Charles Darwin's Idea: Descent With Modification
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Now that we've learned about molecules and cells and the simplest forms of life, we are ready to understand how all of life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor. Given our newfound knowledge about the chromosomal theory of inheritance, combined with the theory of natural selection, which is how evolution propagates, we will see how our understanding of biology transformed in the 19th century, thanks to the work of Charles Darwin, and other contemporaries. There are those who say that evolution is "just a theory", but beyond the fact that this stems from a misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means in science, it also has to do with rampant misconceptions about what this model states. So let's learn the basics regarding evolution by natural selection!
Watch the whole Biology/Genetics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Microbiology/Infectious Diseases Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDave...
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
All of your material is remarkable, but this particular video is invaluable. Your explanation of abstruse subject matter is profound. Contemplating the extended butterfly effect of your teachings is awe-inspriring. Thank you for your indefatigable informative commitment.
Haha well thank you for the particularly eloquent compliment!
Agreed, edgar allen poe
Would be accurate to conclude that the emergence of life and the non-random and blind process of evolution are simply the laws of physics and chemistry playing out in a particular environment and that any life in other solar systems is likely to be natural selection driven? I know we can't empirically verify this yet but is it a logical deduction?
Good question! I find it hard to wrap my head around how complex life could come about in absence of natural selection. But who knows!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Yeah, me to. It seems to be the only imaginable non-random and unconscious process by which Chemical and biological evolution could occur. I'm sure within different environments it will express itself differently, but it would seem as though, as long as the laws of physics are the same as we know them, natural selection would be the process by which life evolves. It's amazing how intuitive natural selection is once you understand it.
That would be my first thought as well. Second thought though, is that we are assuming this other life to be life as we know it. I could imagine a life that would be predetermined to some extent, and may or may not share some form of natural selection.
Thanks Dave!
Birds ARE Dinosaurs, though. They belong to the clade Theropoda, like Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor. Only the non-avian dinosaurs died out.
I smell another video coming up on Evolution and Creationism :p.
While some preachers such as Billy Graham and Christian scientists have accepted evolution as science, their efforts for reconciliation may take time to bear fruit as young earth creationism remains widespread and influential among evangelicals. Anyway, I love your material, Prof. You are a great help for me in revisiting Trigonometry and Calculus.
Evolution also explains fine tuning, of course we’re fine tuned, we evolved to fit into this environment over billions of years. No wonder we can find food only on planet Earth.
15:58 i legit didnt see the other mice tho
That's the main point of camouflage
hi beh
ang asim ng katabi mo sa kanan
Hello bee
Baliww😂
Mag sagot nalang po tayo😂
Professor Dave, you just don't understand. A dog will always produce a dog. Just ask any kennel...LOL! Love your videos!
after 6 months, are you still believing the "dogs produce dogs" shit that Kent Hovind says because he has no biology knowledge at all ?
The fact is that there was a time when there were no gods, they evolved from earlier canine species.
I went to Sunday School(for a couple years), and one of the teachers was a hardcore creationist. She constantly tried to debunk evolution, but most of us students knew about evolution, as did all of our other teachers. I think she believed the earth was the center of the universe...
Then she was a smart person
This really helped me finish my quarantine schoolwork.
13:58 manatee mac & cheese situation
Please, "The Beagle" or "HMS Beagle" but never "The HMS Beagle". (Clue - think what 'HMS' stands for!).
Medical practices & procedures would still be in the dark ages without it..
U r great sir :)
selection of nature is not a theory
Yes, natural selection is a theory.
I only came here to learn. Please do not try so hard to crap on my beliefs. Thanks
there was no crapping! just explaining science.
Allow science to challenge your beliefs. All beliefs should be based on falsifiable empirical evidence. Always doubt and question. Simply compare your new knowledge with your current beliefs and determine if they are consistent. Maybe they will be. If not, you have a chance too grow.
You serious?? At what point in the video does he tell the audience that religion is bad and that they shouldn't be religious? All he says is that people used to believe in, and some still believe in, the young earth, but it's inconsistent with science. That's all. How you deal with that it on you. You could do a number of things: take the biblical narrative metaphorically, claim that the laws of nature generally apply but that God suspends them occasionally for miracles, or give up the religion entirely. But in any case, how you personally choose to deal with the fact that young earth is inconsistent with science was never the topic of the video.
@@createdbeing302 He wasn't saying that you need to give up your religion (whatever it is), but just that if you choose to adhere to it, it needs to accommodate the observable facts. Evolution is undeniable if you know enough about biology.
its like the student who walks up to the philosophy teacher and says "im sorry i cannot attend your class its damaging my faith". than it is bad faith. i am willing to throw natural selection out the window at a moments notice if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong. that's what i did to christianity. it kinda just hit me and i realized that it was a bunch of shit.
Darwin had misunderstood the finches completely. He thought they all fed on the same food, in big flocks. He had not noticed important differences among their beaks, and he even had trouble identifying different species. Some, he believed, were not finches at all, but wrens and blackbirds. He was so baffled by the birds and so indifferent to the specimens he had collected that he donated the lot to the Zoological Society. Whit in ten days the society’s bird expert John Gould had worked out that they were all finches, all very closely related, forming a tightly knit grouping that nonetheless contained twelve distinct species (so he thought, in fact there were thirteen). This number was surprisingly large for such a small group on tiny islands. Gould wanted to know what had caused such diversity but Darwin wasn’t really interested. In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches. It is they that pointed out their significance. (Scientific American, „Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches”, Peter R. Grant, oktober 1991, blz. 87.)
Jan Wouters 😡 What are you blathering about? Have you completely avoided reading what Darwin wrote? Really! As for the work done by the Grants, they are on record as CONFIRMING what Darwin thought about the finches. The principles of evolution still apply, no matter who originally thought of them - Charles Darwin or Alfred Russel Wallace.
That's very interesting.
and yet his book would disagree with your comment
One important thing to note is that Linnaeus had already noted the relatedness of all life when he began the science of taxonomy. He, in fact, when grouping humans together with apes, said he was compelled to by evidence and challenged other scholars to find any features that would justify otherwise.
Geologists after watching this video and not being mentioned until halfway: 😢
Pls update about cardio vascular system
check my anatomy & physiology playlist, three part series there on that system.
Hello, I have a question.
How do we know from what humans or whatever evolved from?
Is it the similarities to the ancestors?
based on physical and molecular similarities. I think this is in line with sequence alignment.
We have multiple ways of investigating lineage. One is to look directly at genomes of currently living or recently deceased creatures (since DNA doesn't last forever). This alone is usually enough to tell how closely related two creatures are, although it might not tell exactly what those two creatures evolved from. Another way is to look at fossils and date them and compare their shapes, which gives a pretty clear picture of a lineage over time. If you look backwards in time, and the creatures look more and more similar, you can usually get a very good picture of what the common ancestor was.
Hello people, I'd like to thank you for answering.
I am not yet fully convinced.
I am sure that this is due to my incompetence in the topic of evolution.
Have a great day, I have to do research.
Genetics, fossils and other lines of evidence
@@yasyasmarangoz3577 If you're still interested, check out a 10 minute video by Stated Clearly called "What is the Evidence for Evolution?". The main lines of evidence are 1) anatomical similarity, 2) embryo developmental similarities, 3) fossil morphological similarity and the geologic column, 4) genetic similarity. Those are the direct lines of evidence for relatedness.
Evidence that evolution happens on the whole is 5) we can literally observe it in real time for organisms with small generation times, 6) Darwin's ideas (mainly about speciation and natural selection) being intuitive, easy to test and make predictions with, 7) biogeography and the distribution of biomes and 8) the way that life can be classified in a hierarchical fashion, reflecting how organisms become more and more specialised into niches over time.
The evidence is so strong that virtually all scientists support evolution, and the tiny tiny minority that don't have usually left the scientific community in practice and instead want to promote their religious ideas (or are being paid to do so by larger creationist organisations, which Prof Dave has done some great exposing videos on). It has gotten to the point that the people who do not like evolution don't even try and argue anymore, they just use insults and say "God did it". Hence why real scientists haven't given them the time of day since the early 1900s because that's not science. Hope this was helpful.
The pics r awesome and meaningful....
Best video about the origin of species...
This video is very informative and well made. Thanks!
Hey Dave, if brain size is correlated with intelligence, why aren't elephants much smarter than us? Why are we as homo sapiens the smartest species?
It isn't a correlation with a perfect correlation coefficient
As well, big creatures need to dedicate more brain just to regulating the body.
The correlation only applies within a related group of organisms, like primates. Homo sapiens has the largest brain of the primates. Other animals can have much larger brains but its development is not like ours. Although as it turns out, elephants and dolphins *are* pretty smart.
what Nxck sayd.. Also, elephants do not have opposable thumbs. They cannot manipulate their surroundings as wel as we can; hence they cannot use their intelligence in that regard.
India discarded Evolutionary Biology from textbooks recently.
So science and reality denial is not only done by the Abrahamic religions. How sad. Was it religiously motivated?
@@freddan6fly What else would have been the motivation? There's certainly no scientific or secular reason to.
The theory of evolution was deleted from the textbooks as part of a “rationalization exercise” being implemented by India's National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). Just when we thought that India is beginning to emerge from the centuries of ignorance, they take a step backwards and retreat into the darkness.
Darwin spent some time at my hometown during the Beagle journey.
Phenomenal video
You should do a video about tattoos
Hindi me bhi bataiye
excellent
Thanks Dave
Great explanation.
Another solid video Dave!
Excellent presentation. Thank you very much.
Really helpful
thanks for the lesson!
13:35 - "All of the dinosaurs (are extinct)" - except birds, of course! ;)
but they are mere descendants!
Still counts under a cladistic classification!
Not exactly. It depends on the dinosaur and its characteristics. Cladistic classification is hypothesizing relationship of organisms based on certain shared characteristics.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains birds are still dinos, just as we are still primates
@@createdbeing302 wrong yet again, birds are dinosaurs, just as humans are mammals and dogs are wolves
💕💕
Amazing work, keep it up!
It's crazy to say that we don't come from one same God if people think we come from a unicellular organism they sound pretty close to me
The unicellular organism was not an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
How is a cell with no thoughts anything like a supernatural entity
Talking about us coming from one thing duh
@@createdbeing302 abiogenesis is NOT a part of evolution
@@createdbeing302 abiogenesis is NOT a part of evolution. How many times do I have to tell you this? Evolution is a fact of life not a belief system like religion is. Evolution only deals with life, not how it began
I have to learn this for school but I still think this is sooooo dumb. To think we all came from one (1) organism is insane. What makes up a organism biomolecules all the way down to atoms. So if, your going to think of it this way then wouldn't it make more sense to think many types of atoms came together to eventually from this biomolcule until you have a organism? and if the situation that came was just due to the right atoms running into each other why would only 1 happen at this time. That's just ridicules you would more then likely have billions of atoms coming together in a small area with billions of failures and few acceptations creating multiple kinds of organisms that would all go through evolution in their own ways. Just think of the Endosymbosis theory which I would bet has more evidence then this. I am not saying evolution is not real but the idea of a single organism that just came to be due to the right conditions and not multiple organisms that came to be in that moment as well with billions of failures or just atoms that came together and did not form organisms as well. So, yes the idea of one (1) common ancestor and not multiple ancestors is ridicules.
I think the notion that two separate organisms came to be at almost exactly the same time and happened to be so precisely similar in structure that their lineages intertwined to produce all the living organisms is massively more unbelievable and less plausible than a singular ancestor. Not impossible, just many, many orders of magnitude more statistically unlikely. If you were to continue learning about genetics and molecular biology, you would likely agree.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thank you for the time you took to reply, I know that I do not have as much knowledge as you in this subject. I take this as encouragement to like you said keep studying and to find out why you may think the statistics would point more towards one organism coming into being and not multiple. Any tips on where I could start would be appreciated.
On my channel getting through general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry playlists would give you a lot more context and understanding when considering molecular biology, so that's a start! And then of course going through this whole biology playlist. Good on you for wanting to learn and think about the big questions!
I think we have evidence that shows we did indeed come from multiple ancestors, which also came from multiple ancestors, and so on, but eventually, yes, one common cell, which came from one strand of molecules. Yes, we are indeed related to the pine tree :)
@@billskelley6895 Evolution has been refuted by modern scientists . It is a theory that needs to be thrown in the trash can.
Young Earth Creationists do not dispute the mechanism of evolution. What they do question is that a unicellular organism would end up evolving into more complex life forms like insects and mammals.
How is that not disputing evolution?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Good point. I think they agreed on biological changes through generations but not to the point that the offspring would become entirely new species. Hence, they made a distinction between micro evolution and macro-evolution. The latter is what they are disputing. Anyway, I don't agree with what they are saying either. I am just explaining what they believe.
And btw, not every Christian believes in Young Earth Creationism. Roman Catholics and I think Lutherans have largely accepted evolution as science.
It's been my experience that most young earth creationist don't understand evolution. Such as, "You've never seen a dog give birth to a cat."
@@createdbeing302 no faith what so ever, evolution is a science, humans are NOT the center of the universe