My biodiversity course had this as a weeks material. No idea how much it cost though, it was apart of my University's honors program so I imagine it was a bit heftier in price.
Here is my conclusion: (fix my mistakes if you want to!) thank you Evidence for evolution: 1.homology: some features of animals look alike in shape, eg. bird's wings, and human's arm, embryo's first stage of lots of animals have a tail. structural similarity show some of us have the same ancestors. 2.Vestigial Structures: some parts of the body that are not that functional and are left there through evolution. they are left by our ancestors. eg. human's tail bone, wings of a bird that can't fly... 3. Molecular homology: different species' gene has similarity 4. Fossil record: show the ancestor of many animals so we can find similarities 5. Biogeography: by finding similar animals across continents, we find wide stripes that have the same species, the same kind of fossils than are predicted to be found over the same stripes. Natural selection is not random compare to gene drift and gene flow, it has always been beneficial to a specie's fitness Genetic drift means a random event kills a portion of a certain population, and the rest of individuals carry on with a different proportion of their genetic traits in their gene pool, this could also lead to a decrease in gene variety. Genetic drift also will show more effect in a smaller population. Gene Flow means some individuals could move to the population, add up this population's genetic pool's variety. Bottle Neck effect: Some bad disaster randomly happens and kills lots of individuals in a population, the survivors are kind of randomly selected and they compose the new gene pool. Sexual dimorphism: explains why some male birds have colourful feathers, for having a better chance for mating, show that they are healthy, the dimorphism happened over time because the "uglier male birds" have less chance to pass their genes. Intersexual selection: Males compete in a more peaceful way; they compare feather colours or singing voices or dance routines. Intrasexual selection: male fight physically for female. Natural selection's limitation: sometimes nature can build a new trait but in some way it could be not that beneficial, eg, human's eyes are not as good as some other wild animals. giraffe's neck...
After graduation I still keep watching your informative and helpful videos, Professor Dave, because you explain everything in a simpler way to help me understand the materials. Well, learning these stuff in English is not easy for a non-speaking English person like me while studying in the USA.
I need to know more about how we evolved after leaving Africa. It fascinates me how we’ve evolved different skin colors, facial characteristics based on region, gained and lost genes along the way. I’m so curious and I don’t even know which questions I have to try to google it 😩 lol
I remember doing a recombinant class in the early 2000's to contribute a spinach gene to the database being created. I was ASTOUNDED to discover that the colony we picked to amplify didn't even have our gene, despite the antibiotic substrate for inserted gene. Just a random resistant colony. Blew my mind!
@@seri0usxs673 99% of all information you know is given to you by inductive or abductive arguments and reasoning. This requires you to reject essentially everything you think you know.
I am convinced, the evolution of complex animals can occur much more rapidly. Sometimes only hundreds of years will produce an intirely new species evolved to survive within a new environment.
Biology final is going to be tomorrow. I've known about your channel for years. Why didn't I think of using your videos earlier on in my studies? Great stuff
thank u so much dave dude u continue to save my sanity, grades and education. what a joke that students pay 1000s of dollar in tuition only to learn faster from such concise, visually appealing videos. i was crying and throwing up b/c i was so confused in class and now i finally get everything. thanks again!
he knows a lot about the science stuff professor Dave explains... lol my professor an agent of natural selection has made my brain adapted to your channel.... what an evolution....lol
The way I like to look at evolution as it simply builds upon existing features, is like if instead of getting an entirely new operating system for computers, you simply patch the very first and original one.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382 I said how do you know it won’t stop at a certain limit? (Two possibilities: It is either stop at a certain point Or it doesn’t stop at a certain point bacteria 🦠 has eventually become a scientist)
@@am1089 I could be wrong with my analogy, as I am definitely not an expert, but the patching has been going on since the dawn of life, and this process is still happening, albeit quite slowly. Will it stop one day? Not likely, barring the complete annihilation of life on Earth, and assuming we never figure out a way to make other planets or moons our new homes before the Earth gets obliterated by our sun as it swells into a red giant.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382 You don’t know. That’s the point. Patching can stop at a certain point. That’s a possibility. At least this is what we observe today.
Doesn’t sexual selection have a fitness factor as well? If a particular sexual selection does not equate to the quantity or fitness of the offspring it will eventually disappeare from the population or at the very least result in random drift.
Modern humans are actually considered "homo sapiens sapiens" we had a change recently, within the past few thousand years. I'm just not sure what that was. It's been awhile since my anthropology class. 😅
That's a good question, I believe we do I just don't recall what they would be called. I mean technically any early unicellular organism qualifies, look up stromatolites, that may be relevant here.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Believe? 1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof. I can show you similar evolution with cars but with real pictures.
There is a population of Small Lizards that are Green, Agile and Arboreal. They live in a relatively humid tropical forest, with many lakes and fruit trees (the lizards' main source of food). However, due to a natural catastrophe, almost the entire biome of the region has changed. Many lizards died. The new biome is drier, rivers are scarce, there are few trees, and the vast majority of fruits have become extinct. There are only insects. After many generations, what do you think the population of the Little Lizards will be like?
I have a question. How can we say one fossil is the ancestor of another fossil if we don't have their dna? [The oldest dna we extracted from a fossil is 1.6 mill yr old mammoth which also had a lot of error- how can we bring ancestry in fossils that date back to more than 1.6 ma]
We don't necessarily know that any given species we discover is the direct ancestor of another; but we can use comparative morphology to determine that if it's not the direct ancestor, it is at least representative of what would have been (for example a close relative or at least within the same genus). It's worth noting that when this exact same method of comparative morphology is used to determine the relationship with extant organisms, DNA testing confirms those predictions almost universally (sometimes minor corrections are made, but almost every single time the predictions that we made from morphological examination turn out to be accurate). If we discover an organism that exhibits characteristics that are basal to two closely related species, it gives us a good indication that this species is probably ancestral to both of them.
Kevbo, this is basic, trivial, observable biology knowledge. Direct this anger towards the people who fed you the lies that are causing you to lash out in this infantile manner.
2.09 min. You said "humans and any other mammal, even whales and bats". then you show a bird "arm" , along with the whale, dog and human... I was going to use your vid to explain some evolution basics to a Creationist, but mixing the bird in with the mammals (dog, whale, human) would give him ANOTHER excuse to Not understand... I see where you got the diagram from, and I realize the limbs are of bats and birds are homologous. The comment was in frustration. Keep up the good work.
@@angycucumber4319 yes, "warm bloodedness" connects birds and mammals. apparently that applies to dinosaurs and mammals also... which connects back to avian dinosaurs (birds)
Thank you for sharing your your amazing and fatastic videos for FREE! ✨✨🙏 Please make more advanced videos related to medical topics for medical students🙏
The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all modern Biology and is directly supported by a huge body of evidence from diverse sciences. Creationists have nothing more than denial and bible verses.
Sorry if I'm asking alot of questions Dave. But could explain a little how homosexuality can actually be beneficial overall to a species. I remember hearing reasoning for this, but I forget the exact nature of the reasoning.
Don't think anyone has proven how it is "beneficial". It's probably something that randomly arose & didn't get weeded out (keep in mind a Ton of reproduction in nature isn't fully consensual by both parties). Yet homosexuality has been observed in many mammal species. May be random mutations, may serve an altruistic component maybe, who knows..
@@231mac I could only speculate maybe it has some kind of cooperative advantage. But without data to enforce it had a positive impact vs. all heterosexual population.. but idk maybe it is a random mutation that isn't selected for nor weeded out, who knows, not my main focal point of interest by any means
Homosexuality isn't beneficial, but it also isn't necessarily detrimental. I'm a gay woman. I am probably never going to have biological children. However, I have a brother who isn't gay, and HE might have children. And there is nothing whatsoever that my being gay does to prevent me from assisting him and any family he has to survive. If we were living back in the hunter gatherer days as a family unit, I would still be able to be a functional member of the group. I would still be able to gather food, defend the homestead, help build a shelter, and do everything that would be required to help the family group survive. As we are closely related, their genes are my genes. Therefore I am perpetuating my own inherited genes through familiar altruism, even if I do not have any children of my own. So homosexuality may not confer any advantage. But it doesn't appear to offer any detriment, either (it's also worth noting that, despite being gay, I could still have children if I chose to. Being homosexual doesn't preclude that possibility).
Hey Dave, it seems like the picture used at 2:36 are Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, which were proven to be wrong and fraudulent later, due to the fact the embryos of vertebrates don't look that similar in real life. So, I would like to know if those drawings are credible in present era, and the fact that the vertebrate embryos not being homologous would affect the evolutionary theory in any way. I totally believe in evolution, but I'm afraid creationists would take advantage of these embryos not being similar and infer that evolution is false, like Kent Hovind already did in the debate long ago.
Haeckel's embryos were not fraudulent, just inaccurate. for pre-xray drawings, they were actually very impressive. only creationists believe that respected scientists try to push a fraudulent agenda.
Can someone explain where the insects and humans came from?? Like how did the organism form after the Big Bang?? And who is the common ancestor?? And how did the inorganic matter come about? And how did something without intelligent or a brain coincidentally have the sun & moon give us day and night?? In other words how did it produce order and life???
Please watch this biology playlist from the beginning, and then watch my astronomy playlist. You know so little about science that you don’t even realize you are asking questions that constitute entirely different fields of science.
After the big bang, About 400 Mil years later, stars started to form, after that bigger stars gave birth to baby stars with denser elements for life. Basic life on earth started about 4.5 Bil years ago with Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. They took energy from the sun to develop into more complex lifeforms. I.E. humans and bugs. The matter that makes up all things in existence is a part of us as well. As for the moon an astorid crashed into Earth and made it.
"umm Dave.. This is a lie this is a strawman.. Dave.. Do you believe you evolved from a Protista? *Brings out spongebob prop with hammer* Dave. you. aren't just getting it! I'm going to whack some scientific knowledge into your skull! the latin word SCIRE meaning to know! Dave.. stop adhomining! Dave!! Do you believe you come from a STRAWBERRY? is that a part of SCIENCE?" - Demented Kent
I suppose the “many world interpretation” in Quantum mechanics *might* (if you squint enough) need a higher being to work, but it’s not a proof. Not in the slightest.
No all evidence points to there being no god but do to the nature of the concept of deities in that they can’t really be proven or disproven on a basic level there is still a chance. Personally tho I like to think there is not.
@@AbrarManzoor yes dude irredcuble complexity is trash it was debunked years ago just search eye evolution if you really wanna learn something search instead of commenting ere it just shows you want ana argument that's it
Small nitpick, but I don't think sexual dimorphism is THAT obvious in humans, or at least not in the picture shown as an example at 11:58 . It's definitely there -- with those of the male sex generally being more muscular, 15% (ish) taller, having deeper voices and facial hair, and a smaller bust. But the rest is just societal bullshit, like girls wearing pink, having longer hair, and the cut of clothes to "accentuate" curves. A guy who was short and grew his hair out and wore pink or dresses would probably look like a flat chested girl from a distance. Likewise, a girl who was tall, muscular, wore baggy clothing, and cut her hair short would look like a lot of guys. It's nothing as obvious as guys suddenly turning purple upon the onset of puberty or having their eyes spread far apart like a hammerhead or having anything as elaborate as peacock feathers growing from their body. (Note: I'm not saying we have None. You could argue that a lion with its mane cut off wouldn't look like it had much sexual dimorphism, either, and males of our species DO have facial hair, more often than not. I just found it kinda weird having a cartoon picture of a guy in a blue shirt and a girl in a pink dress holding hands as evidence as such, when immediately before it, you had a species of bird where the bodies of the male and female were completely different colors. I think a picture of a man with a bunch of facial hair next to a woman would make more scientific sense than just relying on societal cues -- some of which aren't even necessary the same across all cultures.)
I have one question I thought about this awhile back and I cant explain it I'm hoping you can for me how could a fish somehow sprout lungs and not only that but how come that fish doesn't suffocate because it doesn't know how to breath when its hatched. There are a lot of things similar to that example that just confuses the heck out of me
Well this one is easy. There are amphibians even today. The process of transitioning from water dependent species to land dependent species was very gradual, and there are even extant species alive today who are descended from those transitionary species.
its very gradual also they didn't pop lungs gills evolved into lungs slowly thee longer a species was able to survive outside the water the more evolution favoured those with this rait also amphibians are an itnermediary step
@@walkergaryaThere is a population of Small Lizards that are Green, Agile and Arboreal. They live in a relatively humid tropical forest, with many lakes and fruit trees (the lizards' main source of food). However, due to a natural catastrophe, almost the entire biome of the region has changed. Many lizards died. The new biome is drier, rivers are scarce, there are few trees, and the vast majority of fruits have become extinct. There are only insects. After many generations, what do you think the population of the Little Lizards will be like?
@@Sun-God2 In response to the drastic changes in their habitat, the population of small lizards is likely to undergo several adaptations over many generations. Here are some potential changes that could occur: Coloration: The green coloration of the lizards may become less advantageous in the drier environment with fewer trees and less foliage. Over time, natural selection may favor lizards with colorations that provide better camouflage in the new surroundings. This could include shades of brown or gray to blend in with the arid landscape. Body size and shape: The lizards may undergo changes in body size and shape to adapt to the altered availability of resources. With a scarcity of fruits as their main food source, smaller lizards may have an advantage due to reduced food requirements. Additionally, a more slender body shape might be advantageous for maneuvering in the drier environment with limited vegetation. Diet: Since fruits have become scarce and insects are the primary food source available, the lizards may undergo adaptations to better capture and consume insects. This could involve changes in jaw structure, tongue morphology, or the development of specialized hunting behaviors to effectively exploit the available insect resources. Locomotion: The lizards' agility and arboreal lifestyle may become less advantageous in the new biome with fewer trees. Over time, the population may adapt to a more terrestrial lifestyle, with modifications in limb structure and locomotion to navigate the drier, more open environment. Water conservation: With the scarcity of rivers and reduced humidity, water conservation mechanisms may become crucial for the lizards' survival. Over generations, the population may evolve physiological adaptations that allow them to absorb and retain water more efficiently. This could involve changes in kidney function, skin structure, or behavioral adaptations such as seeking shelter during the hottest parts of the day. Note that the process of adaptation and evolution is complex and can take a significant amount of time. The actual changes in the population of small lizards will depend on various factors, including genetic diversity, mutation rates, and the extent to which individuals with advantageous traits are favored by natural selection.
@@Skyfoogle Natural selection is NOT considered a scientific fact. The organic evolution of species is. Natural selection is still open to questioning as the sole or main driver in evolution. I doubt any other theory will ever supplant it, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact.
@@jtighe7090 natural selection is the mechanism by which genes that offer a slight survival advantage proliferate with greater frequency. this is directly observable in microbes. we simulate the same mechanism when we selectively breed plants and animals. natural selection is just when nature does this.
I'm guessing this video is no longer relevant to your explanation since you swap natural selection and evolution like they are one and the same. The perfect example is bacteria not being effective against a specific strain of an antibiotic. The bacteria mutated which is observable but the only thing that happened is that it mutated in a way to where the antibodies cannot attack the bacteria where it normally does. This always ends up with the bacteria losing information that will never be past down through its generations again (unless it can reproduce with a part of that family that still carries that information) The bacteria strain has not changed into a different type of bacteria or "superbug" it's the same. We could look at the flu virus and see all the different types of strains yet they will always remain in that category. You do know whales use their back "vestigial legs" to mate underwater. It's pretty simple if you watch it. Another thing about vestigial organs is basically saying if I don't know what it does at this moment it must be some left over trash. The same thing was done on DNA and it turns out all that junk DNA actually has a purpose. Going to homology is rather odd...because creatures have similar parts...thus evolution. Why reinvent the wheel? Then embryology is presented the same way...we all look the same in the beginning of life thus evolution. Also I'm seeing artists reconstructions of "links" but not the actual handful of bones actually found. You know exactly what I'm pointing too. How does anyone know the key to the past is the present? Nobody was there...so do we take someones opinion on it and move along? That's unscientific because you can't test the past only guess at what you think it was long ago. Throwing millions and billions of years at a situation doesn't solve any of these problems because these are incomprehensible amounts of time that do nothing but add far too many mutations making the organism riddled with problems that will probably end in extinction. Thank you for at least mentioning a flood and the genetic bottleneck. These bottlenecks actually increase the number of mutations (most of which are bad) causing major problems especially when the groups are closely related. Humans are perfect because we have so many races because of genetic drift and like you were saying (kind of) was the further one gets away from his race the safer one is from the mutations from his own race but it would only take a short amount of time before the human race is riddled with mutations to the point of no return. Just like all animals, humans are devolving. We are not getting better or evolving, we are falling apart. To say something like the coccyx bone is vestigial is completely inaccurate because there are ligaments, tendons and muscles attached to it for extra support. There is an argument that it is "left over from when we had tails". So you would have to believe we were monkeys and it's somehow left over. So you have to believe in evolution to believe in vestigial organs. Kind of like circular reasoning. You did an excellent job explaining natural selection minus the presuppositions you hold to. Yes I have them too. When it comes to most scientists (some who are closet creationist) they all bow a knee to the altar of evolution knowing how preposterous idea it truly is. If electron microscopes were around in Darwin's day the whole evolution idea would have been laughed off. When you have red blood cells and ligaments in dino bone you should realize that your timing method is way off. It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than in God...a lot more.
Wow, another religious asshat with no clue what they're talking about desperately trying to dismantle science without comprehending a single word of what is said or what they are saying. I won't bother deconstructing any of this gibberish because you won't understand my explanations. Learn biology before you try to overturn the entirety of biology.
Your word salad started out ok,but was wilty and mushy at the end,and the tomatoes rotten. 0/10 Your knee doesnt seem to be the only thing you need fixed. You must have not put alot of thought in your stance,and/ or have not read up much on what you're against.
@@johngavin1175 holy cow! This is old. Anyway, 🤣🤣. Most creative comment yet! So you get 10/10. But..."A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
@@ProfessorDaveExplains In the origin of species (I read it) Darwin did not provide "a mountain of evidence". It was a theory and (e.g.) the biochemistry knowledge in those days (1859) was almost zero. That a bacteria gets resistant to antibiotics is due to blind chance? Prove it. Where is the prove that bacteria have evolved (accent: evolved) to be able to metabolize recently man made materials, like nylon. All the comments like "on moment x on x million years ago animal y moved to land and its fins transformed into legs" have no scientific meaning, it is "filling in" an idea with logic. Just like the idea of "common ancestry" by comparing the shapes of "hands/feet/legs" of a dog, whale, human bird. It does not prove anything in a scientific way regarding evolution, just like the idea of comparing the foetes of a chick, human,hog, etc. There is no prove, it is an idea, a conception, for which "prove" is "searched" (compare "this" and "that" of creature x and y, they look the same, that "must" mean a similarity or a common ancester, the way Darwin looked in 1859). Quote: "...structures, which we now understand as remnants of the features of ancesters" on 3.07. Who is "we"? What means "understand". Darwin had the same "understanding" in 1859 without any scientific proof (read: the Origin of Species). No one knows the biochemistry of fossiles or how animal x changed into animal y, there is simply no scientific proof. It is "filling in" a "thought concept" that was invented in the past with quasi scientific conclusions, that can not be proved. Quote (5.19) "which must be the result of an alteration somewhere in the DNA sequence". OK, "must", but it does not explain anything regarding evolution and structural changes (including completely unknown biochemical mechanisms in prehistoric species) in the bodies of animals/species during time. I stop now (5.19 in the video), perhaps this will give you my thoughts about your video and why I call it "unscientific". When you want my comment of 5.19 to 14.27 of the video I will spend my time on that.
Alright, a lot to unpack here. First, you're throwing around this word "prove" a lot. That's not in the domain of science. Proofs are for mathematics and logic. Science never proves anything. We can simply gather enough evidence so as to show that something is consistent beyond reasonable doubt. To comment on the specific things you mentioned, antibiotic resistance is blind chance because genetic mutation is blind chance. I have a tutorial on that in my biochemistry series if you want to learn more about that. The proliferation of that resistance is what is not chance, that is natural selection. For the nylon thing, just google "nylon-eating bacteria", there's plenty to read, some of the results are weird religious pages but some of the first results are academic articles. As for homology, yes, that is evidence for evolution by natural selection. It is evidence because it is consistent with natural selection. That's what evidence is. Then you go on to complain about how Darwin didn't understand biochemistry, which is totally valid, but we do now. It's quite remarkable for people like Darwin and Mendel to have done the work they did prior to the field of biochemistry, only for us to realize how everything we have come to learn about the molecular world corroborates what they had proposed. I don't know what you mean by "unknown biochemical mechanisms in prehistoric species". I think the main issue may be a fundamental gap in your understanding of the molecular world, you may benefit from my tutorials in those subjects. But however you slice it, this video is not unscientific, it is a summary of a concept in biology. This is stuff pulled from textbooks. There is nothing controversial in here whatsoever. If you believe it is controversial, you must be bringing some personal baggage to the table.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Sorry, but "prove" only means that there must be well founded scientific explanations and reproducable results (reproducable cumbersome, in this case of evolution). And they are not available regarding the "change" in the species during time. There is no scientific knowledge about the biochemical reactions in prehistoric species, and why "creature" A lost/changed its physical/natural properties and changed into creature "B". There is no evidence, and the idea about changes in the genome cannot explain why certain species changed into new living beings, with a new biochemistry, new internal organs, etc. The idea of "no reasonable doubt" aims on "reasons", and they cannot be explained. Nylon eating bacteria: I have asked for a scientific prove that this bacterial "property" did not exist before men made nylon. Of course scientist are free to believe that modern science confirms the idea's of Darwin. By the way: Mendel is another case, Darwins idea's are conceptions, Mendel did scientific work in genetics. And Mendels work does not prove anything about evolution.
You do not understand what a proof is. Check out my mathematics tutorials for more information on that. Reproducible results do not constitute proof. It seems that you hold a number of very serious misconceptions about science and the scientific method, and I can't possibly dissect that in this comment box. To touch on your specifics, you want proof that nylon-digesting bacteria couldn't digest nylon before nylon was invented? Do you want to think about how ridiculous a question that is for a moment? As for Mendel and Darwin, both of them are cornerstones of biology, and none of it makes sense whatsoever without their contributions. Biology is nonsensical without evolution by natural selection as a backdrop. And Mendel's work set the stage for molecular biology, which also makes no sense outside of the context of evolution. They are both held as important historical figures for a reason, their work was revolutionary.
*A thread of frustration * -be me -casual talks with coworker -(he's doing his Phd in medicine) -me think GuyOfSience. png -relatable. gif -imagining many interesting conversations to come -stimulating big brain vibes -conversation becomes more scientific -creation vs evolution comes up -Big brain coworker "no evidence supporting evolution" -me speak about common ancestor fossil record in dem layers, also why whale have finger bones but not use -Big brain say no such thing common ancestors, just different animals, all animals here now has always been here from beginning of creation [monkey make more monkeys dog make more dog] "dog can't make non-dog" -me: where do dogs come from? -BigBrain. Phd : *silence* -me: ? -BigBrain. Phd : what does that have to do with anything? -me: *repeats Q* -BigBrain. Phd : dogs came from dogs -me: *BrainCramp. rar* -me: dogs~common ancestor=wolf -BigBrain. Phd : *laughing* -me: ? -BigBrain. Phd : if dogs came from wolves why are there still wolves today, why they no evolve to dog. me: *puts milk back in lunchroom fridge and return to office*
Yeah my friend is a little religious and believes God caused the Big Bang which I don’t about really as I’m Agnostic, but he refuses to believe evolution and only evolution is real as he states we haven’t witnessed evolution, even though we have multiple times.
Literally my $4000 college population genetics course rolled into a 14 minute video :') Good stuff!
it's something about the they lectures are set up. very detailed in a small amount of time
Well, $4k sounds like you got screwed in hind sight now.
My biodiversity course had this as a weeks material. No idea how much it cost though, it was apart of my University's honors program so I imagine it was a bit heftier in price.
In Germany thats all things you learn in school 😂😅
Side effects of medicine depend on this knowledge right
Here is my conclusion: (fix my mistakes if you want to!) thank you
Evidence for evolution:
1.homology: some features of animals look alike in shape, eg. bird's wings, and human's arm, embryo's first stage of lots of animals have a tail. structural similarity show some of us have the same ancestors.
2.Vestigial Structures: some parts of the body that are not that functional and are left there through evolution. they are left by our ancestors. eg. human's tail bone, wings of a bird that can't fly...
3. Molecular homology: different species' gene has similarity
4. Fossil record: show the ancestor of many animals so we can find similarities
5. Biogeography: by finding similar animals across continents, we find wide stripes that have the same species, the same kind of fossils than are predicted to be found over the same stripes.
Natural selection is not random compare to gene drift and gene flow, it has always been beneficial to a specie's fitness
Genetic drift means a random event kills a portion of a certain population, and the rest of individuals carry on with a different proportion of their genetic traits in their gene pool, this could also lead to a decrease in gene variety. Genetic drift also will show more effect in a smaller population.
Gene Flow means some individuals could move to the population, add up this population's genetic pool's variety.
Bottle Neck effect: Some bad disaster randomly happens and kills lots of individuals in a population, the survivors are kind of randomly selected and they compose the new gene pool.
Sexual dimorphism: explains why some male birds have colourful feathers, for having a better chance for mating, show that they are healthy, the dimorphism happened over time because the "uglier male birds" have less chance to pass their genes.
Intersexual selection: Males compete in a more peaceful way; they compare feather colours or singing voices or dance routines.
Intrasexual selection: male fight physically for female.
Natural selection's limitation: sometimes nature can build a new trait but in some way it could be not that beneficial, eg, human's eyes are not as good as some other wild animals. giraffe's neck...
This is the best video on this subject that I've ever found. It has more intricate information and explains every detail in complete layers.
Repent
@@ivin6415 repent deez nuts
@@chrisangel6833 repent bofa deez nuts
tgg
After graduation I still keep watching your informative and helpful videos, Professor Dave, because you explain everything in a simpler way to help me understand the materials. Well, learning these stuff in English is not easy for a non-speaking English person like me while studying in the USA.
This is the best channel I have come across on YT that deals with science! So damn easy and digestible. Professor Dave is a hero!
What did Darwin say about how life originated? Answer; Nothing.
What does professor Dave say about it? Answer; Less than nothing
I need to know more about how we evolved after leaving Africa. It fascinates me how we’ve evolved different skin colors, facial characteristics based on region, gained and lost genes along the way. I’m so curious and I don’t even know which questions I have to try to google it 😩 lol
I remember doing a recombinant class in the early 2000's to contribute a spinach gene to the database being created. I was ASTOUNDED to discover that the colony we picked to amplify didn't even have our gene, despite the antibiotic substrate for inserted gene. Just a random resistant colony.
Blew my mind!
i love how clear and succinct you are
you just summarized so much important information... thank you so much!
Thank you, I have a test tmmrw and I came in clutch
Everyone in the comments: This was very helpful. Thanks, dave!
Kent Hovind: I don't understand so it's wrong.
Arguments for god’s existence are deductive. This is inductive. I will take the deductive ofcourse.
@@seri0usxs673hovind sheep
@@seri0usxs673 kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
@@seri0usxs673 99% of all information you know is given to you by inductive or abductive arguments and reasoning. This requires you to reject essentially everything you think you know.
This is the first explanation and demonstration that I could truly understand. Thank you
I am convinced, the evolution of complex animals can occur much more rapidly.
Sometimes only hundreds of years will produce an intirely new species evolved to survive within a new environment.
very informative, educational and logical, really enjoyed this video, thanks!
Biology final is going to be tomorrow. I've known about your channel for years. Why didn't I think of using your videos earlier on in my studies? Great stuff
thank u so much dave dude u continue to save my sanity, grades and education. what a joke that students pay 1000s of dollar in tuition only to learn faster from such concise, visually appealing videos. i was crying and throwing up b/c i was so confused in class and now i finally get everything. thanks again!
Vey helpful for biology in highschool
This was all my biodiversity basics explained... thanks heaps
professor dave is like a teacher and the comments section is his rowdy classroom
he knows a lot about the science stuff professor Dave explains... lol my professor an agent of natural selection has made my brain adapted to your channel.... what an evolution....lol
The way I like to look at evolution as it simply builds upon existing features, is like if instead of getting an entirely new operating system for computers, you simply patch the very first and original one.
How do you know it keep patching ? What if it stops at certain point ?
@@am1089 Every "patch" in this analogy is a new mutation that becomes an adaptation to an organism's environment.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382
I said how do you know it won’t stop at a certain limit?
(Two possibilities: It is either stop at a certain point
Or it doesn’t stop at a certain point bacteria 🦠 has eventually become a scientist)
@@am1089 I could be wrong with my analogy, as I am definitely not an expert, but the patching has been going on since the dawn of life, and this process is still happening, albeit quite slowly. Will it stop one day? Not likely, barring the complete annihilation of life on Earth, and assuming we never figure out a way to make other planets or moons our new homes before the Earth gets obliterated by our sun as it swells into a red giant.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382
You don’t know. That’s the point. Patching can stop at a certain point. That’s a possibility. At least this is what we observe today.
5:27 "Natural selection guides this process [microevolution]" does that mean that changes in behavior can change genes or genes of offspring?
Changes in allele frequency can be due to behavior, but actual mutation in the genome happens on the molecular level, not organismal.
you are such a good professor! I needed a refresher and this helped so much
This was easy to understand
You should know that Ostriches use their wings as a Mating display and as a braking system when running.
But they lost the ability to fly
very well put and understandable
Thank goodness ... no background music.
Your explanation is awesome
Doesn’t sexual selection have a fitness factor as well? If a particular sexual selection does not equate to the quantity or fitness of the offspring it will eventually disappeare from the population or at the very least result in random drift.
Thanks for all the videos
Hello professor Dave, can you please do a video about hybrid vigor?
thank you for the information prof ☺️
Came here for the video, stayed to read Dave's replies to creationists!
amazing tutorial
i wanna smoke a blunt with professor dave
Great job, Professor Dave!
0:20 "There are holes in the evidence which has ..." I bet the creationists quit listening right here!!
Thank you soooo.... much. Video is excellent.
brilliant video - thank you.
Nice video ! But I think migrations that do not result in reproduction are not considered gene flows.
good breakdown prof!
Modern humans are actually considered "homo sapiens sapiens" we had a change recently, within the past few thousand years. I'm just not sure what that was. It's been awhile since my anthropology class. 😅
My favorite Subject
Thank you so much You are awesome !
Hey Dave, do we have transitional fossils from the first unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms?
That's a good question, I believe we do I just don't recall what they would be called. I mean technically any early unicellular organism qualifies, look up stromatolites, that may be relevant here.
Iirc some unicellular life forms will transition to multicellularity when under certain types of stress on their own without showing said transition
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Believe?
1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
I can show you similar evolution with cars but with real pictures.
Thank you for randomly defining a word and then referencing something that has no bearing on this video or comment thread.
@@rade6026 ?????
There is a population of Small Lizards that are Green, Agile and Arboreal. They live in a relatively humid tropical forest, with many lakes and fruit trees (the lizards' main source of food). However, due to a natural catastrophe, almost the entire biome of the region has changed. Many lizards died. The new biome is drier, rivers are scarce, there are few trees, and the vast majority of fruits have become extinct. There are only insects. After many generations, what do you think the population of the Little Lizards will be like?
I have a question.
How can we say one fossil is the ancestor of another fossil if we don't have their dna?
[The oldest dna we extracted from a fossil is 1.6 mill yr old mammoth which also had a lot of error- how can we bring ancestry in fossils that date back to more than 1.6 ma]
We don't necessarily know that any given species we discover is the direct ancestor of another; but we can use comparative morphology to determine that if it's not the direct ancestor, it is at least representative of what would have been (for example a close relative or at least within the same genus). It's worth noting that when this exact same method of comparative morphology is used to determine the relationship with extant organisms, DNA testing confirms those predictions almost universally (sometimes minor corrections are made, but almost every single time the predictions that we made from morphological examination turn out to be accurate).
If we discover an organism that exhibits characteristics that are basal to two closely related species, it gives us a good indication that this species is probably ancestral to both of them.
Homologous structures. You don’t need to extract the DNA of an archaeopteryx to know how similar it is to modern day birds.
Great video!
hey, it is really amazing! thank you very much for teaching the topic. Please, could you make more video about biology?
later this year i plan to do pathology, and anatomy and physiology, so there will be lots more in the biology realm!
Kevbo, this is basic, trivial, observable biology knowledge. Direct this anger towards the people who fed you the lies that are causing you to lash out in this infantile manner.
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsYo my dude, his comments are gone, what'd he say?
THE GOAT
lol thank you professor dave for saying "including humans" at 12:29 hahaha
So what role do genetics play in the evolution of populations?
The genes change.
genes change is this ana ctual question seriously?
They mutate
@@Edruezzi it’s looking slow for tht🤣😂😂 Ppreciate ur concerns tho
u are on the top sir
What do you make of studies of workers such as Scott J. Turner?
birds are not mammals BATS are mammals
That one illustration undermines the whole video
Um, what?
2.09 min. You said "humans and any other mammal, even whales and bats".
then you show a bird "arm" , along with the whale, dog and human...
I was going to use your vid to explain some evolution basics to a Creationist,
but mixing the bird in with the mammals (dog, whale, human) would give him ANOTHER excuse
to Not understand... I see where you got the diagram from, and I realize the limbs are of bats and birds are homologous. The comment was in frustration. Keep up the good work.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 maybe it's to do with warm bloodedness?
@@angycucumber4319 yes, "warm bloodedness" connects birds and mammals.
apparently that applies to dinosaurs and mammals also...
which connects back to avian dinosaurs (birds)
What?
When did he show that they are mammals?
Are you stupid?
thank you so much!
Amazing video! I love your tree of life😁🤣
Thank you✨🙏
Thank you for sharing your your amazing and fatastic videos for FREE! ✨✨🙏 Please make more advanced videos related to medical topics for medical students🙏
The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all modern Biology and is directly supported by a huge body of evidence from diverse sciences.
Creationists have nothing more than denial and bible verses.
Kent says nah ha.
Kent says a lot of things that don't make sense.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains agreed, this was the best (simple) explanation of a complex subject I’ve seen on UA-cam.
All you ladies, please select professor Dave is that we can have a smarter future.
thank you
Well presented video!
professor is at the top of the tree -_-
THANKS FOR EACHING THE TRUTH,BUT WHAT IS INTELLINGENCE WHICH IS SO MUCH MANAGING THE EQULIBRIUM?
The equilibrium manages itself due to the laws of physics
Sorry if I'm asking alot of questions Dave. But could explain a little how homosexuality can actually be beneficial overall to a species. I remember hearing reasoning for this, but I forget the exact nature of the reasoning.
Don't think anyone has proven how it is "beneficial". It's probably something that randomly arose & didn't get weeded out (keep in mind a Ton of reproduction in nature isn't fully consensual by both parties). Yet homosexuality has been observed in many mammal species. May be random mutations, may serve an altruistic component maybe, who knows..
@@Dman9fp Altruistic? How, exactly? (not being a smartass)
@@231mac I could only speculate maybe it has some kind of cooperative advantage. But without data to enforce it had a positive impact vs. all heterosexual population.. but idk maybe it is a random mutation that isn't selected for nor weeded out, who knows, not my main focal point of interest by any means
Homosexuality isn't beneficial, but it also isn't necessarily detrimental.
I'm a gay woman. I am probably never going to have biological children. However, I have a brother who isn't gay, and HE might have children. And there is nothing whatsoever that my being gay does to prevent me from assisting him and any family he has to survive. If we were living back in the hunter gatherer days as a family unit, I would still be able to be a functional member of the group. I would still be able to gather food, defend the homestead, help build a shelter, and do everything that would be required to help the family group survive.
As we are closely related, their genes are my genes. Therefore I am perpetuating my own inherited genes through familiar altruism, even if I do not have any children of my own.
So homosexuality may not confer any advantage. But it doesn't appear to offer any detriment, either (it's also worth noting that, despite being gay, I could still have children if I chose to. Being homosexual doesn't preclude that possibility).
Homosexuality isn’t that beneficial but it does obviously happen and usually gets selected out of the gene pool
Hey Dave, it seems like the picture used at 2:36 are Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, which were proven to be wrong and fraudulent later, due to the fact the embryos of vertebrates don't look that similar in real life. So, I would like to know if those drawings are credible in present era, and the fact that the vertebrate embryos not being homologous would affect the evolutionary theory in any way. I totally believe in evolution, but I'm afraid creationists would take advantage of these embryos not being similar and infer that evolution is false, like Kent Hovind already did in the debate long ago.
Those drawings aren't perfectly accurate, but embryos are indeed very homologous across species. You can look at actual images and see.
Haeckel's embryos were not fraudulent, just inaccurate. for pre-xray drawings, they were actually very impressive. only creationists believe that respected scientists try to push a fraudulent agenda.
Check out Baer's laws of embryology, which is the modern understanding. Haeckel was wrong, but he wasn't far off at all.
Have you thought of doing videos on outdated ideas based on evolution, like Lamarkism or Lysenkoism?
are you calling evolution outdated
Evolution is not outdated, try again please, thanks.
Lol I like how you tried to imply evolution is an outdated idea.
@@Mark-Wilson Yeah, I didn't mean it that way. I should have stated ideas based on evolution. Fixed
SO GOOD TY
?
Can someone explain where the insects and humans came from?? Like how did the organism form after the Big Bang?? And who is the common ancestor?? And how did the inorganic matter come about? And how did something without intelligent or a brain coincidentally have the sun & moon give us day and night?? In other words how did it produce order and life???
Please watch this biology playlist from the beginning, and then watch my astronomy playlist. You know so little about science that you don’t even realize you are asking questions that constitute entirely different fields of science.
After the big bang, About 400 Mil years later, stars started to form, after that bigger stars gave birth to baby stars with denser elements for life.
Basic life on earth started about 4.5 Bil years ago with Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes.
They took energy from the sun to develop into more complex lifeforms. I.E. humans and bugs.
The matter that makes up all things in existence is a part of us as well.
As for the moon an astorid crashed into Earth and made it.
She’s not responding, classic creationist.
"umm Dave.. This is a lie this is a strawman.. Dave.. Do you believe you evolved from a Protista? *Brings out spongebob prop with hammer* Dave. you. aren't just getting it! I'm going to whack some scientific knowledge into your skull! the latin word SCIRE meaning to know! Dave.. stop adhomining! Dave!! Do you believe you come from a STRAWBERRY? is that a part of SCIENCE?" - Demented Kent
Indeed helpful for grade 10
Harishnaa Celvinayagan is 1st in tamil
I hate to ask, but do you think this at all contradicts the concept of any creator? Does not have to be the biblical God, but the god of a deist?
I suppose the “many world interpretation” in Quantum mechanics *might* (if you squint enough) need a higher being to work, but it’s not a proof. Not in the slightest.
there is currently no observable or demonstrable evidence for any sort of deity
No all evidence points to there being no god but do to the nature of the concept of deities in that they can’t really be proven or disproven on a basic level there is still a chance. Personally tho I like to think there is not.
Abiogenesis contradicts evidence for that not evolution
This has nothing to do with a deity, if a god exists then it wont change the evidence for evolution.
What are professor dave's views about irreducible complexity?
It's a thousand times debunked horrendous creationist talking point.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains So parts of a complex biological system can evolve independently?
Yep. Every classic creationist example is bogus. Bacterial flagellum, etc. They just don't understand protein function.
@@AbrarManzoor yes dude irredcuble complexity is trash it was debunked years ago just search eye evolution if you really wanna learn something search instead of commenting ere it just shows you want ana argument that's it
Small nitpick, but I don't think sexual dimorphism is THAT obvious in humans, or at least not in the picture shown as an example at 11:58 . It's definitely there -- with those of the male sex generally being more muscular, 15% (ish) taller, having deeper voices and facial hair, and a smaller bust. But the rest is just societal bullshit, like girls wearing pink, having longer hair, and the cut of clothes to "accentuate" curves.
A guy who was short and grew his hair out and wore pink or dresses would probably look like a flat chested girl from a distance. Likewise, a girl who was tall, muscular, wore baggy clothing, and cut her hair short would look like a lot of guys. It's nothing as obvious as guys suddenly turning purple upon the onset of puberty or having their eyes spread far apart like a hammerhead or having anything as elaborate as peacock feathers growing from their body.
(Note: I'm not saying we have None. You could argue that a lion with its mane cut off wouldn't look like it had much sexual dimorphism, either, and males of our species DO have facial hair, more often than not. I just found it kinda weird having a cartoon picture of a guy in a blue shirt and a girl in a pink dress holding hands as evidence as such, when immediately before it, you had a species of bird where the bodies of the male and female were completely different colors. I think a picture of a man with a bunch of facial hair next to a woman would make more scientific sense than just relying on societal cues -- some of which aren't even necessary the same across all cultures.)
there are many, many more sexually dimorphic traits than that
Sexual dimorphism is higher in primates than on average
I have one question I thought about this awhile back and I cant explain it I'm hoping you can for me how could a fish somehow sprout lungs and not only that but how come that fish doesn't suffocate because it doesn't know how to breath when its hatched. There are a lot of things similar to that example that just confuses the heck out of me
Well this one is easy. There are amphibians even today. The process of transitioning from water dependent species to land dependent species was very gradual, and there are even extant species alive today who are descended from those transitionary species.
its very gradual also they didn't pop lungs gills evolved into lungs slowly thee longer a species was able to survive outside the water the more evolution favoured those with this rait also amphibians are an itnermediary step
Ever hear of the mudpuppy?
"sprout lungs"
Repurposed _swim bladders._
Can someone tell me four facts because my teacher forced me to do this shi....
lmao same like wtf is dhisss lmaoo ain got no time foe dis shit lmao im supposed to be playin ps4 lmfaoo
@@llchrisll5853 fax
@@llchrisll5853 learn the whole vid bruh also learning is important idiot you will fall on the streets if you don't learn anything
get a life if you want tos tay in a house after yo're ana dult then you will need a job tog et a job learn something dumb fuck
@@llchrisll5853 why do you talk like you have a massive stick up ur ass
3:42 LOL
Damn, nature. You weird.
Sweet! Let's take these masks off and do a natural selection experiment! 😃
Your last name describes you pretty well.
12:26 Including humans lmao
He's not lying though?
You need a new intro soooo badly!
Just don't forget who made all of us and the world. Our loving father. Always hoping for us for the best.
My dad is not your dad and he didn't make anything.
As there is no evidence for your "loving father", there is no good reason to believe in such.
@@walkergaryaThere is a population of Small Lizards that are Green, Agile and Arboreal. They live in a relatively humid tropical forest, with many lakes and fruit trees (the lizards' main source of food). However, due to a natural catastrophe, almost the entire biome of the region has changed. Many lizards died. The new biome is drier, rivers are scarce, there are few trees, and the vast majority of fruits have become extinct. There are only insects. After many generations, what do you think the population of the Little Lizards will be like?
@@Sun-God2 In response to the drastic changes in their habitat, the population of small lizards is likely to undergo several adaptations over many generations. Here are some potential changes that could occur:
Coloration: The green coloration of the lizards may become less advantageous in the drier environment with fewer trees and less foliage. Over time, natural selection may favor lizards with colorations that provide better camouflage in the new surroundings. This could include shades of brown or gray to blend in with the arid landscape.
Body size and shape: The lizards may undergo changes in body size and shape to adapt to the altered availability of resources. With a scarcity of fruits as their main food source, smaller lizards may have an advantage due to reduced food requirements. Additionally, a more slender body shape might be advantageous for maneuvering in the drier environment with limited vegetation.
Diet: Since fruits have become scarce and insects are the primary food source available, the lizards may undergo adaptations to better capture and consume insects. This could involve changes in jaw structure, tongue morphology, or the development of specialized hunting behaviors to effectively exploit the available insect resources.
Locomotion: The lizards' agility and arboreal lifestyle may become less advantageous in the new biome with fewer trees. Over time, the population may adapt to a more terrestrial lifestyle, with modifications in limb structure and locomotion to navigate the drier, more open environment.
Water conservation: With the scarcity of rivers and reduced humidity, water conservation mechanisms may become crucial for the lizards' survival. Over generations, the population may evolve physiological adaptations that allow them to absorb and retain water more efficiently. This could involve changes in kidney function, skin structure, or behavioral adaptations such as seeking shelter during the hottest parts of the day.
Note that the process of adaptation and evolution is complex and can take a significant amount of time. The actual changes in the population of small lizards will depend on various factors, including genetic diversity, mutation rates, and the extent to which individuals with advantageous traits are favored by natural selection.
@@luish1498 this screams chatgpt
“Evolutionism is just a theory”
Natural selection is a theory.
The organic evolution of species is a scientific fact.
Calling it evolutionism is already proof of your ignorance
@@jtighe7090 natural selection is as much a fact as the sky being blue.
@@Skyfoogle Natural selection is NOT considered a scientific fact. The organic evolution of species is. Natural selection is still open to questioning as the sole or main driver in evolution. I doubt any other theory will ever supplant it, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact.
@@jtighe7090 natural selection is the mechanism by which genes that offer a slight survival advantage proliferate with greater frequency. this is directly observable in microbes.
we simulate the same mechanism when we selectively breed plants and animals. natural selection is just when nature does this.
that intro earned a dislike
you must be a horrible joyless person!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Savage!
@@edwardwoods2991 yeah, hes not like other youtubers he is very brash and I like that about him
That intro is dope
what is wrong with you
I'm guessing this video is no longer relevant to your explanation since you swap natural selection and evolution like they are one and the same. The perfect example is bacteria not being effective against a specific strain of an antibiotic. The bacteria mutated which is observable but the only thing that happened is that it mutated in a way to where the antibodies cannot attack the bacteria where it normally does. This always ends up with the bacteria losing information that will never be past down through its generations again (unless it can reproduce with a part of that family that still carries that information) The bacteria strain has not changed into a different type of bacteria or "superbug" it's the same. We could look at the flu virus and see all the different types of strains yet they will always remain in that category. You do know whales use their back "vestigial legs" to mate underwater. It's pretty simple if you watch it. Another thing about vestigial organs is basically saying if I don't know what it does at this moment it must be some left over trash. The same thing was done on DNA and it turns out all that junk DNA actually has a purpose. Going to homology is rather odd...because creatures have similar parts...thus evolution. Why reinvent the wheel? Then embryology is presented the same way...we all look the same in the beginning of life thus evolution. Also I'm seeing artists reconstructions of "links" but not the actual handful of bones actually found. You know exactly what I'm pointing too. How does anyone know the key to the past is the present? Nobody was there...so do we take someones opinion on it and move along? That's unscientific because you can't test the past only guess at what you think it was long ago. Throwing millions and billions of years at a situation doesn't solve any of these problems because these are incomprehensible amounts of time that do nothing but add far too many mutations making the organism riddled with problems that will probably end in extinction. Thank you for at least mentioning a flood and the genetic bottleneck. These bottlenecks actually increase the number of mutations (most of which are bad) causing major problems especially when the groups are closely related. Humans are perfect because we have so many races because of genetic drift and like you were saying (kind of) was the further one gets away from his race the safer one is from the mutations from his own race but it would only take a short amount of time before the human race is riddled with mutations to the point of no return. Just like all animals, humans are devolving. We are not getting better or evolving, we are falling apart. To say something like the coccyx bone is vestigial is completely inaccurate because there are ligaments, tendons and muscles attached to it for extra support. There is an argument that it is "left over from when we had tails". So you would have to believe we were monkeys and it's somehow left over. So you have to believe in evolution to believe in vestigial organs. Kind of like circular reasoning. You did an excellent job explaining natural selection minus the presuppositions you hold to. Yes I have them too. When it comes to most scientists (some who are closet creationist) they all bow a knee to the altar of evolution knowing how preposterous idea it truly is. If electron microscopes were around in Darwin's day the whole evolution idea would have been laughed off. When you have red blood cells and ligaments in dino bone you should realize that your timing method is way off. It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than in God...a lot more.
Wow, another religious asshat with no clue what they're talking about desperately trying to dismantle science without comprehending a single word of what is said or what they are saying. I won't bother deconstructing any of this gibberish because you won't understand my explanations. Learn biology before you try to overturn the entirety of biology.
You must be Kent Hovind's minion 😂
Your word salad started out ok,but was wilty and mushy at the end,and the tomatoes rotten. 0/10
Your knee doesnt seem to be the only thing you need fixed. You must have not put alot of thought in your stance,and/ or have not read up much on what you're against.
@@DrAdityaReddy Boy if Hovind starts having more minions,its gonna be terrible.
@@johngavin1175 holy cow! This is old. Anyway, 🤣🤣. Most creative comment yet! So you get 10/10. But..."A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
Stuck in the tree of life like an ape....................a thing of the past for those who leave their belief behind an see and question the facts.
You might want to work on writing in coherent sentences before you try to dismantle the entirety of modern biology. Just a thought.
Based on your profile picture you’re still waiting for your chromosome fusion…
A very unscientific video, sorry.
Care to elaborate on that?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains In the origin of species (I read it) Darwin did not provide "a mountain of evidence". It was a theory and (e.g.) the biochemistry knowledge in those days (1859) was almost zero. That a bacteria gets resistant to antibiotics is due to blind chance? Prove it. Where is the prove that bacteria have evolved (accent: evolved) to be able to metabolize recently man made materials, like nylon. All the comments like "on moment x on x million years ago animal y moved to land and its fins transformed into legs" have no scientific meaning, it is "filling in" an idea with logic. Just like the idea of "common ancestry" by comparing the shapes of "hands/feet/legs" of a dog, whale, human bird. It does not prove anything in a scientific way regarding evolution, just like the idea of comparing the foetes of a chick, human,hog, etc. There is no prove, it is an idea, a conception, for which "prove" is "searched" (compare "this" and "that" of creature x and y, they look the same, that "must" mean a similarity or a common ancester, the way Darwin looked in 1859). Quote: "...structures, which we now understand as remnants of the features of ancesters" on 3.07. Who is "we"? What means "understand". Darwin had the same "understanding" in 1859 without any scientific proof (read: the Origin of Species). No one knows the biochemistry of fossiles or how animal x changed into animal y, there is simply no scientific proof. It is "filling in" a "thought concept" that was invented in the past with quasi scientific conclusions, that can not be proved. Quote (5.19) "which must be the result of an alteration somewhere in the DNA sequence". OK, "must", but it does not explain anything regarding evolution and structural changes (including completely unknown biochemical mechanisms in prehistoric species) in the bodies of animals/species during time. I stop now (5.19 in the video), perhaps this will give you my thoughts about your video and why I call it "unscientific". When you want my comment of 5.19 to 14.27 of the video I will spend my time on that.
Alright, a lot to unpack here. First, you're throwing around this word "prove" a lot. That's not in the domain of science. Proofs are for mathematics and logic. Science never proves anything. We can simply gather enough evidence so as to show that something is consistent beyond reasonable doubt. To comment on the specific things you mentioned, antibiotic resistance is blind chance because genetic mutation is blind chance. I have a tutorial on that in my biochemistry series if you want to learn more about that. The proliferation of that resistance is what is not chance, that is natural selection. For the nylon thing, just google "nylon-eating bacteria", there's plenty to read, some of the results are weird religious pages but some of the first results are academic articles. As for homology, yes, that is evidence for evolution by natural selection. It is evidence because it is consistent with natural selection. That's what evidence is. Then you go on to complain about how Darwin didn't understand biochemistry, which is totally valid, but we do now. It's quite remarkable for people like Darwin and Mendel to have done the work they did prior to the field of biochemistry, only for us to realize how everything we have come to learn about the molecular world corroborates what they had proposed. I don't know what you mean by "unknown biochemical mechanisms in prehistoric species". I think the main issue may be a fundamental gap in your understanding of the molecular world, you may benefit from my tutorials in those subjects. But however you slice it, this video is not unscientific, it is a summary of a concept in biology. This is stuff pulled from textbooks. There is nothing controversial in here whatsoever. If you believe it is controversial, you must be bringing some personal baggage to the table.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Sorry, but
"prove" only means that there must be well founded scientific explanations and reproducable results (reproducable cumbersome, in this case of evolution). And they are not available regarding the "change" in the species during time. There is no scientific knowledge about the biochemical reactions in prehistoric species, and why "creature" A lost/changed its physical/natural properties and changed into creature "B". There is no evidence, and the idea about changes in the genome cannot explain why certain species changed into new living beings, with a new biochemistry, new internal organs, etc. The idea of "no reasonable doubt" aims on "reasons", and they cannot be explained. Nylon eating bacteria: I have asked for a scientific prove that this bacterial "property" did not exist before men made nylon. Of course scientist are free to believe that modern science confirms the idea's of Darwin. By the way: Mendel is another case, Darwins idea's are conceptions, Mendel did scientific work in genetics. And Mendels work does not prove anything about evolution.
You do not understand what a proof is. Check out my mathematics tutorials for more information on that. Reproducible results do not constitute proof. It seems that you hold a number of very serious misconceptions about science and the scientific method, and I can't possibly dissect that in this comment box. To touch on your specifics, you want proof that nylon-digesting bacteria couldn't digest nylon before nylon was invented? Do you want to think about how ridiculous a question that is for a moment? As for Mendel and Darwin, both of them are cornerstones of biology, and none of it makes sense whatsoever without their contributions. Biology is nonsensical without evolution by natural selection as a backdrop. And Mendel's work set the stage for molecular biology, which also makes no sense outside of the context of evolution. They are both held as important historical figures for a reason, their work was revolutionary.
*A thread of frustration *
-be me
-casual talks with coworker
-(he's doing his Phd in medicine)
-me think GuyOfSience. png
-relatable. gif
-imagining many interesting conversations to come
-stimulating big brain vibes
-conversation becomes more scientific
-creation vs evolution comes up
-Big brain coworker "no evidence supporting evolution"
-me speak about common ancestor fossil record in dem layers, also why whale have finger bones but not use
-Big brain say no such thing common ancestors, just different animals, all animals here now has always been here from beginning of creation [monkey make more monkeys dog make more dog] "dog can't make non-dog"
-me: where do dogs come from?
-BigBrain. Phd : *silence*
-me: ?
-BigBrain. Phd : what does that have to do with anything?
-me: *repeats Q*
-BigBrain. Phd : dogs came from dogs
-me: *BrainCramp. rar*
-me: dogs~common ancestor=wolf
-BigBrain. Phd : *laughing*
-me: ?
-BigBrain. Phd : if dogs came from wolves why are there still wolves today, why they no evolve to dog.
me: *puts milk back in lunchroom fridge and return to office*
Yeah my friend is a little religious and believes God caused the Big Bang which I don’t about really as I’m Agnostic, but he refuses to believe evolution and only evolution is real as he states we haven’t witnessed evolution, even though we have multiple times.
This is scientific racism ! This topic needs to be had behind closed doors... if it's even true !
Um, what?