@@allykat5899 A fairly prolific young earth creationist who thinks he's smarter than everyone else but doesn't even have a third grade understanding of evolution. Dave has done a number of videos on him, you can probably find them.
I love how simple and informative your videos are but I feel like you could make it more interesting The rate of information flow is great, but I feel like the monotone voice forces me to zone out after a minute Showing some more passion and including small tangents to explore the subject in a way that keeps us interested and learning would vastly increase your watch time. I feel like the globebusters debunk video had a good balance in staying interesting while also sticking to the topic maybe thats a good place to start
This is curriculum aligned material explaining specific learning objectives. That's what my channel is for. I don't regularly debunk things. That's entertainment. I'm not interested in tangents, I'm interested in conveying the information students need as effectively and efficiently as possible.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I wasn't saying you should debunk things more often or sacrifice efficiency. What I was saying is that the less formal, speaking to the viewer style attracts more attention. You dont have to get rid of scripts or anything of that nature, just appearing more natural is what I meant I'm not trying to be overly critical because I do like your content, I just think it could be made more interesting if for example you had natural speaking intonation and conveyed passion. Again, I do like your content, just sounds like you're bored in a lot of these
Like owen, I gained an honouroirriarauea Q4 in supertabulisticotronics not at flavard but at gonebridge oniwurshitry and won a yesdingadoolong prize for my work with diniatastialistica from the planet yewabubblybonkalona.
Hey professor, have to say when I saw the strange words in the title i immediately thought you had specadonkadoodlisticosis due to streashamantaphobaloma. But then I watched it and realized you weren't just makylakyhummerdistica them up. 👍
Hello! Parapatric speciation occurs when a sub-population enters a new, adjacent niche. While gene flow can still occur between the populations across the niches, this is gradually dec over time as each population prefers to reproduce within themselves. Hence, the sub-population can specialise and form a novel species, with unique adaptations. Meanwhile, sympatric speciation occurs due to genetic polymorphism, where a sub-population, which still lives in close proximity with the original population, evolves a novel characteristic or behavioural adaptation, such as a switch from laying eggs to giving birth or an alteration in food preferences. Thus, despite such close proximity between the populations, gene flow will be extremely limited as the populations will prefers reproducing within themselves.
I'm here because a creationist asked me a question today which I don't know the answer to: Shouldn't domesticated dogs be a different species than wolves by now? For ~16.000 years they've been isolated from wolves and heavily selected. Speciation still hasn't occurred. Does or doesn't the model predict that it should have?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks a lot for replying! But: Not according to the biological species concept, though? Dogs and wolves can still interbreed. Many sources maintain they're the same species for exactly that reason. So I rephrase my question for clarity: Does or doesn't the model predict, that dogs are likely to still be able to interbreed with wolves after ~16,000 years of isolation and selection? How well do we know how much time and what kind of selection pressure is needed until this kind of speciation is complete?
@@DaishiaFreeman omg I totally forgot about this lol. I'll try and find my marks. But in case I forget to do that, I'll give u an update lol. If you're not Australian, this might mean nothing to you, but I ended up with a 73 I think ATAR, and I got into the uni and double degree I wanted!
Interesting leap of faith at the end where speciation within a kind is somehow a precursor to macro evolution from one kind to another kind! Where is the evidence for that? There is none!
“Speciation within a kind” doesn’t mean anything. “Kind” doesn’t mean anything. Stop looking for reasons to deny science and just learn science, sweetie.
As always, you have a gift for both breaking down complex concepts in to bite sized segments, as well as re-igniting a nascent interest in the sciences.
Isn't the definition of species a little fuzzy sometimes though? I mean, polar bears and grizzly bears are seperate species, but can and do produce fertile offspring. And some are another half-step away, like lion/tiger hybrids. Female ligers are fertile, while male ligers are sterile. There are numerous other feline hybrids which produce fertile offspring in both sexes as well, such as lion/leopard and housecat/serval and housecat/caracal mixes as well. And, of course, we can't forget about humans and Neanderthals. We could also talk about plants where the lines get even more blurred. Anyway, I really did enjoy this video and it explains speciation quite succinctly. This comment isn't meant as critisicm of your video, I just find the topic fascinating. Biology is a beautiful mess, really.
Yes the deffinition of species is somethime fuzzy and can lead to confusion sometimes. I wonder, if we could add, something like genom similarity index, to see exactly, how similiar are two spiecies. In theory it should be possible, from practical point I have no idea, how much effort would take maping all genomes.
Don't forget that a bunch of the "I !@#&ing LOVE Science!" crowd will acknowledge speciation of dogs, birds, cats, and every other living creature but will deny human speciation and claim races and true natural diversity don't really exist.
@@leon_De_Grelle Shhh! Human evolution stopped at the brain. Didn't you know that? There are no innate differences in cognitive ability between human populations. That would be racist.
President Starscream Anything to do with science and reality gets their underwear in a knot. Their ideal utopia has everybody dead, therefore signs and fantasies are the sources for euphoria.
Fascinating! Admittedly, I'm fairly ignorant on biology, but this all made sense. It's frustrating that there's really not enough time in a human lifespan, to become learned in all the fun STEM fields. Biology and microbiology are incredibly fascinating to me in the later half of my life. It somewhat makes me question my decision to limit my focus to a very specialized area in high energy physics.
I have a stupid question, is there any species that can almost interbreed but have birth defects or other problems? Or is it an all or nothing kind of thing?
It’s not a stupid question. The definition of species that Dave is using is a good general rule but there are exceptions. Some species can interbreed with each other and have hybrid offspring eg: lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys. Often the offspring are infertile and therefore “not viable” but not always. There can also be exceptions the other way, eg: domestic dogs are all the same species but not every breed of dog could interbreed with each other at least not without artificial insemination. There are many different definitions of species, none of which 100% of scientists agree on. All evolution exists on a gradient and the concept of species is just where humans have decided to draw a line. So probably any definition of it is going to have some exceptions to the rule. (Please don’t feel dumb).
I’m a little late with this comment but here goes : I enjoyed your videos before you spanked the flat earther’s bottoms, but they are truly works of UA-cam art. You are a pretty darn good teacher with an easy to understand style. I am pretty old ( 68 ) yet concepts I had difficulty with in my younger years seem easily grasped with your presentations. Keep up the good work young man !- Rich
I'm not an expert in biology but I have a strong interest in understanding all the disciples of science including biology and this video definitely helps me understand the concepts behind evolution. Thanks man for another informational video.
@@keegan6388 “The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background.” Medline government website on their genetics page and a whole lot of science websites from 2014-2021
@@keegan6388 I’m not sorry but if you’re going to use the concept of species and types, you can walk out. It’s not a scientific theory but a scientific concept. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory.
Hey Dave! I hope you read this. I have a couple of little known proofs to use against that Hovid guy. 1- he thinks the layers you see in a earth sample are organised by density and can't explain why they form in the first place. Basic reason: the earth continually SPINS, picking up space dust. Can't remember what the rate was, but I think it was something like 'earth gains 1mm of soil every 500 years . Also, the Earth is SPINNING fast enough that the space dust essentially acts like sandpaper and smoothes the earth into a spheroid...go figure 2. Evolution is physically observed. Not sure who to credit for this sweet research! Not only can you observe evolution, you can observe rapid evolution as well. There was a study done with wolves. All the wolves are paired into groups of 2 according to traits they have in common. Selective breeding the wolves that have more desirable traits is the start of evolution. Not only that, but they successfully proved and observed evolution. Because wolves evolved so fast that it only took like 10 generations to domesticate. This all took place within like 4-6 years
Fantastic video as always. It's hilarious that most evolution deniers (such as AIG) accept speciation, but deny that it's literally the epitome of evolution.
I'm trying to think how a ring species, such as the ensantina, would fit into this categorisation of speciation. It's both a binary speciation and a gradation, allo and sympatric. Anyone have any thoughts?
@Tommy S Yeah, I'm minded to agree. Classifications are useful but ultimately arbitrary, nature is always going to send is a few examples which don't fit neatly into our pigeon holes. Or in this case, fit into multiple categories simultaneously.
"Professor Dave again, let's make some new species..."
Dude, I like your channel and you seem like a cool guy, but I'm married.
Hahahahahahahahhahaha!!!! Best comment of the day!!
😂😂😂😂
lmao i knew it when i heard that i quickly went to the comments
Hey Professor Dave! Would you consider doing a series on critical thinking? Also research methodologies?
Thank you so much Professor Dave! All of your videos have been so effective! Keep up the amazing work!
I should have watched this long ago! This explanation is so concrete! Thank you, Prof. Dave!
I don't think Kent Hovind is prepared for this. Great video!
Who is Kent Hovind?
@@allykat5899 A fairly prolific young earth creationist who thinks he's smarter than everyone else but doesn't even have a third grade understanding of evolution.
Dave has done a number of videos on him, you can probably find them.
man, I was literally watching another video wondering what the types were, and youtube brings me back to you. good job and thanks.
Professor David ur videos are really helpful
I’m here before the creationists are
“It’s free real estate”
Muh "kinds"
Evolution is utterly amazing and awe inspiring.
yeah
I love how simple and informative your videos are but I feel like you could make it more interesting
The rate of information flow is great, but I feel like the monotone voice forces me to zone out after a minute
Showing some more passion and including small tangents to explore the subject in a way that keeps us interested and learning would vastly increase your watch time.
I feel like the globebusters debunk video had a good balance in staying interesting while also sticking to the topic maybe thats a good place to start
This is curriculum aligned material explaining specific learning objectives. That's what my channel is for. I don't regularly debunk things. That's entertainment. I'm not interested in tangents, I'm interested in conveying the information students need as effectively and efficiently as possible.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
I wasn't saying you should debunk things more often or sacrifice efficiency.
What I was saying is that the less formal, speaking to the viewer style attracts more attention. You dont have to get rid of scripts or anything of that nature, just appearing more natural is what I meant
I'm not trying to be overly critical because I do like your content, I just think it could be made more interesting if for example you had natural speaking intonation and conveyed passion.
Again, I do like your content, just sounds like you're bored in a lot of these
this was super helpful, thank you so much!! you just saved my anthro essay
How'd the rest of your class go?
Read the title and thought, “great. Prof Dave is just making up words...”. 🤣😂.
I actually majored in smorgolactic studies at Flarvard.
Like owen, I gained an honouroirriarauea Q4 in supertabulisticotronics not at flavard but at gonebridge oniwurshitry and won a yesdingadoolong prize for my work with diniatastialistica from the planet yewabubblybonkalona.
That must be (part of) why Kent is never prepared. He thinks Dave makes it all up, so doesn't bother trying to prepare.
I bet Mr. Hovind wasn't prepared for that! 🤣🤣👍
Thanks for this. I think it helped me discover something very interesting.
Thanks, Professor Dave! Your tutorials are always very speciatio...err, special! Keep cranking out the content!
You showed a seed getting blown away on an island as an example of potential allopatric speciation, but isn't that rather peripatric speciation?
The video helped a lot thanks. You are the best Professor ever! :)
Why would habitat isolation not be considered allopatric?
The Thumbnail looks the fishes were converted to shia and Sunni Muslim
that makes absolutely no sense
Hey professor, have to say when I saw the strange words in the title i immediately thought you had specadonkadoodlisticosis due to streashamantaphobaloma. But then I watched it and realized you weren't just makylakyhummerdistica them up. 👍
which speciation is the rarest? Sympatric or parapatric???
great explanation thank you!!!
Nice hair cut professor.
Thx for the explanation
what is the difference between sympatric and parapatric help
Hello! Parapatric speciation occurs when a sub-population enters a new, adjacent niche. While gene flow can still occur between the populations across the niches, this is gradually dec over time as each population prefers to reproduce within themselves. Hence, the sub-population can specialise and form a novel species, with unique adaptations.
Meanwhile, sympatric speciation occurs due to genetic polymorphism, where a sub-population, which still lives in close proximity with the original population, evolves a novel characteristic or behavioural adaptation, such as a switch from laying eggs to giving birth or an alteration in food preferences. Thus, despite such close proximity between the populations, gene flow will be extremely limited as the populations will prefers reproducing within themselves.
thank u professor ....
if gene flow has to exist for it to be a species, does that mean bacteria really aren't species?
There is gene flow amongst bacteria, actually quite a bit more than in animals because they can enact horizontal gene transfer.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains ok, cool. didn't know about that before.
thanks so much for helping!1!
How did he just condense 3 of my prof's lectures into 7 minutes
اريد باقي المحاضرات مترجمة اذا ممكن
From india,
Dunning-Kruger types are a different species.
low sound bro
Sir plz do live chat...
I'm here because a creationist asked me a question today which I don't know the answer to:
Shouldn't domesticated dogs be a different species than wolves by now? For ~16.000 years they've been isolated from wolves and heavily selected. Speciation still hasn't occurred. Does or doesn't the model predict that it should have?
They are a different species. Canis familiaris. You can even make the argument that many dog breeds are no longer the same species as each other.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Thanks a lot for replying!
But: Not according to the biological species concept, though? Dogs and wolves can still interbreed. Many sources maintain they're the same species for exactly that reason.
So I rephrase my question for clarity: Does or doesn't the model predict, that dogs are likely to still be able to interbreed with wolves after ~16,000 years of isolation and selection?
How well do we know how much time and what kind of selection pressure is needed until this kind of speciation is complete?
The interbreeding criterion is not a failsafe. Plenty of instances where different species can breed. In the end these taxa are arbitrary.
*Kent Hovind left the chat*
ok so they are all influenced by prezygotic isolating mechanisms
Watching this the day before my final bio exam
How did you do ?
@@DaishiaFreeman omg I totally forgot about this lol. I'll try and find my marks. But in case I forget to do that, I'll give u an update lol.
If you're not Australian, this might mean nothing to you, but I ended up with a 73 I think ATAR, and I got into the uni and double degree I wanted!
@@DaishiaFreeman also, ironically, my bio teachers surname was Freeman 😂
@@DaishiaFreeman I just found it, I got a 38/50 which is not bad lol
This video was speciatiawesome! 👍
nice
I love you!
You said speciation takes 1000+ years. Speciation can be instant for some plant species
You forgot to include "Kind". Duh.
I hope that kent hovind comments some laughable BS on this video
Science = Its like you have a Imaginary friend, You can't see him but you know he's there!!!!
you can definitely see "science" at work
Interesting leap of faith at the end where speciation within a kind is somehow a precursor to macro evolution from one kind to another kind! Where is the evidence for that? There is none!
“Speciation within a kind” doesn’t mean anything. “Kind” doesn’t mean anything. Stop looking for reasons to deny science and just learn science, sweetie.
Another religious peddler who doesn't know what they're talkiong about. ^_^
@@ProfessorDaveExplainshey Professor, Is Parapatric Speciation ocurring in Humans?
Any one of u from INDIA 🙄🥳💖
no
all countries are good
Triggered creationists in 3...2....1....
😀
Am I first?
Yes
Mules are fertile not sterile
You look like you have no emotion when you just look at us and say stuff
It's just information. I hate when presenters manufacture absurd levels of enthusiasm and gesticulate unnecessarily.
Professor Dave Explains okay Professor
bwnis
I bet ya the creationist have a pet, of some sort, that's intermingled with other species. If so then they're defeating their own purpose. 🤯
Creationists are gonna hate this video.
As always, you have a gift for both breaking down complex concepts in to bite sized segments, as well as re-igniting a nascent interest in the sciences.
Isn't the definition of species a little fuzzy sometimes though? I mean, polar bears and grizzly bears are seperate species, but can and do produce fertile offspring. And some are another half-step away, like lion/tiger hybrids. Female ligers are fertile, while male ligers are sterile. There are numerous other feline hybrids which produce fertile offspring in both sexes as well, such as lion/leopard and housecat/serval and housecat/caracal mixes as well. And, of course, we can't forget about humans and Neanderthals. We could also talk about plants where the lines get even more blurred.
Anyway, I really did enjoy this video and it explains speciation quite succinctly. This comment isn't meant as critisicm of your video, I just find the topic fascinating. Biology is a beautiful mess, really.
@@Jtzkb Which is pretty shitty from its part, I mean, we are really trying it could help just a bit
Yes the deffinition of species is somethime fuzzy and can lead to confusion sometimes. I wonder, if we could add, something like genom similarity index, to see exactly, how similiar are two spiecies. In theory it should be possible, from practical point I have no idea, how much effort would take maping all genomes.
@@Jtzkb It also doesn't apply to extinct species because we can't breed them, nor ring species.
Uh oh, now the creationists are gonna get angry like the flerfers did.
Don't forget that a bunch of the "I !@#&ing LOVE Science!" crowd will acknowledge speciation of dogs, birds, cats, and every other living creature but will deny human speciation and claim races and true natural diversity don't really exist.
@@leon_De_Grelle Shhh! Human evolution stopped at the brain. Didn't you know that? There are no innate differences in cognitive ability between human populations. That would be racist.
President Starscream
Anything to do with science and reality gets their underwear in a knot. Their ideal utopia has everybody dead, therefore signs and fantasies are the sources for euphoria.
Fascinating! Admittedly, I'm fairly ignorant on biology, but this all made sense. It's frustrating that there's really not enough time in a human lifespan, to become learned in all the fun STEM fields. Biology and microbiology are incredibly fascinating to me in the later half of my life. It somewhat makes me question my decision to limit my focus to a very specialized area in high energy physics.
How's your work in high energy physics going?
Tell this to Kent Hovind...lol
Bill Nye for college students. Thank you, Professor
Hiii today am the first viewer
I have a stupid question, is there any species that can almost interbreed but have birth defects or other problems? Or is it an all or nothing kind of thing?
every species can interbreed but have birth defects or other problems, sexual reproduction with immediate genetic family causes problems
@@keegan6388 I actually meant breed with other species, I should have worded it better
@@95TurboSol species cannot breed with other species, the inability to breed with others outside their genetic group is what defines a species
@@keegan6388 Oh yeah I guess that's true, I kinda feel dumb now
It’s not a stupid question. The definition of species that Dave is using is a good general rule but there are exceptions. Some species can interbreed with each other and have hybrid offspring eg: lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys. Often the offspring are infertile and therefore “not viable” but not always. There can also be exceptions the other way, eg: domestic dogs are all the same species but not every breed of dog could interbreed with each other at least not without artificial insemination. There are many different definitions of species, none of which 100% of scientists agree on. All evolution exists on a gradient and the concept of species is just where humans have decided to draw a line. So probably any definition of it is going to have some exceptions to the rule. (Please don’t feel dumb).
I’m a little late with this comment but here goes : I enjoyed your videos before you spanked the flat earther’s bottoms, but they are truly works of UA-cam art. You are a pretty darn good teacher with an easy to understand style. I am pretty old ( 68 ) yet concepts I had difficulty with in my younger years seem easily grasped with your presentations. Keep up the good work young man !- Rich
Kent is turning into a tea kettle.
"B-B BUT CARS HAVE METAL THIS IS CHILD ABUSE!!!11!!11"
"PINETREES DON'T MAKE PROTISTAS!!!1!1!1!111!1! *squeeeeeeeeeel* "
@@scptime1188 ahahaha
Perhaps Parapatric Speciation is now occurring to Humans?
I was wondering about one thing: why the species are so separate, and we don't observe a continuum of genomes? Or do we?
I think that might be because "species" is a term we came up with to describe things when they become separate.
Well explained! Thanks!!
Let's make some new species is my new pick up line
I'm not an expert in biology but I have a strong interest in understanding all the disciples of science including biology and this video definitely helps me understand the concepts behind evolution. Thanks man for another informational video.
What about Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Both mated with eachother. And their kids were fertile. How's that possible
homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens are 500,000 YEARS apart, they never even knew that the other existed
@@keegan6388 so what about the Europeans having Neanderthal dna
@@MiloTheCrotonian who says that
@@keegan6388 “The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background.” Medline government website on their genetics page and a whole lot of science websites from 2014-2021
@@keegan6388 I’m not sorry but if you’re going to use the concept of species and types, you can walk out. It’s not a scientific theory but a scientific concept. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory.
Oh I’m so using your videos for my classroom. I’m so glad I found this channel.
Out of curiosity, did you indeed use his videos in your classroom?
Great content....helpful for NEET aspirants also thanks
How'd the NEET go?
lol The first 6 or 7 pages of comments are full of "I can't wait for the creationists.. Yet no creationist responded. hehe
Hey Dave! I hope you read this. I have a couple of little known proofs to use against that Hovid guy.
1- he thinks the layers you see in a earth sample are organised by density and can't explain why they form in the first place. Basic reason: the earth continually SPINS, picking up space dust. Can't remember what the rate was, but I think it was something like 'earth gains 1mm of soil every 500 years . Also, the Earth is SPINNING fast enough that the space dust essentially acts like sandpaper and smoothes the earth into a spheroid...go figure
2. Evolution is physically observed. Not sure who to credit for this sweet research! Not only can you observe evolution, you can observe rapid evolution as well. There was a study done with wolves. All the wolves are paired into groups of 2 according to traits they have in common. Selective breeding the wolves that have more desirable traits is the start of evolution. Not only that, but they successfully proved and observed evolution. Because wolves evolved so fast that it only took like 10 generations to domesticate. This all took place within like 4-6 years
I wish some could translate it in Tagalog language because I really need to understand the modes of speciation...
It was my report 😭
One of the first views. YEEET
Thank you!
Fantastic video as always. It's hilarious that most evolution deniers (such as AIG) accept speciation, but deny that it's literally the epitome of evolution.
What about African Mbuti Pygmies. Can they successfully breed with another breed/subspecies/race?
They are still H. Sapiens, right? What do you think the definition of species is?
I'm trying to think how a ring species, such as the ensantina, would fit into this categorisation of speciation. It's both a binary speciation and a gradation, allo and sympatric.
Anyone have any thoughts?
@Tommy S Yeah, I'm minded to agree. Classifications are useful but ultimately arbitrary, nature is always going to send is a few examples which don't fit neatly into our pigeon holes. Or in this case, fit into multiple categories simultaneously.
@@fecu2394Erika from gutsick gibbon talks about this in a video about defining what a species is.
How can we get these slides?
they're not slides i make videos
@@ProfessorDaveExplains lmao
PERIpatric and PARApatric?? Scientists SUCK at naming shit!!!
Blame the Greeks (or Romans i don't know the original language, if it's Greek or Latin).
Still doesn't explain how a fish became a frog.
Stop getting your biology from preachers.
@Raging S That's microevolution, not macroevolution.
@@NoName-bf4gk the difference between micro and macro is quantities. Not mechanism. It's the difference between a handful of sand and a dune.
Yes it does.
if you can't understand speciation from this video, you never will, you are immune to evidence
First!