What Caused Life's Major Evolutionary Transitions? 

This is all a hoax, God created us in His own image.

Oh boi here it comes the magic sky daddy fanbase.

We all know who created life....the great god of Yog-Sothoth bitch!

Oh boi here it comes the edgelord internet genius fanbase. He was being sarcastic

@@maximilian8959 no Cthulhu did it

Mike Public go get em

Ha, you can lead a theist to a youtube video, but you can't make them watch it... they wont! :-D They believe by way of faith, gotta kill the faith virus first.

Brett Balsam lol

***** you literally know nothing about evolution

***** the video explained evolution perfectly but you were too stupid to comprehend it

now think about countries , then religions, and then meeting alien colonies and the whole world acting like a one living thing.

+Bender Bending Rodriguez, I thought so too. Quite a few papers to help give the video strong credibility, as well as a simple, yet detailed explanation about the topic. I hope to see this channel become much bigger to help educate a larger audience.

Whether or not Humans have graduated to Super Organismal status or not... it seems pretty clear to me that this is a driving pattern in evolution and the direction we are headed sooner or later. We see the repetition of these formations: Homogenous Colony, Colony with specialization, Nucleation, Super Organism ... and this refrain repeats with scale. The former Super Organism becomes the building block for the next Homogenous Colony of ascending order. Nucleation refers basically just to a specialization wherein a small component regulates the rest of the organism.. we can be talking about cell nucleus, a central nervous system, or a government. To my mind, the thing that is crucial to the super organismal state, is not mutual codependence... but a shared, perceptible sensation of self within the constituent elements. This is all pretty new... Darwin's work was all about how one became many. This theory of "layers" is about how the many became one. Both of these things are important and critical evolutionary drives... we all have heard about "natural selection" and Darwin's theories... but this one about the layers... what is the name for that? See what I mean? I would bet there are many biologists studying it that call it different things... but it does not yet have the cohered status and title that Darwin's thoughts have, even though it is just as fundamental. When I first started thinking about these things, it was very hard to find anyone that knew what I was talking about... it was news to most. It is only in the last few years this has started to become more mainstream. There are many HUGE implications to this theory... and you can explore some of my fringy, whacky notions in my rambling, poorly produced offerings on my channel... I know some of it is "out there", but I think there are at least a few nuggets of merit buried in there. The pertinent videos I made are titled "Collective Cognition, Unified Theory of Consciousness, and Thinking and Driving" ... you will have to be patient with digressions if you want to get to the good stuff.

This makes sense. Living organisms are subject to resource restriction, and behaviors that evolve can and are influenced by factors that affect how easily we can survive to reproduction. Even if we naively extrapolate human behavior as being derivative or emergent (whichever term fits best) of multicellular or even cellular behavior, that would only be because we are also acting physical entities with resource restriction and a set of behaviors that impacts our survival/reproductive chances. It makes more sense to recognize that living organisms, or at least population trends, will tend toward behaviors that improve survival chances. And because resource restriction is a universal selecting pressure, it will have common elements in all "levels" of life, resulting in a sort of mimicry in how cooperation takes place, though specific circumstances and nuance is necessary to distinguish these levels of behavior.

If a group of 5 pairs of human reproducing partners decided to devise a pattern of how their decedents would reproduce with each other (within the original group) over time they could essentially make a new evolutionary transition.

The entire biosphere is changing into a super organism. Once we have completely sustainable and renewable energy our priorities will be clear which is to sustain the diversity of animal and plant life we see because other animals are part of the super organism as well

@Jo Hannes, if you were left in the woods, you would surely survive with enough knowledge and good instincts. Humans can survive outside society, most don't want to I guess.

+Alvin Lee haha, nah, we're friends and I started saying it first ;)

linsey Lindsey Doe has also been saying it on her channel for yonks

Haha, you forgot to say "FIRST!". Where's your RU-vid etiquette?

Don't forget the notification squad! #Im_better_than_you_coz_Im_early

“Illustrated”, you’d think with all the tech advances in today’s “science”, we’d have real life pictures to explain this. But no... we are still looking at picture books and cartoons. It’s laughable really.

@@jamesrobertson6293 Dude, you can pictures on google

? --> Big Bang --> Theory of Everything --> Forces --> Bosons --> Quarks --> Hadrons --> Atoms --> Chemicals --> Proteins --> Viroids --> Viruses --> Bacteria --> Eukaryotes --> Complex life

Elements should be where chemicals are. Other than that, no complaints from me. Well that and Genomes come before proteins.

makes me think of the great Carl Sagan "If you want to create an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe!" every time I think about these deep and amazing wonders of our world I get shivers down my spine. thanks to science I can grasp at least the tiniest bit of these wonders.

@@CadetGriffin bullshit, A guy in the sky once decided to do a play, he created a mythical couple and their antagonist, this couple were humans and they ;) ;) and this is why we are here idiots !

ankit chiplunkar Every step is a major _complexity_ transition, not an evolutionary one, though... :-B

Maybe Borg Spheres will be the next level?

That is actually the logical next evolutionary step, for humans to first start merging with computers, and then become one being. The first part's already happening with neural implants and mechanical prosthesis. At least that's what some scientists hypothesise. motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-dominant-life-form-in-the-cosmos-is-probably-superintelligent-robots

no osman,

@Mark Dwight resistance may be futile....but if WE all join together, it will be one hell of a battle.

resistance is voltage/current (^^,)

+Mendicant Bias you'd love the RNA world video.

Ramen

Mendicant Bias R'AMEN brother !!!!!

Mendicant Bias 42 likes. incredible

flayingspaghetimonster =fsm ?

No human survives on its own.

interesting, but this was indirectly mentioned at the end of the video

Oh shit. 5th level achieved?

not yet, even if we're specialized in our jobs, I think we would be able to survive alone anyway.

The next time you're spreading Nutella on freshly toasted bread while drinking milk, ask yourself. .. where the fuck did all this come from?

Mind = Blown

symbiosis :)

Turn on and tune out!

spaghetti monster forever and ever

yes , incredible life

Except he didn't even attempts to combat irreducibly complexity, which is the chief objection.

The chief objection for some; everyone has their favorites. I use to be a creationist, and while I did cite irreducible complexity, I more often just pointed to how it's impossible to get life from non-life. However, both objections have been addressed, for those not afraid to google. Biology has advanced quite a lot since the old I.C. examples (the human eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc.) were first used as objections, and has since explained their earlier forms.

Many have been answered, while many more have popped up. It's not simply "we don't know how this works" kind of examples, either, but "based on the evolution model, it would literally be impossible." When small changes would be disadvantageous, yet be necessary for the transformation into a new species, evolution says it should never happen. Woodpeckers are a great example. The shape of the beak makes it worse at anything else besides poking holes in trees, and you can't make even a single hole unless you have a long pointy beak. What more, you also have to have much stronger neck muscles, which would be wasted energy unless you already have a long beak. What more, even if you had both of those, you'd need a spongy organ around your brain to absorb the impact of your head slamming into the tree. All single parts are negatives traits for a bird unless you have all of them perfectly together. Evolution says that should not exist, rather than simply saying we don't know how it happened. There are countless such examples. I would suggest taking a look at Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe for a few more with much greater detail. He's a biochemist and I'm a random dude on the internet, so maybe you'll take him more seriously.

That a woodpecker shouldn't exist is not what evolution says; it's what creationism SAYS that evolution says. I suggest googling "evolution of X" before listing such examples. Just because a creationist source says it's impossible, or that it hasn't been explained, yet, doesn't mean that it hasn't. Traits aren't added whole, one by one, like lego blocks. Traits exist and evolve together, often starting smaller and becoming stronger over thousands of generations, gaining the creature new hunting strategies as they change. In the case of the woodpecker, a long beak and tongue are already used by other bird species for many different things, like to reach grubs and insects that have burrowed just under the rotting bark, without need of drilling. Or to reach into the soil to pull out ground-dwelling pray. Or to more easily reach seeds growing in a thick patch of brush. Haven't you ever noticed that woodpeckers still also LOVE sunflower seeds and dried cherries? You can buy bags of seed formulated specifically to attract woodpeckers. In evolution, animals change diet all the time, as they become able. The slow, gradual strengthening of these features would give a bird's descendants more and more ability to chip away at surface bark and rotten, flaking wood, and dry soil. Even that would allow it to reach more of its pray than it's slightly shorter-beaked cousins. What Creationism says shouldn't exist, though, is Ring Species. Divide a population in half, and separate them for long enough, and it results in so much genetic drift that the groups become incompatible with each other and eventually, can no longer breed. New species arising without separate, special creation.

Haha well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess... Ring Species not being able to exist isn't what creationism says; it's what evolutionism SAYS creationism says. But I don't see this conversation benefiting either of us too much. You apparently have your mind pretty darn set on the matter, as do I. Anonymous internet banter won't change that, I don't think. I wish you the best of luck, and merry Christmas.

Patrick Kelley Yes

Yes but details about it aren't yet clear enough to be listed as a transition we really understand. Stu skips it in his paper for this reason.

+Stated Clearly It would be a welcomed supplement if you covered the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the forming of proto-cell components, basically the current model of explenation of how we went from no life to the point where this fantastic video here takes over! And I just want to add, you definetly live up to your "name" - this truly was stated clearly! 👍👍👍

We have an entire series on the origin of life. Have you seen it?

That's outside the scope of evolution.

As a former evolutionist of ten plus years, it boggles my mind that anyone supports evolutionism.

And this isn’t educational, it’s teaching only one side, the evolutionism side.

Ant colony have are like bees they have a queen and therefore evolve as one organism. But human society in a way is a layer of life, especially considering our laws actually have an influence on evolution. For exemple abortion law have a very direct effect on human revolution, and if at some points societies become separated for long periods of time (in the current world it'll probably not happen, but imagine we find a way to colonize other planets then that might happen), well if one society allow abortion they'll probably end up with much healthier offspring on the long run than a society that doesn't allow it. Because foetus with birth deffect might get aborted more often. That's just an exemple but there are other interactions our law have with our biology that can have an effect as long as population don't travel too much.

Social insect colonies fit the bill. But human societies don't. Yet. Yes in social insects, you have specialisation/cooperation *and* you have reproduction of the colonies (when queens found new colonies). As for superior mamal societies, we are locked into a single biotop and have not been able to spawn autonomous civilisations on other planets. Yet.

Sander Suverkropp >> Only if there was no such interaction, we would form a fifth level of life. Cross breeding between mankind instances is irrelevant. There are some cell exchanges between metazoa (e.g sexual reproduction). There are some exchanges of individuals between insect societies (e.g again when drones and queen come from different colonies). Do not confuse societies instances isolation and individual genotypes. Individuals can and will specialise (e.g in "tissue" speciation) possibly under the influence from external contribution. Future mankind instances would probably be the result of parthenogenesis (in Greek colony/metropole acceptation) but "cell exchange" influence on "tissue" speciation would fade away after some time. IMOHO of course. :-)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*****

Rufyu

Citations are worthless if the cited use only imagination. Proteins cannot evolve.

ya - information is the next level (DNA) and ya i think we do great with our information network.

wasnt that the evil robot in this movie? the one with scarlett johanssen?

Every particle has a boundary, cell wall, outer surface, valence... And every wall/boundary is contained within many boundaries. Everything is an individual vortex that produces waves that vibrate the boundary condition and via vibration are added to the harmony of the Universe which exists within a single boundary that contains all others. It's a water balloon filled with water balloons that each create their own vibration as part of a single sound. We are oceans within oceans. Of course I could be wrong but we must choose a belief and this is the belief I chose. I think it's a good one.

The video explained nothing about origins.

+AZOffRoadster some gut microbes are getting close but they are still free to change hosts. They also are not passed from mother to child. Aphids though, have undergone what looks like a major transition with one of their gut microbes. Its passed in the egg and neither species can live without the other.

"They also are not passed from mother to child." I believe that is not true. You're microbiome exists both internal and external, and I've heard some good arguments put forth that there is evidence of differing health between vaginal birth vs c-section with the latter (less exposed at birth) having weaker immune systems (or something like that). . We digress... but... A person cannot exist without a microbiome... right?

+AZOffRoadster you can die without a microbiome to help fight off invasion from pathogens but we have not found a specific species you absolutely need and there is not a specific species passed from mother to child. A major transition is a permanent merger, we have not reached that level with our gut flora. Again, in aphids, it has happened. The bacteria merges with the egg cells in a similar way our mitochondria are passed from mother to child.

uncleanunicorn true

Wait, what if that designer/creator wanted to craft things in this exact way? You are assuming their values and intents to be what we would likely have in designing, but we can't know if they share that with us.

The Designer already engineered whatever He wanted from the very beginning... And it only took two letters: BE!

Actually, the existence of God is beyond time.

I believe he/she did. I also believe that the Universe tells a story for us to read. It's a story that doesn't need anything beyond human faculty to read. I read chapter one as the seed makes a tree and the new tree a new seed, the millionth tree is a continuation of the first seed and all that came before. We see the replication of design schemes repeated at all levels, we see waves driven by currents turning in a Vortex and pulled by the tides in the molten lava of the Earth, in the oceans, on the land, the air, the Sun and above, in our bodies, in our cells in the atom and below. Our cells Create their own current by separating electrons from protons to create a pressure gradient. Our cells seem to intuitively understand how the universe works better than we do though they are a small part of us individually.

BFDT your so right!

My guy be spreading the facts.

W a I t a s e c ond

***** You've convinced me.

Ксения Ковалевская i cant tell if your saying this jokingly or are being actually serious

corey martin I'm serious. It's easier to believe in an invisible man that'll let me live in paradise for an eternity than learn all this complicating stuff.

Ксения Ковалевская ok will firstly this stuff isnt really that complicated but why would you rather live a life of lie just because something is too "complicated" sorry but things are complicated but just because they are doesnt mean you should neglect the truth and believe in something that is fake but its just simplified it really makes no sense

Yet here you are commenting in a digital website from your electronic phone/computer at the comfort of your modern home, all product of generations of dedicated men and women who "learned all of these complicated stuff" (as you would like to put it). If you were in charge of the science program of humanity, humanity will be still living in the caves.

How about a recent evolutionary time period. There are over 10,000 years of man (and 5,000 years of recorded history), and within all that time man still hasn't turned into something else. In fact, nobody has seen another monkey turn into a man. It's hilarious that evolution just stopped for the last 10,000 years, isn't it?? C'mon. man!! Think!!!

Me neither. It's also strange how they seem to so desperately hold on to beliefs even though they are proven wrong, like Creation.

It's a little bit funny. See, there's a common understanding that everything that exists has awe-inspiring complexity that's difficult to understand. So, the idea is that there's a God which comprehends all of this incredible complexity. Somehow, the acts as a shortcut to not actually marvel at the aforementioned beautiful complexity for us to understand in the way that we imagine such a role model would, because by this logic it's better to simply refer to someone who does have the answers instead of getting those answers which are not only vast and complex, but are true.

You're not using the word "evidence" correctly in the scientific sense of the word IMO. You are also setting up strawmen. For example, the scientific consensus is _not_ that mitochondria can survive without cells. In fact, it's clear that they cannot. Margulis demonstrated that mitochondria were _once_ (billions of years ago) independant of eukaryotic cells and the evidence for that is that they have they have their own DNA. That is what evidence is. In a court of law, an eyewitness' testimony is evidence. That doesn't mean that the testimony is 100 percent accurate and we know that it's not. But it's not meaningless information. The fact that mitochondria have their own DNA is not meaningless information. It's an important fact we can use in hypotheses and theories to explain things.

Edwin Luciano Evidence is evidence whether in science or a court. Evidence should lead towards fulfiiling a burden of proof. The problem with claiming that the scenarios as observed and tested lend evidence to support the theory that co-operation is the root cause of major evolutionary jumps is that they don't offer evidence of that at all. They offer evidence of co-operation within systems already designed for the capacity of co-operation. I am not proposing any strawmen. I am calling out the bait and switch which is being used where evidence for one thing is being proposed as evidence for something very different in actuality.

***** "Evidence should lead towards fulfiiling a burden of proof. " If you are looking for proof, you are looking in the wrong domain. There is no proof that you cannot tell where a quantum particle is and at the same time know its momentum. There is only evidence. The evidence can be good, bad, or inconclusive. You can reject the evidence for this quirky fact of nature but you cannot say that it's not evidence. It is. Now if you want facts that cannot be falsified, perhaps religion is the better choice. Religious people know everything with absolute certainty and they are never wrong about anything.

Edwin Luciano Now you are using strawmen. I never said anything about absolutes. I said evidence's purpose is to fulfill a burden of proof. The evidence that quantum particles have superpositions in space time has evidence fulfilling burden of proof to the standard of beyond all reasonable doubt, demonstrated in experiments and engineering based on the theory in 1000's of cases. The evidence for co-operation as a root cause of evolutionary jumps is absent for the reasons I have highlighted and fulfilling no burden of proof. Seems like you're just brainwashed by the atheists/anti-religious zealots. I suggest you go learn about evidence and proof and how to add structure to your judgement. Court and criminal investigation is a great place to start.

These videos are aimed at an audience that has only a basic understanding of biology. I'm not sure if your expectations for the scientific rigour of this video are realistic. If you're really interested in the evidence for endosymbiosis (that is what you were asking, right?), I can recommend this article form the Royal Society, which is a comprehensive introductionwith links to the actual papers: rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1678/20140330