phony!!! You are no biogeneticist, tu wit: Kleinfelter's Syndrome and Down's Syndrome to name only two---each is caused by a whole CHROMOSOME worth of extra information via mutation. Shove your lies....
Re: natural selection weeding out detrimental mutations
Humans (being supremely capable of adapting to change) have to a large degree defeated this aspect of evolution. We have developed such a high degree of medical science that we keep alive (and allow to breed) all sorts of people who would have otherwise died off. This adds to our species' high degree of genetic variability.
Think of it this way: In the new late make of Godzilla, a lot of the horror of the film was when they panned the camera around inside the Madison Square Garden, and all the eggs are visible. Godzilla is obviously very good evolutionarily (in the short run), and the horror is imagining thousands of them loose and applying for the title of fittest. The egg busters inside the Garden and the bomber at the end represent genetic drift. Drift is usually random forces but may not always be so.
Can we concede the fact that creationism taken from a literal translation from the bible holds zero mustard, and that evolution is occurring, and get to the bigger questions, which include:
Where does spirit fit into this whole picture?
Could we have been helped along in our evolutionary track by a race of intelligent beings from off planet? Where does DNA come from?
Do we really need more proof for evolution? Not really. Do we really need to prove that God doesn't exist? That's impossible.
One thing I must say though that the beetles being eaten model is a easy to understand example of natural selection but it is no more valid than others
Natural selection can be extremely subtle. It doesn't have to involve selection against like being eaten. No, advantages can assort through populations through very minor benefits in reproductive success.
For example say one allele has 947 offspring per generation. But another allele leads to a mean of 949 offspring.
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat: No, of course being eaten is not the only thing that will get in your way to reproduction. There's not having some important body part, like a beetle's leg of a lion's smell. Not to speak of the down side of sexual selection. If your odor changes or your wing pattern alters so that females don't like you, you loose.
As for your example,. you are right, as long as: - the two types don' speciate over the difference - They sets of descendants don't interbreed, thus muddying the distinction. - The second allele isn't wiped out by genetic drift or plain old accident before it can spread among the whole population. It is interesting to contemplate how many real successful alleles can be scraped from between an elephant's toes.
... - Timing is also important. If half of those 949 are wiped out by said elephant, they are one generation behind the other, and that may put them at a disadvantage. It is not really survival of the fittest as much as it is survival of the fit enough.
The Pope's Catholic Church have their own real scientists now, to stay better in touch with reality than they were centuries ago, so they now that both evolution is a fact, the big bang 13.7bn years ago is a fact and that life of course could evolve anywhere with suitable conditions. But the pPope is obviously at bit mental....haha, beings thousands or millions or billions of lightyears will have heard about a fairy-tale on Earth about "Jesus", "Mary","The Talking Snake" and so on? He's a retard
at 1:57 is a slide to support the possiblity that a flipped coin turns up "heads". Dont' use that arguement because the creationist will tell you that to be accurate you need to calculate the chance that an infinite sided coin with infinate different descriptions turns up that one "head". Also Now that Scientists are considering I.D. theory... is this addressed in the vids ?
Natural selection? Evolution has it all wrong. We can't find life a few trillion light years from our planet. That means life is rare, and the chance of the earth being the right distance from the sun for life to evolve is so high.
Anyone who believes in this brainwashed bullshit is batshit crazy.
How would you be able to detect life on faraway planets? How good do you think modern telescopes are? You can barely see animals on our planet from the MOON, how do you expect us to see animals in other solar systems?
I love your videos, BTW, especially how you debunk Aronra by just saying "wrong" to everything you seem to think he said...
theoretically it would be possible to see if there are organic molecules and in what amounts and in given ratios using spectroscopy. If a promising planet is found then the next step would be to try to analyze something like say a dust storm or volcano or an asteroid impact that would kick up enough stuff
"Natural selection? Evolution has it all wrong" the i suggest you dont use any of the benefits its given us, like medicine. . you know the stuff they keep having to make new versions of because bacteria and viruses EVOLVE!!! and become immune to the old ones and such things paternity tests.
" We can't find life a few trillion light years from our planet." That one comment displays too many levels of ignorance to even bother pointing out.
GayGuy... Now there are some 7 billion billion billion stars in our 13.7 billion year old universe, so you can be pretty sure that other planets are at suitable distances from their stars. LIfe will evolve if enough conditions are suitable, but intelligent life must be very much more rare than primitive life. But if intelligent life exists in the universe, do you think they will have heard about "Jesus? Haha, like that retarded Pope said. He has accepted Big Bang, evolution,possible e.t life:)
And GayGuy, how could anything be "trillions of lightyears away, as long as the universe is on thirteeen point seven billion years old? You should read some basic science instead of reading christtard crap or listening to your retarded preacher/priest. Really, it would do you some good to learn some facts instead of christian, ancient fairy-tales that were written by primitive people who were more ignorant than your average down's syndrom pasient today. Embrace science instead of the fairy-tales
« as the universe is on thirteeen point seven billion years old? »
Ah, but that's an interesting point. The expansion of the universe is not limited by light speed, as it doesn't actually entail anything travelling at or above light speed. So objects could, relatively speaking, be moving away from us at speeds exceeding light. This means that we have an observation horizon in the shape of a cone of light, and it is possible for objects within that light cone to pass across the horizon.
Objects can be further away than than 13 billion light years away. There is no speed limit to how fast space can expand, there's only a speed limit within space.
We can even see some objects that are further away than 13 billion light years.
Why? Because they the light hasn't traveled more than 13 billion years but since the universe have constantly expanded we now are a lot further away from the object than we were when the light was emitted.
Yeah, yeah, and in the very beginning the universe expanded super-fast. But the guy I was adressing was talking about "trillions of years"..and we'renot off by a factor of one thousand! Agreed?:)
The idea of evolution of evolvability might be useful to help people understand beneficial mutations - the idea that in your dna are programs and sub programs not just a long list - and that the ability to evolve better might have been selected for early on in single celled life
If a mutation enhances your chances of survival it is beneficial. Google "beneficial mutation" add "plague aids" or as an alternative
"nylon" to it.
If it is more than examples you are looking for I fear the "how exactly" part IS a bit complicated. Guys like DonExodus really pack their Videos with content wich is very commendable. Thank Youtube for the pause-button. :) Helped me out many times. Watch his videos multiple times. If Don made it much simpler it would destort the meaning. Regards!
but actually the polar bears fur would be good in the desert. Their fur holds out the outside air and the bear has another layer of air under that coat of fur. to make them maintain the same body heat. And that's the case for camels too nut loss of natural food they'll turn dead
Don, or anyone who knows, would conservation of animals be an example of genetic drift? For example attempting to keep the pandas alive. It isn't really random, but isn't expected from the natural environment.
Having 10 pandas left, and having 5 with the genes for red fur ALL die, thus leaving the remaining population with only 1 gene for fur color would be an example of genetic drift.
What are you opinions on natural selection and the functional loss of the simian ascorbic acid synthesis enzyme (gulonolactone oxidase)? More specifically, how could a deleterious change (see scurvy) in a genome persist for millions of years?
Monkeys and apes eat a lot of freshly sprouted leaves and fruit and nuts and tree bark.
All of those have incredibly large amounts of vitamin C. Theoretically, if synthesis wasn't needed anymore the preservation of the gene(s) would be less of a constraint and could be knocked out without a negative effect on reproductive success
I'm a huge fan!!! I love these!!! And I show them to my son!! He loves them! Thanks!! And as long as you'll teach, I'll be happy to learn new things!!!
I was really fascinated by the wall lizard and that viewable evolution thing. Could you do more on that?
But what is "best"? An organism that adapts very quickly to a change? What if in that process it loses it's ability to change back? Like, what if an organism loses its pigment because of a change in the environment, and for some reason this is lethal when the environment changes for the second time. Then organisms that changed slower (and therefore still have pigment in their gene pool) actually can adapt to the environment again.
If the environment changes, the ones most fit to that environment will survive. So yes if the environment changed to be more advantageous to green again, then the green will then become more prevalent. So basically in the environment more advantageous for brown the brown become prevalent and in an environment advantageous to green, the green will become prevalent. So yes they could adapt to the changed environment again. In general though the organism that can more quickly change is best.
Yes, but my point was that there might be changes that are harder to reverse. Perhaps pigment may be an example. Let's for example assume that not having enough pigment causes instant death, then the change back to pigment might be too late to save the species. Whereas a species that changed slowly might be weakened due to lower vitamin intake (less exposure to sun) but doesn't die when the new change occurs. It just slowly starts to go back the other direction again.
i'm taking an evolution class and i find it so difficult, but needless to say your videos have helped me a lot. The speed of the speech is too fast though.
The T-Rex on Noah's Ark doesn't bug me. That's actually kinda funny. Not a "hey kids lookit this" kinda funny but a nut-shot kinda funny, or a "heh-heh yeah makes-ya-think" kinda funny.
What bugged me was the Venn diagram. I lean to the right politically, and I try not to psychologize political opponents. And GOPs or Dems aren't the intersection of stupidity and politics. Plenty of stupid to go around. And for decades, Politics X Stupidity =... well, Politics.
oh thank you. everytime i get confused about life i can always clear my head educating myself about how the world really works. im sick and tired of hearing all these alpowerful gods and religions. what time are we living in? the middle ages??
Mr. Exodus, let me pose a huge problem for evolution. And sir don't misunderstand me, I don't mean abiogenesis. Here it is... Scientists have found within a living cell there are hundreds of biochemical machines. Highly complicated as not previously thought in the past. If replication needs these complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery to come into existence is cumulative selection, then you have a problem.
My point wasn't on Irreducible complexity at all. My point was evolution does not have a mechanism on which to "build" organisms. Your example of the nylon eating bacteria has been debunked by Kato K. in his findings... -Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):25852590, 1995-
Im curious how your author debunked nylonase years before it was even discovered.........
.....
My bet would be that you coped it from some creationist website, and dont actually understand what is being said.
Regardless, you not knowing the mechanism doesnt mean one doesnt exist- mutation and selection- its been observed time and time again. Bury your head in the sand if you want though.
I read the article, and it's a huge plasmid, 45K. It appears to have been cobbled together from the old "rep" plasmid plus some genes for permeases, which open holes in the cell membrane, and N-acyltransferases, which process biomolecules for metabolism.
In other words, this article shows clear evolution of a new function for old genes by mutation.
They speculate that God created it in 1991. Oh, wait, no they don't. Hmmmm...
TheDelightfulOne Wrong!Unfortunately bibleist sites do not tell the truth about "biochemical machines".There are many prokaryote cells that have NO structure analogous to these 'machines', in fact in some cases there is no internal structure at all--->no nucleus,no organelles,no DNA, just 4 amino acids joined by a phosphate lattice to make RNA! Replication is asexual,so the information is passed on intact;For evolved prokaryotes with organelles and DNA,replication is the same,not by selection.
TDO--->how can replication occur without machines? Easy---the concept is false--->I notice you gave no attribution for your "Scientists"---it is one scientist, Michael Botchan,whose work is LIMITED to Eukariotic viruses which contain DNA-->there is a completely different group of phyla called Prokariotes,which have no nuclei in their cells--->some not only have no nucleus, but have no DNA either! What has been extrapolated from Eukariotes cannot be applied to all cells! No problem exists.
TDO--->Prokariotes reproduce asexually--they divide into 2 equal cells--->there are'nt hundreds of replicating machines at work anywhere->the creationist site you got this from lied-->not even Botchan states there are "hundreds" of machines--->better check and confirm your "data"first; you will never under any circumstances get truth from creationist or bibleist websites,that is not their business--->their business is fleecing the suckers (see Marjoe Gortner),and conning the impressionable.
I dislike the analogy to machines. The cell is complex, but these processes aren't neat. If you open the cell, you will not see sprockets and cogs. It would be more like a compost heap, or your own guts. Distinct organs, yes, but not as clean as you would think.
Even genetics is pretty sloppy. Every one of your cells has, on average, two to four mutations, depending on your age.
I think science illustrators have misled the uninformed. Real cells aren't like cartoons.
Well, despite genetics' sloppiness, as you say, these biological processes are far more precise than any mechanical device that we've ever invented.
But mechanical devices, from the average person's perspective, are very precise! So the analogy to machines is appropriate, as far as that bit is concerned.
I don't think "compost" is illustrative. But If there's a better analogy than machines, please tell us.
I'm referring specifically to the highly accurate replication of DNA, to genetic "machinery." You're referring to biological processes on the whole, though. I didn't realize that at the time (I didn't see TDO's original comment), so I'm sorry that I aggravated you.
Back to my original question, though. Is there a more accurate way to explain biological processes to curious outsiders, beyond diagrams and analogies with mechanical devices?
Just to be clear, human DNA polymerases have error rates ranging from 0.005 to 0.0001%. That's up to five mistake per thousand, or several million mistakes per genome copy.
Would you accept a clock that lost 15 second every hour? Thankfully, we have additional error checking mechanisms, which eliminate all but a few errors per genome copy, but that's a wasteful design and energetically expensive.
You're asking good questions, eksortso. There's really not a good analogy to living things. In certain aspects, computer viruses and memes show some properties of life. You can extend analogies between the inner working of the cell and the inner working of the human body.
For example, a comparison can be made between the endoplasmic reticulum and the intestines, mitochondrion and the liver, brain and nucleus.
Thanks for your help, joemarklarson. I'm not a scientist, and I'm learning a lot from these videos. But I'm not sure how to express all I've learned to people who can't watch them. That's why I ask for better analogies.
Computers I understand! There's massive redundancy and plenty of comm errors on the Internet, yet it still works. The details are sloppy but the results look elegant. Yet it's a designed system, albeit with loose controls. That makes evolution all the more impressive, I think.
Look up a YT user called "tomdschneider". He links to his site at the national cancer institute with a lot of detail on Shannon Entropy in receptor evolution.
His work is very oriented towards computer people and simulations of evolution. There's some stuff there that I think will appeal to you. Then you can come back and explain it to me : )
i agree with you but i've always wondered ....u know survival of the fittest rite? what about humans? Now-a-days everyone can breed. is there still an evolution for human? hope u understand my awkwardly stated question.
then, from ur knowledge/oponion, can u tell me a little basic info on the human evolution right now? its not a typical evolution but is there still an evolution? sorry for the bad english T.T
Not really. Sure we weed out undesirable traits, but a huge genepool due to world transportation, and complex behaviour means that right now, we don't act the same.
Hi, I'm currently studying Biology (and Chemistry) in College, and I've just started watching these vids.
In an earlier vid you aluded to genetic flow and I was wondering that perhaps (one of the reasons) Humans won't evolve because there is a very large gene pool to mate from. Is that correct?
I disagree, there are many examples of human evolution, e.g. tibetian chinese have larger lungs to compensate for the lack of oxygen at high altitudes
I had to stop @ :28 and comment. You say that the organism that adapts is the one that will survive. The thing is, that is false. Like I said before, If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not. The reson this dosen't make sense to me is because EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
"I use a picture of a bear shivering and getting a coat"
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat"
Maybe these are related??????
hahahahahahahahaha thanks for proving my point that you do think evolution works that way. I'm laughing pretty hard @ you right now. Wait untill the other people in my sunday school get a load of this. They will laugh just as hard as me ^_^
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not."
Yes! You're actually on to something here!
"EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE."
Oooh just when you were doing so well. Why do you always attack things you don't understand?
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not."
"Yes! You're actually on to something here!"
Wow, just wow. You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death.
"Wow, just wow. You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death."
Wow, just wow. You didn't even get what i meant. I was saying that you were correct on that particular statement but wrong on "EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE"
"You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death"
wtf is with creationists having absolutely no clue what is being proposed by evolution. and then being unable to read sentences the whole way through. no one ever proposed that animals will spontaneously grow a coat or anything of the sort. go read dons reply to you and you would see that he specifically says evolution does not work like that
and as don said he used the pic to demonstrate that evolution doesnt work that way. at no point does he say it does. i know he knows better than that too
a good example of 'beneficial' mutations are where people possess some remarkable talent eg. sporting ability or musical ability. It's interesting that whilst this might make these people wealthier or more famous than other people, it doesn't necessarily result in them having more children and so spreading their genes around more widely. On the other hand we find across the world that it tends to be the poorest in society that breed the most.
Ooh, you're stepping in with arguments from ignorant creationists.
I mean, really, the whole "micro macro" arguments that Ken Ham for example, just toss out repeatedly, are so intellectually stagnant and ignorant, that it always makes me curious.
If you can walk a few steps, you can walk a mile. There's no boundary that creationists offer that prevents evolution, and we've already seen and observed macro evolution on entire populations.
... you mean to tell me that you want me to do the googling of "observed instances of speciation" for you, and give you links in youtube comments, which is not allowed because trying could qualify as spam?
never knew that you could get spammed for that, i have looked into the observed instances of speciation and it still doesn't make sense. Like with plants and stuff they say both plants have 2 different dnas and can't make cause one changed. Well you can't mate a tiger with a house cat yet they are the same species... so i don't see where observed speciation takes place so hbu message me privateley and give me your links so i can watch what you are trying to prove to me.
Arguments from personal incredulity. Just because you dont' understand (apparently on purpose) doesn't make an argument automatically wrong.
A tiger and a common housecat aren't the same species. If you can't tell that, then you obviously have no reason to assert your arguments deserve merit or responses.
Great, just simply great. You ignore absolutely everything I said for something like "u forgot a comma" where a comma was not even needed.
No rebuttle or negative response to what I said about how your arguments are ones from personal incredulity... so, somebody mentioned that you are using a logical fallacy, yet your only defense contains a statement about your opponent's usage of the english language rather than any intellectual response or anything to show you can stay on topic...
Let me ask a question. I just started watching this series, and a question came to mind. Since humans create what is needed to survive (I think we can all agree on that), does that mean human evolution is at an end? Humans are not like a wild animal that has to constantly fight for survival. We create what we need, so do humans keep evolving? I'm talking about modern day humans, not hose living 40,000 year ago
truthforchrist 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 4 months ago
@achilles197474 hardly a fairy tale.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
Please people go to school!!!! Very good video.
redrum95432 4 months ago
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. It took that long because scientific community refused to believe that it was a hoax. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 6 months ago
@daogdaog Educate yourself about the evidence supproting evolutionary theory, and the scientific meaning of the word "theory", and you'll see that there's no longer any doubt. All life has evolved from simpler organisms.
Google Project Steve NCSE
to see that virtually all scientists know that evolution has been happening for billion of years.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I dont need all the scientists. Just give me one scientist who had extracted mtDNA evidence from a common ape-like ancestor between chimps and humans. So far, mtDNA evidence has shown that humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. So, there is a good chance that humans too did not evolve from a so called ape-like common ancestor.
daogdaog 3 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog Evolution Theory doesn't claim that humans have descended from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. It describes how humans and all of those are descended from common ancestors that lived millions of years ago, which very gradually branched off into many species that were precursors to these related animals..
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@daogdaog mDNA appears not to last that long without deteriorating, but who knows what we'll find in the future? Scientific knowledge is snowballing at an amazing rate.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 So there is no solid mtDNA evidence linking human and chimps common ape-like ancestor. Just speculation. what if the future will say human did not evolve from a common apelike ancestor? How come you stated there is no longer any doubt? Yes, scientific knowledge is snowballing at an amazing rate showing mtDNA evidence that did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. Where is that human-chimp common apelike ancestor anyway?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog that ancestor's descendants became US, thats where it is.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Ape-like common ancestor became YOU not me. You should have your brain scanned. You may have some vestigial brain from a common ape-like ancestor.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog wow, attack the person instead of the topic, thats really gonna do the job. When a population evolves that sometimes includes the ENTIRE EXTANT POPULATION, this would not leave a surviving example of the "parent species" as in a sense there isn't really a solid division. From generation 1 to generation 2, they are the same. The changes occur over MANY generations.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Since over 100 million fossils have been unearthed showing no proof of incremental changes, just go and do some more digging and show me some fossils or mtDNA evidence of chimp-human common ancestor. Show me something tangible, not something you imagined.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog so you simply reject the evidence presented out of hand and then claim we have no evidence. mt DNA evidence cannot be used indefinitely all the way back through an ancestral tree, after a point there has been far too much time for that to be a reliable estimation of relatedness and the non-mt genome gives a better estimation. There are portions of chromosomes that we share with other great apes, though theirs have undergone different mutations and do not match up perfectly.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog this was FIRST shown in banding patterns but has been corroborated by genomic sequencing.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog thats deliberately disingenuous, no scientist even attempted to claim that we evolved from any of the EXTANT apes.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog mtDNA is hardly the suitable material to compare for a divergence that occurred millions and millions of years ago.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto So how do biologists compute divergence dates then?
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog it usually requires comparison of the entire genome and even that doesn't work all that well unless the organisms have a fairly recent divergence. If the divergence is too far back, evolution may have changed the genome so much that the genetic contents may be so different as to be impossible to compare directly for dating purposes. In these cases an aggregate comparison of shared genes rather than the entire genome can help
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto It is all speculative computations. That is precisely why biologists have so many divergence dates for human-chimp or human-neanderthals. If they get dates too far back then they make another speculation. That is evolution, just speculations after speculations.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog why don't you just admit your confirmation bias, and that you will not be swayed by any amount of evidence or logic? The discussion is not constructive because you're not approaching it with an honest intent.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto Who is having a bias here? comparison in DNA does not mean one specie evolve from another specie or related to entirely new specie. It simply meant one specie is different from the other specie, That is the most constructive and honest conclusion we can get from such comparison.
daogdaog 2 months ago
@daogdaog by itself in a one to one species comparison if that was the ONLY time it showed relatedness, then I would agree. When it holds up across every organism on the planet its a bit stronger than that.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@kotoroshinoto When it holds up across every organism on the planet? Like a worm which has 75 percent identical to human DNA? Can you say that a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human?
daogdaog 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog evolution doesn't have a goal. We share ancestry and thus share genes. They've since adapted in different directions for entirely different purposes. So you saying its "a portion into becoming human" is complete nonsense
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog Its also important to know how essential given genes are, cytochrome c does not change all that much because its function is critical to life, although it does eventually diverge. Humans and chimps have the same amino acid sequence while rhesus monkeys differ by one amino acid. Chickens share theirs with turkeys, and pigs, cows, and sheep all share the same sequence for their version. All of these molecules are different from those in the other groups, yet are still similar.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog and before you jump all over how cytochromes don't "blend across phyla" as the bullshit website I just saw claimed, evolution and mutation don't stop, even in bacteria and fish, the longer the species are diverged the more the molecule is different, and the human cytochrome wouldn't be expected to look like a modern fish chromosome + new stuff.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog somebody tries to defraud the world and that bcomes evidence against evolution in the minds of idiots.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
@daogdaog wrong and wrong.
Piltdownman was considerd a hoax for a long time by scientist. Scientist looked at it several times before indeed being able to discard it completly, but that is called being thorough.
You are completely wrong about the second part. But then again you got the information from a creationist website. Maybe even from Kent Hovinds website.
NathanWubs 1 month ago
@NathanWubs A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly. There never was an evolution. Fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution at all.
daogdaog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog //A fruitfly DNA has been manipulated millions of times in labs all over the world to mimic millions of years of evolution yet a fruitfly remained a fruitfly.//
Debunked. /watch?v=TpMhdAnkxrA
//Fossils some dated 250 million years ago showed no sign of evolution at all.//
There are plenty of transitional fossils. Two examples are Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik.
EnlightenedReader 3 weeks ago
Hey, I don't know if you would have chance to read my comment and answer, but if no new traits are developed, then it contradicts with our evolution. We didn't become bipedal just because bipedals survived and others didn't.
QuickRefs 6 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
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 9 months ago
ilu :)
HeyRuka 9 months ago
SUBLIMINAL BACH!
Someone, somewhere back in the days when Barbara Walters still believed in Uri Geller, did some sort of study and found that people naturally fell into biometric rhythm with Bach compositions (the same people who said Mozart makes you smarter). It's hypnotism and mind control...
... and he's using it to force smart on us, damn him!
SnarkLicker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The natural order of life's genomes is to go from a state of order to less order. A simple brain does not evolve into a complex brain. See Cornell University's Dr. John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome. The human genome is deteriorating via the accumulation of mutations. Overall, mutations have the sum impact of being deleterious. Macro evolution is a fairy tale. Atheism is moronic.
achilles197474 11 months ago
@achilles197474 the natural tendency for things to go from more to less order applies to closed systems, we are constantly using energy to maintain homeostasis, once we die, entropy wins. Our use of energy increases the disorder of the universe around us to compensate for maintaining/increasing order within our bodies and the energy to do this is supplied by the sun, which generates MASSIVE entropy within itself.
kotoroshinoto 2 months ago
Damn. That picture IS funny :D
TheDcac 1 year ago
Google "first mammals" and you'll see that they were shrews. From these shrews, all mammals are descended. Not only is your great great grandfather a common ancestor with a chimpanzee, but your great great great great grandfather is a shrew. If you care to make some scientific observations, you'll notice that shrews give birth shrews and that genomes are fixed. In this day and age it is amazing that people still believe this from "goo to you by way of the zoo" fairy tale.
achilles197474 1 year ago
drop the music, next time.
Its annoying !
freesoul2005 1 year ago
this makes me sad cuz i cant get laid
ndecker3295 1 year ago
Thank you sir, you really helped me.
TheBadbowman 1 year ago
I don't see how people would think natural selection is random when genes that are the most fit are selected, which isn't random. Natural selection keeps the good mutations and the bad either mutates to become more fit or become very insignificant. The mutations aren't entirely random because the environment is what causes them but some unpredictable mutations have occurred in E.Coli, funny The "Discovery" Institute didn't rave about that one.
HybridD91 1 year ago
The cake is a lie!!!!
Davidbasque15 1 year ago
Any ambiguity in the public is done so on purpose. If it was necessary for the peasants to UNDER stand it would be made sure that they did. You cant pilfer money from landless peasants that dont believe in ghosts.
Psy0pAgent 1 year ago
That Fibonnachi Spiral Clock ( 3:45 ) is really inspired ... and very fitting here, as that pattern (the Golden Ratio) seems to drive all natural processes including life, from the formation of Galaxies, to the formation of snail shells, flower petals, plant and tree branching patterns and even proportions in human anatomy (see the "Da Vinci Man"). Some may have understood its causality, since it appears in so much art and architecture, but at least in Biology, an explanation seems wanting.
RuniChannel1 1 year ago
the answer is actually simple a flower blooming is describable using mathematics because of the underlying natural forces, and these same emergent properties are at work in say a galaxy.
its the same reason why fractions works in cartesian coordinates, money, and counting apples
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
Intelligent Design: Not intelligent and it assumes a design which goes against the Scienctific Method, where you make an hypothesis- a guess which is neither right nor wrong until evidence proves it, even then other evidence can come along-quantum physics contradicting Newtonian physics. So never assume you make a u no what.
14oren 1 year ago
DonExodus, I think the Darwin quote is a misquote
Golkarian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Evolution is is the the imaginary ham in the sandwich of science"
Gilbertestabillo 1 year ago
As a Bio-geneticist that has studied population genetics extensively. Genetic information is always shown to reduce through random mutation. Therefore the possible production of new body plans in a theoretical time span of macro-evolution apears to be a dead ended pathway. I hate to admit this but its true.
goshawker07 1 year ago
@goshawker07 Yes, your post is highly believable. Thanks for sharing
glassbrain 1 year ago
@goshawker07 >>>Liar and phony!!! You are no biogeneticist, tu wit: Kleinfelter's Syndrome and Down's Syndrome to name only two---each is caused by a whole CHROMOSOME worth of extra information via mutation. Shove your lies....
pontecanis 1 year ago
Re: natural selection weeding out detrimental mutations
Humans (being supremely capable of adapting to change) have to a large degree defeated this aspect of evolution. We have developed such a high degree of medical science that we keep alive (and allow to breed) all sorts of people who would have otherwise died off. This adds to our species' high degree of genetic variability.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
lose the music
managarm1349 2 years ago
Think of it this way: In the new late make of Godzilla, a lot of the horror of the film was when they panned the camera around inside the Madison Square Garden, and all the eggs are visible. Godzilla is obviously very good evolutionarily (in the short run), and the horror is imagining thousands of them loose and applying for the title of fittest. The egg busters inside the Garden and the bomber at the end represent genetic drift. Drift is usually random forces but may not always be so.
puncheex 2 years ago
invisible research! lulz. most epic..
TehCybernerd 2 years ago
Can we concede the fact that creationism taken from a literal translation from the bible holds zero mustard, and that evolution is occurring, and get to the bigger questions, which include:
Where does spirit fit into this whole picture?
Could we have been helped along in our evolutionary track by a race of intelligent beings from off planet? Where does DNA come from?
Do we really need more proof for evolution? Not really. Do we really need to prove that God doesn't exist? That's impossible.
musicequalstruth 2 years ago
One thing I must say though that the beetles being eaten model is a easy to understand example of natural selection but it is no more valid than others
Natural selection can be extremely subtle. It doesn't have to involve selection against like being eaten. No, advantages can assort through populations through very minor benefits in reproductive success.
For example say one allele has 947 offspring per generation. But another allele leads to a mean of 949 offspring.
That 2nd allele will evolve
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
@LeopardFrogPilboxhat: No, of course being eaten is not the only thing that will get in your way to reproduction. There's not having some important body part, like a beetle's leg of a lion's smell. Not to speak of the down side of sexual selection. If your odor changes or your wing pattern alters so that females don't like you, you loose.
puncheex 2 years ago
As for your example,. you are right, as long as: - the two types don' speciate over the difference - They sets of descendants don't interbreed, thus muddying the distinction. - The second allele isn't wiped out by genetic drift or plain old accident before it can spread among the whole population. It is interesting to contemplate how many real successful alleles can be scraped from between an elephant's toes.
puncheex 2 years ago
... - Timing is also important. If half of those 949 are wiped out by said elephant, they are one generation behind the other, and that may put them at a disadvantage. It is not really survival of the fittest as much as it is survival of the fit enough.
puncheex 2 years ago
Thank you, Don! you provided an excellent revision for my biol exam :)
beyondblue533 2 years ago
Wow thanks for the video. Gave me a better understanding of Aspects involving evolution. The model of the beetles and birds.
michael0o5 2 years ago
@michael0o5
If you have any questions or curiosities about biology send me a PM if you'd like
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
The bible belongs in the fiction section of a library.
Somerandomguy128 2 years ago 20
I'm A new suporter of u
drako551 2 years ago
Haha, I love the image at 4:54
rkyeun 2 years ago
The Pope's Catholic Church have their own real scientists now, to stay better in touch with reality than they were centuries ago, so they now that both evolution is a fact, the big bang 13.7bn years ago is a fact and that life of course could evolve anywhere with suitable conditions. But the pPope is obviously at bit mental....haha, beings thousands or millions or billions of lightyears will have heard about a fairy-tale on Earth about "Jesus", "Mary","The Talking Snake" and so on? He's a retard
winterstellar 2 years ago
*millions or billions of lightyears away* Sorry about that typo..
winterstellar 2 years ago
at 1:57 is a slide to support the possiblity that a flipped coin turns up "heads". Dont' use that arguement because the creationist will tell you that to be accurate you need to calculate the chance that an infinite sided coin with infinate different descriptions turns up that one "head". Also Now that Scientists are considering I.D. theory... is this addressed in the vids ?
enoshthecat 2 years ago
Natural selection? Evolution has it all wrong. We can't find life a few trillion light years from our planet. That means life is rare, and the chance of the earth being the right distance from the sun for life to evolve is so high.
Anyone who believes in this brainwashed bullshit is batshit crazy.
TheoryReviewGuy 2 years ago
The universe is not even a trillion light years across.
ajboyer 2 years ago
How would you be able to detect life on faraway planets? How good do you think modern telescopes are? You can barely see animals on our planet from the MOON, how do you expect us to see animals in other solar systems?
I love your videos, BTW, especially how you debunk Aronra by just saying "wrong" to everything you seem to think he said...
HeavenlySpoon 2 years ago 5
@HeavenlySpoon
theoretically it would be possible to see if there are organic molecules and in what amounts and in given ratios using spectroscopy. If a promising planet is found then the next step would be to try to analyze something like say a dust storm or volcano or an asteroid impact that would kick up enough stuff
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
lol TRG great creationist impression : )
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"We can't find life a few trillion light years from our planet. '
This is probably because not even light could travel a trillion light years even if it was emitted right after the big band
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
"Natural selection? Evolution has it all wrong" the i suggest you dont use any of the benefits its given us, like medicine. . you know the stuff they keep having to make new versions of because bacteria and viruses EVOLVE!!! and become immune to the old ones and such things paternity tests.
" We can't find life a few trillion light years from our planet." That one comment displays too many levels of ignorance to even bother pointing out.
manhunt48 2 years ago
GayGuy... Now there are some 7 billion billion billion stars in our 13.7 billion year old universe, so you can be pretty sure that other planets are at suitable distances from their stars. LIfe will evolve if enough conditions are suitable, but intelligent life must be very much more rare than primitive life. But if intelligent life exists in the universe, do you think they will have heard about "Jesus? Haha, like that retarded Pope said. He has accepted Big Bang, evolution,possible e.t life:)
winterstellar 2 years ago
And GayGuy, how could anything be "trillions of lightyears away, as long as the universe is on thirteeen point seven billion years old? You should read some basic science instead of reading christtard crap or listening to your retarded preacher/priest. Really, it would do you some good to learn some facts instead of christian, ancient fairy-tales that were written by primitive people who were more ignorant than your average down's syndrom pasient today. Embrace science instead of the fairy-tales
winterstellar 2 years ago
*only thirteen point seven billion years old* Another typo there. Jeez, but I just got out of bed, I'm not totally awake yet, hehe
winterstellar 2 years ago
« as the universe is on thirteeen point seven billion years old? »
Ah, but that's an interesting point. The expansion of the universe is not limited by light speed, as it doesn't actually entail anything travelling at or above light speed. So objects could, relatively speaking, be moving away from us at speeds exceeding light. This means that we have an observation horizon in the shape of a cone of light, and it is possible for objects within that light cone to pass across the horizon.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Objects can be further away than than 13 billion light years away. There is no speed limit to how fast space can expand, there's only a speed limit within space.
We can even see some objects that are further away than 13 billion light years.
Why? Because they the light hasn't traveled more than 13 billion years but since the universe have constantly expanded we now are a lot further away from the object than we were when the light was emitted.
Qwrirq 2 years ago
Yeah, yeah, and in the very beginning the universe expanded super-fast. But the guy I was adressing was talking about "trillions of years"..and we'renot off by a factor of one thousand! Agreed?:)
winterstellar 2 years ago
Agreed :)
Qwrirq 2 years ago
The idea of evolution of evolvability might be useful to help people understand beneficial mutations - the idea that in your dna are programs and sub programs not just a long list - and that the ability to evolve better might have been selected for early on in single celled life
chamallowbleu 2 years ago
"Invisible Research" i lol'd
Baalberith665 2 years ago
Why do all these evolution videos have narration that's so fast. And why do they all have funny abstruse pictures and go delving into technical stuff.
Forgive me, but I'm looking for something really simple explaining beneficial mutations.
Pulsar205 2 years ago
If a mutation enhances your chances of survival it is beneficial. Google "beneficial mutation" add "plague aids" or as an alternative
"nylon" to it.
If it is more than examples you are looking for I fear the "how exactly" part IS a bit complicated. Guys like DonExodus really pack their Videos with content wich is very commendable. Thank Youtube for the pause-button. :) Helped me out many times. Watch his videos multiple times. If Don made it much simpler it would destort the meaning. Regards!
knurd75 2 years ago
but actually the polar bears fur would be good in the desert. Their fur holds out the outside air and the bear has another layer of air under that coat of fur. to make them maintain the same body heat. And that's the case for camels too nut loss of natural food they'll turn dead
livedandletdie 2 years ago
THat sealion looked like dr phil. HAHA You vids are good.
livedandletdie 2 years ago
Don, or anyone who knows, would conservation of animals be an example of genetic drift? For example attempting to keep the pandas alive. It isn't really random, but isn't expected from the natural environment.
CommonSense90 2 years ago
Nope-
Having 10 pandas left, and having 5 with the genes for red fur ALL die, thus leaving the remaining population with only 1 gene for fur color would be an example of genetic drift.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
What are you opinions on natural selection and the functional loss of the simian ascorbic acid synthesis enzyme (gulonolactone oxidase)? More specifically, how could a deleterious change (see scurvy) in a genome persist for millions of years?
TheShukuga 2 years ago
Monkeys and apes eat a lot of freshly sprouted leaves and fruit and nuts and tree bark.
All of those have incredibly large amounts of vitamin C. Theoretically, if synthesis wasn't needed anymore the preservation of the gene(s) would be less of a constraint and could be knocked out without a negative effect on reproductive success
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
I found your videos very interesting, keep up the good work!
vaaaliant 2 years ago
I love your videos, but I dont really like the slides. Like that kid getting spanked! What the Hell was the point of that!?
mattlrkn 2 years ago
its PCS getting spanked (pwned) by donexodus
EverydayPlacebo 2 years ago
where is my free cake?! lol
skinsfb89 2 years ago
THE CAKE IS A LIE!
GBart 1 year ago 2
I'm a huge fan!!! I love these!!! And I show them to my son!! He loves them! Thanks!! And as long as you'll teach, I'll be happy to learn new things!!!
I was really fascinated by the wall lizard and that viewable evolution thing. Could you do more on that?
GypsyofXanos 2 years ago
But what is "best"? An organism that adapts very quickly to a change? What if in that process it loses it's ability to change back? Like, what if an organism loses its pigment because of a change in the environment, and for some reason this is lethal when the environment changes for the second time. Then organisms that changed slower (and therefore still have pigment in their gene pool) actually can adapt to the environment again.
Harregarre 2 years ago
If the environment changes, the ones most fit to that environment will survive. So yes if the environment changed to be more advantageous to green again, then the green will then become more prevalent. So basically in the environment more advantageous for brown the brown become prevalent and in an environment advantageous to green, the green will become prevalent. So yes they could adapt to the changed environment again. In general though the organism that can more quickly change is best.
vnorthru 2 years ago
Yes, but my point was that there might be changes that are harder to reverse. Perhaps pigment may be an example. Let's for example assume that not having enough pigment causes instant death, then the change back to pigment might be too late to save the species. Whereas a species that changed slowly might be weakened due to lower vitamin intake (less exposure to sun) but doesn't die when the new change occurs. It just slowly starts to go back the other direction again.
Harregarre 2 years ago
i'm taking an evolution class and i find it so difficult, but needless to say your videos have helped me a lot. The speed of the speech is too fast though.
rouhi81560 2 years ago
exactly, the ends don't justify the means.
CanyoneroTimbo 2 years ago
Just on the "offensive" note...
The T-Rex on Noah's Ark doesn't bug me. That's actually kinda funny. Not a "hey kids lookit this" kinda funny but a nut-shot kinda funny, or a "heh-heh yeah makes-ya-think" kinda funny.
What bugged me was the Venn diagram. I lean to the right politically, and I try not to psychologize political opponents. And GOPs or Dems aren't the intersection of stupidity and politics. Plenty of stupid to go around. And for decades, Politics X Stupidity =... well, Politics.
eksortso 2 years ago
The T rex on Noah's ark is so good. I laughed all day on it.
GhostWolf471 2 years ago
oh thank you. everytime i get confused about life i can always clear my head educating myself about how the world really works. im sick and tired of hearing all these alpowerful gods and religions. what time are we living in? the middle ages??
swiffstep 3 years ago
Excellent explanation.
updownleftrightinout 3 years ago
Mr. Exodus, let me pose a huge problem for evolution. And sir don't misunderstand me, I don't mean abiogenesis. Here it is... Scientists have found within a living cell there are hundreds of biochemical machines. Highly complicated as not previously thought in the past. If replication needs these complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery to come into existence is cumulative selection, then you have a problem.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
This isnt a problem for evolution at all, irred complexity has been debunked about 30 times. Sorry.
Look up Ken Miller flagellum.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
My point wasn't on Irreducible complexity at all. My point was evolution does not have a mechanism on which to "build" organisms. Your example of the nylon eating bacteria has been debunked by Kato K. in his findings... -Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):25852590, 1995-
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
Im curious how your author debunked nylonase years before it was even discovered.........
.....
My bet would be that you coped it from some creationist website, and dont actually understand what is being said.
Regardless, you not knowing the mechanism doesnt mean one doesnt exist- mutation and selection- its been observed time and time again. Bury your head in the sand if you want though.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
@DonExodus2 i have to say that your first sentence "im curious" to "discovered" was halarious. it shows that creationist just dont want to learn
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@DonExodus2 "Im curious how your author debunked nylonase years before it was even discovered........."
LMAO OWNED!!!!!!!!!! Damn Don LMAO Didn't have to hurt he/she that bad.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Delightful@
Microbiology. 1995 Oct;141 ( Pt 10):2585-90.
I read the article, and it's a huge plasmid, 45K. It appears to have been cobbled together from the old "rep" plasmid plus some genes for permeases, which open holes in the cell membrane, and N-acyltransferases, which process biomolecules for metabolism.
In other words, this article shows clear evolution of a new function for old genes by mutation.
They speculate that God created it in 1991. Oh, wait, no they don't. Hmmmm...
joemarklawson 3 years ago
TheDelightfulOne Wrong!Unfortunately bibleist sites do not tell the truth about "biochemical machines".There are many prokaryote cells that have NO structure analogous to these 'machines', in fact in some cases there is no internal structure at all--->no nucleus,no organelles,no DNA, just 4 amino acids joined by a phosphate lattice to make RNA! Replication is asexual,so the information is passed on intact;For evolved prokaryotes with organelles and DNA,replication is the same,not by selection.
pontecanis 3 years ago
Your misunderstanding my point, My point is how can an organism relicate if it lacks replicating machines?
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
TDO--->how can replication occur without machines? Easy---the concept is false--->I notice you gave no attribution for your "Scientists"---it is one scientist, Michael Botchan,whose work is LIMITED to Eukariotic viruses which contain DNA-->there is a completely different group of phyla called Prokariotes,which have no nuclei in their cells--->some not only have no nucleus, but have no DNA either! What has been extrapolated from Eukariotes cannot be applied to all cells! No problem exists.
pontecanis 3 years ago
TDO--->Prokariotes reproduce asexually--they divide into 2 equal cells--->there are'nt hundreds of replicating machines at work anywhere->the creationist site you got this from lied-->not even Botchan states there are "hundreds" of machines--->better check and confirm your "data"first; you will never under any circumstances get truth from creationist or bibleist websites,that is not their business--->their business is fleecing the suckers (see Marjoe Gortner),and conning the impressionable.
pontecanis 3 years ago
TDO@
I dislike the analogy to machines. The cell is complex, but these processes aren't neat. If you open the cell, you will not see sprockets and cogs. It would be more like a compost heap, or your own guts. Distinct organs, yes, but not as clean as you would think.
Even genetics is pretty sloppy. Every one of your cells has, on average, two to four mutations, depending on your age.
I think science illustrators have misled the uninformed. Real cells aren't like cartoons.
joemarklawson 3 years ago
Well, despite genetics' sloppiness, as you say, these biological processes are far more precise than any mechanical device that we've ever invented.
But mechanical devices, from the average person's perspective, are very precise! So the analogy to machines is appropriate, as far as that bit is concerned.
I don't think "compost" is illustrative. But If there's a better analogy than machines, please tell us.
eksortso 2 years ago
"These biological processes are far more precise than any mechanical device"
That's simply not true. Most biological processes are highly inefficient by comparison to man-made machines.
Take HIV-1.
Acta Virol. 1994 Feb;38(1):59-61.
HIV-1, depending on the strain, produces 100 inert/broken viruses for every 1 active virus.
Imagine a factory that produced 1 functional car out of every 100.
Look up lagging strand DNA synthesis. Inefficient, and not how man would have designed it.
joemarklawson 2 years ago 2
On the same note, plants absorb about 1-3% of solar energy, whereas man-made panels can have 20-60% efficiency.
joemarklawson 2 years ago
I'm referring specifically to the highly accurate replication of DNA, to genetic "machinery." You're referring to biological processes on the whole, though. I didn't realize that at the time (I didn't see TDO's original comment), so I'm sorry that I aggravated you.
Back to my original question, though. Is there a more accurate way to explain biological processes to curious outsiders, beyond diagrams and analogies with mechanical devices?
eksortso 2 years ago
Just to be clear, human DNA polymerases have error rates ranging from 0.005 to 0.0001%. That's up to five mistake per thousand, or several million mistakes per genome copy.
Would you accept a clock that lost 15 second every hour? Thankfully, we have additional error checking mechanisms, which eliminate all but a few errors per genome copy, but that's a wasteful design and energetically expensive.
joemarklawson 2 years ago
error rates of polQ are from:
Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jun;36(11):3847-56
You're asking good questions, eksortso. There's really not a good analogy to living things. In certain aspects, computer viruses and memes show some properties of life. You can extend analogies between the inner working of the cell and the inner working of the human body.
For example, a comparison can be made between the endoplasmic reticulum and the intestines, mitochondrion and the liver, brain and nucleus.
joemarklawson 2 years ago
Thanks for your help, joemarklarson. I'm not a scientist, and I'm learning a lot from these videos. But I'm not sure how to express all I've learned to people who can't watch them. That's why I ask for better analogies.
Computers I understand! There's massive redundancy and plenty of comm errors on the Internet, yet it still works. The details are sloppy but the results look elegant. Yet it's a designed system, albeit with loose controls. That makes evolution all the more impressive, I think.
eksortso 2 years ago
Look up a YT user called "tomdschneider". He links to his site at the national cancer institute with a lot of detail on Shannon Entropy in receptor evolution.
His work is very oriented towards computer people and simulations of evolution. There's some stuff there that I think will appeal to you. Then you can come back and explain it to me : )
joemarklawson 2 years ago
Hi Joe, You're doing a great job here explaining this t eksortso. When i saw 'entropy' i thought you may like this.
There is zero thermodynamic difference between COPYING mutation A vrs copying mutation B.
There is zero thermodynamic difference between CULLING mutation A vrs culling mutation B.
The environment pushes and life pushes back.
Action = reaction.
Complexity happens.
damianpoirier 2 years ago
Our will to live is God-given. Tell me how life would evolve a desire to survive???
TheDelightfulOne 3 years ago
I hope you're kidding.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Good question! Don, while you're at it, could you tell me how life would evolve with a desire to reproduce or eat?
Or how a square would evolve with 4 corners?
/facepalm
amateurevolutionist 3 years ago
:) thanks!
stephaniedawn56 3 years ago
i agree with you but i've always wondered ....u know survival of the fittest rite? what about humans? Now-a-days everyone can breed. is there still an evolution for human? hope u understand my awkwardly stated question.
jakylili 3 years ago
Humans dont apply typically- our behavior is too complex.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
then, from ur knowledge/oponion, can u tell me a little basic info on the human evolution right now? its not a typical evolution but is there still an evolution? sorry for the bad english T.T
jakylili 3 years ago
Not really. Sure we weed out undesirable traits, but a huge genepool due to world transportation, and complex behaviour means that right now, we don't act the same.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
Hi, I'm currently studying Biology (and Chemistry) in College, and I've just started watching these vids.
In an earlier vid you aluded to genetic flow and I was wondering that perhaps (one of the reasons) Humans won't evolve because there is a very large gene pool to mate from. Is that correct?
Ichcann 3 years ago
Correct. We're still evolving- everything is. We're just doing it at a slow rate.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
I disagree, there are many examples of human evolution, e.g. tibetian chinese have larger lungs to compensate for the lack of oxygen at high altitudes
marksiqi 3 years ago
I had to stop @ :28 and comment. You say that the organism that adapts is the one that will survive. The thing is, that is false. Like I said before, If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not. The reson this dosen't make sense to me is because EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
TrueServantOfGOD 3 years ago
//I had to stop @ :28 ///
//EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. //
Maybe these are related??????
Ironically, I use a picture of a bear shivering and getting a coat, demonstrating that evolution does NOT work like that...
DonExodus2 3 years ago
"I use a picture of a bear shivering and getting a coat"
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat"
Maybe these are related??????
hahahahahahahahaha thanks for proving my point that you do think evolution works that way. I'm laughing pretty hard @ you right now. Wait untill the other people in my sunday school get a load of this. They will laugh just as hard as me ^_^
TrueServantOfGOD 3 years ago
//I'm laughing pretty hard @ you right now.///
Okay, nevermind, you're just a moron. Re-read my post, its clear thats not what I was talking about.
While I would love to do a video eviscerating you, its simply not worth the attention you would receive.
Read a book kid, get educated, or prepare for a long future of disappointment.
DonExodus2 3 years ago
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not."
Yes! You're actually on to something here!
"EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE."
Oooh just when you were doing so well. Why do you always attack things you don't understand?
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
"If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat or something else to help me survive? Of course not."
"Yes! You're actually on to something here!"
Wow, just wow. You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death.
TrueServantOfGOD 3 years ago
"Wow, just wow. You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death."
Wow, just wow. You didn't even get what i meant. I was saying that you were correct on that particular statement but wrong on "EVOLUTION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE"
nightoftherobots 3 years ago
"You go wait outside in the winter, and tell me if you get a fur coat to appear if you don't freeze to death"
wtf is with creationists having absolutely no clue what is being proposed by evolution. and then being unable to read sentences the whole way through. no one ever proposed that animals will spontaneously grow a coat or anything of the sort. go read dons reply to you and you would see that he specifically says evolution does not work like that
Danikar 3 years ago
Actually after reading his reply it does seam that he thinks it works that way.
TrueServantOfGOD 3 years ago
so him specifically stating it doesnt work like that means.... nothing?
Danikar 3 years ago
He says "I use a picture of a bear shivering and getting a coat"
I say "If I had to live outside in a forest during the winter, would I adapt a trait that gives me a fur coat"
Then he says "demonstrating that evolution does NOT work like that"
lol contradiction much?
TrueServantOfGOD 3 years ago
the answer to your question is no
and as don said he used the pic to demonstrate that evolution doesnt work that way. at no point does he say it does. i know he knows better than that too
Danikar 3 years ago
a good example of 'beneficial' mutations are where people possess some remarkable talent eg. sporting ability or musical ability. It's interesting that whilst this might make these people wealthier or more famous than other people, it doesn't necessarily result in them having more children and so spreading their genes around more widely. On the other hand we find across the world that it tends to be the poorest in society that breed the most.
rickelmonoggin 3 years ago
Your beetles will aways be beetles.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Racist bird...
"I don't want those brown beetles"
OsthatoCat 3 years ago
A polar bear is STILL a bear
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
It's a bear, it's adapted to a very speciffic environment. Thus adding more evidence to evolution through natural selection.
sonic8005 3 years ago
microevolution
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
Ooh, you're stepping in with arguments from ignorant creationists.
I mean, really, the whole "micro macro" arguments that Ken Ham for example, just toss out repeatedly, are so intellectually stagnant and ignorant, that it always makes me curious.
If you can walk a few steps, you can walk a mile. There's no boundary that creationists offer that prevents evolution, and we've already seen and observed macro evolution on entire populations.
sonic8005 3 years ago 2
what populations? tell me what species and give me your sources for information.
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
... you mean to tell me that you want me to do the googling of "observed instances of speciation" for you, and give you links in youtube comments, which is not allowed because trying could qualify as spam?
sonic8005 3 years ago
never knew that you could get spammed for that, i have looked into the observed instances of speciation and it still doesn't make sense. Like with plants and stuff they say both plants have 2 different dnas and can't make cause one changed. Well you can't mate a tiger with a house cat yet they are the same species... so i don't see where observed speciation takes place so hbu message me privateley and give me your links so i can watch what you are trying to prove to me.
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
Arguments from personal incredulity. Just because you dont' understand (apparently on purpose) doesn't make an argument automatically wrong.
A tiger and a common housecat aren't the same species. If you can't tell that, then you obviously have no reason to assert your arguments deserve merit or responses.
sonic8005 3 years ago 2
u forgot a comma after the word "arguements"
Soberminddisciple 3 years ago
Great, just simply great. You ignore absolutely everything I said for something like "u forgot a comma" where a comma was not even needed.
No rebuttle or negative response to what I said about how your arguments are ones from personal incredulity... so, somebody mentioned that you are using a logical fallacy, yet your only defense contains a statement about your opponent's usage of the english language rather than any intellectual response or anything to show you can stay on topic...
sonic8005 3 years ago
Seriously, take a course on debate.
TheGodsEnvyUs 3 years ago