Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/myths-and-m...
How does evolution really work? Actually, not how some of our common evolutionary metaphors would have us believe. For instance, it's species, not individual organisms, that adapt to produce evolution, and genes don't "want" to be passed on -- a gene can't want anything at all! Alex Gendler sets the record straight on the finer points of evolution.
Lesson by Alex Gendler, animation by Giant Animation Studios.
the giraffe's face when she said "reproduction" lol
Quinton Ayers giraffe knows what's up ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Zack Fury yeah, the sky
ikr
Steve Norris not the trees
lol
75% of the comments are about how humans didn't evolve from apes and 15% is other science things 10% is just giraffe
😆
mmm giraffe
Nah, its the other way around
9 out of 10 of those girraffe percent are neck.
Humans evolved from apes? Wow. We are apes , you overgrown chimpanzees.
Why did you end with the monkey to human picture?!?! That perpetuates the biggest misconception about evolution!!
It also starts with an angler fish, which we didn't evolve from either. It's just being playful and reusing drawings they already had
he meant ape because of the huge misconception that we have, that we evolved from apes, when really we just share a common ancestor
a prokaryote microorganism
oh yeah, i feel the same :(
Taxonomy & Evolution being integrated seems to be relatively new; hence the unnecessary distinction of humans not being readily called apes, monkeys, primates nor animals.
Same for the unnecessary distinction of apes not being called monkeys.
Monkeys are non-hominoid simians, which means "monkey" is relegated to a unscientific term, despite apes being readily colloquially called monkeys due to obvious similarities.
So although simian is the scientific term, humans are still essentially monkeys.
It's not the same as the term "fish" which has specific colloquial connotations, which means it would be weird to also call terrestrial vertebrates "fish" despite being descendants of fish.
Birds now being recognized as dinosaurs, & by extension reptiles isn't as big as a jump as "fish".
I speculate this previous unnecessary distinction between Taxonomy & Evolution in naming conventions, etc goes back to Linnaeus & Darwin living in subsequent centuries.
Anyway, the interconnection of Taxonomy & Evolution should become more streamlined, even in colloquial use.
One way to understand Evolution is to first understand “Artificial Selection”. Wolves and Dogs are descended from common ancestors (which looked more like modern wolfs than dogs). Over many generations, Humans selected the “favourable” traits (e.g., long shiny fur, or stocky legs etc) to produce the many different types / breeds of modern dogs that we have today. The keyword here is “over many generations”. There are modern dogs that, of course, are still very much wolve-like in appearance (e.g., Huskies, German Shepherd etc). Some dog breeds are much less wolf-like in appearance (Chihuahua, Shih Tzu etc) as they have been artificially selected for their small size and “cute” traits. So why is it known as artificial selection? This is because the Human (the dog breeders) are the ones determining which individual dogs they would prefer to produce offsprings, thereby continuing the genes they would like to retain. Prior to this, it is also important to understand the idea of Variation. This means that in a litter of puppies, not every puppy is physically identical (even though they may look identical to the untrained eyes). Some puppies have slightly longer legs, some shorter legs. Very small differences, but, yes, the differences are there. It is due to this physical variations that the breeders (humans) select which dogs possess the traits he wants, thus the term “Artificial Selection”. This Selection process is repeated over many generations and the result is the modern dog breeds we have today.
Once we understood Artificial Selection, it will be easy to understand Natural Selection. In Natural Selection, Mother Nature (instead of Human) is the factor deciding which traits survive through the generations. How? One example is Food Source. Many species of birds have developed the ability to swim to obtain their food (Adaptability). One pre-requisite of aquatic birds is having water-proof feathers. In this case, this is the “Favourable Trait”. One group of birds may live nearer to the seasides and Individual birds with more waterproof feathers is seen by Mother Nature as a “favourable trait”. And so individual birds with this trait has a much higher chance of survival and passing on this gene to the next generations. This is Adaptation. It has to be highlighted that Adaptation takes place over many generations. Physical Adaptations (e.g., change in body shapes) DO NOT take place in just one generation. In other words, an individual animal will not change physically to obtain that trait in its lifetime, unless it’s metamorphosis which is a totally different thing. We also observed this in rabbits in deserts and rabbits in cold countries. The long ears in rabbits act as effective heat radiators. So the rabbits living in deserts adapted to the environment (over many generations) by developing very long and erect ears. But rabbits living in cold countries tends to have shorter ears (some even have lop ears). All animals (and yes, that includes humans) are still in the midst of evolution. Evolution is a very slow on-going process. It will never be “complete”, as change is the only constant. We can see this fact more prominently in the seals / walruses. Their ancestors are land animals, but their body shapes are evidence that they are in the midst of “transition” from land animals to aquatic animals, as their main source of food is in the sea. Of course, we cannot see an appreciable change in their appearances in our lifetime, as the change is happening too slowly over many generations. So presently, we can only imagine the current physical appearances of seals/walruses as being “frozen-in-time”, as with the rest of the millions of species of animals currently living on this planet Earth. And do appreciate their beauty in their current physical form (and the diversity of the Tree of Life), as they will never be the same again one million years from now.
Star Dust thank you
How long did that take u
Thank you stardust for enlightening me 😊
It took me month to reas all
I..... stopped halfway..
I loved the smile on the giraffes face when reproduction ws mentioned
(r ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)r
2:00
Lenny
🤪🤪🤪
;)
"survival of the fittest" was never supposed to be about fitness like bigger muscle or something like that, but about fitting to the sorrounding area. darwin knew that.
+omer shaik
anyone who would think a little bit about the life and how it goes would realize that you idot darwin is not a genuise he is an idot just like you but a little brighter
me myself realized that before knowing all of this by thinking
Qusay saleem learn to spell
In evolution, when we use the word "fitness" we actually mean "the capability of a creature to pass on its genes". In simulation, we use a "fitness function" which is simply a criteria that determines which genes are passed on. A creature more capable of meeting this criterion is considered more fit. From what is stated in the video, we can say that the fitness function for creatures on earth is generally reproduction. A creature or species capable of producing more offspring is more fit. That alone doesn't completely sum it up, especially when we talk about k vs r species. But that's the basic idea.
AnRTPgA omer shaik Qusay saleem tbh, if you guys are gonna discuss the topic, do so and don't ponder on grammatical mistakes; there are so many reasons for people's misspellings etc. besides retardation. Just using people's errors in discussion just makes it so boring and blehh. I need discussion :'(
Stephen Waldron really stephen, you are right, and looking back this comment was wrong. but i don't want to try and explain the entire theory of evolution for someone who probably doesn't want to hear it anyway. i have better things to do with my life.
that said, Qusay saleem , if you really want a discussion, great. i'd be happy to start a debate. i, like stephen, like a good debate. but if you want to attack me, then you're a waste of my time.
Scroll down for the standard UA-cam experience
🤣
lol
We were taught "Survival of the best fitted" not "Survival of the fittest" - this minor difference helps to clear up any confusion around the word fittest 👍
That is the CUTEST photoreceptor cell i've ever seen
ikr
Looks like a blue sweet potato.
:3 I agree
The hard part to explain to people is typically that mutations occur randomly and not intentionally. I'm glad this video addressed this first as it's likely the biggest misconception out there. It's hard for some people to wrap their brain around the idea that species don't adapt as they need to and that the adaptations occur accidentally and randomly. Some people just don't want to accept that, but they'll come around.
+Chad Norton Totally agree, but the thing I didn't really understand is why do want to reproduce ? what's the point of it?
Mother nature has planted desire for sexual reproduction in every living creature, without it the species dies off quickly.
Thank you for replying. I still have a couple of questions thou:
Why do we want our species to survive? I mean, I'm a different person than my father or mother. Why did they want to have kids? while other people only wanted to have sex without having children. Also how is homosexuality explainable ? I would really like to know.
I can only answer these questions from my own perspective, I don't (and cannot) speak for everyone on a subject this broad. I'll do my best.
1. Why do we want our species to survive?
The survival instinct is built into every creature on the planet that reproduces. When something goes wrong and a species loses it's survival instinct it quickly ceases to exist, lost to the passing of time. Human reproduction historically has happened in many ways for many reasons. Whether it was something horrible like rape, or something wonderful like falling in love. Many if not most humans experience a desire to pass on their DNA by having children. For many humans there wasn't a great deal of thought behind reproduction; it can be as simple as your partner looking extremely appealing one day and "oops" she's pregnant. In other cases it's a very carefully thought-out process of wanting to have children and a family. If you go back 70 years and more there was often a push to have children for working and farming purposes. A couple might have 10 or more children that grew up to work on a family farm or business. Modern technology and farming techniques have made this mostly unnecessary, especially in 1st world countries.
2. How is homosexuality explainable?
This is a very difficult question to answer, but first let me explain that I personally have many homosexual family and friends and support and care for them dearly. With that being said, how is homosexuality explainable?
There are many theories on the origin of homosexuality. It has been a part of the human experience as long as there have been humans. Some civilizations accepted and or encouraged homosexuality while others shunned and even terminated individuals expressing homosexual tendencies. To this day there has been no final and complete answer to the question. Some people believe that homosexuality is determined in a persons genetics before they are born while others believe it to be a choice made somewhere in the person's psyche, conscious or subconscious mind. While homosexuality itself does not allow for biological reproduction that does not preclude homosexuals from taking part in human reproduction and raising of children. In recent years with the advances made in technology homosexuals have participated in reproduction through artificial insemination. However it is thought that homesexuals may have participated in reproduction through the rearing of children by-way of adoption and surrogacy as long as humans have reproduced.
In answering both of these two questions its important to note that reproduction is a secondary concern. Whether we are talking about the commonly accepted practice of man/woman reproduction or of homesxual couples seeking to participate, its more often than not a secondary concern or consequence of the more important factor of coupling in general. Humans are social animals and need each other for survival. Only after two or more humans join together in some form of pair-bonding does the factor of reproduction occur at all. I personally like to believe that love plays the major role. In asking why your mother and father wanted to have kids I would like to assume it was because they loved each other and wanted a part of themselves to live on after their own demise. When we have biological children we are passing on parts of ourselves as well as DNA given to us from our very earliest human ancestors. Part of those ancestors will live on in every new child born from their lineage. Of course throughout history there have been exceptions: products of rape, products of arranged marriage, products of group or state-sponsored birthing programs. I can't speak for every human ever born. For the vast majority of humans I believe it begins with deep affection and/or love of a partner. Whether heterosexual or homosexual a bonded pair in love want to see their partners happy for as long as possible and often this manifests itself in the form of children and family.
This is the best I can come up with on so broad a question. I hope you found the answers you were looking for somewhere in there.
Thanks a lot..... I didn't expect that you'll answer me this much. There are still some mysterious things thou hahahahaha. But in general you have given me a great perspective about evolution & life. And again thanks a lot for spending so much time answering my comment. It was really kind of you.
What people are forgetting is that EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. What mutations appear are random, but what organisms survive are not.
Whenever I'm in need of a good laugh, I go to youtube, search a video about evolution and go to the latest comments to read all the creationists' nonsense.
my family are the creationists...it just makes me sad and annoyed
@@SorenPenrose My condolences. I'm sure they're very kind and loving people, but it's a tragedy that people can be persuaded by such nonsense.
@@SorenPenrose mine too, muslims...
@@late8641 Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist?
In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"
@@lancevanceGTA I'm muslim too❤ but I don't know why you're upset..
If you feel that Islam isn't right, and want to understand about it, then I have some sources that may help - if you want -:
1. (Dr. eyad qunaibi global channel) channel, it has two playlists that may help, one is about evolution theory and its name is (the journey of certainty), the second is about some Islamic specific teachings, its name is (women in depth)
2. (Sabighat) book, that book simplified some of Islamic evidences
3. The third is: website that you can have online privacy chat, the site's name is: ( alnaba . ws )
Came here for the comments, was not dissapointed.
+DracoonianDevil lol, me too.
Same here😂
+DracoonianDevil You took the word right out of my brain.
Lol same
DracoonianDevil well it's the internet
Humans didn't come from gorillas though (at the end). We evolved from extinct, non-gorilla ape-like creatures.
+Cody Blane It's just a cartoon reusing assets.
Now isn't it odd that we've never found one of those missing links?
English Conquistador we have look at other moninid species
Imposter Nye like?
yes, we have actually.
It's sad to see that many people refuse to believe in evolution or has the wrong perception about it.
The main reason is cause from their very childhood they are being taught that god created the earth and everything on it
A prime example being the commenter down below
Evolution is a myth girl wtf everything they said i mean scientists said about evolution is wrong omg 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@lakishalaster5584, I wonder how we got multiple breeds of dogs... Can anyone tell me?
It's okay if they don't believe in the theory of evolution. For all we know, there was a time when we believed atom is the smallest unit of matter, but here we are now with electrons and neutron and protons. It because someone refused to believe atom being tiniest unit. Same goes for the evolution. Who knows one of those critics will invent another better theory to explain origin of life. :))
They can't observe the most obvious truth of life that we are actually evolved apes. Ego and religious indoctrination are to blame for such a sad state of evolved apes thinking they dropped from the sky.
Where my google classroom people's haha😂😂
Lol right here
here but schoology 🙌
Another BIG myth people have about evolution: humans evolved from apes. We didn't. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
So if anyone asks you "if evolution is true, why are apes still around," please correct them.
The myth is actually that we didn't evolve from apes. Not only did we come from apes, but we are also apes. That common ancestor you mention was an ape. We never stopped being that, just as little as we stopped being mammals or animals.
Dan Cameron Nah. We're totally apes, man. That creation myth with us being breathed life into as dolls made of dirt isn't a bit silly, don't you think?
None Asdfghj if we have 95% DNA of apes, it doen’st mean we are from apes
@@sevenkings9166 that always matter in field of evolution and truth of life.
It's all about different adaptation and heredity
You can't prove that fake and that always matter's
I suggest you to make a
Logical speech about that topic and present in front of scientists to prove its fake and you will definitely get your answer .
@@sevenkings9166 there are fossils of our ancestors and carbondating methods to determine the age of our race
Survival of the good anough
Wow bijna de zelfde naam
ja klopt XD
Lars van der Heijden
Lars van der Heijden I may say: the adaptable enough
Alpha, that's also a good word for it
Im glad you guys improved your videos so much over the years; not that this is a "bad" video, but the difference between this video and a recent one is very notorious.
I know it’s been 3 years, but if you see this, I was wondering if you could plz explain which 'more recent' video you’re referring to, I’m interested in watching it!
@@joylolly4458 oh well, i don't remember the specific video I was talking about, but you can see the difference between this video format (the voice actor, the presentation, how the information is presented, etc) and a more recent one, for example the mosquito one that they uploaded last week just to give an example.
Evolution is a goal a dream a faith that dont need evidence anymore evolutuion represent to people the only alternative to religion who provide an explanation of life origine
my RE assignment requires me to talk about George lamatire (however you spell it) and Darwin and Dawkins and this really helped my understanding 😄 thank goodness for Ted Ed
Perpetuating the "step-by-step" "progression" idea is kind of problematic. Species change and diverge, they don't progress in unity. That seemingly small error can be turned into ammo for creationists.
I agree. When things are oversimplified it's easy to get the impression that species split in one generation and then don't change again until the next clean split. It's way more fluid than that.
Nick S says the one who believes on a flying bearded man in the sky
Evolutionary theory explained in simple terms. This can be considered as basic intro part for the Evolutionary Theory and Misconceptions.
Thanks for sharing my post.
Except, this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.
@Open School The Evolution is a fact, Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (teacher of Lamarck) wrotes about this in 1750's, the idea of Darwin was the Natural Selection.
After watching this video the third time i realized I'm more confused than i was before watching it
same
Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist?
In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"
Evolution is such a fascinating topic, it’s cool thinking that all backboned animals came from a fish the size of a thumb a long time ago
Yeah, even if you don’t believe it you have to admit it’s a cool theory
@بن محمد what is?
@بن محمد rip
Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist?
In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"
It’s not cool. It’s nonsensical.
Regarding evolution as an adaptation, there actually is a new field of science that may support that. It's called epi-genetics, and in a nutshell it suggests that the manner in how you live your life can affect your future offspring. Example, if you don't have a genetic predisposition for obesity, however you become obese for most of your life, your kids will have a greater likelihood of being obese too. And that is completely independent on how you raise them. Their genetic makeup is physically altered because of your lifestyle.
Regarding evolution as survival of the fittest, the video is correct. The term "fittest" is relative. When I was in college, I always wondered why didn't all animals adapt high intelligence like humans. Wouldn't it be advantageous if all animals on the planet were smart? The answer is no, and for two reasons. One, having a big brain consumes a lot of calories. That is a big commitment for an animal to have a big brain. The human brain consumes 20% of the caloric intake. Reason two, many animals survive just fine being stupid. Sharks, horseshoe crabs, alligators and mosquitoes have stayed almost the same for millions of years without the need to evolve.
+George Kyriakou not to mention bacteria are still around.
+George Kyriakou Reason three for the intelligence thing: Evolution has to work with what it's got at any given time. It might take many changes for a given organism to develop higher intelligence, and the initial steps might not be (all that) advantageous, I suppose. Or even all that possible. What would it take for an ant, which has no real brain, to increase its intelligence? Probably a whole lot. Besides, it's probably doing fine with a completely different kind of intelligence than what we can imagine
As for epi-genetics: Check out the recent research on rats (or was it mice) indicating that fear of certain things gained during a lifetime actually can be inherited
+George Kyriakou That reinforces my suspcision that there is a hell of a lot we don't know about genetics. That's one reason I am skeptical of the quick lableing of "junk DNA."
Mark Stuber
I agree. It costs energy to make and sequence DNA. Wouldn't we think natural selection would weed that out? ...unless the energy cost was negligible. It would be interesting to see a video that would list the relative percent energy consumption of each cellular function, and how much energy is consumed during replication of a DNA strand per unit length.
George Kyriakou it's a single molecule, the cost must be neliglible on macroorganisms's reproductive cells. microorganisms have shorter dna, so they may as well evolve though mutacion.
You forgot to mention the biggest and most important misconception: micro evolution vs macro evolution
These are artificial, arbitrary terms that don't add anything to the original concept and as such they're not particularly helpful, as you might have noticed yourself ; )
+GrayHat4Life If someone says micro evolution is true,but macroevolution is false,they said something along the lines of this... 1+1 = 2 ,but 1+1+1+1+1+1 ≠ 6
One will jump species etc. the other says evolution will only stay between a species. two sides to a coin or two theories to how evolution works. Micro says evolution will only go so far, while macro say evolution can keep going.
+Martis Endrell Only to creationists. Micro-evolution refers to minor changes within species, and Macro-evolution refers to speciation events. In other words, Macro-evolution consists of lots of accumulated micro-evolutionary changes.
zemorph42 Well, just did a quick google search and that comment you made takes the cake of stupid.
I love how ted ed always makes you feel good in the end... I love the music, it's really unique
Sorting comment section to newest first was the biggest mistake, it's still early morning and i have already loss half of my brain cells
"I don't see my dog evolving"
"Why don't gravity evolve??"
"Don't teach me science you satan!!!"
Ikr 🤣
You forgot the "if evolution was still real, and humans evolved from monkeys, how are monkeys still here? darwin is satan's child."
evolution deniers are so thick-headed lmao 🤣🤣🤣
Macro Evolution is a myth and will remain a theory
Haha, finding these deniers of evolution was the reason I clicked "Newest First"!
@@Bajannubian095 No, macro evolution has also been justified and proven.
Dear TED-Ed, in light of new research on the epigenetics, I believe this video should be updated. Biology is an ever-changing topic and old beliefs are crushed and theories are proven to be true or false all the time. Everyone, especially scientists, should keep an open mind on myths or misconceptions.
Thank you.
Yes I thought the same
Male angler fish do not have anglers nor bioluminesen
Yes, because this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.
And I might have found a contradiction as well: if we didn't have much calories for ages, then should we attribute or current craving of calories to some random mutations in the past rather than the fact that a long time ago we didn't get the desired quantity of it?
Their minds are always open...but they are not going to entertain an idea which is not supported by evidence.
This was a bit vague...
That's because it is.
not ppl still replying to a 4 year old comment, fellas i have no memory of this
@@SidneyIam how are you
@@zack-ronald259 don't really know, how are you
@@SidneyIam nice but 2020 is getting kinda bad
I honestly can't think of a better channel to subscribe to. Thank you so much TedEd
Why are you trying to avoid the reality of God who created everything? Nothing could create itself.
@@danminer5343 if you knew evolution in detail, you would know that scientists do not say that everything was created on its own out of nothing, it is a very long process with atoms, cells and evolution. You may say "but the universe is so perfect, there must be someone behind it" or idk, but the univers is mathematical even without a god.
@@marcusaureliusiv8527 l- Thanks for asking for evidence for everything being created. You said if I knew evolution in detail, but nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call "Evolution". I've asked hundreds of evolutionists to explain something in detail about the story of "Evolution" but the common response is that they refuse to believe in a Creator. I've read hundreds of books and papers on this, but never has any evolutionist given any detail on how evolution could be possible or give any evidence showing that it has every occurred. With zero evidence and zero science supporting that story, why should I try to believe it?
The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator, and there is only evidence of the history has recorded. The word "Evolution" is a word to represent the word "nothing" and believe that everything slowly formed into existing living beings by nothing, even though none of anything could live until after it contained all parts and systems, both male and female in final complete form, being dead all of the time it was supposedly 'evolving'.
I cannot accept such total nonsense.
@@danminer5343 I like how you seem opened to dialogue etc, but first of all i know that many evolutionists hate god without any reaons, and i know it can be hard to speak this topic with them. I myself do not agree with every single details about evolution because in fact we do not have all the proofs. But i saw this argument many times, and i do not think that "The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator" is an acceptable proof.
The thing is, to me, beliving in wether it is evolution or creation is not "reasonable".
The same way you say "nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call Evolution", no creationist can proove the biblical events like the arch of noah, Adam living 930 years and then all his sons living for hundreds of years too, all these stories are as much inbelievable than evolution, the only thing that makes you believe in one is faith. You believe in creation because you believe in God, and god is supposed to have inspired the bible, so i have nothing against you believing in this i actually was a christian myself a couples years ago, i will only ask you one thing ; this video was educational, it was meant for people to learn what is the theory or evolution, it never said that religion was false or anything. May god or Allah or YHWH bless you.
@@marcusaureliusiv8527 But the story of evolution just does not make any sense. It is impossible for any molecules to ever come together to form the special long complex molecules required for life. If the impossible happened and one did form after millions of years, then, within a few days it would decay back again to simple molecules.
Mutations can occur only after a life from has been created and already contains all of the required parts and systems for it to live. No evolutionist has ever found a way that mutations could build a new part or system because to build a new part or system would require up to millions of new base pairs already in a coded sequence before a new part or system could be built and the parents would have had to have been able to live without it.
Natural selection can only eliminate and can only select what already exists.
Common ancestry is impossible because no intermediate between different kinds/baramins would have to contain incomplete microsystems that could not function.
The history of the global flood on Noah's day is a proven scientific fact. The origin of all of the geological features of the earth cannot be logically explained without the global flood which formed them. Evolutionists cannot explain their origin but only either ignore it or tell crazy ridiculous strawman arguments that are false. Over a hundred cultures around the world has the history of the global flood in their history, including the Chinese that recorded it over 4,l000 years ago in their original language on bone fragments that exist today. The Chinese worshiped the God of the Bible for ca. 2,000 years, His name in their language being Shang Di.
I watched that short video and it said NOTHING AT ALL about how any new part or system could originate or how any evolutionary change could be possible. All it said is "evolution did it". Also it lied when it indicated that most scientists believe in it, when in reality it is the scientists who are forming the creation science organizations world wide due to the science they discovered. Never has anybody in the world found a scientific reason to believe in the quackery of evolutionism. It is total nonsense.
]
I challenge someone or anyone to try to find a scientific reason to believe such nonsense. I've asked this for decades but evolutionists will never talk about the details in science, but only ignore them.
4:00 scene might make some people think that we come from gorillas or chimpanzees. That's also a misconception, we come from a commun ancestor, we don't come from chimps themselves. Really liked the video, have a great day, fellow eukaryote
ua-cam.com/video/QEiO5c4pSX0/v-deo.html - I’d love to know your thoughts on this
This should be required viewing for all science skeptics.
Eeeeh, there are better easier to understand explanations for evolution. I think this video would mostly just confuse a creationist.
@@aarOuOn but evolution is adapting..... wtf?
PaperFrogg all i see anyway is people finding ways to explain unobservable ‘facts’, you know it’s not surprising seeing humanity deny the design in everything (from plants to the ground we walk on) when you listen to what the bible says about humanity :)
creationists are idiots they dont have the capacity to understand complex things
@@ujjalshill6442 Not all creationists are idiots. My dad is a Nephrologist and he is really smart. He believes in evolution but he is also Catholic
Why the emphasis on mutation only as a source of variation? The idea that "random mutations" (i.e. copy mistakes) are the only source of change is an easy idea to get hung up on if you're skeptical or biased. Whereas on the other hand, it's very intuitive to recognize that, at least in sexual reproduction, recombination is going to happen in *every* new organism, and so there's an obvious ground of diversity for new fitness to emerge from. And while single genes can make all the difference in terms of fitness, plenty of "fit" traits are only fit when 2 or more genes are expressed simultaneously. If I were talking to a creationist I'd just point out that there's obviously going to be variation up the wazoo even if you have perfect copies of the genes being mixed (it would be a stronger claim to say it strictly depends on copies getting botched).
J. Miller Well, I wouldn't be so sure about this apparent distinction.
Technically, recombination can be a vastly more powerful generator of genetic variance compared to mutation (even as observed in viruses). One should keep in mind that most mutations are thought to come about through straightforward errors in enzymatic activity of just a bunch of few highly conserved DNA-processing enzymes that (by definition) are not built to 'purpose-fail' very often (quite the contrary), WHEREAS recombination (by means of a multi-gene control system) can be finely tuned-up for the sole purpose of generating genetic variance. And it can be cranked up real high. In fact, the vertebrate immune system is virtually built around that source of variance rather than mutations (though mutations also play a role there).
Nowadays, when certain peculiarities of evolution are increasingly being ascribed to epigenetic processes as well as such recombination-based processes as horizontal gene transfer for example, one can't be too careful when trying to quantify which diversity-generating mechanism contributed more genetic variance during the whole run of evolution on Earth. And I mean true genetic variation (that may well result in speciation), not just genome-shuffling diversity.
I once watched it,but i was just left condused.
Now after reading my lesson of "Genetics and Heredity" in my High School .It felt easy to understand
Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist?
In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"
@Zubu Melepat Well, claims are replied with claims: No he didn't.
what about 8-14 videos from this playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLN2jADncOIAL6oxJm5MreX63b0k5yZpwl.html
@Zubu Melepat The playlist I put its link lastly is condensed and is from some perspectives, not all of them, if you'd like there is another video from him talks about some other perspective that shows the lack for that nonsense (i.e. Evolution theory)
Do you have a scientific comment on the videos 8-14 from the playlist I put its link? I'd like to know
India?
So let me get this straight...
So let's say there's this giraffe and it has a kid. That kid has an unusually long neck. Because of this, it's more likely to have kids of its own. It's likely those kids will have long necks too, and they pass on their long necks to their kids in a process as infinitum until a freaking mas extinction happens and the bugs are all like, "This is fine."
Boom. Cockroaches everywhere.
RotatingDisc - bugs?
Whether their necks get shorter or longer, so what? They will everyone of them stay giraffes. Give me some data showing that giraffes are evolving into non giraffes. Some dogs are tall, some short. Some have longer necks, or legs, or backs of whatever. So what? They are still all everyone of them dawgs. You might want to look at some of my other posts under this vid to get a good look at what's outside the box.
ye
@@loricalass4068 **
Right... and that's a great point. This video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or any of the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.
@@carlos05231981 Yep.
"Random" this word is used a lot in these theories.
yes radiation makes unpredictable mutations thats why its random, without radiation, no evolution is what we currently belive.
Well, we can't say it's completely organized and determined.
It's probably possible to predict all the process that makes this things happen, but it's so complex that it's better to just say it is random.
Uh... radiation doesn't affect evolution my friend.
David Smith Yes it does...
**God the scientific illiteracy is just too painful**
Bravo! An excellent overview of very commonly-held misconceptions with well-presented responses to them.
Apparently 0:42 "now discredited" was up-do-date as of 2013 (the year this video is published) only, because since then there have been tons of studies, researches and experiments on **genetic marker**, which, in a nutshell, is a mechanism for organism to pass "adaptation" (in contrast to random mutation) to their offspring
4:00 Actually, this animation suggests that evolution is a linear process, and that is another common misconception regarding evolution.
Thank goodness you've made this video; I've been trying to explanation how evolution works to my parents who had most of the misconception on the theory of evolution. Thank You.
Don't tell your parents lies. The story of evolution is believed and promoted as a replacement for God creating everything and wants people to believe that everything created itself.
Scientific facts now prove that every different kind of life has a different unique set of proteins and genes that it would be impossible for one kind to ever change into a different kind, since mutations can only destroy information and could never create new instructions. (each kind has its own unique anatomy, such as the 'dog kind', the 'cat kind' or 'man kind.
Each kind had to have originated from the top down with a complete DNA and could never live unless it's DNA was complete.
Sorry. The main misconception is that evolution works. Real world science knows nothing of it. It's just a failed theory that was never proven and what's most important, was never able to predict anything. Real science that works, makes predictions.
Ehhhhhh the first point is right but there is also 'epigenetics' to be considered. It's a newer subject of study so i can see why it wasn't mentioned but apparently there can be some (small) adaptation of genetics over a persons lifetime that may affect the genetics of their offspring. (To be fair, this is more about the degree to which certain genes are *activated* rather than actually mutating and changing)
Most of what is said to be misconceptions are not, you just interpreted them incorrectly. This boils down to semantics but I think it helps me understand why other people can't believe a simple demonstrable fact.
I have something to say for the first one.
Yes animals don't change genes during their lifetime. But genetic mutations combined with "survival of the good enought" ultimatly make organisms more adapted to their enviroment
You know what's interesting is that nowadays with research into epigenetics, Lamarke's theory isn't as completely wrong as scientists thought. Lifestyle choices and experiences can actually results in epigenetic regulation that is passed down to the next generation, and therefore actions become heritable.
May you guys make an episode on how to improve empathy?
Other people think that the real life evolution is same as the evolution in Pokémon.
Yeah Pokemon's is more like metamorphosis really.
Luck plays a huge role. No amount of being fit will help if you get whacked by a meteor.
Ironically, your video ends with yet another misconception that YOU are now perpetuating; the idea that evolution is a single line of change leading up from lower lifeforms to man as the endpoint.
Strange, the video I watched ended talking about evolution "creating all of the diversity we see in the natural world". No talk of "single line", no talk of "man as the endpoint".
She explicitly denied that point in the video.
*****
A robo quacko-human!
*****
Why do you think that I think that humans are the endpoint of evolution? I never said anything of the sort.
That said, it's an interesting question whether a species can reach certain social circumstances that prevent further natural evolution, and whether we have reached that point.
The misconception is the cartooned straight line of evolution from bacteria to mankind, as if bacteria all changed into fish and fish all changed into monkeys and monkeys all changed into humans. Your graphic also shows humans as the end of that "line" of evolution. Bacteria are as "evolved" as we are.
But they ain't say that evolution is branched rather than having a single linear sequence.That was the best part !
Yes, good stuff. But I think one misconception that you missed is one that is often used as ammunition by the anti-science factions. They will ask something like, "If we evolved from chimpanzees, then why are there still chimpanzees around?"
My own aunt asked me this question. I carefully explained that we did not evolve from chimpanzees. We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. She actually acknowledged that that made more sense. Though I don't think it convinced her to abandon her creationist beliefs, it did clear up a misconception.
So what is the name of the chimpanzee-like ancestor of humans? If we are not going to call it a chimpanzee what should we call it?
@@vesuvandoppelganger You can call it whatever you want. It's hypothetically referred to as the "chimpanzee-human last common ancestor". But we can't say for sure which specific species is the last common ancestor. Rather there is a small group of species one if which could be that ancestor. So we have a good idea of what this ancestor probably looked like but fossil records are not continuous. They represent snapshots. And even if we identify a species that is definitely a recent common ancestor, that doesn't guarantee we won't later find a fossil of another species that is even more recent.
They say that humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees but wasn't there an ancestor of humans that looked exactly like a chimpanzee?
@@vesuvandoppelganger No, it didn't look "exactly" like a chimpanzee. The split occurred 4 to 5 million years ago. After the split, whatever species started the branch that would eventually give rise to chimpanzees continued to evolve and split into even more species. Chimpanzees as we know them today did not exist five million years ago.
After the split from the common ancestor wasn't there an ancestor of humans that looked like a chimpanzee? If it didn't look like a chimpanzee then what did it look like? How is it possible for humans to not evolve through some kind of chimpanzee-like stage?
3:46 this guy is my spirit animal
I’m sure he is Philadelphia Collins.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
-Charles Darwin
"most people find evolutions controversial"..
*Americans.
can't think of a single representative or educator in my country who denies it
Which country are you referring to?
+Daniel Argueta Ireland.(Republic)
what? how does not having public representatives and politicians that deny evolution make me or my country racist or islamaphobic?
Stop perpetuating the stereotype of the idiot American.
teabing Name one. Name a democratic developed country that has schools and elected representatives who are young Earth creationists? A developed country that voted Atheists one of the least trusty groups.
In a WIN/Gallup Poll of "How important is religion to you?" America was the highest ranking English speaking country and higher than all EU countries and any EU country even slightly close had extremely low numbers, almost insignificant, of people who also polled they didn't believe in evolution or thought Atheists were one of the most distrustful groups.
America has SEVEN States where a legal citizen may not hold public office without a belief in God. Show me another country that does that. Ireland came second to the US as a developed country where people think religion is important (still less than HALF vs the MAJORITY in US) and their president is a secular humanist who makes no reference to God in his Holiday Address and very publicly supports gay marriage (legal in Ireland) the teaching of creationism in schools (illegal in schools) and has publicly denounced the countries only, ONLY, member of parliment who denies climate change.
So as batshit crazy religious developed countries go, US is WAY up there
teabing Also the US ranks 6th in the world for creationist beliefs. But the only country where it is openly taught in schools amd debated by politicians despite a supreme court ruling teaching it in schools was unconstitutional
This is brilliant. I've never seen it explained so well in such succinct way.
thank you Julie.
This video explained nothing and was completely against science. Why are you so much against accepting the reality of our God who created us
@@danminer5343 I see many comments like yours, but can you explain why creation is real ? like, give me proofs, not only from the bible like "it is written" etc., give me proofs
I guess that means the Dawarinism Awards are pointless now lol. Great video, really enjoyed it.
Funny how they finished a video about misconceptions of evolution with the monkey to human progression that isn't even correct. The scientist that drew it himself didn't even believe it was accurate, he draw as a sort "what if" thing.
This could have talked about one of the most prominent misconceptions about evolution, 'Ladder-Rung' evolution vs the 'evolutionary bush'.
This is a good and simple explanation which detracts from common beliefs about meaningful progression, but I doubt as many people would believe in this scientifically accurate idea of evolution. Being that most people have some form of religious belief, most people entertain that evolutionary progress came about by external means. Outside of the religious, some (or arguably most) phenomenon are hard to attribute to a purposeless factor. Biologists and educators often say, when addressing the public, things like 'walking sticks :wanted: [or :needed:] to look like sticks, so over time they started to look like them, and that's just how it mysteriously works'. Lamarkism is almost religious in its own way, because it references the deity of the individual to become whatever it wants, so it easily fits with similar ideas among the general religious.
Reproduction doesn't necessarily entail 'advanced progression', as some organisms are perfectly capable of reproducing exponentially at a very 'low order' of existence. Giving the example of a perceived need to reproduce (which organisms should not have) as the key factor in evolution is not suitable. Reproduction is how traits are passed, but it in itself is not why an organism might 'advance' to a 'higher order' lifeform. But without those Lamarkist ideas, I can't really say I feel comfortable in reasoning how different species came to be. The idea that very static species could come to exist from minute changes to genetic code seems ridiculous, and fossil record shows that change within species happens much more quickly than being the result of minute progression.
I can't imagine how so many common people think they can fully understand evolution just off of what they heard from their high school science teacher. Its one of the most puzzling and complex scientific theories, greater in scope and contemplation than any quantum mechanical theory, which the same people would say 'makes their wittle brain hurt'.
What's your intake on evolution of humans through apes? Do you believe this?
TL;DR. Although I did read the last paragraph. I guess evolution is more complicated than I thought.
I still have a hard time understanding how a small change gives any advantage to the organism, if evolution is incremental. For example, a tiny wing is useless. I think these small changes, while not contributing to the survival are still passed along because they are not harmful either.
Actually, bird wings evolved because they helped the small dinosaurs that developed them to be aerodynamic. Basically, it's all about repourposing
True, neutral mutations are usually carried on. Natural selection only weeds out harmful mutations.
You would have to understand the evolutionary history of certain traits in order to understand how they evolved. Evolution is not as simple as tiny wing becomes big wing. Theropods already had arms and many of the more derived species already had feathers, which first developed for insulation. With smaller species, it helped their ability to glide and traits were selectively chosen to help its ability to glide and then powered flight. This is highly simplified, but it gets my point across.
The biggest misconception I see is people saying we didn't evolve from apes, that we just have a common ancestor with them.
I know when they say apes they mean chimps, but it is still a misconception.
We did evolve from apes, and we are still apes, that is because of the law of monophyly, which states that you will always be in the same clade as your ancestors.
Our closest ape ancestor are Bonobos, actually.
If all you have to eat is good healthy food, you'll start to grow accustomed to it and actually like it. I can't candy as much now, it makes me feel sick. I love a good hearty well cooked meal. If you learn how to prepare food right, it becomes enticing to eat healthily.
I know how you feel; I feel sick if I eat too much meat with no vegetables or rice to balance the protein out.
in my household for a while we bought soda a lot. it became something we craved. currently we dont buy soda at all anymore, and now we dont as much want to get soda now.
thank you very much for this great corrections. Some terms used by some people to explain evo. such as ; "genes wants" or organisms wants or tends" etc cause people question evolution in a wrong way and this kind of metaphors may misinform people . There are still a lot of point in evo. that we still don't know. It is a process of humanity,the more studies conducted the more knowledge will be created for the future.
+Gençiletişimci These metaphors are used to make complex concepts more understandable for the average viewer, who's most likely ignorant about this. If someone's stupid enough to actually take this metaphors seriously, well that's another story.
There seems to be a LOT of disagreement in the comment section. Let's breakdown each argument one by one.
• If we evolved from Apes, then why do monkeys still exist today in their unsophisticated state?
Ans - We did not evolve from modern monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor that gave rise to early hominids as well as other early species of apes. Other ape species are like our cousins, crudely speaking. Was your grandfather exactly the same as you or your cousin? No, right? But you both are his progeny nevertheless and share the same roots. Hence, humans belong to the order Primata, just like other apes. Please read up on branching descent for further information.
• Only micro evolution is possible and macro evolution is a sham.
Ans - You're absolutely right. There's simply no way a fish can wake up as a reptile one day. However NOBODY is saying that something that's a fish on monday will be a lizard by thursday. Imagine that one day due to a particularly bad UV ray exposure, the piece of DNA that codes for the proteins in the fins gets mutated. A different protein is formed in the fin, thus altering the fish's phenotype. Over a long, long time (millions of years), these teeny tiny changes accumulate and a stable phenotype of limb like fins may be formed.
Therefore people who use this argument forget that evolution doesn't happen overnight - it takes a millennia of variations to change an organism as drastically as a fish to an amphibian or reptile. "Macro evolution" is the sum of millions of years of "Micro evolution".
• Organisms are too complex to be created randomly and there must be an intelligent designer.
Ans- I shall not argue with the existence of an intelligent creator, as it is a personal choice to believe in a higher power.
To be sure, there MAY be an intelligent creator that has been present for all of Earth's 4.5 billion years of history, pulling the strings of evolution. However, what they did is exactly what scientists are trying to describe. Why is it so hard to accept that God may have allowed evolution to happen under his command? Why do you put words in God's mouth, or pretend to know their intentions?
On the atheist side of the story, complex organisms didn't just appear out of nowhere. It took a good chunk of Earth's history for the first single celled organisms to make the jump to multicellular life, and simple cell aggregations to tissues, tissues to organs and organs to organ systems. I repeat, evolution never happened overnight. It took a billion years for single celled organisms to start making aggregates. Complexity can, in fact arise from simple structures as has been demonstrated in lab experiment where single celled organisms work together as a unit. I recommend you to check them out.
Thank you for your patience, if you made it this far. As I'm agnostic, I have clearly not taken any sides and represented my own understanding of the matter. If you disagree, a civil discussion in the sub comment section is welcome.
Thank you!
You shouldn't state that evolution doesn't happen overnight, i.e. short time scales. Because it DOES.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Yeah, you're right! When I was writing the comment I was thinking of evolution at grand scales of time. I remember watching a video on how lizards with flatter webbed feet got selected in a windy environment in a matter of months. Evolution definitely happens on short time scales, but these new phenotypes are not enough to classify them as new species.
Thanks for the correction :)
@@aryanaggarwal2425 Indeed, take care.
@@aryanaggarwal2425 We have literally observed the evolution of new species, which is macroevolution
Actually you can have environmental factors as well as genetic factors. If I was brought up eating hardly anything and was malnourished I would be different to someone who wasn't. But it is true that my kids wouldn't have these problems unless I did the same thing to them
The last step, the evolved man, is portrayed carrying bags, like he is just coming from shopping... haha.
there is no last slep in evolution humans are still evolving
Ugh, this comments are filled with religious people.
If any of you want to disprove evolution just go out and search a fossil that is not on it's correspondent crust layer, do that and you might win a freaking nobel price.
Well, I just wanted to emphasise, that the Theory of Evolution is widely accepted by a whole bunch of religious people. :D Just to give you two examples: First we have ven. pp. Pius XII, who wrote in his encyclical "Humani generis" (The Human Race), that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one species might evolve into another - even if that species is man. And then we have st pp. John Paul II, who, referring to that encyclical, said in a message addressed to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis".
I think it's at least unfair to make generalised statements, based on uneducated but audible "creationists" from the United States. :/
Michał Ryszard Balicki I know Catholics accepted evolution and even have an observatorium on the vatican.
But there are branches, like 6,000 different ways to "interpret" the bible and we both know catholics are not the main religious power on the United States.
Georgie Pineda: Indeed, they aren't… And that's a shame, that many nonbelievers base their opinion about Christians entirely on those countless inconsistent Protestant denominations in the US. :(
Georgie Pineda But dont atheists and other non believers bash christians into the ground on Christian videos? Funny part is there isnt a lot of triggered christians. Trust me i dont see any
@@animystic7931 havent you heard of fossils'n shyt?
my teacher at school taught us lamarck's theory of adaptation as if it were darwin's... I didnt know why she was wrong, but the theory didnt make sense to me and we fought because it sounded illogical.... now I finally understand that I was right, thanks for the video
I love the animations. The little photo cell made me giggle
Another problem with this video is that people do crave nutrition. Cravings are specific to foods that contain nutrients that we are needing. And that's why nutrient dense foods taste so good (herbs, meats, etc). Science, if you want to blame something for obesity, has allowed us to manipulate our food supply to remove the nutrients and artificially increase taste with just fat and sugar calories.
Meats are carb rich foods, nutrient dense foods are like broccoli and salad, which are generally craved and liked less than most carb rich foods like bread and meat. There is no problem here.
koofer koo Do you even know what a "carb" is?
Wutsizface I do, I just find it funny that people say stuff in the comments without backing it up, and dont know what they are talking about, so you can do the same thing to shut them up.
koofer koo Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. You said, "Meats are carb rich foods." That is false. Most types of meat don't usually have a significant amount of carbohydrates (or "carbs"). Meat is mostly protein and fat. Maybe you meant to say that meat can have a lot of calories, which is true, depending on the amount of protein and fat in it. Also, depending on the type and quality of the meat, it can be quite nutrient-dense. It may not have the same types of nutrients as certain types of vegetables, but it can contain a wide variety of vitamins and minerals. The OP's comment is quite accurate.
Alright getting the generic reply out of the way, looking back at the video and reading the comment so I can dignify you with a real response carbs was a typo in my comment.
I am not ashamed to admit that, but the original comment I was responding to still does not address the fact that in context the video makes perfect sense, the word craving at the time was used to refer to the quite indisputable fact that humans prefer foods with
lots of calories.
Im not exactly a nutritionists, but I like to think I have a basic understanding of the content at hand.
I like to tell Creationists that I'm an American descended from Germans, and yet there are still Germans!
?
+Koala bear 123 since some creationist say shit like "but if humans evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys??" trying to disprove the theory of evolution.
I’m going to use that from now on
Laura Golec how do you answer that ? I never seen a dog produced a none dog or a cow produced a none cow. just variations of it's KIND.
Why do you watch this video if you don’t believe it evolution and are not open minded about it just to write a hate comment
Because the god that supposedly fills their lives has left them that empty.
Almost like said god doesn't exist.
Fitness in the context of evolution refers to “reproductive fitness” NOT “how well suited they are to their environment.”
and it is really about the fitness of alleles, not individual monkeys or lizards
That's technically true, fitness is determined by how many offspring you have, which correlates to being well adapted to an environment.
@@richardblazer8070 True. But we know that mere survival doesn’t add to one’s fitness. Plus, organisms also confront a tradeoff between survival and reproduction.
Therefore, I was a bit skeptical about the words used in the video.
Thanks for the response!
yay, no misconceptions! This was informative.
This all what I’ve learnt in my 10th biology lesson..Still everything was new to me ....xD
Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist?
In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"
Sorry to say that this is the first topic discussed on TED that confuses me so deeply. I have to choose to replay it more times.
I think that there are some misconceptions here too. One organism don't have a gene with a treat, but a range of genetic posibilities, that expresses one way or another depending on the enviromental conditions it has to face. 😊👍
Anyone else going through the comments looking for the extreme unintelligent people from the USA?
Usa culturally is third world compared to europe
Yeah, and it makes me very sad. I don't know why I bothered to look at the comments. Everyone's so unaware and closeminded.
This is every comment section on every video that proposes anything past 6000 years or mutations being anything but detrimental. It's the same song and dance at this point so why. Do. I. Keep. Scrolling???
we humans actually DO evolve from apes, but NOT apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans, if you think humans evolve from present day apes then you're absolutely wrong, instead we evolve from extinct prehistoric apes that we can't see anymore, like australopithecines, which biologically are still the member of the ape group. The present day apes comes from a separate lineage and have their own ancestors that is not directly linked to human's ancestors, but if we trace back to the root, all apes comes from the same common ancestors which over the time start diverging into different and separate species
Al what you have said right now is an assumption.I don’t understand how you can say as if it is a fact.
@@mohamedsr5817 what i'm saying is that apes aren't just chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans, and we don't evolve from those apes. there's more of them, they're just already extinct, one of those extinct apes are australopithecines, which we do evolve from
the only reason i will remember this is 20 years is because of the giraffes face
The misconception of this video: "natural selection happens not at the organism level but at the genetic level."
And let the shit storm begin!
wow lol
Indeed Evolution is the "survival of the fittest", A missunderstanding can occure but the term is 100% correct
isn't it more like Survival of the good Enough
You had me shocked at first when you said it is wrong to say organisms adapt to their environment, you meant individual ones don´t on a smaller timescale.
진화에 대한 오해를 알아봄으로서 진화가 정말 무었인지 배우게되는 유익하고 재미있는 시간이 되었습니다. 진화에 대한 이해를 돋구는 시간이 되었습니다. 감사합니다.
4:04 , that giraffe is going to freeze!
as well as the elephant,but elephants are not that important.
oh my gosh, dont just think about that, think about the broad picture😒
People say that because I'm Christian that I can't believe evolution. I believe that God created things and then they evolved. I get many people will contradict my belief, but unlike most I'm ok with that.
+B Flat You can't believe in 2 things at once, It's illogical. If you believe in the creation and evolution at the same time. then God said in Genesis 1:27 "God created mankind in his own image....". By using that logic, you mean to say that God is evolving?
+Christian Velo god created the universe and the laws of phisics, the universe was such that man came to be, becouse god created this universe the evolution of man and all species was the will of god, untill man adquired a soul, and with it free will. the man to the "image of god" means that humans have the ability to rationalize and act outside it's instics, an ability animals do not posess that is the fundament of why humans a soul and other beings do not. also we know time is not the same to god than it is to us in this limited plane of existance, we *asume* time moves foward to god but we cannot tell how much "one god day" is. we *do* know it does *not* correspond to human days becouse that measure was expressed before the sun or earth (therefore earth-days)existed.
strangely enough the order of creation described in genesis matches with the one described by cience: first there was space, then there was mass, then were the first stars wich produced the elements(other than hidrogen, the most basic element in the periodic table) etc, etc.
the myth could have described a world were man came before animals, or the earth came bore the sun (like in the greek miths) but it's funny it does not.
and by using the word "mith" I am *NOT* implying that it is fantasy.
patricio torre Avant-Garde! I applaud your comment dear sir. The charisma, eloquence and the words you’ve used. I love it!
In your conclusion you would like to say that what Science is teaching is basically what Christianity teaches right? Well I agree with your statement, however a minor correction is to be said.
1. It should be spelled as God, not god….
Don’t be offended everyone makes mistakes.
Kudos to your comment! However I would like to know where you got this information. The scientific and the religious one.
Christian Velo my sources are the filosophy classes I took, what I remember from reading the bible, "the great design" documentary be Nat Geo and stephen hawking(highly recomendable, but I remember watching another one on the formation of the solar system and how fission inside a star works), the origin of the species(many do not know this but darwin was not an atheist) and my own conclusions.
The conclusion I was trying to reach was the "Harmony of faith and reason", wich is a thesis originating in clasical filosophy(this tesis was first proposed by aristotle, But I dont remember wich text specifically) that states that no coherent conclusion reached by theology should ever contradict one reached by man's understanding of the world.
there are variations and derivatives of this but the basis is: If cience and faith are contradicting we either reach false conclusions (such as the theory of ice and fire the nazis had, or the hypothesis that water was the primal element) or we interpreted the revelation wrong(like the heliocentric model).
my main goal was to debunk the idea that natural reason contradics supernatural reason,wich encompasess more than cience, something that was said before cristianity was even a thing.
simply put: those who think religion is irrational do not understand religion.
I hope this was usefull and I'm gratefull for you king answer, I also apologize for any mistakes I may have done, english isn't my first language.
patricio torre Thank you dear friend, I appreciate the effort you've done to make your comment. I'll be sure to research on what you have recommended to me.
By the way, English isn't also my first language so there's no need for an apology. We all make mistakes
this video reminds of the dinosaur animation scene in Jurassic Park where they are explaining the origins of Dinosaurs.
Wow it's amazingly explained. Cleared many misconceptions.
Ted-Ed is one of the best channels on UA-cam!
Ofc
Thank you for doing this, TedEd. There are too many people out there unwittingly or deliberately spreading misconceptions about evolution.
The issue I find with all of the theories surrounding "the creation" are mostly very focused. Evolution tells how organims showed up the Big bang talks about how the universe came to be but. Where did all of these particles and atoms and even smaller than atoms come from. I never hear anyone try to explain that.
Wrong. The reason nobody explains it is because the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics - "matter cannot be created or destroyed."
Of course, evolutionists say that the Big Bang came before thermodynamics... hehe how convenient!
Nature does not create matter. Evolution needs matter. Thus evolution cannot happen.
The Big Bang is a theory. It certainly does not have universal consensus amongst secular scientists. In this vid you see a man who used to be an engineer for the space program. He accepted that the Big Bang was a fact until a colleague asked him a rhetorical question about it, namely "You believe in physics, don't you?"
Then the obvious was seen. The Big Bang defies physics. This vid is about cosmology, but quite a bit more than that, and explains how so much that is called science, in the realm of origins, is really pseudo science used to promote a certain world view.
Take a walk on the wild side. Look outside your box. See if you can use observable scientific data to refute what he says.
ua-cam.com/video/NiCec8SiDuI/v-deo.html
Question.... (serious)
Around 1:20-1:27 the speaker said that not through adaptation but through genetics (random mutations) giraffes come to have elongated necks. The speaker gave the example where a giraffe who spent a great deal of time stretching his neck to reach the tall tress would not have future offsprings with elongated necks for that reason... is it just assumed that mutations came to slowly produce giraffes with long necks because I assume that some giraffes with short necks or most giraffes with short necks were dying and the genes “responded in this manner”. If so why would they know to respond or are they constantly because it is random producing a variant of giraffes with different traits till eventually the long necked giraffes were the only ones left alive , there by supporting natural selection ? The video did not explain that well.
Here's my explanation. The mutation would be random... taking place at a time when there was no real selective pressure on either the short necked or long necked giraffes. Neither neck type proved detrimental in and of itself at the time. We humans are born with abnormalities ourselves that persist through the ages.... an extra toe, an extra finger, and less visible irregularities like having all your organs be on the reverse side of your body (situs inversus). These aren't actively harmful traits. Some of us are taller than others, paler or darker than others in our immediate families. There are variations. I suppose the necks were variants of this sort, that weren't really good or bad at first. Only over time, as the environment changed.
The long necked variants might have had more success, and their numbers increased, as more food was available at higher heights and less at lower heights. The survivors went on to breed, and their offspring were more likely to have the same long neck genetics.
That's what it essentially boils down to. Is the variation, the mutation, actively harmful to your chances of reproduction? No? Then it's passed on. Now, something might occur in the future where having such a trait becomes slowly more critical to survival, and thus the numbers begin to shift.
This is one of the best explanations of evolution I have ever heard. Well done.
*Grabs popcorn
Me: I'm ready for the comment section
Evolution means when organisms either needed to adapt it's own environment further or live to adapt another
The face at 2:02 told us that the giraffe didn’t know about evolution, but he DID know about rEpRoDuCtiOn
Wow isn't it crazy how it goes blindly and never be afraid to make mistakes and after millions of mistakes it found its way around and give birth to something so unexpected, unimaginable and beautiful
Pretty complicated explanation. If I got this right I can just say evolution is plainly random.
Mutation is random. As pointed out in the video, evolution is not.
Jason Baldwin At the risk of causing you disappointment I'm gonna point to 3:38 when Julianna explicitly says "Evolution proceeds blindly - step, by step, by step ..." That clearly sides with the idea that it is a random process indeed.
However, I'd still argue that this distinction between random and directional or, as some might put it, "purposeful" is somewhat philosophical in nature (as opposed to scientific), because at this point we can't yet dismiss the possibility that evolution would proceed exactly the same way every time it had a chance to start over according to the exact same pattern of external variables to affect living things throughout it's duration. Perhaps one day humans will learn how to run relevant models in order to clarify that.
The fact that mechanisms of evolution seem random whereas the net effect doesn't is something that I find paradoxical and amazing. Yet, the idea that pure chance + enough time has to eventually produce life - seem like a huge leap of faith to me (given what we know and what's escaping us). Of course, I'm not saying that evolution has to have an outside purpose. It may well be it doesn't since data collected so far certainly point that way. It's just not been properly proven yet ...
Hengfors League Evolution is a description of biological development that does without an "outside purpose". It describes how things work out the way they do on their own, without an intervening intender. In that sense evolution is 'unintentional', yet not 'random'. There is a fine difference.
Saying that the theory of evolution doesn't disprove an "outside purpose" of life is like saying that the theories of heliocentrism and gravity don't disprove that the earth is being carried on Atlas's shoulders.
Hengfors League The problem there is, how many simulations would we have to run before it would recreate the Planet Earth as we know it? How would we ever? Even if we could fathom how gravity actually works, how would we know how many electrons and protons the universe started with, and without knowing the exact amount, you could never truly recreate the experiment
Kevin Bartlett
This is classic top down thinking. You need to think bottom up.
Imagine a massive pile of rocks. A creationist would look at the pile and, with top down thinking, claim that since there are infinite possible arrangements of rocks, the odds that rocks would fall in this specific arrangement are practically impossible. Thus, God did it. A scientist would look at the rocks and, with bottom up thinking, ask which processes, gravity, friction, ect... would allow for this specific arrangement of rocks.
Now switch that metaphor to the entire universe. If things were different, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Since we are here, what natural processes could lead to our existing?
There is a video game i play called natrual selection 2 that tought me about how any animals can learn and adapt to avoid predators
This simple cartoon is helpful but it fails to emphasize that there is so much we do not understand about evolution (yet). Evolution is a complex theory which is ‘true’ on a macro level but still has many aspects which are not understood. That is why it is a general theory.