I've made note not to miss the very last few seconds of your videos..... I like your signature style of presentation;) Excellent learning and entertainment value all in one!
The Monod-quote got me thinking: the very basic mechanisms of evolution should be easily understandable to everyone. It's the extrapolated implications regarding the dynamics of life and our place in nature that mess things up for most people. That and the common misconceptions that seem to flourish everywhere. Good work. Excellent use of the Tree of Life animation.
Hi there. I'm still a little confused by your comment. My main intention, however successfully I put it across, was to point out that when Hovind says "nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog", he is presenting it as though dogs would have to produce non-dogs for evolution to work. That's not the case though. So Hovind and I agree that dogs don't produce non-dogs, but we disagree that this is a problem for evolution. Anyway, that was just my approach to addressing the misconception.
To be fair, since dogs actually come from wolves, the statement should be modified to: No one has ever seen a wolf produce a non-wolf. At that point, one can show a Chihuahua, and pretty confidently claim it as a "non-wolf."
Rotweilers don't produce poodles, and poodles don't produce rotweilers, yet they share common ancestory. Evolution is really that simple, but the array of mechanisms that select for traits is as unfathomable as the diversity it produces... Awesome video!
And I would be concerned that there is a misleading implication that Hovind is right that a dog couldn't ultimately evolve into something that was not a dog.
"A curious thing about the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it" - Jacques Monod "Obviously some people understand it to a higher degree than others" - Itsjustameme
Yeah, just so I'm clear, what exactly was the mistake I made? I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do try to be as well informed as possible. Was it just that plant cells and animal cells are different, and I defined eukaryotes in a way that encompassed both? If so, I understand the mistake. If not,can you explain further? Thanks!
Fossilisation occurs (semi)randomly, which means that we can't demand that nature gives us the fossils that we want - what we get is what we have, and what we have is perfectly consistent with what we would expect from a gradually developing biosphere.
@BTek4 I don't see where I contradicted myself. Could you show me the contradiction? Elephants and sea urchins are still deuterostomes - they haven't "gone past" being deuterostomes to become something else - the traits of organisms are nested like Russian dolls.
@dragoon414 You've misunderstood the point of the video. Please answer this question: are dogs tetrapods? If you say "yes", then you've refuted your comment, because you've admitted that creatures retain their biological history as they evolve. In another 500 million years dogs will still be dogs, just as contemporary dogs are still tetrapods; however, their "dogness" will be an old part of their biology, and we will refer to them by new names we create to deal with their new characteristics.
@gcnengineer That's abiogenesis, and the current model used is the primordial soup model. The basics of it is that certain chemicals formed basic amino acids and proteins and over a VERY long time (Or relatively short if you're using a geographical time scale) they began to form primitive cells. Then evolution pretty much took place. We've seen amino acids formed in such a way, so the current theory seems pretty reliable.
@CBALLEN what i was saying was " All we know is that "in the past" Matter was closer togeather. The singularity "big bang" is attained simply by extrapolating backwards to a point where all matter and space was completely localized.
Another exquisitely beautiful video. This video should be seen by every student, and they should be tested on it. I cannot say enough good things about it. This should be the future of education. My hat goes off to you.
Thank you very much for making this. Aside from the very, very minor misdefinition of eukaryote, this is flawless. Watching this video also makes me feel good inside, reminded that not all of RU-vid is completely brainless. I'm off to watch the rest of your videos...thank you for existing!
Hmmm, I still don't quite agree. A distant descendant of a dog, even if very different in appearance, is still a kind of dog, even if we don't choose to use that particular word. Snakes are tetrapods by descent, even though their limbs have (almost) completely disappeared. Our own personal feeling that something has become "different enough" to justify being called something else, doesn't mean that the path of descent is any different.
This is a great video, but I need to make a correction: Sahelanthropus Tchadensis is 7my old, not 15my old, and it was contemporary with the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans, not the group you called hominids (aka the African Great Apes). The common ancestor you were looking for there is Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, I think.
@knowwaie It is not a question of surviving forever - surviving forever would actually be counter-adaptive, since if organisms lived forever it would drastically reduce resources. The point is to survive long enough to successfully reproduce. From the point of view of genes, once you have successfully reproduced, you don't need to survive any longer.
The first step is mistakable: "membrane wall"... plants have membranes and walls, animals only got membranes (there is no "membrane wall"). Also: eucaryotes refers to the cell nucleus (καρυον meaning "nut"), which of course is a kind of membrane too (which passes into the ER). But apart from that: great work! 5* + fav'ed
@gcnengineer We kinda do know, since we have seen amino acids formed from non-organic chemicals. One of the more popular experiments done is the Miller-Urey experiment, in which various non-organic chemicals were used to create organic matter, showing that life can come from non-life. And according to the wikipedia article, this isn't the only proven experiment that shows that.
I understand your point, and I can agree that I worded it poorly in my first comment, but this isn't what the creationist claim is about nor is it the solution to it. Evolution isn't a gradual refinement of something down through domains to a particular species and it's not a case of dogs not being able to produce non-dogs through evolution. The idea of a non-dog producing a dog is as anathema to a creationist as a dog producing a non-dog and this line of argument doesn't help.
Thank YOU to be the FIRST video to : A) Dipict the latest evolution of hominids in a visual presentation as a woman. B) Not use the word "man" kind in instead of "human." It made my day!
@knowwaie Evolution, when used in the context of biology, refers to the process that causes organisms to diversify over time. It doesn't refer to anything metaphysical, and only connotes "progression" to the extent that constant change is imposed upon life by the environment they find themselves in. This is sometimes called the Red Queen Effect, after the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass, who says "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place".
@BTek4 There's no contradiction there. As I said at the end of the video, humans could be described as eukaryotic, deuterostomic, chordate, vertebrate, tetrapod, mammalian, primate hominids. There are all traits of homo sapiens. We do not cease to become eukaryotic just because the original eukaryotes looked different, and even if dogs diversify for hundreds of millions of years into the future, they will still be dogs, just as we are still eukaryotes.
Hi there, I'm not Icelandic, although I have taught myself to read and write it a bit. Am I right in thinking that your message meant: "Hey there. I find your name very appropriate, since Iceland is in top place for countries that accept Darwinian evolution"? If so, yeah, that's cool! I found the name when I saw some copies of The Origin of Species in various languages, including Icelandic, and decided to use it as my username. Þakka þér fyrir!
I must nitpick about your definition of Eukaryota, I know you've already had flack for it before, but the way it's currently worded makes it sound like all Eukaryotes are either Animalia or Plantae, which since Animalia is a descendant from the Ophisthokonts, and Plantae is just one of the branches of the early Eukaryotes, it's not correct to say it's one or the other. There are a lot of Eukaryotes which are neither Animalia, or Plantae.
@CutClip It would be hard to be vaguer than that. "Evolution" refers to everything from simple adaption to environment, to common ancestry of biological life, both of which are supported by a great deal of objective evidence. So, to address the first part, do you accept that biological organisms are subject to environmental pressures, which cause natural selection? As for the second part, do you accept that all life is based on the biological building blocks, i.e. DNA?
@knowwaie I was just following the line of descent from eukaryotes to humans (humans ARE eukaryotes). Since we are mammals, that's the line I followed. Having said that, one of the creatures I show in this video is the platypus, a monotreme. These, along with echidnas, lay eggs, despite being mammals. This combination of characteristics is perfectly consistent with the assertion that there exists a common ancestor between reptiles and mammals.
DNA remains consistent. Therefore, if you thought things out logically, you can conclude that animals cannot and WILL not change into that of another species. Ever. If it were that simple, it would be scientifically provable and recreated within a laboratory environment. It has not been successfully reproduced even once. Please, logically explain to me why it's possible. And don't give me the "mutation" theory, because we all know that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.
@CutClip There was a misprint at the end of my comment, it should have said "do you accept that all life is based on the SAME biological building blocks..." Anyway, both extremes are examples of evolution, so if you have a particular disagreement with some aspect or other of the generally accepted story of the history of organic life on this planet, then you'll have to be more specific than simply saying "evolution".
@CBALLEN sorry, but why did all the missing links between every separated specie die out exactly? maybe it was just one big jump in every case, okay fine but that would require this seemingly random big jump to produce both a male, and female of the same kind in that new species same life time, i guess i could see that maybe happening once or twice over billions of years randomly but then we would only have 2 or 3 species, seems more logical to think that there was a living helping hand.
@sanpedrohustler From the ancestors that survived the race for life. Every species alive is the culmination of a long lineage of ancestors that manage how to stay alive through a series of adaptations.
it is good to see this thinfoil hat video grouped with "Geerup's Terrible Lizard Classification" and "Headbanging while making fire" in the Related video section. Shine on you crazy diamonds. God bless you.
You're absolutely right, that's where people make mistakes. But even so, the long-term implications of evolution should also be easy to grasp, but yet they're not. This is one misconception that actually has some truth to it, that I wanted to debunk.
@BTek4 As I said in the video, "Deuterostomes don't produce non-deuterostomes", even though the earliest organisms whose blastopore develops into their anus date back around 560 million years, and have since diversified into everything from sea urchins to elephants, while still remaining by definition deuterostomes. Since all organisms are the product of their ancestry, even if dogs diversified for another 560 years into wildly different forms, they would still be dogs.
@CBALLEN What I am saying is that, if something can be properly investigated scientifically, then it is not supernatural. Supernatural things cannot be tested, measured or observed in any verifiable way, since by definition they do not conform to the natural laws of physics. So all you can do is believe in supernatural things; no scientist can ever offer you information about them.
Hmmm, well the comment by AEVautomatic looked so silly, I assumed it was a joke. Perhaps it is. In any case, I find those comments are best ignored anyway.
@gregrutz if you take the first wolf ,''the original so to say'' and you breed him to a Chiwawa then you can try and breed what you want but it will never be a big dog.your argument is a nice straw man argument because we cant now exaltedly how big the original wolf was.
@IloveYOUviruses so what you are saying is that unless scientists can produce the complete remains of every creature that has ever lived upon the earth, you will refuse to believe the evidence. thank you for clarifying that.
@knowwaie --- Phylogenetics is no more evidence of evolution than it is of reincarnation --- This statement makes as little sense as saying that Newtons law of motion is no more evidence of newtonian mechanics then it is of reincarnation. It just does not work. Phylogenetics actualy deals directly with ancestry and inherited genotypes shared between species. why did you not know this?
Yeah, I think the point I would make is that dogs *could* produce non-dogs even if they haven't (although deciding on the exact point at which this happens is difficult and in many ways not important - that's what I really mean about it 'faffing around with names'). Certainly for evolution to work non-dogs would have to produce dogs, correct? And that's as bad for Hovind. Hovind's problem is that he expects this to happen in a big jump where it's obvious, whereas it'd happen in smaller steps.
Names, systematics, taxonomy, classification, this is the essence of biological sciences - it is not the 'wrong' way to do things, nor is it 'faffing' - the video simply follows the taxonomic cladogram from our most distant ancestors to us in the present. As the 'Domain' is the highest practical taxonomic rank, we start from either Eukarya, Bacteria or Archaean. Did we evolve from Bacteria, or a universal common ancestor (LUCA)? We work with what we know. The rest of your post is nonsensical.
@CBALLEN The things is, if something can be measured and investigated by science, it is by definition NOT supernatural. If something IS supernatural, it cannot be subjected to scientific investigation since it doesn't obey physical laws. So if there is a supernatural realm to existence, science will forever remain ignorant of that fact. When it comes to supernatural phenomena, all you can do is believe; you can't check, investigate or verify it.
Wow! I can't imagine a better compliment! Thank you! Hope you enjoy the other videos. I personally find that my video "Prediction, Prophecy and Eclipses" is a bit underviewed, so please check that one out.
@gcnengineer I am not claiming it had totally accurate early earth conditions, abiogenesis isn't solely about the earth. Anyone who's studied on the subject can tell you that. Abiogenesis is simply how life started, and the Miller-Urey experiment showed that it can happen. And if you did research on abiogenesis, I'm sure you would have heard of the Murchison meteorite that would explain how the organisms got here if you're not willing to accept that it formed naturally on earth.
@knowwaie The Scala Naturae is different to our modern understanding of biology, in that it presupposes fundamental separations between "kinds" of creatures based on a subjective impression of their place within a hierarchy. It is primitive in the sense that it relies on the notion that creatures are imbued with a particular "essense" which gives them their properties. It is not surprising that humanity had to go through stages of faulty understanding before reaching a better understanding.
@faron27 You're question is relevant to archaeology and anthropology, not evolution. GT exists; clearly this means that humans from the time were capable of building such a structure. How exactly they built it is not completely know - as I said, only 5% of the site has been properly excavated. But if a full investigation of the site causes us to re-evaluate our understanding of neolithic technology, so what? What does this have to do with biology? What is your hypothesis? How was GT built?
@purpleleach1 Determining geochronological dates requires a combination of a number of dating techniques, including chronostratigraphy, radiometric measurements, incremental dating methods such as dendrochronology, lichenometry and ice core drilling to give an overall picture of the timeline of life on this planet.
@InventorGorilla The loss of a tail shouldn't require slow change over many generations. There are cats that are tailless. Humans still have the potential to form a tail, complete with vertebra, muscles, nerves, etc. All humans also develop a tail during embryonic development, and some are even born with one.
@faron27 Human beings are classified as apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, oran-utans and gibbons. So asking for a transitional fossil between the two makes no sense. We have an extensive collection of fossil remains from various eras, which form a general picture of the ascent of man. Info about these specimens is openly available to anyone who wants to look.
@faron27 The timeline of evolution says that creatures classifiable as humans appeared in the Kenya/Ethiopia region around 150-200,000 years ago. Göbekli Tepe was built around 11,500 years ago, and thus us irrelevant to the timeline of evolution. Any supposed problems you have with the construction of this neolithic structure ought to be addressed to archaeologists, who study the field of ancient human structures. Archaeologists find Göbekli Tepe to be a very interesting structure (cont'd)...
@CBALLEN Organic soil, at least on land formed as we know it now durring the advent of Vascular plantlife after the Cambrian. However even before this, Microbial populations in any sediment with sufficent moisture would already have been present, Often regardless of high or low temperature extremes, "see hyperthermophiles" Before Vascular plant life, oxygen production was limited to primative macro algal types, phytoplanktons and Cyanbacterial species in the water column.
As i said, the facts are the raw data, and the theories are the models that encompass as much of the raw data as possible. However since you want a fact, here's one: all living creatures are based on the same genetic buildings blocks. Now, does that support common ancestry, or does it refute it? The finding that all life is based on the same chemical make-up is a confirmation of the theory that life diversified from a common ancestor.
@gcnengineer They didn't design the proteins made in that experiment. They brought together the chemicals under a certain conditions to replicate early earth conditions yet keep it within a reasonable time scale. There was no interferance from any designer necessary. About the only thing the "designers" did was bring the chemicals together and set up the lab. Plus what you're saying is tantamount to saying "We have clones, therefore all life is cloned" it's ignorant of what really happened.
@knowwaie Why would you need to tell me that the word evolution didn't exist back in Babylon? What relevance does that have? You say I would rather emphasise Darwin, but I haven't mentioned him at all except to reply to a comment of yours that mentioned him.
look at whose page. AEVautomatic has nothing on his page to imply he's messing with anyone and uppruniTegundanna page that suggest the video is messing with anyone.
@knowwaie If anyone can figure it out then why did you ask the question? Your question was "why [do] things die? ... How long until we live forever?" In providing an answer, you claim that "anyone can figure [it] out". Waste of time! You say "There is no mechanism which causes progression" - rather than progression, there is a mechanism that causes constant and accumulating changes to be introduced into a genome: reproduction, genetic recombination and natural selection. That's the answer.
@knowwaie evolution is caused when Random variation in a population of organisms occur. these can be characterized as mutant, "slightly different" versions of a previous gene apear. When these genes code for something and one particular version of the gene starts to spread its called a Polymorphism. Things in nature "selection pressures" have the ability to make certain versions bad for the creature and some of them good. ------- (CONTINUED in second comment due to the lack of space)
@foxmcloud555 You are still dodging the facts. Medical practices can be reproduced and tested for validity within a hospital or laboratory environment. Micro and Macro evolution cannot be tested or even confirmed for validity mathematically or scientifically. That is the main issue that you "higher thinkers" seem to have oh so conveniently ignored.
@knowwaie --- Explain to me the theory behind why things die when they are so apt for survival. How long until we live forever? --- Some organisms do technicaly have indeffinant life spans already... But this is actualy irrellvant.
@knowwaie Not at all, although I am opposed to any single faction trying to "take over" a country. The citizenry of any nation that wants to call itself civilised should be allowed to pursue their own lives without being imposed upon by other groups.
@knowwaie --- Theology out weighs common ancestry in the field in which they belong --- The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the backbone of modern biology. It is also called the Universal theory of biology. Your comment is factualy incorrect.
