I was confused what was up with this video, because my class did a similar lab in high school around 2013. Then I did some googling and figured out that the lab we did was designed by Dr. Ratcliff, and our class was one of the first to try it. It was kind of amazing getting to do actual biology when I was only 15, though I remember the frustration of not always getting the results we were hoping to get through the lab.
@@stephenolan5539 Well, it's important to teach the history of science early on, to get the idea across that science isn't some monolithic thing and that scientific ideas change over time
@katakana1 Yes But it is important to understand that High School is just introductory material. A lot of people seem to think that they know all about a subject because they studied it in High School.
In recent decades, the boundary between a colony of unicellular and a single multicellular organism has gotten fuzzier and fuzzier. Biofilms, sponges, ...
Jellyfish are also in a leagea of their own when looking to classify what kind of organism they are, look at "siphonophorae". Basicly one organism but made up of 100(0)s of others, so like an antcolony but all in one animal. Its ambigious af, so we just call em "superorganism" for lack of a better description, but compared to insect superorganisms they are very different, basicly a class of their own.
Colonies of unicellular organisms are just many unicellular organisms, they are independent more often than not. What will human brain cells do in the wild without a body to control? Multicellular organism have cells that specialise in specific functions.
I love your channel. I showed my mom your 3 points of evolution but only played the sound AFTER you used the word evolution so she wouldn't hear that word evolution. As we went on she agreed with all 3 points. I then backed it up to start where you say it is evolution and she couldn't believe it. Half the ppl who disagree with evolution don't even know what they disagree with! Thanks for helping plant that seed that might grow to a little skepticism
I disagree with the problem of how the first DNA came into existence, it is made from proteins and you need DNA to make proteins. Mainstream science regarding evolution is all about interpreting data to fit a presupposed paradigm and rejecting anything else regardless of evidence. Lets ignore the fact a simple protein folding by chance requires a greater number than all of the molecules in the entire cosmos. Lets pretend that molecules without a mind are responsible for the most complex code ever discovered, so complex it took 2,800 scientists 13 years to map a human genome. Lets use our imaginations to explain away the fact that the human brain is the most complex object ever discovered and attribute its unbelievably complex design to dumb molecules that cannot 'think'. Lets ignore thousands of years of OBSERVATION that the source of complexity and information always leads to an intelligent agent so we can ascribe all the complexity and information we see in every living organism to dumb molecules that cannot 'think' and have no purpose or intent but managed to create the immense biological complexity we see in our world. Whilst we are at it, we can pretend that all the symbiosis between living things that is an absolute necessity within the complex ecosystem evolved at the exact same time all over the world so that life could be sustained and not suddenly disappear after billions of years of gradual imaginary change. Lets just say we got lucky and every male and female of each species evolved at the exact same time and in the exact same location so as not to pose a problem of instant extinction. Some of us do actually know why we disagree with the absurdity of Narnia evolution. If your mother believes in God, she is much wiser than you and you should desist in trying to convince her of the evolutionary lie.
Or 10 years but with a whole bunch of different "settings", maybe even trying to figure out with AI that with what control what the outcome is and then starting to engineer biological machines.
.. and then they were left to themselves over the weekend. The following Monday the scientist were a bit puzzled to see that the yeast had opened bank accounts, started investing and were off to buy a new Audi.
As someone who studied evolutionary microbiology this was one of my professor’s biggest qualms that led him to believe in determinism. Very interesting! Thanks!!
Two things: 1) you don’t “prove” anything in science, you propose a hypothesis and provide evidence that your hypothesis is substantially more statistically probable than the alternative, with an overarching conceptual theory connecting multiple points of evidence. 2) there has been a copious amount of evidence for evolution for centuries.
@@TheNinthGeneration1 I seem to remember that the theory used to be oxygen availability facilitated the rise of complex life. Figured that was the whole story but, nope. Just learned that it's a little more complicated than that! Did multicellular anaerobes evolve into aerobes or did they just all go extinct and a new group of aerobes re-evolve multicellularity.
@@farangtikitungmuang that’s kind of how science works. Even if a theory is well known, you’re always gonna have misconceptions about the theory therefore, you improve your understanding of the theory evolution is still the foundation for modern biology. Because what you’re asking is how life showed up not how life evolved after it showed up.
@@bdoopy4167The chemistry of carbon is the foundation of modern biology. Evolution is the description of processes that allows for the formation complex molecular assemblies and their permutations and interactions that seemingly defy entropy by energy collection and self replication. But fundamentally, it's all just chemistry.
Although this research is interesting, it needs to be interpreted carefully. Unicellular does not always mean primitive. Far from being the "simple" organisms many people (including some biochemists who should know better) imagine them to be, yeasts are part of a huge group of complex fungi and appear to have become unicellular by evolving from ancient filamentous species. Therefore this experiment could simply be reactivating dormant ancestral genes, roughly analogous to breeding humans with larger appendixes or fur. It is at best a crude model for how multicellularity arose in the first place.
@@jojobizarrelivingstone594 Fossils of unicellular organisms have been found, but they are, unsurprisingly, rare and hard to study. Most research uses comparative methods of modern forms, looking at both structural and molecular characteristics. In the case of yeast, they produce some sophisticated - if microscopic - reproductive structures that tend to be made of 4-8 cells, something larger fungi also do but protozoa do not.
I agree that yeast is probably a bit too close of an organism to say "hey it's clumping, that's cool!" but they went a step further and saw not only clumping, but also specialization, and even an early form of respiration. So yes, they are definitely already a complex unicellular organism, but when under heavy external pressures, showed actual evolution (as in hereditary, survival of the fittest, etc.), which I find facinating.
There are a couple of videos on this, but long story short, sadly silicon based life is very likely not possible. At best, you'll have silicon shells like in diatoms.
@@asdasdasdasdasd9795 And here we have r the racist that still believe human with small difference in pigmentation are totally different in everything, yeah ✨ -_-
Next they should give oxygen back, and at the same time increase the danger of being small with actual predators, make them suffer so we can get better things
You could fill a library with objective facts, studies, etc that each on their own prove evolution happens and yet they’d still deny it because apparently spirituality and objective science still can’t coexist in 2024!
I think the word Evolution needs to be better defined, it means different things to different people. For example I believe in evolution as it's defined in the dictionary. Someone like Richard Dawkins would say the same thing. However I don't believe the mechanism for evolution is as claimed by Richard Dawkins, we would both have completely different opinions.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 the title says "evolution proved", but the content is another so i shoald actually report this as *Misleanding* as it is, either you too stu***d to understand what *evolution* means or you just deglected, are you blind maybe? should i report you too for *Misleading Collaboration* perhaps?
Not so fast. 😒 Darwin in his Origin of species points out clearly he CANNOT explain Cambrian explosion, but he hopes the fossil evidence will reveal themselves in following years. 160 have passed and we're still hoping.
@@thehowlingjoker no ithasn't been explained. Look into Brittanica, man. Even THERE they write "the reason is still debated" so ummm... stop spreading "missinformation". This is how they call tinfoil hat conspiracies... Right? 🤣
@@montazvideo Yes it's still debated, it's not like they go "we're done here chaps" and just move on like their investigation is complete. They will ALWAYS be debating about the subject, as they do ALL OTHERS. Go look in the papers published, many have been publishing on the Cambrian explosion both before, during and after the period.
Why do humans eschew movement and instead interact with the world via its various delivery systems? Outside conditions are getting tougher - crowds, traffic jams, pollution, harsh weather, crime, repressive laws, etc. Meanwhile, homes are becoming ever better serviced. There comes a point where the couch looks more inviting than the car or walking shoes. The ability to move will become less useful than being part of a larger group - because the group is extra good at accessing and processing stuff. Cells within cells within cells ...
Interesting how yeast can evolve into a (proto) multi-cellular organism ... which leads us to believe that certain single-celled organisms have this built-in capability.
This plus your video about assembly theory have really got me interested in what's going on. It sounds like good steps forward in understanding how life comes about.
They're two different questions, though, that aren't much related to each other. Biological evolution is what happened after life began, and life is what happened before biological evolution began. Besides, the Miller-Urey experiment -- and especially the modern re-do of it that addressed some of the original experiment's issues -- gives pretty solid evidence for abiogenesis.
@@IceMetalPunkmiller-urey produced 99 percent of toxic junk, and used atmosphere that wasn't available at the beginning of life. Also an electric current. Where do you get constant electric currents in nature? So I do not know what sort of a scientist would still refer to it as something useful.
i really hope they continue to work with these, to continue the evolution. maybe give it a stronger pressure to evolve a circulatory system, or stronger pressure to move, or whatever
"Why does nature evolve complexity?" because when you randomly mutate that adds a little bit extra complexity and passes it on, complexity grows over time, like entropy...
@@i.i.iiii.i.i No, disorder has more uniformity and many more ways to exist. Complexity has far fewer ways to exist. Life goes against the second law of thermodynamics. However, like everything else it’s way more complicated and I only understand the basics.
I should have mentioned life overcomes this by using energy. Putting energy into a system can reverse entropy, but the universe as a whole goes toward entropy and there are small pockets such as a biological system that can overcome entropy.
@druwitz and to see how homosexuality is also beneficial for evolution. It is counter intuitive, but much good reason has been put forth for it. Humans and NOT the only mammal to engage in such either.
I believe you mean it can under certain circumstances increase the rate of replication of alleles that cause it. Evolution is a natural phenomenon, saying something is "beneficial" to it is like saying wind is beneficial to meteorology.
It often can be. Insects come to mind as they are pretty good demonstration of this in a truly complex life form. I guess there's a reason why death is almost universal.
If life can happen by extraordinary coincidence in primordial soup, then it can happen deliberately in a controlled environment in the lab. That begs one question. What would the scientists be to those life forms ... "Creators that are impossibly complex and with incomprehensible motives ... God."
So... just going off of the title, I really want to say that scientists have experimentally proven evolution a while ago. Just look up Richard Enski's E Coli long-term evolution experiement.
13:55 the labels don’t match how you explained the effects of an anaerobic environment versus a high oxygen environment on the potential size of the clusters. You suggested that an anaerobic environment might produce larger clusters.
I believe the actual story is far more complex. Oxygen is thought to be an stimulator for the evution of animal life as it's a precursor of collagen as well has many other fundamental effects on respiration. Yeast cells here might have gone through many complicated evolution. But the video has no link to any papers ☹️
Young earth creationists (at least most of them), will never accept the evidence, even if you grew a whole human that was an improvement in every way, in front of their eyes. They'd just say "God is working through this person!". There are those of us that believe the evidence, and those who believe that God is reason we got to where we are.
Young earth or evolution are both fantastic theories. Can’t be proved. Homes you can drive a truck through. Evolution cannot explain how life started. The first cell? A lightning strike on a scummy pond 😂
Pretty fascinating stuff. While the level of cell differentiation has a long way to go to create entirely novel cell types, I could see how this behavior in yeast might represent an intermediate step of some kind. Of course, new organisms require new cell types with new functionality, which means there needs to be new genetic information. And once again, the critical ingredient in these experiments is applied intelligence. Still, one cannot ignore these results nor the implications for chemical evolution. As for whether scientists have proven evolution in the lab, I think not - or at least, not yet.
Application of changes in the environment is not that big of a problem in case of already existing life. There are all sorts of changes in natural environment as well. Now, when you study the origin of life itself the hands off approach becomes mandatory.
2:53 Stellar editing! At the same time you have both "its" (correct) and "it's" (not so much) for "belonging to it" (spoiler: it's its). I should probably get a life, but my OCD and whatever other spectrum/a I'm on make these things shout at me and distract from the actual content. So I'm off: sorry, it was starting to be interesting.
0:08 okay explain the actual chemistry involved to go from dead materials to a living cell. Use what the earth could have used. How did it overcome the mass transit problem, the Leventhal 1.0 as well as Leventhal 2.0 problem?
That's not covered by evolution That's abiogenesis which is a completely seperate theory Even if it turned out that life formed by magic that would have no bearing on evolution whatsoever
@@drsatan9617 over and over again when scientist have previously stated proof of evolution it has always been found that the animal which was to show evolution did not. The change was always in the DNA of the animal all along. It was simply adaptation brought on by environmental conditions. It was a feature the ancestors of the animal already possessed.
@@drsatan9617 next is the unabridged gap between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Proteins found in all eukaryotic cells did not first come from prokaryotic cells. That’s why it’s called a protein orchard. Not explained as no process shows any evolutionary tracked linking them. This is another over glaring problem that is unresolved and purposely ignored/brushed off. Even Aron Ra has stated this.
@@stephenolan5539 eukaryotic cells all are equipped with a mechanism to make sure mutation does not happen when it happens it’s self-destruct when it does not self-destruct it turns into cancer. It’s called disease.
Nope, people like creationists or anti evolutionist teach things along the lines of “no one knows how a single cell becomes a multi celled organism therefor evolution doesn’t explain how life started”
In the laboratory's quiet hum, Dr. Ben Miles, with curiosity drum. A quest embarked on the evolution trail, A scientific dance, where wonders unveil. In petri dishes, a microcosmic scene, Evolution's stage, where life convenes. Did scientists prove, in the lab's embrace, The dance of life, in its genetic grace? Ben Miles, a guide in the scientific sea, Where microbes evolve, in a mystery. A testament to life's adaptive power, In the lab's confines, an evolving hour. Microscopic realms, where changes brew, Evolution's dance, in a petri dish view. Life's journey, in genetic codes inscribed, Dr. Ben Miles, where science is imbibed. A tale of adaptation, in the laboratory's den, Did evolution unfold, in a microbial blend? In the test tubes' ballet, a genetic rhyme, Dr. Ben Miles, decoding evolution's time. In the silent hum of the lab's allure, A discovery profound, where knowledge matures. Did scientists prove, in the petri dish's sweep, Evolution's dance, in the microbial leap? So, in the scientific journey, where questions unfurl, Dr. Ben Miles, in the evolutionary swirl. A testament to life's ever-changing plan, In the laboratory's realm, where science began.
There are those who think that the chemical affinity between elements (and the dynamics generated by their distribution based on entropy) may be the precursor to reaching more stable and similar configurations that result in the first entities with some distinctive characteristics of life. And when that happens, when all its characteristics are achieved, that is when we can label it as life.
Thank you for sharing such cool science! It's great to see the gaps in our understanding of the origins of life on this planet getting smaller and smaller!
verry interesting esspecially in the short time frame. Though they did not achive troue cell differentiation of cells. Maybe putting some radiation into the mix to increase the mutation rate just as it would have ben on early earth might increase the development speed.
That’s quite an interesting idea. I wonder what other “irritation” that can be introduced to speed up the mutation even further. “Irritations” that happened to also have existed in the early days of earth.
This is the most interesting evolution experiment I have ever heard. You’re actually saying that they evolved a single cell organism into a multicellular organism that has a primitive reproductive system and a primitive circulatory system? That is absolutely incredible!
No... we're just going to deny that yeast turning into yeast (surprise surprise!!!) is evidence that a watermelon, bison, oaktrees, whales, strawberries & squirrels are all related & come from bacteria❤❤❤ Only a child possess such a wild imagination
No. NO Scientific idea is EVER PROVEN! This is just MORE good evidence that evolution is TRUE! And no PROOF of evolution either. Scientific ideas will NEVER be "Proven". They just become more and more correct. There will ALWAYS BE the possibility that some new discovery just will NOT fit the model that we have. So that tiny bit of "doubt" is always left open. The problem with Creatards is that their book to TRUE - A Priori! No questions to be asked! You can't fight that because it is untestable. Which is the antithesis of good science. THEY say that science is dogmatic, but that is their strawman approach. Just keep shutting them down.
Cellular Intelligence is also at play in evolution cell communicate in a number of ways with each other. It a factor that needs to be taken into account when dealing with evolution. It a relatively new discovery
The introduction makes the issue at hand sound far more mystical then it is, the movement from single cell to multicell life. Single cell life reproduces by splitting in two. Pretty soon you have a big old glob of your offspring and if you cannot work together, you starve in the middle of this big old glob. Naturally your more successful as a colony! Its litterally the logic a 4 year old learns when they learn to share. Theres nothing mind blowing about it, it should happen no matter what. The mystery is, when something has SO MANY advantages and so much pressure to evolve, there are SO MANY ways to reach it! what one?
So I would guess that the next step in the evolution of this creature would be to develop different types of cells for different purposes, like how most other multicellular life does things?
2 hypotheses I know of are the RNA World Hypothesis and rhe Metabolic Hypothesis, that if I'm not mistaken Nick Lane advocates. I don't know much at all about this stuff or abiogenesis But RNA makes DNA, and RNA makes RNA from RNA so its a little weird
Evolution is an idea that comes with a story board. It is prefigured entities that make the story possible. By looking at life we start following the unicellular to the multicellular. On the way there are all these gaps that must be filled. Our best minds have engaged in this effort by comparing visual attributes. First we imagined a short timeline but now it seems to be expanding to unimaginable billions of years to make the unlikely spontaneous genetic mutation possible to form viable life forms and multiply. All this is based on rigorous information technology that codes for so intricate proteins and protocols that no scientific experiments come near explanation. Evidence of science in this regard are imaginary at best. 19th century outdated philosophy underlying the whole theory. Love you all.
How did olives 🫒 and Avocados 🥑 evolve? They both produce hundreds of pounds of fat every summer, yet how many plants produce large amounts of fat, not many. The avocados 🥑 metabolism is rather strange in photosynthesis it can produce up to 15% D-mannoheptulose a 7 carbon sugar that causes diabetes in mammals.
1:04 “perfect copy of itself” indicates you should not be educating people on biological evolutionary theory. There’s a few other aspects that aren’t accurate and questions you pose that we’re well past. Because the video is directed to people who have no idea about biological evolutionary theory, it’s important to get the details correct.
This is very very very illuminating. I always figured early life started from entirely natural inorganic processes, meaning that it is potentially everywhere an inorganic process could occur. The famous Tardigrade can survive extreme climates and temperatures, enabling it's survival between planets, between planetary systems. Able to survive mass extinction, able to survive long duration without sustenance. The more I learn about life on small scales, the more it becomes obvious to me that yes, life originated here, elsewhere, and life has also come here from elsewhere, likely capable of coming from here to elsewhere too. Just not the way we think (aliens, space travel).
Great presentation and oratoral skills. Biology is above my paygrade. You made it easy for a neophyte to understand. Put your advertisement at the conclusion. Test it, you know how.
no the point is that the single celled yeast became a cluster organism with little interference, although you could argue that god created the first 'cell'
Yes, it's on the Georgia Tech website but it was also published in Nature. I'd post a link but UA-cam doesn't like that. Google it with Georgia Tech and you'll find it.
Ok, so can anyone explain this to me? As I understand this experiment, it consists of following steps. 1. Take a sampe of yeast cells, and make sure some of them know how to form groups. 2. Separate groups of yeast cells, so that only group behaviour remains. 3. Make some changes to the environment so that these groups change some qualities ( form larger groups, change the thinckness of the cellular wall etc.) 4. Claim evolution. Did I miss anything? There was a reference to proto regulatory systems, but there was no explanation as to how they differ from the normal yeast behaviour. So, if yeast cell is able to remove waste products from its surroundings, then a group would do the same, but more effectively, right?
You got everything except step 4 right. If you're honestly wanting to know the importance of this, I'm gonna need confirmation before I put effort into an explanation, but if not, well suffice it to say that you don't know what evolution actually is.
@@nobody.of.importance evolution is an umbrella term under witch you generallyplace whatever is convenient at the moment. What I mean by evolution and what is actually the most important definition is development of new genetic information. Without it there is no new body plans and new functions, only adaptations. So if by evolution you mean ANY change, then don't bother.
Since you find the Portuguese Man o' war amazing, what did you think of it's descendant species the "Ocean Phantom" which will sail the vast shallow seas of Earth 100 million years in the future?
@@catpoke9557 yeah when I wrote this comment, I meant complex multi-cecullar life. From everything I've gathered, I don't doubt the existence of single celled organisms on other planets at all. You just need to right chemical soup.
Might want a better title... I personally observed evolution in university biology class, with fruit flies. Evolution is the observation; natural selection is the very-well-supported theory to explain it. The initial creation of life from non-life is something completely different.
still strange that the example of a selection pressure mechanism is a multicellular organism eating the non clustered ones. That defeats the whole idea about how multicellular evolved in the first place, There were no multicellular predators to provide selection.
Billions of years ! That's a very small amount of time ! To pick just 14 numbered balls out of 28 takes 3.5 X 10^18 tries. The universe is only 4.35 X 10^17 seconds old !
Sounds like that's how any primitive reproduction might start out, growth and dissolving elements to break off pieces. So multicellular might teach us what happened before cellular life
I think it’s pretty misleading to say that we can make cells from scratch. Protocells are not cells and they are not nearly as complex and we cannot even make functioning protocells from scratch
Random: I wish we could stop being paranoid & support scientific research around CRISPR. We can learn so much about our genetic material. Find which things do what. Could learn how to improve the ways our bodies function. Help treat health issues, diseases, our bodies ability to heal, fatigue, the list goes on.. What matters most, is if we can approach this new branch of science with genuine curiosity and motivation. This type of science could have amazing impacts in the medical field and our understanding of biology as a whole. Could greatly improve people's quality of life. Treat health conditions. I really hope we drop the paranoia scare tactics that are holding us back from progression..
I was confused what was up with this video, because my class did a similar lab in high school around 2013. Then I did some googling and figured out that the lab we did was designed by Dr. Ratcliff, and our class was one of the first to try it. It was kind of amazing getting to do actual biology when I was only 15, though I remember the frustration of not always getting the results we were hoping to get through the lab.
High School Science classes are almost all History not Science.
@@stephenolan5539 history is also a type of science. Also, isn't biology class mostly about how specific organisms work?
@@stephenolan5539 Well, it's important to teach the history of science early on, to get the idea across that science isn't some monolithic thing and that scientific ideas change over time
@katakana1
Yes
But it is important to understand that High School is just introductory material. A lot of people seem to think that they know all about a subject because they studied it in High School.
@@Idkpleasejustletmechangeit
Science is a method.
In recent decades, the boundary between a colony of unicellular and a single multicellular organism has gotten fuzzier and fuzzier. Biofilms, sponges, ...
It’s always been more of a gradient, we just are finally coming to understand that
endosymbiosis too
Jellyfish are also in a leagea of their own when looking to classify what kind of organism they are, look at "siphonophorae".
Basicly one organism but made up of 100(0)s of others, so like an antcolony but all in one animal.
Its ambigious af, so we just call em "superorganism" for lack of a better description, but compared to insect superorganisms they are very different, basicly a class of their own.
...also siphonophores. Nature just exists. Its always us trying to draw the line.
Colonies of unicellular organisms are just many unicellular organisms, they are independent more often than not.
What will human brain cells do in the wild without a body to control? Multicellular organism have cells that specialise in specific functions.
It won't convince anyone who actually needs to be convinced, the rest of us are already on board.
Brother you nailed that comment
Well said
that's what a lot of religious people are saying these days too
On board of course but this thing is beautiful!
the religious extremist are also right, because the evolution go's religious extremist, apes, humans :p
Cells clustering together have an advantage in buffering against the environment, bacteria particularly likes to screte biofilms.
I love your channel. I showed my mom your 3 points of evolution but only played the sound AFTER you used the word evolution so she wouldn't hear that word evolution. As we went on she agreed with all 3 points. I then backed it up to start where you say it is evolution and she couldn't believe it. Half the ppl who disagree with evolution don't even know what they disagree with! Thanks for helping plant that seed that might grow to a little skepticism
thats impressive. You have the makings of a scientist
A lot of people think Evolution means God didn't do it. Or there is no God.
I disagree with the problem of how the first DNA came into existence, it is made from proteins and you need DNA to make proteins. Mainstream science regarding evolution is all about interpreting data to fit a presupposed paradigm and rejecting anything else regardless of evidence. Lets ignore the fact a simple protein folding by chance requires a greater number than all of the molecules in the entire cosmos. Lets pretend that molecules without a mind are responsible for the most complex code ever discovered, so complex it took 2,800 scientists 13 years to map a human genome. Lets use our imaginations to explain away the fact that the human brain is the most complex object ever discovered and attribute its unbelievably complex design to dumb molecules that cannot 'think'. Lets ignore thousands of years of OBSERVATION that the source of complexity and information always leads to an intelligent agent so we can ascribe all the complexity and information we see in every living organism to dumb molecules that cannot 'think' and have no purpose or intent but managed to create the immense biological complexity we see in our world. Whilst we are at it, we can pretend that all the symbiosis between living things that is an absolute necessity within the complex ecosystem evolved at the exact same time all over the world so that life could be sustained and not suddenly disappear after billions of years of gradual imaginary change. Lets just say we got lucky and every male and female of each species evolved at the exact same time and in the exact same location so as not to pose a problem of instant extinction. Some of us do actually know why we disagree with the absurdity of Narnia evolution. If your mother believes in God, she is much wiser than you and you should desist in trying to convince her of the evolutionary lie.
@@stephenolan5539I like to think that "Evolution" is *HOW* God does it.
@thebluescar5045
I like to separate fantasy and reality. What we like doesn't enter into it.
Wow and in such a short amount of time..
wonder what would happen if we did this for 100 years, or 6.5 billion?
Laugh all you want. Maybe that's the life form that does us in. ;)
Or 10 years but with a whole bunch of different "settings", maybe even trying to figure out with AI that with what control what the outcome is and then starting to engineer biological machines.
The year is 2525 and a big vote is taking place to give yeast people basic rights. If nothing changes, nothing changes
Are you fermenting unrest?@@freudsbreakfast4060
Do you want Species? Bcuz that's how you get it.
Dont let answersingenesis see this 💀
Fr
.. and then they were left to themselves over the weekend. The following Monday the scientist were a bit puzzled to see that the yeast had opened bank accounts, started investing and were off to buy a new Audi.
Don't forget about it learning how to make fire, batteries, planes, and female and male genitalia!
And preparing for AI to take their jobs.
As someone who studied evolutionary microbiology this was one of my professor’s biggest qualms that led him to believe in determinism. Very interesting! Thanks!!
Wasted money.
@@keylanoslokj1806 in my country college is free, how do you know hes american?
Honestly; I hate in-video-ads, but this was done with such grace and perfection that you even got me hooked enough to go visit the website. 10/10
Two things: 1) you don’t “prove” anything in science, you propose a hypothesis and provide evidence that your hypothesis is substantially more statistically probable than the alternative, with an overarching conceptual theory connecting multiple points of evidence. 2) there has been a copious amount of evidence for evolution for centuries.
So multicellularity came before oxygenation? That's pushing things way back into deeper time!
kurzgesagt : Ancient life as old as the universe.
It’s not the only way to do it, just one of the ways that led to faster growth
@@TheNinthGeneration1 I seem to remember that the theory used to be oxygen availability facilitated the rise of complex life. Figured that was the whole story but, nope. Just learned that it's a little more complicated than that! Did multicellular anaerobes evolve into aerobes or did they just all go extinct and a new group of aerobes re-evolve multicellularity.
@@farangtikitungmuang that’s kind of how science works. Even if a theory is well known, you’re always gonna have misconceptions about the theory therefore, you improve your understanding of the theory evolution is still the foundation for modern biology. Because what you’re asking is how life showed up not how life evolved after it showed up.
@@bdoopy4167The chemistry of carbon is the foundation of modern biology. Evolution is the description of processes that allows for the formation complex molecular assemblies and their permutations and interactions that seemingly defy entropy by energy collection and self replication. But fundamentally, it's all just chemistry.
Although this research is interesting, it needs to be interpreted carefully. Unicellular does not always mean primitive. Far from being the "simple" organisms many people (including some biochemists who should know better) imagine them to be, yeasts are part of a huge group of complex fungi and appear to have become unicellular by evolving from ancient filamentous species. Therefore this experiment could simply be reactivating dormant ancestral genes, roughly analogous to breeding humans with larger appendixes or fur. It is at best a crude model for how multicellularity arose in the first place.
Will we ever be able to find out how simple life forms were?
@@jojobizarrelivingstone594 other than in fossils, no. Unless the first lifeform is so straightforward it forms the same way everytime.
@@jojobizarrelivingstone594 Fossils of unicellular organisms have been found, but they are, unsurprisingly, rare and hard to study. Most research uses comparative methods of modern forms, looking at both structural and molecular characteristics. In the case of yeast, they produce some sophisticated - if microscopic - reproductive structures that tend to be made of 4-8 cells, something larger fungi also do but protozoa do not.
I agree that yeast is probably a bit too close of an organism to say "hey it's clumping, that's cool!" but they went a step further and saw not only clumping, but also specialization, and even an early form of respiration. So yes, they are definitely already a complex unicellular organism, but when under heavy external pressures, showed actual evolution (as in hereditary, survival of the fittest, etc.), which I find facinating.
How would evolution looked like if it occurred for Silicon-based life forms?
There are a couple of videos on this, but long story short, sadly silicon based life is very likely not possible. At best, you'll have silicon shells like in diatoms.
It's amazing that people still deny evolution when anyone can evolve their own species with a little time and patience.
Like breeding
@@asdasdasdasdasd9795 And here we have r the racist that still believe human with small difference in pigmentation are totally different in everything, yeah ✨
-_-
Prejudice isn't science. Completely the opposite. @@asdasdasdasdasd9795
What are you even talking about? Are you on drugs?
That’s not true at all.
This is truly fascinating! Thank you for making this video.
Next they should give oxygen back, and at the same time increase the danger of being small with actual predators, make them suffer so we can get better things
I would not say this proves evolution; it just adds to the pile of facts that proves evolution.
Exactly, this title is ridiculous.
You could fill a library with objective facts, studies, etc that each on their own prove evolution happens and yet they’d still deny it because apparently spirituality and objective science still can’t coexist in 2024!
@@b.rileyjowett6925
The inability to observe and measure the "spirit" make spirituality and science incompatible.
I think the word Evolution needs to be better defined, it means different things to different people. For example I believe in evolution as it's defined in the dictionary. Someone like Richard Dawkins would say the same thing. However I don't believe the mechanism for evolution is as claimed by Richard Dawkins, we would both have completely different opinions.
Absolutely fascinating research.
did u mean "absolutely fascinating scam" right?
@@tdoc666___ Why is it a scam, buddy?
@@tdoc666___ go away spambot
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 the title says "evolution proved", but the content is another so i shoald actually report this as *Misleanding* as it is, either you too stu***d to understand what *evolution* means or you just deglected, are you blind maybe? should i report you too for *Misleading Collaboration* perhaps?
@@tdoc666___
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
Not so fast. 😒 Darwin in his Origin of species points out clearly he CANNOT explain Cambrian explosion, but he hopes the fossil evidence will reveal themselves in following years.
160 have passed and we're still hoping.
The Cambrian explosion has been explained, just go look into the literature.
@@thehowlingjoker no ithasn't been explained. Look into Brittanica, man. Even THERE they write "the reason is still debated" so ummm... stop spreading "missinformation". This is how they call tinfoil hat conspiracies... Right? 🤣
@@montazvideo Yes it's still debated, it's not like they go "we're done here chaps" and just move on like their investigation is complete.
They will ALWAYS be debating about the subject, as they do ALL OTHERS.
Go look in the papers published, many have been publishing on the Cambrian explosion both before, during and after the period.
@@thehowlingjoker unlike climate change... Right? This just cannot be debated.... ;)
Ok.... so it's not explained. Case closed. Thank you.
Why do humans eschew movement and instead interact with the world via its various delivery systems?
Outside conditions are getting tougher - crowds, traffic jams, pollution, harsh weather, crime, repressive laws, etc. Meanwhile, homes are becoming ever better serviced. There comes a point where the couch looks more inviting than the car or walking shoes. The ability to move will become less useful than being part of a larger group - because the group is extra good at accessing and processing stuff.
Cells within cells within cells ...
Interesting how yeast can evolve into a (proto) multi-cellular organism ... which leads us to believe that certain single-celled organisms have this built-in capability.
This is actually really neat.
I can't believe you've spelled "it's" at 2:52 RIGHT UNDER the correct form
😆
What I really wanna know is where those yeast are gonna be in ten years
In a petry dish, dead from starvation.
Yeast. No birds or dinosaurs. Sorry
Nah it's gonna be a mega yeast
@@907stovecraft8 it's gonna evolve a mouth to kiss you
@@DartNoobo not if they love it real hard
Haven't we been observing evolution in the lab for decades?
Well, we have on the scale of single celled and multi celled organisms, but we've never seen a single celled organism become multi celled in the lab
Its just another facet of evolution that has become demonstrable.
But just now we obseved multicellularity
This plus your video about assembly theory have really got me interested in what's going on. It sounds like good steps forward in understanding how life comes about.
This is the coolest discovery I’ve seen in a longtime
The start of life is a waaaay harder problem than the evolution of it. I don't know why you can buy the former of the latter.
They're two different questions, though, that aren't much related to each other. Biological evolution is what happened after life began, and life is what happened before biological evolution began. Besides, the Miller-Urey experiment -- and especially the modern re-do of it that addressed some of the original experiment's issues -- gives pretty solid evidence for abiogenesis.
@@IceMetalPunkmiller-urey produced 99 percent of toxic junk, and used atmosphere that wasn't available at the beginning of life. Also an electric current. Where do you get constant electric currents in nature? So I do not know what sort of a scientist would still refer to it as something useful.
i really hope they continue to work with these, to continue the evolution. maybe give it a stronger pressure to evolve a circulatory system, or stronger pressure to move, or whatever
"Why does nature evolve complexity?" because when you randomly mutate that adds a little bit extra complexity and passes it on, complexity grows over time, like entropy...
Wouldn’t that be the opposite of entropy? Entropy is disorder and complexity is order.
Isn't disorder more complex than oder? 🤔😅
*order
@@i.i.iiii.i.i No, disorder has more uniformity and many more ways to exist. Complexity has far fewer ways to exist. Life goes against the second law of thermodynamics. However, like everything else it’s way more complicated and I only understand the basics.
I should have mentioned life overcomes this by using energy. Putting energy into a system can reverse entropy, but the universe as a whole goes toward entropy and there are small pockets such as a biological system that can overcome entropy.
It’s not “survival of the fittest” but survival of the fit.
i want you
Ironic to see that self-destruction seems quite beneficial for evolution ...
@druwitz and to see how homosexuality is also beneficial for evolution. It is counter intuitive, but much good reason has been put forth for it. Humans and NOT the only mammal to engage in such either.
I believe you mean it can under certain circumstances increase the rate of replication of alleles that cause it. Evolution is a natural phenomenon, saying something is "beneficial" to it is like saying wind is beneficial to meteorology.
It often can be. Insects come to mind as they are pretty good demonstration of this in a truly complex life form. I guess there's a reason why death is almost universal.
@@rickkwitkoski1976of course you’d bring that topic up lol
Circle of Life.
Absolutely amazing work, and I'm disappointed that I haven't seen any other coverage of it besides your video. Thank you.
This is wild as hell. Nobel Prize in biology!
If life can happen by extraordinary coincidence in primordial soup, then it can happen deliberately in a controlled environment in the lab. That begs one question. What would the scientists be to those life forms ... "Creators that are impossibly complex and with incomprehensible motives ... God."
And?
So... just going off of the title, I really want to say that scientists have experimentally proven evolution a while ago. Just look up Richard Enski's E Coli long-term evolution experiement.
It's an interesting video, but yeah evolution has essentially been a fact for at LEAST two decades now, if not earlier.
13:55 the labels don’t match how you explained the effects of an anaerobic environment versus a high oxygen environment on the potential size of the clusters. You suggested that an anaerobic environment might produce larger clusters.
I believe the actual story is far more complex. Oxygen is thought to be an stimulator for the evution of animal life as it's a precursor of collagen as well has many other fundamental effects on respiration. Yeast cells here might have gone through many complicated evolution. But the video has no link to any papers ☹️
Amazing experiment. Thanks for the insightful report.
Do we still need proof? Evolution has always seemed self-evident to me.
Rut roh, Shaggy! Theism's defense just got a bit more complicated.
not really. Look at all the flat earthers. Some people believe whatever they want, regardless of any evidence.
THIS IS SO FUCKING AWESOME LIIKE WHAT THE FUCK. My whole life I was asking this question: “how TF those mfks multiply themselves. NOW I FUCKING NOW
This is absolutely my favorite comment on this video. I love how psyched you are about science x) Good for you man! It's really cool stuff!
Young earth creationists (at least most of them), will never accept the evidence, even if you grew a whole human that was an improvement in every way, in front of their eyes. They'd just say "God is working through this person!". There are those of us that believe the evidence, and those who believe that God is reason we got to where we are.
Young earth or evolution are both fantastic theories. Can’t be proved. Homes you can drive a truck through. Evolution cannot explain how life started. The first cell? A lightning strike on a scummy pond 😂
Pretty fascinating stuff. While the level of cell differentiation has a long way to go to create entirely novel cell types, I could see how this behavior in yeast might represent an intermediate step of some kind. Of course, new organisms require new cell types with new functionality, which means there needs to be new genetic information. And once again, the critical ingredient in these experiments is applied intelligence. Still, one cannot ignore these results nor the implications for chemical evolution. As for whether scientists have proven evolution in the lab, I think not - or at least, not yet.
Application of changes in the environment is not that big of a problem in case of already existing life. There are all sorts of changes in natural environment as well.
Now, when you study the origin of life itself the hands off approach becomes mandatory.
2:53 Stellar editing! At the same time you have both "its" (correct) and "it's" (not so much) for "belonging to it" (spoiler: it's its).
I should probably get a life, but my OCD and whatever other spectrum/a I'm on make these things shout at me and distract from the actual content. So I'm off: sorry, it was starting to be interesting.
Just found this channel. Absolutely loved this video. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
First time I'm on your channel I believe. Would definitely listen to a lengthier video on this topic.
2:52
How the hell do you use _its_ correctly the first time, but not the second, within the same sentence?!
🤦♂
In just 600 days? Imagine 6000 days.
Because yeast double in about 80 minutes under ideal conditions, this becomes over 69 million generations..
or 60,000 years, or 6 million years....
0:08 okay explain the actual chemistry involved to go from dead materials to a living cell. Use what the earth could have used. How did it overcome the mass transit problem, the Leventhal 1.0 as well as Leventhal 2.0 problem?
That's not covered by evolution
That's abiogenesis which is a completely seperate theory
Even if it turned out that life formed by magic that would have no bearing on evolution whatsoever
@@drsatan9617 over and over again when scientist have previously stated proof of evolution it has always been found that the animal which was to show evolution did not. The change was always in the DNA of the animal all along. It was simply adaptation brought on by environmental conditions. It was a feature the ancestors of the animal already possessed.
@@drsatan9617 next is the unabridged gap between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Proteins found in all eukaryotic cells did not first come from prokaryotic cells. That’s why it’s called a protein orchard. Not explained as no process shows any evolutionary tracked linking them. This is another over glaring problem that is unresolved and purposely ignored/brushed off. Even Aron Ra has stated this.
@@markoconnell804
Evolution is change in DNA. And new never existed DNA does occur so it is not simply adaptation.
@@stephenolan5539 eukaryotic cells all are equipped with a mechanism to make sure mutation does not happen when it happens it’s self-destruct when it does not self-destruct it turns into cancer. It’s called disease.
Wow. That pretty much explains it then. That’s it! 😅 Fantastic. So elegant.
Excellent content, very well explained. One thing, is the title just clickbait or did I miss something?
Nope, people like creationists or anti evolutionist teach things along the lines of “no one knows how a single cell becomes a multi celled organism therefor evolution doesn’t explain how life started”
In the laboratory's quiet hum,
Dr. Ben Miles, with curiosity drum.
A quest embarked on the evolution trail,
A scientific dance, where wonders unveil.
In petri dishes, a microcosmic scene,
Evolution's stage, where life convenes.
Did scientists prove, in the lab's embrace,
The dance of life, in its genetic grace?
Ben Miles, a guide in the scientific sea,
Where microbes evolve, in a mystery.
A testament to life's adaptive power,
In the lab's confines, an evolving hour.
Microscopic realms, where changes brew,
Evolution's dance, in a petri dish view.
Life's journey, in genetic codes inscribed,
Dr. Ben Miles, where science is imbibed.
A tale of adaptation, in the laboratory's den,
Did evolution unfold, in a microbial blend?
In the test tubes' ballet, a genetic rhyme,
Dr. Ben Miles, decoding evolution's time.
In the silent hum of the lab's allure,
A discovery profound, where knowledge matures.
Did scientists prove, in the petri dish's sweep,
Evolution's dance, in the microbial leap?
So, in the scientific journey, where questions unfurl,
Dr. Ben Miles, in the evolutionary swirl.
A testament to life's ever-changing plan,
In the laboratory's realm, where science began.
I should print this out and put it on my wall
@@DrBenMilesthe title if the video is wrong and misinformed 🙃 evolution has already been proven.
Everyone bombard this with likes NOW!
There are those who think that the chemical affinity between elements (and the dynamics generated by their distribution based on entropy) may be the precursor to reaching more stable and similar configurations that result in the first entities with some distinctive characteristics of life. And when that happens, when all its characteristics are achieved, that is when we can label it as life.
This is fantastic.
i was here
@@Kidinventor7777 not quite equally fantastic, but hell - flag-plant acknowledged, lol
@@Philusteen 😁🚩
Thank you for sharing such cool science! It's great to see the gaps in our understanding of the origins of life on this planet getting smaller and smaller!
God of the gaps just shrunk some more.
Where will he hide next? Stay tuned!!!!
Proving evolution is like trying to prove humans have 2 hands.
verry interesting esspecially in the short time frame. Though they did not achive troue cell differentiation of cells. Maybe putting some radiation into the mix to increase the mutation rate just as it would have ben on early earth might increase the development speed.
That’s quite an interesting idea. I wonder what other “irritation” that can be introduced to speed up the mutation even further. “Irritations” that happened to also have existed in the early days of earth.
Or run various batches with different controls then mix them together.
See if horizontal gene transfer occurs.
Just?
It was already proven long time ago for anyone who have a functioning brains.
Amazing stuff. Thank you for sharing this video.
This is the most interesting evolution experiment I have ever heard. You’re actually saying that they evolved a single cell organism into a multicellular organism that has a primitive reproductive system and a primitive circulatory system? That is absolutely incredible!
Some evolution deniers on their way to say "tHat sCieNtisT iS tHe pRoOf of dEviNe iNteRvEnaTiOn"
No... we're just going to deny that yeast turning into yeast (surprise surprise!!!) is evidence that a watermelon, bison, oaktrees, whales, strawberries & squirrels are all related & come from bacteria❤❤❤
Only a child possess such a wild imagination
Link to the published paper please?
UA-cam doesn’t allow links on comments, so I can’t give it to you, but I saw the paper and he got it pretty accurate.
And they've proven evolution already we evoled bacteria in a biology lab in highschool the title is dumb
It's been proven already for over a century
No. NO Scientific idea is EVER PROVEN! This is just MORE good evidence that evolution is TRUE! And no PROOF of evolution either. Scientific ideas will NEVER be "Proven". They just become more and more correct. There will ALWAYS BE the possibility that some new discovery just will NOT fit the model that we have. So that tiny bit of "doubt" is always left open.
The problem with Creatards is that their book to TRUE - A Priori! No questions to be asked! You can't fight that because it is untestable.
Which is the antithesis of good science. THEY say that science is dogmatic, but that is their strawman approach.
Just keep shutting them down.
Cellular Intelligence is also at play in evolution cell communicate in a number of ways with each other. It a factor that needs to be taken into account when dealing with evolution. It a relatively new discovery
Had to pause the video and look up Portuguese man o’ war, because wtf😂
Seek for the 'Sea Pen'!! 😅
The introduction makes the issue at hand sound far more mystical then it is, the movement from single cell to multicell life.
Single cell life reproduces by splitting in two. Pretty soon you have a big old glob of your offspring and if you cannot work together, you starve in the middle of this big old glob.
Naturally your more successful as a colony! Its litterally the logic a 4 year old learns when they learn to share. Theres nothing mind blowing about it, it should happen no matter what.
The mystery is, when something has SO MANY advantages and so much pressure to evolve, there are SO MANY ways to reach it! what one?
So I would guess that the next step in the evolution of this creature would be to develop different types of cells for different purposes, like how most other multicellular life does things?
I just hope this doesn't escape the lab and we end up in a "Blob" situation 😂
Life evolves all the time. It even becomes multicellular sometimes. Nothing will happen
@@catpoke9557 it was just a (not very good) joke
How did DNA evolve?
Still a mystry but it probably evolded from amino acids and rna
2 hypotheses I know of are the RNA World Hypothesis and rhe Metabolic Hypothesis, that if I'm not mistaken Nick Lane advocates. I don't know much at all about this stuff or abiogenesis
But RNA makes DNA, and RNA makes RNA from RNA so its a little weird
Bro, students regularly prove evolution in microbiology lab. Evolution is already well proven...
Evolution is an idea that comes with a story board. It is prefigured entities that make the story possible. By looking at life we start following the unicellular to the multicellular. On the way there are all these gaps that must be filled. Our best minds have engaged in this effort by comparing visual attributes. First we imagined a short timeline but now it seems to be expanding to unimaginable billions of years to make the unlikely spontaneous genetic mutation possible to form viable life forms and multiply. All this is based on rigorous information technology that codes for so intricate proteins and protocols that no scientific experiments come near explanation. Evidence of science in this regard are imaginary at best. 19th century outdated philosophy underlying the whole theory. Love you all.
'19th century outdated philosophy' lmaoo
Let us know what the current not outdaded philosophy is
How did olives 🫒 and Avocados 🥑 evolve? They both produce hundreds of pounds of fat every summer, yet how many plants produce large amounts of fat, not many. The avocados 🥑 metabolism is rather strange in photosynthesis it can produce up to 15% D-mannoheptulose a 7 carbon sugar that causes diabetes in mammals.
Algae have enough oil that they are looking at it as a substitute for fossil fuels.
1:04 “perfect copy of itself” indicates you should not be educating people on biological evolutionary theory. There’s a few other aspects that aren’t accurate and questions you pose that we’re well past. Because the video is directed to people who have no idea about biological evolutionary theory, it’s important to get the details correct.
This is very very very illuminating. I always figured early life started from entirely natural inorganic processes, meaning that it is potentially everywhere an inorganic process could occur. The famous Tardigrade can survive extreme climates and temperatures, enabling it's survival between planets, between planetary systems.
Able to survive mass extinction, able to survive long duration without sustenance. The more I learn about life on small scales, the more it becomes obvious to me that yes, life originated here, elsewhere, and life has also come here from elsewhere, likely capable of coming from here to elsewhere too.
Just not the way we think (aliens, space travel).
Its sad that AiG fans will just llok past this.
Great presentation and oratoral skills. Biology is above my paygrade. You made it easy for a neophyte to understand. Put your advertisement at the conclusion. Test it, you know how.
Yes and still humans have to make this multicellular yeasts like God made us
no the point is that the single celled yeast became a cluster organism with little interference, although you could argue that god created the first 'cell'
Is there a scientific paper about this experiment?
Yes, it's on the Georgia Tech website but it was also published in Nature. I'd post a link but UA-cam doesn't like that. Google it with Georgia Tech and you'll find it.
seems like a variation of well known pseudohyphal growth in saccharomyces which is typically brought on by environmental stress
No, this is not phenotypic plasticity, this is directional evolutionary change.
@@laserfan17 have the mutant loci been mapped and sequenced?
Ok, so can anyone explain this to me? As I understand this experiment, it consists of following steps.
1. Take a sampe of yeast cells, and make sure some of them know how to form groups.
2. Separate groups of yeast cells, so that only group behaviour remains.
3. Make some changes to the environment so that these groups change some qualities ( form larger groups, change the thinckness of the cellular wall etc.)
4. Claim evolution.
Did I miss anything? There was a reference to proto regulatory systems, but there was no explanation as to how they differ from the normal yeast behaviour. So, if yeast cell is able to remove waste products from its surroundings, then a group would do the same, but more effectively, right?
You got everything except step 4 right. If you're honestly wanting to know the importance of this, I'm gonna need confirmation before I put effort into an explanation, but if not, well suffice it to say that you don't know what evolution actually is.
@@nobody.of.importance evolution is an umbrella term under witch you generallyplace whatever is convenient at the moment. What I mean by evolution and what is actually the most important definition is development of new genetic information. Without it there is no new body plans and new functions, only adaptations. So if by evolution you mean ANY change, then don't bother.
@@DartNoobo I take it that means you're not interested in honest discussion.
@@nobody.of.importance if by honest you mean "trust me bro, it's there" then not.
@@DartNoobo If you change your mind, I'll be around.
Since you find the Portuguese Man o' war amazing, what did you think of it's descendant species the "Ocean Phantom" which will sail the vast shallow seas of Earth 100 million years in the future?
4:18 actually in nature resources are the main thing, and when one organism takes resources another loses out.
I probably should have learned this already but you wowed me when you said animals and plants evolved being multicellular separately.
So do these breakthroughs have any impact on the possibility of alien life forming on other planets?
No. Thats abiogenesis
Nope, but it does impact the possibility of preexisting life on other planets evolving multicellularity
@@catpoke9557 yeah when I wrote this comment, I meant complex multi-cecullar life. From everything I've gathered, I don't doubt the existence of single celled organisms on other planets at all. You just need to right chemical soup.
Sounds like 🍺 is the basis for all life. I've suspected this throughout adulthood.
amazing video! thank you for sharing this story
Might want a better title... I personally observed evolution in university biology class, with fruit flies. Evolution is the observation; natural selection is the very-well-supported theory to explain it. The initial creation of life from non-life is something completely different.
At 3:43
I never knew there were Popeye Crabs! 😁
Learn something new Every day!👍
Mike in San Diego 🌞🎸🚀🖖
still strange that the example of a selection pressure mechanism is a multicellular organism eating the non clustered ones. That defeats the whole idea about how multicellular evolved in the first place, There were no multicellular predators to provide selection.
the predators where single celled organisms too
The skeleton shows an amazing variety of evolution. From whale to monkey to ape to dog, the skeleton is very similar.
Billions of years ! That's a very small amount of time ! To pick just 14 numbered balls out of 28 takes 3.5 X 10^18 tries.
The universe is only 4.35 X 10^17 seconds old !
Sounds like that's how any primitive reproduction might start out, growth and dissolving elements to break off pieces. So multicellular might teach us what happened before cellular life
I think it’s pretty misleading to say that we can make cells from scratch. Protocells are not cells and they are not nearly as complex and we cannot even make functioning protocells from scratch
Loved it!
Is 20.9% oxygen really considered "saturation," though?
Wow amazing definitely watch this again tomorrow when a little more awake
Creationism is a form of trolling.
Random: I wish we could stop being paranoid & support scientific research around CRISPR. We can learn so much about our genetic material. Find which things do what. Could learn how to improve the ways our bodies function. Help treat health issues, diseases, our bodies ability to heal, fatigue, the list goes on.. What matters most, is if we can approach this new branch of science with genuine curiosity and motivation. This type of science could have amazing impacts in the medical field and our understanding of biology as a whole. Could greatly improve people's quality of life. Treat health conditions. I really hope we drop the paranoia scare tactics that are holding us back from progression..