Apes have very different head, neck, shoulders, arms, wrists, hands, back, ribs, hips, knees, legs and feet because the controlling DNA is very different. The fossils found are always either human or ape. There is never anything inbetween.
.. does that also mean I will evolve into a yeast cell in about 1.5 billion years .. if so will I be allowed to drink my own wine .. or will that be incest?
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Having same genetic sequences in species and employing same enzymes to do similar work doesnt rule out the possibility of creationism.. It merely introduces the possibility of evolution.. It just means that the creater, whoever it may be, is either lazy to make different enzymes for different task, or lack creativity, or prefers to have a standardized and systematic construction of animal species using similar spare parts..
@remoraid7 Why do you insist on wasting your time and everyone else's on mythology and theology? Eliminate the step of "God did it" and just go with what is testable. I understand your point but it still makes zero fucking sense.
@WhoisJacqueFresco Fact: the number of possible amino acid chain sequences that form proteins capable of creating said function, outnumber the total number of atoms in the universe. I hope you use this much skepticism with the VP :)
look for "large numbers" and you will see that the number of atoms in the universe can be easily supassed by a simple probability question. @WhoisJacqueFresco
@nobrainQQ You mean an equation? Please start listing off all of the protein combinations that can perform those functions. I don't need some bs equation based on nothing. Test every single combination out and get back to me.
Ok man, i'm not a PHD on molecular biology. But i know that when something goes to information (possible combinations of matter ) it easily beats quantity of matter. Protein combinations are 3D objects and can assume very different forms to do the same thing. One topic that could ilustrate that is protein folding. There is so many possibilities even in the 3D folding that just that characteristic breaks any current simulator. Search it. @WhoisJacqueFresco
Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the energy revolution!
well if life evolved naturally, why do some people think that life couldn't start naturally also? i mean do we need to have a god/gods behind everything we don't fully understand? that show how ignorant some people are. lol
Ugh, camels and pigs "ARE" closely related to hippos and whales as they are all artiodactyls. Whales and hippos are just more closely related to one another as either is to camels or pigs.
This video is an overview. It doesn't go into the details. We are supposed to take his word on things. Also, he doesn't take into account the idea that the gene sequences are similar because the phenotype is similar. After all, the genome is the coding for the species, and if two species are similar, then the coding should be similar. Common sense.
@forest51690, I guess you missed the part where THE GENES WERE SUBSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONED EQUALLY AS WELL, and that THERE ARE ASTRONOMICALLY NUMEROUS VERSIONS OF CYTOCHROME-C THAT PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION but which don't exist because the genes don't exist to produce those variations. These facts utterly destroy your argument. It is not because phenotype is similar, but because of evolution from common ancestors. Or a Prankster God created things to look exactly like evolution!
@forest51690, I guess you missed the part where THE GENES WERE SUBSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONED EQUALLY AS WELL, and that THERE ARE ASTRONOMICALLY NUMEROUS VERSIONS OF CYTOCHROME-C THAT PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION but which don't exist because the genes don't exist to produce those variations. These facts utterly destroy your argument. It is not because phenotype is similar, but because of evolution from common ancestors. Or a Prankster God created things to look exactly like evolution!
@forest51690 Your comments are old but I'd thought I'd reply anyway. the letters you see are the letters for the 20 amino acids in the protein Cytochrome C. to follow up on the second comment, the similarities in genes would make sense because of the phenotype is the same but they are comaring a protein found in all eukaryotes and therefore the sequence should be the same or similar. However it is the differences that are important here.
What if we find life on other planets, and what if the life we find on those other planets have the exact same citocrome c in the mitochondria in all eukaryote cells produced by the its gene? Man that would be a trip.
Do you think the sequenced mutation that's buffeted by their millions of 'years' would lead to something that look like us?
@flanker4psychos i appologies for my harsh answer to your comment. i see now that it might have been a genuine question and not a viscious remark.
if it was a genuine question:
The yeas do evolve. the term "modern", or whichever he used, organism is just a seperation based on how many "traits" we value as "advanced/human-like" the organism possesses. if the traits where looked upon individualy and compared between the two species both would be "advanced" but maybe not in the same direction.
@N3CR1S of course there is also cases when the organism not only possesses few of theses traits we hace chooses to call "advanced/modern" but few traits in general. But to call it unevolved, like you tried, would still be wrong since each of those traits is probably highly evolved to fill a certain specific function. a more proper term would be "simple" organism. So, as you now understands, deducting "unevolved"/"unevolving" from "simple" cant be done, atleast not as simple as you would like.
@flanker4psychos Are you serious? there are hundreds of yeast's. a year ago we, the labb group i was in on a course, studied one, put it in a chamber where we controled the environment, and just as was expected it adapted and changed to each new condition.
your comment is one that is made from lack of knowledge and understand. please learn more about the subject you intend to comment before you post.
hrmm amino acid sequencing shows geneology thru mutation? the only reason evolution is still taught as a theory is because iggnorant christians still control the united states...
I don't know about this video. I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just can't find any passages in the Bible about this stuff. And I don't remember Jesus preaching about any of it. I'm gonna have to pray about it, see what God thinks, and get back to you guys.
@Desarollo If you're missing the point, you have a good reason. This video doesn't mention creationism, a commentator did. Yet equally your comment misses the point.
But I don't want to be boring: If you need a prayer answered to relate to this video then this means the word of the god your pray to is invalid as this god in his book already clearly states where our DNA come from. Mud and rib.
So you will be praying to god to change his mind ...
Nothing in the bible should be taking literal, it is the word of man not god. Those morons who wrote the bible got it al wrong, earth and all that is could not have been made in 6 days a few thousand years ago.The sun was not made after earth, the sky is not an ocean, Man and land animals could not have been made on the same day (dinosaurs predate humanity by millions of years), male didn't come before female, finally 2 people of the same race an't produce a child of another 2 blacks don't=white
@steveb0503 i find YouTube has one feature that is really great for getting good at debates, you are limited to just a few characters per reply. Since I usually want to make several points in any argument or counter, this restriction forces me to say only the bare minimum, but since I don't want to lose the force of my argument due to constriction this really makes me hone in my argument, you either cut right to the heart of it or you lose something. Probably the only plus of YouTube arguing.
@Desarollo Most of the arguing on here is someone ignorant of facts + just wants to spout propaganda vs someone who can provide evidence and etc. IE: Religion vs science is not a debate. Its a bunch of people who don't understand what they are looking, make extraordinary claims, do not present any evidence that can be tested, and refuse to listen vs people who have dedicated their lives to learning in various fields who have evidence + proven results in the form of technology.
@steveb0503 Sadly evidence and rationality rarely persuades religious ignorance. Darwin proved it, Richard Dawkins wrote the selfish gene around 35 years ago which explains evolution from a gene's point of view. However creationist and other large portions of the religious community's will recite their usual mantra "It doesn't say that in my bible so it must be a lie" and completely ignore the facts and evidence thrown in their faces YET AGAIN! Honestly, how hard must we slap them to wake up?
@frostyuk2007, Well said. The gullible get all 'skeptical' about evolution and accuse us of adhering to a philosophy and/or a religion, and then they file into the churches on Sunday, like the good sheep they are, in order to sing praises to the magical sky-fairy and his son, the resurrecting 2,000 year old zombie, who magicked everything into being several thousand years ago.
if you must reply to a comment online. think before you post. 3 comments that were half assed made me wonder how they were even conjured up. please read messages completely before replying
I like how the narrator is assuming stuff about common ancestor and missing monkey links. this is why ppl think science is just another religion.
I do scientific studies, and as i do notice how monkeys structures are simmilar, it doesn't prove anything about relations.
here's a simple way to prove it. 2 computers do the same function, they have the same components and the samedirectories, however, these PCs were made by 2 completley different makers. as they use the simmilar system Windows...
we can assume Windows as that mitochondria, they are not linked together in any way.
if this is a possibility for computers, a part of the atoms of the earth, why MUST we be related to monkeys? It is just like saying, Acer, Asus, Dell, Compaq, are all related cause they build computers using the mitochondria "Windows"
that's not the point. don't use a different factor to try to disprove another. computers were an example. a metaphor even. ppl on the internet relate to PCs more.
@RobeonMew It's entirely relevant. It's not my problem if you can't see that.
In any case, the computers you mention all have similar designs, which have all "descended" from earlier, more basic designs. Any computer that uses windows is going to have to have hardware that is compatible with it. So your analogy doesn't really prove anything.
fine. if you want to related to monkeys that badly.
but as the video guy himself even said. "common ancestor". so as the analogy of Computers go, they also stem from earlier forms. so in a way, computers are more than enough to use as an analogy. Asus and Acer are nowhere close to being related ans still older "designs" stem to them. so as many are rerlated in parts and "genes", they are still unique.
like i said. read the post carefully and maybe cross-reference b4 replying
@RobeonMew Seriously, asking me to read and cross-reference your barely intelligible posts is really pointless.
All living things reproduce. Humans aren't designed anew each time a baby is born - the blueprint already exists in the genetic code of its parents. It's a straightforward logical deduction that could be made by anyone with half a brain, that the pattern of common traits and genetic similarity in the tree of life indicates a pattern of relatedness and common ancestry.
@RobeonMew Well, so you side with religion, with can't hold facts afloat if it where to save it's life? Geez, arguing with religios nutcases is, fruitless, they never learn.. inbreds....
Using computers as an analogy is a strawman, they don't reproduce. They change instantaneously due to new models being made, not gradually by gene transfer.
"good job taking it too litterally, like everyone else did."
(sarcasm)Oh no, you sure showed me!(/sarcasm) I assume you belive this makes me wrong somehow? Nice try, but it wasn't even to be taken as literal, but as fallicious.
If you're going to use an analogy, it has to actualy represent the point properly, and moreover not be a strawman of it. And if you can't think of it as an accurate analogy, why the hell are you using it to try disprove something?
@RobeonMew You do science studies ... why do I find it hard to believe that you you actually understand your studies, and are the studies proteomics or is it christian science?
The video said they were useless, but I would think LINEs and SINEs serve as some form of error correction code, right?
If 30% of our DNA is LINEs and SINEs which nither inhibit nor cause protein formation, then these segments of the genome can be mutated without causing any major change to the function of the genome (unless if the mutation makes the LINEs and SINEs mutate into a protein-forming sequence) which makes the genome resistant to "errors".
@RaminHAL9001: No, Ramin, I'm afraid not. True error detection and correction requires active bits; that is, the detection and correction code has to change with the message it is protecting. Just having a whole bunch of non-changing code in there doesn't attract errors away from other parts; they happen at random places. If the active code is 1% of the whole genome, then the chances of a mutation in that code is 1% of the total errors; no more, no less.
@ganggreensoldier Answer: Public high school, Biology is required to graduate in the USA, and they must be proficient on their final exam to get their diploma. Same with Math, History and English. Good thing too. I think(and so do State/Federal officials) it's important for people to understand the processes of life. Healthier public plus we could not compete with other countries in science and prerequisite for University Science programs.
Notice how this video puts cultural meanings to modern genomes. They are telling us repeatedly that our time is the most advanced in every term. Our economic model, our government, our ethics, our skills, habits, attidutes and everything is better than ever before. This is the common mistake by theorists who deal with evolution. It is also dangerous and tyrannic. It implies we must do us our authorities tell us, and it may lead to social segregation with less developed, disagreeing individuals.
And I think nothing becomes better over time - they just change. We should appreciate particular values that everything possesses in their context. Everything makes sense in its own context. If we think things develop and not change, then we are guilty of ego-centrism and racism.
the proper term is "better suited" which is to say it changes in such a way it will be able to get a little bit more of out the niche it is trying to fill.
Not so much in the sense of "well rats are better then mice, period"
@teemuruskeepaa Things can get better, but only if we acknowledge the past and build on it. Evolution does not work this way, and in that sense it is not about making things better. Humans, however, have a recorded history and a capacity for teaching and sharing, so we do have the potential to improve upon things.
@teemuruskeepaa Interesting points, I agree that they are not the best phrases to use, but how is this implying that we must do as our authorities tell us? It sounds more like your reading too much into this Please explain if i'm wrong.
@teemuruskeepaa: No, it's not "the common mistake by theorists who deal with evolution". People who really deal with evolution know that it is not goal oriented, and about the only thing it tends toward is greater complexity over time. My experience is that this is more usually an error on the part of people who don't really understand evolution. I congratulate you on your knowledge, however, and encourage you to keep speaking up when you find someone egregiously making more of it than it does.
@puncheex Ok, but I'd like add to what happens in when with idea of "perpetual improvement". Between any two community, it leads to thinking that our community is better than the other, and that the other is ethically worse than us and it must be assimilated. War. I am sure that the whole idea of things becomes better is based on culture, and that there should be an opposing culture that is not as good. So anyone who thinks so, fails to provide biological evidence and uses cultural instead.
@teemuruskeepaa: Ah, and you've just proven that you don't know what evolution is all about.
The concept of natural selection (if I can anthopomorphize it for a minute) selects those changes which represent a better fit to the current environment the animal is in. Example: Homo sapiens most important feature is his brain; it makes him extremely adaptable to all sorts of changes. If the world were do become quiet - no tectonics, only fine weather, no mountains to climb, plentiful food, etc. ...
... Then intelligence would be superfluous, and expensive, and we'd give way to animals adapted to the simplicity of life (assuming we hadn't removed ourselves from the competition completely). Is that a betterment of ourselves? Only with respect to the environment. In our current environment, it is a recipe for becoming someone else's lunch.
@puncheex No, I'm just critical what the theorists say. I don't believe we become better through evolution and I frankly just proved with social theory, that the whole idea of improvement requires the assumption of another culture that is worse than us. And by the way, I am not a lamer who's talking just based on my feelings. This is a social scientific fact. To return to the point, thinking we improve through evolution just mean we can't tolerate difference. Racism and ego-centrism.
@puncheex Besides, not just another but indeed an opposing culture. So this way the discourse about improvement through evolution is just rite of passage, dealing with the alleged enemy, because it is necessary to become better to beat them. And it would be possible to trace this video to the contemporary American mindset - it has got hardly anything to with the theory of evolution. And others are not opposition, their value comes from ethical achievements, not superiority in genes etc.
@teemuruskeepaa Very good point, genetic "superiority" is non-existent, it's really all about moral and ethical values, and evolutionists should ask themselves which gene exactly is responsible for morals ;)
@SmokiSounds Sure as hell isn't a book thought up by a bunch of crack heads thousands of years ago now is it? Oh wait, my daddy dun terd me to believe in this, so did their dads, and their dads, and their dads, the only reason religion still exist is moronic parenting.
Fail. My father never told me anything about Faith. You must think that's the only way it works. Which isn't surprising, since you spend your life away playing Runescape and dedicating a whole channel to it. So, here's an advice: leave serious topics such as Faith or philosophy to grown-ups, and stick to MMORPGs :)
I just can't you seriously, sorry. Have a nice day.
@SmokiSounds Another religious D-Bag telling me how to live my life? The only reason you even know what jesus or god are, is because you got it told by people older then you, who got it told by people older then them and so on, most of the time it's parents bringing their kids to church. Look at how easily parents fooled us into believing in Santa Claus, I bet people would still believe if it wasn't for people telling us at 6 years old he's not real.
@teemuruskeepaa: If by theorist you mean a person who knows evolutionary theory, they are all well apprised on what selection means. If they aren't, then they don't know the theory.
Evolution is a biological theory. Full stop. Those who drag it into the realm of social theory need to prove that it works there. I wouldn't attempt to essay their attempt; I don't know social "sciences" and have no trust in their ability to handle a theory rigorously. So, sorry, I cannot follow you into that maze.
@puncheex Not just ethical achievements but the necessary things that each species needs to deal with their own environment. These are values per se, and the ritual discourse about becoming better tries to deny them, just because it makes us look better against the alleged hostile other
@teemuruskeepaa: Well, I've made my point. Evolution is a goalless process which makes species better fit their immediate environment. That's all it does. Intelligence (as we humans have it) is not a goal for evolution, it is simply a way of adjusting an animal to adapt to its surroundings well enough to survive. That's all.
This knowledge is part of the theory; if one believe's otherwise, then they do not really know the theory.
@teemuruskeepaa So are you arguing that calling multicellular life more complex is based only on a sociocultural construct? And where do cultures enter into this?
@Myrkky100 No its not sociocultural at all lol, its just better for the life to survive that's all, they didn't know that in some billions and millions years later they will build something like first ape, then humans
@bengacris Yeah, I know that but I'm trying to figure out the point teemuruskeepaa is trying to make. As far as I can tell he argues that there is some kind of "worms are better than yeast which means some cultures are better than others" thing going on in the vid and I just don't see where.
@teemuruskeepaa because its most advanced doesnt mean it has no downsides. Neither it means that we dont need to improve. And imo segregation is actualy beeing diminished. Look at medieval period.
@millamulisha "The day another breeding group gains human like intelligence on this planet is going to be really awesome"
Or.. consider the possibility that there already were such competitors.. and we killed them off. The most fearsome enemy of humans.. is other humans. Intelligence makes us great.. and dangerous. Perhaps if a non-threatening animal such as a whale had the same intelligence it'd be ok. Until someone hooks them up to the internet and they start blogging!
you shouldn't say the worm is "a more modern creature", because they are both equally modern. But we all know what you meant to say, which was that worms share a more recent common ancestor than yeast.
LOL here we go again - LINEs and SINEs are useless to the genome. No, they are not. And yes, there is at least one more way for LINEs and SINEs to go from one organism to another and even species without chromosome duplication - thru the help of the viruses.
Good video, but at ~ 1.07 he says 'new genes are created from more primitive forms in order to accomodate...', this is of course in error, evolution does not act with purpose. This is very sloppy language and it is all too common.
@Ryagful Creationists have a preset mind and they won't change there mind even when the proof is in abundance for evolution. Instead they will fall back into regurgitating long refuted arguments based on nothing but fallacious arguments. It is extremely sad that people can be so dumb as to sabotage themselves intellictually, but thats just one of the many harms religion does to stupid people.
Stop me if im wrong here. If 30% of human dna is junk data... could it be possible that 2 humans could differ 30% in their dna.. and both be considered humans? (I understand that it is borderline impossible that this would happen naturaly)
We can differ by 30% in our dna and still be human. Then take in to consideration that we share 98% of our dna with apes.
I love common descent. I love natural selection. I love Evolution. Elegant yet simple yet mind boggling. I am teaching this stuff right now in Biology and of course, there is always a clown that brings up creation tales. Eventhough I warn them to keep their stories to themselves, unless they can support their claims via the scientific method, they keep trying to slide the fairytales into my lectures. Sad brainwashing at work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
DNA can't form without proteins, and proteins can't form without DNA. So the only conclusion is that these must have evolved at the exact same time; the chance of this is 1 in more than the amount of electrons in our universe.
@TruthfulChristian: "DNA can't form without proteins, and proteins can't form without DNA. " Not according to science. Amino acids (protein building blocks) form spontaneously everywhere we've seen in universe, even deep space. RNA (pre-cursor to DNA) self-organizes spontaneously. RNA can produce proteins AND self-replicate like DNA. All of this has been demonstrated by scientific experiment. We're close to creating life in the laboratory using totally natural conditions. No designers needed.
@SmokiSounds: Yeah, and so what? We aren't here to reproduce the exact same abiogenesis that happened 3.5 billion years ago. There is no way to do that; we don't know what it looked like, exactly. So, if we can produce a self-organizing mechanism that creates a protein (any protein, really) then we've demonstrated rthat it is possible. It doesn't make any difference that we designed out synthetic protein; this is a proof of concept that shows that abiogenesis is possible, that is all.
@puncheex No, what it shows is that, from an array of already established, given materials, you can NOW produce a mechanism that creates a protein. But believe me, even so, even knowing all the fine-tune "settings", such "mechanism" will die in a minute. Believe me. Men will never create full-on functioning, independent organic life form from scratch. It's a good dream, though :)
@SmokiSounds Sounds a lot like, "If men were meant to fly Jesus would have given them wings." Same arrogant, stifling thought patterns that's terrified to have the Oz-like curtain pulled back, only to find no wizard.
Just wondering if you're clueless enough to ask, "Who made the building blocks?" and dive down that tired old rabbit hole. Yes, your "designer" god can exist without start, surely the most complex of ALL things, but lowly matter? No way. Right Skippy?
I want this video on my Vairy Touch II phone.
jarrettpeter37 1 month ago
very interesting video thanks
staranjela 1 month ago
great video thanks
osclarkos 1 month ago
Very enjoyable thank you
chrispikeyp 1 month ago
Apes have very different head, neck, shoulders, arms, wrists, hands, back, ribs, hips, knees, legs and feet because the controlling DNA is very different. The fossils found are always either human or ape. There is never anything inbetween.
In real life, we are not related to apes.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
.. does that also mean I will evolve into a yeast cell in about 1.5 billion years .. if so will I be allowed to drink my own wine .. or will that be incest?
Coastlinewalks 2 months ago
Wow great presentation .. guess my genes are the same as the yeast .. except the yeast has some I dont ...
Coastlinewalks 2 months ago
Good!! Very Infomative
directorygod 2 months ago
Odd responses for this video again.
galenrivera512 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't survive if their tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving? I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, so-called "Junk DNA." Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss almost everything: genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Having same genetic sequences in species and employing same enzymes to do similar work doesnt rule out the possibility of creationism.. It merely introduces the possibility of evolution.. It just means that the creater, whoever it may be, is either lazy to make different enzymes for different task, or lack creativity, or prefers to have a standardized and systematic construction of animal species using similar spare parts..
remoraid7 9 months ago
@remoraid7 Why do you insist on wasting your time and everyone else's on mythology and theology? Eliminate the step of "God did it" and just go with what is testable. I understand your point but it still makes zero fucking sense.
PlayLikeAnimal 9 months ago
Fact: We have about 6 billion planetary systems in our galaxy
Fact: Billions of galaxies that make up the universe
"There are more possible proteins that can perform these functions than all atoms in the universe"
I smell bullshit...... Anything is possible, but seriously.... 3:44
WhoisJacqueFresco 10 months ago
@WhoisJacqueFresco Fact: the number of possible amino acid chain sequences that form proteins capable of creating said function, outnumber the total number of atoms in the universe. I hope you use this much skepticism with the VP :)
scottpastry 8 months ago in playlist Underlings List - Part 2
look for "large numbers" and you will see that the number of atoms in the universe can be easily supassed by a simple probability question. @WhoisJacqueFresco
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
@nobrainQQ You mean an equation? Please start listing off all of the protein combinations that can perform those functions. I don't need some bs equation based on nothing. Test every single combination out and get back to me.
WhoisJacqueFresco 8 months ago
Ok man, i'm not a PHD on molecular biology. But i know that when something goes to information (possible combinations of matter ) it easily beats quantity of matter. Protein combinations are 3D objects and can assume very different forms to do the same thing. One topic that could ilustrate that is protein folding. There is so many possibilities even in the 3D folding that just that characteristic breaks any current simulator. Search it. @WhoisJacqueFresco
nobrainQQ 8 months ago
lolcreationism
ChainsThatBind 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
EVOLUTION IS A MYTH! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION!
EVOLUTION IS A MYTH! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION!
EVOLUTION IS A MYTH! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION!
EVOLUTION IS A MYTH! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION!
Coasterkid94 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Biological evolution explains how God did it. "Speak to the earth, and let it teach you" (Job 12:8). Science: It works. Amen!
MereToutois 1 year ago
evolution and nature are so beautiful and so is biology i think i want to be a biologist.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
...so if we can create the genome of these simple animals, does that mean we could eventually, "grow" organisms?
mit871chell 1 year ago
@mit871chell Mycoplasma laboratorium or "Synthia" is the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome.
Welocy 1 year ago
Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the energy revolution!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
Science is beautiful.
Lucuskane 1 year ago
well if life evolved naturally, why do some people think that life couldn't start naturally also? i mean do we need to have a god/gods behind everything we don't fully understand? that show how ignorant some people are. lol
Atheist603 1 year ago 8
Ugh, camels and pigs "ARE" closely related to hippos and whales as they are all artiodactyls. Whales and hippos are just more closely related to one another as either is to camels or pigs.
Lagomort 1 year ago
Octopuses.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
They are both modern, the worm just has requirements that the yeast does not.
deathsminion25 1 year ago
does he say "created" at 1:03?
vonSupremo 1 year ago
This video is an overview. It doesn't go into the details. We are supposed to take his word on things. Also, he doesn't take into account the idea that the gene sequences are similar because the phenotype is similar. After all, the genome is the coding for the species, and if two species are similar, then the coding should be similar. Common sense.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690, I guess you missed the part where THE GENES WERE SUBSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONED EQUALLY AS WELL, and that THERE ARE ASTRONOMICALLY NUMEROUS VERSIONS OF CYTOCHROME-C THAT PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION but which don't exist because the genes don't exist to produce those variations. These facts utterly destroy your argument. It is not because phenotype is similar, but because of evolution from common ancestors. Or a Prankster God created things to look exactly like evolution!
greeneto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@forest51690, I guess you missed the part where THE GENES WERE SUBSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONED EQUALLY AS WELL, and that THERE ARE ASTRONOMICALLY NUMEROUS VERSIONS OF CYTOCHROME-C THAT PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION but which don't exist because the genes don't exist to produce those variations. These facts utterly destroy your argument. It is not because phenotype is similar, but because of evolution from common ancestors. Or a Prankster God created things to look exactly like evolution!
greeneto 1 year ago
3:03 - what are those letters supposed to represent? Genes? Genes are A, T, C, and G, not all the alphabet.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690, he says quite clearly "amino acid sequences". The letters refer to amino acids, not genes.
greeneto 1 year ago
@forest51690 Your comments are old but I'd thought I'd reply anyway. the letters you see are the letters for the 20 amino acids in the protein Cytochrome C. to follow up on the second comment, the similarities in genes would make sense because of the phenotype is the same but they are comaring a protein found in all eukaryotes and therefore the sequence should be the same or similar. However it is the differences that are important here.
snakeguy76 11 months ago
Gaaaawd... I wish this guy narrate as if 99 percent of his viewers are 4 years old.
mtinp 1 year ago
didn't**
mtinp 1 year ago
awesome!
mallardhead 1 year ago
What if we find life on other planets, and what if the life we find on those other planets have the exact same citocrome c in the mitochondria in all eukaryote cells produced by the its gene? Man that would be a trip.
Do you think the sequenced mutation that's buffeted by their millions of 'years' would lead to something that look like us?
JimbobOMG 1 year ago
@flanker4psychos i appologies for my harsh answer to your comment. i see now that it might have been a genuine question and not a viscious remark.
if it was a genuine question:
The yeas do evolve. the term "modern", or whichever he used, organism is just a seperation based on how many "traits" we value as "advanced/human-like" the organism possesses. if the traits where looked upon individualy and compared between the two species both would be "advanced" but maybe not in the same direction.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@N3CR1S of course there is also cases when the organism not only possesses few of theses traits we hace chooses to call "advanced/modern" but few traits in general. But to call it unevolved, like you tried, would still be wrong since each of those traits is probably highly evolved to fill a certain specific function. a more proper term would be "simple" organism. So, as you now understands, deducting "unevolved"/"unevolving" from "simple" cant be done, atleast not as simple as you would like.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@flanker4psychos Are you serious? there are hundreds of yeast's. a year ago we, the labb group i was in on a course, studied one, put it in a chamber where we controled the environment, and just as was expected it adapted and changed to each new condition.
your comment is one that is made from lack of knowledge and understand. please learn more about the subject you intend to comment before you post.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
Nice to show at the end how "microevolution" doesn't differ from "macroevoltuion". There is no such distinction, only "evolution" there is.
gagnashdiak 1 year ago
hrmm amino acid sequencing shows geneology thru mutation? the only reason evolution is still taught as a theory is because iggnorant christians still control the united states...
jjacks81 1 year ago
I don't know about this video. I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just can't find any passages in the Bible about this stuff. And I don't remember Jesus preaching about any of it. I'm gonna have to pray about it, see what God thinks, and get back to you guys.
Desarollo 1 year ago
@Desarollo lol are u joking?
Mattothee 1 year ago
@Desarollo If you're missing the point, you have a good reason. This video doesn't mention creationism, a commentator did. Yet equally your comment misses the point.
But I don't want to be boring: If you need a prayer answered to relate to this video then this means the word of the god your pray to is invalid as this god in his book already clearly states where our DNA come from. Mud and rib.
So you will be praying to god to change his mind ...
Good luck though :D
HRage 1 year ago
"Congratulations you have mapped the DNA! Please refer to our other user manual, Epi-genetics to ACTUALLY understand how life works." -God(s)
benrweston 1 year ago
Guelph will start DNA bar-coding with mtDNA very soon
BioGuelph 1 year ago
This is exactly what I have been trying to explain to creotards! they just don't get it!
Oddessuss 1 year ago
schaade gute video -aber ich verstehe nicht"Nou Spick Inglisch-Eksküsmi"totzem +10!
saberwulf2 1 year ago
WOW! The great German philosopher Nietzsche declared the death of God in the nineteenth century. I wonder what his response would be if he saw this.
jjhjjff 1 year ago 2
Wow 4 thumbs down,pure ignorance. Turn off your computer, throw away your cell phone, you don't like science right.
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
Nothing in the bible should be taking literal, it is the word of man not god. Those morons who wrote the bible got it al wrong, earth and all that is could not have been made in 6 days a few thousand years ago.The sun was not made after earth, the sky is not an ocean, Man and land animals could not have been made on the same day (dinosaurs predate humanity by millions of years), male didn't come before female, finally 2 people of the same race an't produce a child of another 2 blacks don't=white
7horcrux7 1 year ago
Science. It works, bitches.
gir908922 1 year ago 129
Molecular biology rocks!
Wake up creationists, you no longer have any groud to stand on.
steveb0503 1 year ago 91
@steveb0503 Good talking, im a fan :)
bengacris 1 year ago
@bengacris Thanks, I try.
While I realize it's pretty pointless here on YouTube, but it's just practice for when I have to actually respond to this tripe in the real world.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 i find YouTube has one feature that is really great for getting good at debates, you are limited to just a few characters per reply. Since I usually want to make several points in any argument or counter, this restriction forces me to say only the bare minimum, but since I don't want to lose the force of my argument due to constriction this really makes me hone in my argument, you either cut right to the heart of it or you lose something. Probably the only plus of YouTube arguing.
Desarollo 1 year ago
@Desarollo Most of the arguing on here is someone ignorant of facts + just wants to spout propaganda vs someone who can provide evidence and etc. IE: Religion vs science is not a debate. Its a bunch of people who don't understand what they are looking, make extraordinary claims, do not present any evidence that can be tested, and refuse to listen vs people who have dedicated their lives to learning in various fields who have evidence + proven results in the form of technology.
Shyhalu 1 year ago 2
@steveb0503 I meant ground, D'oh!
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 Sadly evidence and rationality rarely persuades religious ignorance. Darwin proved it, Richard Dawkins wrote the selfish gene around 35 years ago which explains evolution from a gene's point of view. However creationist and other large portions of the religious community's will recite their usual mantra "It doesn't say that in my bible so it must be a lie" and completely ignore the facts and evidence thrown in their faces YET AGAIN! Honestly, how hard must we slap them to wake up?
frostyuk2007 1 year ago 4
@frostyuk2007 Dawkins hit the nail on the head:
de·lu·sion [dih-loo-zhuhn]
noun
1) an act or instance of deluding.
2) the state of being deluded.
3) a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4) Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
See esp. #4
steveb0503 1 year ago
@frostyuk2007, Well said. The gullible get all 'skeptical' about evolution and accuse us of adhering to a philosophy and/or a religion, and then they file into the churches on Sunday, like the good sheep they are, in order to sing praises to the magical sky-fairy and his son, the resurrecting 2,000 year old zombie, who magicked everything into being several thousand years ago.
Metalcultistmike 1 year ago
@steveb0503 they haven't had ground to stand om for a long time... their delusional disease finds excuses.
cpjangofett 1 year ago
@cpjangofett Si - it's pretty sad really.
It's kinda frustrating arguing with someone who "knows" the're right already and therefore has no reason to consider anything you have to say.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 They never had. They just don't realize it.
Ionizap 1 year ago
@steveb0503 Creationists don't need ground to stand on. Don't U know, Jesus walked on H2O !
PEACE !
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@tranquility4all Um, yeah...
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 In case U didn't realize. I was being sarcastic.
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@tranquility4all Yeah, I got that.
I just wasn't sure how else to respond to that regardless of the intent.
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 If a christian posted my original comment I'm guessing U would have had more than a 2 syllable reply.
tranquility4all 1 year ago
Hello.
Evolution is a lie.
There's no such things as genes.
I can prove it: God worte my magic book-my magic book says there is a God-Since God wrote it it's true, ergo... The universe was created last week.
Thank you, Zeus bless.
Diosibundo 1 year ago 3
That is the most annoying voiceover I have ever heard. What a horrible voice choice.
dizzythegreat 1 year ago
if you must reply to a comment online. think before you post. 3 comments that were half assed made me wonder how they were even conjured up. please read messages completely before replying
RobeonMew 1 year ago
flaws in this logic
goatjira 1 year ago
@goatjira
incomplete post. tell me how it is flawed. and remember, the "computer" was a metaphor cause ppl relate to computers easy on the net.
RobeonMew 1 year ago
I like how the narrator is assuming stuff about common ancestor and missing monkey links. this is why ppl think science is just another religion.
I do scientific studies, and as i do notice how monkeys structures are simmilar, it doesn't prove anything about relations.
here's a simple way to prove it. 2 computers do the same function, they have the same components and the samedirectories, however, these PCs were made by 2 completley different makers. as they use the simmilar system Windows...
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew
we can assume Windows as that mitochondria, they are not linked together in any way.
if this is a possibility for computers, a part of the atoms of the earth, why MUST we be related to monkeys? It is just like saying, Acer, Asus, Dell, Compaq, are all related cause they build computers using the mitochondria "Windows"
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew Here's an important difference: computers don't reproduce.
plevyman 1 year ago 3
@plevyman
that's not the point. don't use a different factor to try to disprove another. computers were an example. a metaphor even. ppl on the internet relate to PCs more.
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew It's entirely relevant. It's not my problem if you can't see that.
In any case, the computers you mention all have similar designs, which have all "descended" from earlier, more basic designs. Any computer that uses windows is going to have to have hardware that is compatible with it. So your analogy doesn't really prove anything.
plevyman 1 year ago
@plevyman
fine. if you want to related to monkeys that badly.
but as the video guy himself even said. "common ancestor". so as the analogy of Computers go, they also stem from earlier forms. so in a way, computers are more than enough to use as an analogy. Asus and Acer are nowhere close to being related ans still older "designs" stem to them. so as many are rerlated in parts and "genes", they are still unique.
like i said. read the post carefully and maybe cross-reference b4 replying
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew Seriously, asking me to read and cross-reference your barely intelligible posts is really pointless.
All living things reproduce. Humans aren't designed anew each time a baby is born - the blueprint already exists in the genetic code of its parents. It's a straightforward logical deduction that could be made by anyone with half a brain, that the pattern of common traits and genetic similarity in the tree of life indicates a pattern of relatedness and common ancestry.
plevyman 1 year ago
@RobeonMew Well, so you side with religion, with can't hold facts afloat if it where to save it's life? Geez, arguing with religios nutcases is, fruitless, they never learn.. inbreds....
Zhylo 1 year ago
@Zhylo
wow. assuming much? i am not siding with religions. READ MY POST AGAIN
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew
Using computers as an analogy is a strawman, they don't reproduce. They change instantaneously due to new models being made, not gradually by gene transfer.
breadwinnner 1 year ago
@breadwinnner
good job taking it too litterally, like everyone else did.
RobeonMew 1 year ago
@RobeonMew
"good job taking it too litterally, like everyone else did."
(sarcasm)Oh no, you sure showed me!(/sarcasm) I assume you belive this makes me wrong somehow? Nice try, but it wasn't even to be taken as literal, but as fallicious.
If you're going to use an analogy, it has to actualy represent the point properly, and moreover not be a strawman of it. And if you can't think of it as an accurate analogy, why the hell are you using it to try disprove something?
breadwinnner 1 year ago
@RobeonMew You do science studies ... why do I find it hard to believe that you you actually understand your studies, and are the studies proteomics or is it christian science?
Oddessuss 1 year ago
Hippos are more closely related to whales than pigs??
Wow
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This is SO AWESOME!!
Why can't people see the majestic beauty of the tree of life every creature that has ever existed shares with us?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Bravo.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
now i understand what my high school teacher bored me to death with
TimiS0 1 year ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
octoron85 1 year ago
this is so hard to understand :(
HylianFury 1 year ago
first 30 sec and my brain explodes....
alkhema17 1 year ago
I love science.
bangNL94 1 year ago
They should see that "silent" modification as functions in a program that are called only on other parts of the code that are not silent there.
DraskyVanderhoff 1 year ago
I don't understand one word of this shit
Spinalcord6666 1 year ago
@Spinalcord6666 Take a biology course. Or two. Or three.
OspacemarineO 1 year ago
@Spinalcord6666 Or 10.
D34dFilms 1 year ago
Nicely made. Thanks.
NeedsEvidence 1 year ago
i miss science
AntiPsychopath 1 year ago
@AntiPsychopath Don't worry, it's not gone anywhere ;)
kevinscales 1 year ago
The video said they were useless, but I would think LINEs and SINEs serve as some form of error correction code, right?
If 30% of our DNA is LINEs and SINEs which nither inhibit nor cause protein formation, then these segments of the genome can be mutated without causing any major change to the function of the genome (unless if the mutation makes the LINEs and SINEs mutate into a protein-forming sequence) which makes the genome resistant to "errors".
Or am I completely getting his wrong?
RaminHAL9001 1 year ago
@RaminHAL9001: No, Ramin, I'm afraid not. True error detection and correction requires active bits; that is, the detection and correction code has to change with the message it is protecting. Just having a whole bunch of non-changing code in there doesn't attract errors away from other parts; they happen at random places. If the active code is 1% of the whole genome, then the chances of a mutation in that code is 1% of the total errors; no more, no less.
puncheex 1 year ago
This channel is taking over my "Favorites"...
ProfessorPEARL 1 year ago
@ganggreensoldier Answer: Public high school, Biology is required to graduate in the USA, and they must be proficient on their final exam to get their diploma. Same with Math, History and English. Good thing too. I think(and so do State/Federal officials) it's important for people to understand the processes of life. Healthier public plus we could not compete with other countries in science and prerequisite for University Science programs.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
Notice how this video puts cultural meanings to modern genomes. They are telling us repeatedly that our time is the most advanced in every term. Our economic model, our government, our ethics, our skills, habits, attidutes and everything is better than ever before. This is the common mistake by theorists who deal with evolution. It is also dangerous and tyrannic. It implies we must do us our authorities tell us, and it may lead to social segregation with less developed, disagreeing individuals.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
And I think nothing becomes better over time - they just change. We should appreciate particular values that everything possesses in their context. Everything makes sense in its own context. If we think things develop and not change, then we are guilty of ego-centrism and racism.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa
the proper term is "better suited" which is to say it changes in such a way it will be able to get a little bit more of out the niche it is trying to fill.
Not so much in the sense of "well rats are better then mice, period"
ryonalionthunder 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa Things can get better, but only if we acknowledge the past and build on it. Evolution does not work this way, and in that sense it is not about making things better. Humans, however, have a recorded history and a capacity for teaching and sharing, so we do have the potential to improve upon things.
Obby16 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa Interesting points, I agree that they are not the best phrases to use, but how is this implying that we must do as our authorities tell us? It sounds more like your reading too much into this Please explain if i'm wrong.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa: No, it's not "the common mistake by theorists who deal with evolution". People who really deal with evolution know that it is not goal oriented, and about the only thing it tends toward is greater complexity over time. My experience is that this is more usually an error on the part of people who don't really understand evolution. I congratulate you on your knowledge, however, and encourage you to keep speaking up when you find someone egregiously making more of it than it does.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Ok, but I'd like add to what happens in when with idea of "perpetual improvement". Between any two community, it leads to thinking that our community is better than the other, and that the other is ethically worse than us and it must be assimilated. War. I am sure that the whole idea of things becomes better is based on culture, and that there should be an opposing culture that is not as good. So anyone who thinks so, fails to provide biological evidence and uses cultural instead.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa: Ah, and you've just proven that you don't know what evolution is all about.
The concept of natural selection (if I can anthopomorphize it for a minute) selects those changes which represent a better fit to the current environment the animal is in. Example: Homo sapiens most important feature is his brain; it makes him extremely adaptable to all sorts of changes. If the world were do become quiet - no tectonics, only fine weather, no mountains to climb, plentiful food, etc. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... Then intelligence would be superfluous, and expensive, and we'd give way to animals adapted to the simplicity of life (assuming we hadn't removed ourselves from the competition completely). Is that a betterment of ourselves? Only with respect to the environment. In our current environment, it is a recipe for becoming someone else's lunch.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex No, I'm just critical what the theorists say. I don't believe we become better through evolution and I frankly just proved with social theory, that the whole idea of improvement requires the assumption of another culture that is worse than us. And by the way, I am not a lamer who's talking just based on my feelings. This is a social scientific fact. To return to the point, thinking we improve through evolution just mean we can't tolerate difference. Racism and ego-centrism.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@puncheex Besides, not just another but indeed an opposing culture. So this way the discourse about improvement through evolution is just rite of passage, dealing with the alleged enemy, because it is necessary to become better to beat them. And it would be possible to trace this video to the contemporary American mindset - it has got hardly anything to with the theory of evolution. And others are not opposition, their value comes from ethical achievements, not superiority in genes etc.
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa Very good point, genetic "superiority" is non-existent, it's really all about moral and ethical values, and evolutionists should ask themselves which gene exactly is responsible for morals ;)
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Sure as hell isn't a book thought up by a bunch of crack heads thousands of years ago now is it? Oh wait, my daddy dun terd me to believe in this, so did their dads, and their dads, and their dads, the only reason religion still exist is moronic parenting.
D34dFilms 1 year ago
@D34dFilms
Fail. My father never told me anything about Faith. You must think that's the only way it works. Which isn't surprising, since you spend your life away playing Runescape and dedicating a whole channel to it. So, here's an advice: leave serious topics such as Faith or philosophy to grown-ups, and stick to MMORPGs :)
I just can't you seriously, sorry. Have a nice day.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Another religious D-Bag telling me how to live my life? The only reason you even know what jesus or god are, is because you got it told by people older then you, who got it told by people older then them and so on, most of the time it's parents bringing their kids to church. Look at how easily parents fooled us into believing in Santa Claus, I bet people would still believe if it wasn't for people telling us at 6 years old he's not real.
D34dFilms 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds And you spend your life away trolling Science videos, spending your life away on religion. FAIL.
D34dFilms 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa: If by theorist you mean a person who knows evolutionary theory, they are all well apprised on what selection means. If they aren't, then they don't know the theory.
Evolution is a biological theory. Full stop. Those who drag it into the realm of social theory need to prove that it works there. I wouldn't attempt to essay their attempt; I don't know social "sciences" and have no trust in their ability to handle a theory rigorously. So, sorry, I cannot follow you into that maze.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Not just ethical achievements but the necessary things that each species needs to deal with their own environment. These are values per se, and the ritual discourse about becoming better tries to deny them, just because it makes us look better against the alleged hostile other
teemuruskeepaa 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa: Well, I've made my point. Evolution is a goalless process which makes species better fit their immediate environment. That's all it does. Intelligence (as we humans have it) is not a goal for evolution, it is simply a way of adjusting an animal to adapt to its surroundings well enough to survive. That's all.
This knowledge is part of the theory; if one believe's otherwise, then they do not really know the theory.
puncheex 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa So are you arguing that calling multicellular life more complex is based only on a sociocultural construct? And where do cultures enter into this?
Myrkky100 1 year ago
@Myrkky100 No its not sociocultural at all lol, its just better for the life to survive that's all, they didn't know that in some billions and millions years later they will build something like first ape, then humans
bengacris 1 year ago
@bengacris Yeah, I know that but I'm trying to figure out the point teemuruskeepaa is trying to make. As far as I can tell he argues that there is some kind of "worms are better than yeast which means some cultures are better than others" thing going on in the vid and I just don't see where.
Myrkky100 1 year ago
@teemuruskeepaa because its most advanced doesnt mean it has no downsides. Neither it means that we dont need to improve. And imo segregation is actualy beeing diminished. Look at medieval period.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
GATTACA!
teddirez 1 year ago
"Oh, yeah? Where's the missing link!" {Laughs maniacally}
LeksServices 1 year ago
This video is amazing!
ZinayH 1 year ago
Take that Jesus!
LordNapalm 1 year ago 46
The day another breeding group gains human like intelligence on this planet is going to be really awesome... I wonder what the bright line is though?
millamulisha 1 year ago
@millamulisha "The day another breeding group gains human like intelligence on this planet is going to be really awesome"
Or.. consider the possibility that there already were such competitors.. and we killed them off. The most fearsome enemy of humans.. is other humans. Intelligence makes us great.. and dangerous. Perhaps if a non-threatening animal such as a whale had the same intelligence it'd be ok. Until someone hooks them up to the internet and they start blogging!
neuronstorm 1 year ago
Great video. Anyone know what the name of the first song is?
munky000527 1 year ago
very informative, thanks.
Mallachor 1 year ago
you shouldn't say the worm is "a more modern creature", because they are both equally modern. But we all know what you meant to say, which was that worms share a more recent common ancestor than yeast.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
LOL here we go again - LINEs and SINEs are useless to the genome. No, they are not. And yes, there is at least one more way for LINEs and SINEs to go from one organism to another and even species without chromosome duplication - thru the help of the viruses.
BGSoccerMagic 1 year ago
Evolution. How can you not love it?
graphattic 1 year ago
Good video, but at ~ 1.07 he says 'new genes are created from more primitive forms in order to accomodate...', this is of course in error, evolution does not act with purpose. This is very sloppy language and it is all too common.
hilbert54 1 year ago
Science!
jgordon707 1 year ago
Great video, thumbs up.
Saukko31 1 year ago
Amazing stuff, thanks ! My faith in your subscription is vindicated by such documentaries. I am more knowledgeable than 15 mins ago :)
prathapsv 1 year ago
ok,now lets see creationists deny evolution................nothing?HAHAHA!
Ryagful 1 year ago
@Ryagful Creationists have a preset mind and they won't change there mind even when the proof is in abundance for evolution. Instead they will fall back into regurgitating long refuted arguments based on nothing but fallacious arguments. It is extremely sad that people can be so dumb as to sabotage themselves intellictually, but thats just one of the many harms religion does to stupid people.
LynxAQ 1 year ago
as Teal'c would say...Indeed,it is sad.
Ryagful 1 year ago
More of this! Love it!
Bobbiethejean 1 year ago
Stop me if im wrong here. If 30% of human dna is junk data... could it be possible that 2 humans could differ 30% in their dna.. and both be considered humans? (I understand that it is borderline impossible that this would happen naturaly)
We can differ by 30% in our dna and still be human. Then take in to consideration that we share 98% of our dna with apes.
^___^
FurieMan 1 year ago
It's Octopode.
18vallancel 1 year ago
I love common descent. I love natural selection. I love Evolution. Elegant yet simple yet mind boggling. I am teaching this stuff right now in Biology and of course, there is always a clown that brings up creation tales. Eventhough I warn them to keep their stories to themselves, unless they can support their claims via the scientific method, they keep trying to slide the fairytales into my lectures. Sad brainwashing at work.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago 29
@saxmanchiro "Elegant yet simple yet mind boggling" You said it all!
memonk11 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DNA can't form without proteins, and proteins can't form without DNA. So the only conclusion is that these must have evolved at the exact same time; the chance of this is 1 in more than the amount of electrons in our universe.
Complexity demands a designer.
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian RNA can code for proteins. RNA can go backwards into DNA with reverse transcriptase(HIV viruses do this).
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian: "DNA can't form without proteins, and proteins can't form without DNA. " Not according to science. Amino acids (protein building blocks) form spontaneously everywhere we've seen in universe, even deep space. RNA (pre-cursor to DNA) self-organizes spontaneously. RNA can produce proteins AND self-replicate like DNA. All of this has been demonstrated by scientific experiment. We're close to creating life in the laboratory using totally natural conditions. No designers needed.
joonzville 1 year ago 58
@joonzville Oh-oh, I hope they make a T-Rex!
Phelan666 1 year ago
@joonzville Logic...on my youtube? Brilliant.
Movies96B 1 year ago 12
@joonzville thank you
prabhatpalpal 1 year ago
@joonzville "We're close to creating life" and then "no designers needed". So who's going to design that "life" you're so close to creating?
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds: Yeah, and so what? We aren't here to reproduce the exact same abiogenesis that happened 3.5 billion years ago. There is no way to do that; we don't know what it looked like, exactly. So, if we can produce a self-organizing mechanism that creates a protein (any protein, really) then we've demonstrated rthat it is possible. It doesn't make any difference that we designed out synthetic protein; this is a proof of concept that shows that abiogenesis is possible, that is all.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex No, what it shows is that, from an array of already established, given materials, you can NOW produce a mechanism that creates a protein. But believe me, even so, even knowing all the fine-tune "settings", such "mechanism" will die in a minute. Believe me. Men will never create full-on functioning, independent organic life form from scratch. It's a good dream, though :)
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Sounds a lot like, "If men were meant to fly Jesus would have given them wings." Same arrogant, stifling thought patterns that's terrified to have the Oz-like curtain pulled back, only to find no wizard.
Just wondering if you're clueless enough to ask, "Who made the building blocks?" and dive down that tired old rabbit hole. Yes, your "designer" god can exist without start, surely the most complex of ALL things, but lowly matter? No way. Right Skippy?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle
The problem is, you're scared shitless of that rabbit hole. I've been there, deeper than you ever will, and brought back some common sense.