correct me if im wrong but aren't the conclusions from the diagrams at 13:38 wrong? In diagram 1 (on the left) organism B is characterised by Hair and an amniotic egg, this transfers fine over to diagram 2 (on the right). But when you look at organism D, diagram 1 characterises it with hair only, in diagram 2 there is no organism listed characterised by hair only - organism D also has an amniotic egg now. Surely then these trees would not be the same organisms? Same goes for organism C which in diagram 1 is not characterised by an amniotic egg. In order to make diagram 2 reflect the same organisms the amniotic egg would need a further evolution event to reverse it such that C and D do not have an amniotic egg anymore. That would make it 6 evolution events for each so they would be equally parsimonious no? I can't think of any other way you can build this to represent the same organisms that isn't blatantly less parsimonious.
It looks like your thinking here is that the 2 trees are supposed to be examples of how to reflect the same traits in each taxon, but by drawing the phylogenies differently, is this so? Well, that's not what's intended at all. What's being compared is 2 ways of interpreting the trait histories and determining which is most parsimonious, which means logical, likely, sensible.
I absolutely loved the video. It helped me understand a lot. This is the first thing we are covering in my Biology class and it was confusing no matter how much I read or watched other videos. This explained it very well and clearly. Thank you so much!
Just started my third year module on phylogenies and macro evolution and it is 🤯🤯 this vid is nice and clear and definitely helped me understand the basics a bit more. Liked and subscribed 😊
hello, thank you for this explanation. I have a question, how can we read the differences between the genome tree and those of 23s rRNA and 16s rRNA gene tree?
13:30 What you said is right, but those are bad example characters and placement. Feathers before the amniotic egg? Lungs after hair? Fur completely different than hair?
This is what confuses me: you can group A & B together as a monophyletic group because they are both the lineages of the same common ancestor, but it's like when you "zoom out" and look at C & D and include the next-to-last common ancestor of A & B, then it's not a monophyletic group anymore?
I think you are missing an essential component of the term monophyletic; 8:46 is lineage a, b AND the immediate common ancestor of both. That is what monophyly is; a group containing a common ancestor and ALL its descendants (along 2 lineages in this case). Compare to 11:16, as before lineages a, b and their immediate common ancestor are within the box. BUT, look what else is included; the previous ancestral node back from their immediate common ancestor is also boxed. NOW; that rear node is a common ancestor too, BUT, only ONE line of its descendants is within the group (the line leading to the common ancestor of a and b). The line leading from it to the common ancestor of c and d is OUTSIDE the boxed area. So, as not all ancestors of that rear common ancestor are included, it is NOT monophyletic.
Hi, could I ask if lineages have different definitions it could be species lineage( a group of species evolving as a whole) or it could be many individual lineages of an organism for e.g making up a population of the species?
I wish you would’ve covered the groups better (mono, para, poly) because they relate more to the character states (synapomorphies,symplesiomorphies) then just descendants of the common ancestors.
One of the EASIEST to understand videos I've seen on this subject. Thanks so much!
helped me more than any other videos I've watched
I'm studying Bio at uni, but suck at phylogeny. This helped me out a ton, thanks!
This video hit every topic we're going over in class! Thank you!
We are the one that are be thanking you!...... All of your videos are perfect.
Thank you so much, your explanations are easy to understand and the pace is perfect! :)
Highly recommend.
She put a lot of effort which is commendable.
ive watched 5 videos on this and this is the only one that helped. i gave up trying to learn this a yr ago!
thank you the sister taxa part for E was what I was stumped on. glad you covered it!
Glad it helped :) please subscribe!
@@faaizahacademy6883 already subscribed!
@@faaizahacademy6883 i life actually i’m so sorry. i’m not actually subscribed to you channel...
Excellent presentation. Clear, concise, and enjoyable to watch. Thank you!
correct me if im wrong but aren't the conclusions from the diagrams at 13:38 wrong?
In diagram 1 (on the left) organism B is characterised by Hair and an amniotic egg, this transfers fine over to diagram 2 (on the right). But when you look at organism D, diagram 1 characterises it with hair only, in diagram 2 there is no organism listed characterised by hair only - organism D also has an amniotic egg now. Surely then these trees would not be the same organisms? Same goes for organism C which in diagram 1 is not characterised by an amniotic egg.
In order to make diagram 2 reflect the same organisms the amniotic egg would need a further evolution event to reverse it such that C and D do not have an amniotic egg anymore. That would make it 6 evolution events for each so they would be equally parsimonious no? I can't think of any other way you can build this to represent the same organisms that isn't blatantly less parsimonious.
It looks like your thinking here is that the 2 trees are supposed to be examples of how to reflect the same traits in each taxon, but by drawing the phylogenies differently, is this so?
Well, that's not what's intended at all. What's being compared is 2 ways of interpreting the trait histories and determining which is most parsimonious, which means logical, likely, sensible.
wauwi super nice handwriting! also love the colors, makes it very visual to understand. thank you :)
Great job explaining this topic. Your presentation made this very digestible.
Don't think it gets any clearer than this. Bless you child!
A really nice and simple explanation!
I absolutely loved the video. It helped me understand a lot. This is the first thing we are covering in my Biology class and it was confusing no matter how much I read or watched other videos. This explained it very well and clearly. Thank you so much!
What a clear explanation. Wonderful job!
I had two lectures in university for this and I was lost thanks so much. You're amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deffs the best vid on this subject
Great explanation
BEST PHYLOGENY VIDEO.
Absolutely saved me. Thank you so much!
thank you so much. it was the best video about this topic here on youtube
Your good, explained it so well!
KATULOGON NA KO HAHHAAHHA! THIS IS VERY CLEAR THO
Nice and well-explained lecture. Thanks
Very clear explanation. And well understandable
Nice and simplefied.
✌️
Thank you so much! This video helped me a lot to understand our Systematics subject and to do our laboratory exercise. God bless u! :)
Thankyou so much i have a presentation, your work is simplified
thank you so much po!! I had a hard time learning it from our prof haha😅 good thing I watched it 2 days before our exam lol
Excellent. You've earned one more subscriber.
many many thanks for the video because it helps me a lot for getting prepared for biology olympiad.
Very straight forward explanations, fantastic.
Awesome!
well explained, thanks
this video was so helpful! thank you
Just started my third year module on phylogenies and macro evolution and it is 🤯🤯 this vid is nice and clear and definitely helped me understand the basics a bit more. Liked and subscribed 😊
you are a g thank you very much - saved my life
Amazing 🙏
Thankyou so much mam this vedio helped me alot to clear my basics
Nice vid!!
you are good . Thanks for this
Very helpful
My professor is a pain in the ass. She teaches something she doesn't believe in. This helped a lot!
Very helpful thank you so much
Too good
Thank you this was so clear and to the point !
Thank u so much♡♡♡♡♡ u r the bestt!!!
Well you explained better than what my professor did
hello, thank you for this explanation. I have a question, how can we read the differences between the genome tree and those of 23s rRNA and 16s rRNA gene tree?
GOOD!
I already subscribed since you're very good at explaining
Thank you , u made it so simple
This helped me a lot!
Thank you so much for this!
thanks so much!!! super helpful!
Is it safe to say that monophyletic groups are also synapomorphies?
Are there 9 monophyletic groups here based on the SNIP test as well?
thank you so much!!!
13:30 What you said is right, but those are bad example characters and placement. Feathers before the amniotic egg? Lungs after hair? Fur completely different than hair?
Thanks!
Finally, a video that’s not from India. For the life of me I cannot find deeper biology videos that are verbally understandable thank you.
E is a monophyletic group!
no
it helped so much
thank you it helped a lot
What program are you using to draw your presentation? I NEED this for my class
I really like noteability for taking notes for classes. 😄
This is what confuses me: you can group A & B together as a monophyletic group because they are both the lineages of the same common ancestor, but it's like when you "zoom out" and look at C & D and include the next-to-last common ancestor of A & B, then it's not a monophyletic group anymore?
I think you are missing an essential component of the term monophyletic;
8:46 is lineage a, b AND the immediate common ancestor of both. That is what monophyly is; a group containing a common ancestor and ALL its descendants (along 2 lineages in this case).
Compare to 11:16, as before lineages a, b and their immediate common ancestor are within the box. BUT, look what else is included; the previous ancestral node back from their immediate common ancestor is also boxed. NOW; that rear node is a common ancestor too, BUT, only ONE line of its descendants is within the group (the line leading to the common ancestor of a and b). The line leading from it to the common ancestor of c and d is OUTSIDE the boxed area. So, as not all ancestors of that rear common ancestor are included, it is NOT monophyletic.
Wow
Nice video and well explained. Although you didn't mention the term Clade ...
So how many taxas are there?
You say at 8:45 that A+B are monophyletic then at 11:15 you say A+B are paraphyletic.
I was looking for videos for my students to use to study and I was loving this one until I saw that. Now I can't use this :(
No, the 2 examples were different, pay attention!
Evolution is a fairy tale.
Hi, could I ask if lineages have different definitions it could be species lineage( a group of species evolving as a whole) or it could be many individual lineages of an organism for e.g making up a population of the species?
fucking science man but this is a good explanation tho and it helped me alot lol
Can I have your email please ......!!!
For the purpose of asking questions on other related topics....
Cramming for midterms and my teacher can't teach for shit
I wish you would’ve covered the groups better (mono, para, poly) because they relate more to the character states (synapomorphies,symplesiomorphies) then just descendants of the common ancestors.
Thank you so much. You help me a lot♥