Yes because a video cannot be all-encompassing and provide every detail of evidence for everything. You are free to look up the evidence and understand every claim made.
Thank you sir. One question though, homologous features are evidence of common ancestry - but in order to know if features are homologous or not, we must first know if they came from a common ancestor. Am I missing something here or does that not make sense? It seems almost like circular logic.
features (structures) will be characterized as homologous IF they are determined (by referring to the fossil record and/or genetic determination) to have a common ancestry of structure. if structures in two different widely varying groups are similar then it is not necessarily an example of homology. Those structures may be analogous- having a similar function but different ancestral origin of the structures. perhaps you missed this nuance.
The paintings of Vincent Van Gogh all have a certain style, a similar look. If you were familiar with his paintings, you would recognize a new painting that you had never seen before as being a Van Gogh, because of that very recognizable style. They were all made by the same person. Likewise, the 'homologous structures' look similar, not because they all evolved from a common ancestor, but rather, because they are the work of a common Designer. His name is Jesus.
This is a little silly. Darwin made observations and then developed a theory then a conclusion. He did not know nor could he fathom the true complexities if the world around him (plus he was an absolute racist in the classical definition by believing the white man is the pinnacle of his evolution idea, others are not and therefore are less human) . He did not know what he did not know. Same mistake here. Just because there are similarities does not mean they share a common ancestor. Darwinian evolution is a joke and really, basing 21st century theories on an 19th century idea, where the makeup of DNA and cellular biology was completely unknown seems like a bad idea . Would you go to a doctor who only had the medical knowledge of the 1850s? Find a different theory if ID turns you off but continuing this 19th century hogwash is embarrassing to anyone who thinks....or should be.
Sir i really admire you. I want to see you in real life. Good explanation and keep it up....
Same here
See floathead physics channel in UA-cam to see mahesh sir....
u can t see me
I am a huge admirer of Mahesh Shenoy sir.
I am related to everyone of you
We all humans are bro and sis
The whole world ( every single human being ) is a family. 😊
@fedo dedo 🤔🤔 didn't understand
Is it homologous?
Grandpa?
Sir you are the best biology educator in the world,
Clear and superb explanation 👌
Thanks a lot sir
Great video related to heredity and evolution chapter
Thank you
Tq....sir , and really your voice is super sir.... clear explanation so..... really understood
Nice explanation
Best UA-cam channel for cbse board, who don't know hindhi
Great work... 😍👌
First video. SUPER GREAT[!!!!!] TEACHING! THANK YOU.
Very good explanation 😊liked it
He is G Guruji
Thank you!
That was really great thanks man
thank you ,very clear
4:21 "we will trust our biologists okay" 🤣🤣🤣
Yes because a video cannot be all-encompassing and provide every detail of evidence for everything. You are free to look up the evidence and understand every claim made.
5:43 Same, same What?!
8:10 how many of you heard "isn't it "?
So?
Tnxx sir
Nice explanation.
Sir can u please answer this question.
In different species analogus organs evolve to adapt?
Same habitat or different habitat
Thank you sir. One question though, homologous features are evidence of common ancestry - but in order to know if features are homologous or not, we must first know if they came from a common ancestor. Am I missing something here or does that not make sense? It seems almost like circular logic.
features (structures) will be characterized as homologous IF they are determined (by referring to the fossil record and/or genetic determination) to have a common ancestry of structure. if structures in two different widely varying groups are similar then it is not necessarily an example of homology. Those structures may be analogous- having a similar function but different ancestral origin of the structures. perhaps you missed this nuance.
Multiple lines of evidence that agree with each other usually go into these determinations. For example, DNA relatedness between different species.
👍
Nice
Diversification means?
Converging means?
@@srinuvasvasu4639 Diversification is the emergence of differences among a common entity And that can happen due to an imperfect copying mechanism
Super
Im a virgin
.
hi i lik u
I Not VIrjin hehe
Hehehehehehrhehhehehheheggeg
heheh
vuerguns ar not gei
.
yes
You are Gujarati?
Bruuuh
Can Me go inda plsss?
The paintings of Vincent Van Gogh all have a certain style, a similar look. If you were familiar with his paintings, you would recognize a new painting that you had never seen before as being a Van Gogh, because of that very recognizable style. They were all made by the same person. Likewise, the 'homologous structures' look similar, not because they all evolved from a common ancestor, but rather, because they are the work of a common Designer. His name is Jesus.
I just learn it for studies other wise it is not true
5:40 is what you are when you make that fake accent and think you sound cool or something
What's ur problem with that?
then why bother watching him 🤷🏻♂️
What are you talking about?
This is a little silly. Darwin made observations and then developed a theory then a conclusion. He did not know nor could he fathom the true complexities if the world around him (plus he was an absolute racist in the classical definition by believing the white man is the pinnacle of his evolution idea, others are not and therefore are less human) . He did not know what he did not know. Same mistake here. Just because there are similarities does not mean they share a common ancestor. Darwinian evolution is a joke and really, basing 21st century theories on an 19th century idea, where the makeup of DNA and cellular biology was completely unknown seems like a bad idea . Would you go to a doctor who only had the medical knowledge of the 1850s?
Find a different theory if ID turns you off but continuing this 19th century hogwash is embarrassing to anyone who thinks....or should be.
Shutup
And before you call someone a racict remember that it was the Bible that was used to justify African American slavery in the US. 😉