Why Do Living Things Evolve? │ Selfish Gene 

I also think that some parts are hilarious and that the intro song should be made into a full song.

+Evananjunli It is a full song, and a great song. I actually cut it together from parts of this song: soundcloud.com/the-joy-drops/bernadette

I agree. Jesse is really informative, meanwhile being funny. These videos are great and should be used as means to captivate students' atention in classes - too bad I'm studying arts xD

+Fakeromon The reason why it is so is because he went for quality over quantity. The videos are very rare, but they are a gem. He robably does not have time and knowledge to do them faster. He's doing it alone and does not prioritise it above his life, so it takes longer to make. But he's making something beautiful. He will never get any considerable money out of it, but his selfish genes are helping the community in which those genes replicate. Or at least they did some time ago when communities were a lot smaller. :P

Evananjunli ik i just found it its good

+Pikapetey Huh. Nice to see you here.

You are the last person i would expect to see here xD

omg wow i didn't think you were here :T

and produce dumb students...

I just found this channel and this is exactly what I thought. I think that it might be the narrator; no charm, or jokes and a really forgettable voice. Maybe they need other channels to advertise or a facebook page.

+Brookie niggachu?

Is your display picture suppose to be the gamer gate girl? :D

Hey, yeah, it's Vivian James :3

:D

Glad you're not a hater

Nope. Pro gamer gate all the way. :D

Why survive?

Quite the opposite would be better since this video is very well put together and will certainly clear up a few misconceptions. I still like to think/hope that if properly educated, people will naturally gravitate towards the obvious explanation.

nuckable You obviously don't know many religious people. 'Logic' is not a word in their dictionary.

"Us vs Them"-thinking is rarely ever useful even if you were just trying to make a silly joke. And while I agree to some extent that faith and logic don't mix, I don't think it's very productive to accuse religious people of being illogical.

nuckable I was only half-joking. What else can you call people who refuse to accept factual evidence in favor of blind faith, other than illogical? If I decided tomorrow that I don't believe in evolution, but instead believe that everything was created by a leprechaun, virtually everyone would call me illogical (and perhaps mentally ill as well). There is no real difference between belief in gods and belief in leprechauns: both are beliefs that rest entirely upon faith and not at all upon evidence. Yet we are quick to refer to belief in leprechauns as ludicrous, but much less quick to refer to religion in the same way. Why? When both are equally irrational, why is only one of them ridiculed as such? Religious people can rarely be reasoned with using logic, as if they were logical people, they would not be religious in the first place. Logical people do not accept something without evidence.

***** belief in leprechauns is not a world view. Some people do have a world view of faeries and similar. A religion is a world view in which your life has a purpose given by a god and all in all it does make sense if you don't question it too much. Also religious people tend to only attribute positive things to their deities and discard the rest as sin or some other crap. So it is not devoid of logic, it is just cherry picky. It is also a lot of make belief, people who struggle with their faith actively go out of their ways to look for signs of their detities and then get convinced by whatever they find. However, sometimes some arguments and challenges do cut through some of the facade and especially arguments against evolution and a young earth can be convincing enough to discard of the falacies. (at least that's my hope).

+Donnie E Weird, what species does that? That sounds awesome

Many plants create clones, maybe this is such a case? Or maybe the plants only leave offspring close to them, so a bunch of these plants are all closely related?

KOOL

ZionSquad omg, about to say that, I laughed so hard at that one moment, 3:09 aswell

It is completely possible. That bunny could still die of anything else or just not find a mate. Or maybe the genetic combination for the spikes ends up getting lost in the rest. Individual genes can do different things when with different other genes. Plus there's the fact that that bunny is mating with another that probably doesn't have it, which means it is less likely for the offspring to carry the trait if there is some other thing killing off bunnies.

True

Ariela Arangio Human beings are not just instinctual animals. We take care of each other and even breed with the sick.

+CaptBackwards Triggered

@4 Fake why are religious people so smug all the time?

Here you go ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Nt2I--ey84.html

Harrson James Bernadette by the Joy Drops. soundcloud.com/the-joy-drops/bernadette

Nice choice!

I don't know a lot about DNA sequencing and wouldn't be able to answer your first question. I suspect they use fancy machines that get fancier every year. I don't know how well DNA "keeps" or what's involved in that. But as far as I know, collecting dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes isn't a thing that's ever happened. The DNA from most of history is lost. You can however look at current DNA and deduce our relatedness. Which I think is awesome because before DNA sequencing it was a game of looking at traits and assuming organisms were related. But again, don't know the specifics... I mostly studied soil in school... and have no interest in ever making a video about soil. I don't think the formation of RNA is random at all. If it happened once it can happen again and is reproducible with the right ingredients in the right environment. I don't know a lot about it but I found this paper: xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1305.5581.pdf Primordial RNA Replication and Applications in PCR Technology Stan Palasek ....that apparently demonstrates that RNA can be produced in the conditions of these deep ocean hydrothermal vents. I know when you take a bunch of "inorganic" ingredients and zap them with electricity or some sort of radiation or something it can form "organic" compounds that are otherwise only produced by life. I had a soil teacher who was obsessed with the origin of life. He kept going on about how the simplest organic molecules fit so well into certain types of clay and that clay improved the creation of "organic" compounds from "inorganic" compounds (like thousands of times more organic compounds produced in these "zapping" experiments). I haven't read that RNA paper though. Most things I read state "there is no standard model for the origin of life as of yet", which makes me less interested in looking into it. I suspect it's all very hypothesis driven right now. Which can be exciting but I'm perfectly content not learning about it until someone actually knows. I have never heard the term "irreducible complexity" before the comments on this video but I've heard the idea before. Eyes are sometimes thought of as "irreducible", but their evolution is nothing ambiguous or magical. Wikipedia probably does it justice. Check it out if you are interested in that sort of a thing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye But convergent evolution of analogous structures is one of my favourite things. Eyes didn't just evolve once, they've actually evolved independently multiple times along different lines of reproduction. You could take irreducible complexity again and say "Well what about the constituents of RNA? Surely they are too complicated to have come to be" but I think this is grasping at straws. As far as I'm aware "irreducible complexity" is an idea that came out of "hey that look's really complicated. most complicated things I see are made. thus it must have been made" and is not backed up with any observation. "too long; didn't read" - Jurassic park is a lie. I'm pretty sure DNA gets lost but you can deduce lineages from current DNA. - RNA formation isn't random and it may already have been demonstrated to be formed - "Irreducible complexity" is an idea not backed up with any observation as far as I know

there are start and stop codons (repeating dead coding sequences) which are usually conserved (less likely to mutate) which can be used to align sequences.

This Place question what software do you use to make your videos?

I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audacity, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate. Then bring that into Premiere to cut it together and add sound effects. If you can't afford Adobe, this article talks about the best free programs that you can use in their place. lifehacker.com/5976725/build-your-own-adobe-creative-suite-with-free-and-cheap-software

+Handel Humphrey there are regions which are conserved as mrscruffser has mentioned but they are not the start/stop codons but sequences, the hox gene is an example of this what do you mean HOW was it randomly formed? u answered it, randomly and eventually some things had a better chance of replicating and gets more complex. the chances of it happening is low, but there has been a lot of time for many low probability events to occur. newer models with probability of random events and such shows it is possible for this. this was not asked but RNA can act as enzymes (ribozymes) which could facilitate many things in the beginning of life. some proof against irreducible complexity is well... some intermediates shown in the fossil record also, alot of dna is generated through duplications, large duplications and mutation of said duplication may explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum which shares dna with the secretory pump function shift also explain some, eg. the hands evolved from legs after their needs changed after becoming bipedal. some of those example may not be complex enough for irreducible complexity but i believe the flagellum one is

Because we have a lot of different envirenments and niches, if all would evolve to one niche they would see a different niche which is not filled all would fill that and it would just be an endless loop.

The idea of the selfish gene is that a gene will only be seen again if it can assist in its own survival and reproduction. If it does anything else it will go away. Most genes seem to directly help themselves survive. But a gene that leads to or influences parental care can be passed on even though it hurts that creature (it's giving up time and food and whatever parents give). It's because it results in healthier children and eventually more/healthier grandchildren all of whom have the gene. So while directly hurting itself, it's helping copies of itself persist. And this is why this gene can be passed on. Hope that helps. I never mentioned the term "selfish gene" because I find the name confuses what's going on. The gene doesn't think or care. It's not selfish. It passes on and is seen again if it helps it's own code survive or reproduce. Not necessarily just itself, but copies of itself.

This Place Thanks for the clarification. That explains it. There are some intepretations about the "selfish gene", trying to convey us that selfishness is indeed a hereditary trait.

SAMUEL PEREZ It is...

what´s the evidence?

everything we do benefits ourselves and our offspring. If we look after ourselves we have more chance of procreation and therefore our genes survive, every animal on earth wants to live and reproduce and any animal that didn't would/has become extinct... But it depends on your idea of selfish we protect our children beacuse they hold our genes, but other than that most of humans action are self benefiting.

+Charmonium Pentaquark I use the adobe suite. Voice in Audition, draw things in Photoshop, bring them into After Effects to animate and do motion. Then cut it together and add sound effects in Premiere.

This Place Thanks! Very high quality stuff you make. Keep up the great work!

+This Place Is it possible you could do a video on how you edit? Would be greatly appreciated :)

+Nathan Mørkeberg Reece Probably wouldn't. I don't do anything more than the very basics and the video wouldn't be anything there aren't videos for already. I looked at a couple of these tutorials before I started www.videocopilot.net/basic/#01

+This Place Thanks :)

+AxelPLasg A recessive gene simply means that the gene can be present, but not manifest. If there was a brown hair gene present it would be shown instead of the ginger as it is dominant. This is very oversimplified but kind of okay.

Individual genes don't get that radical. A mammoth is a different species from the elephant. A species has been defined in different ways, but a mammoth is a different species from the elephant partially because it is not expected for them to be able to produce a child. This happens as a species evolves. At first, changes are small enough that it is still a part of that species. It takes a very long time, and often a species is classified as different from another once they have enough differences that they can no longer mate with eachother. Because mutations are very well, it is extremely unlikely for there to be enough mutations all at once to render that individual incapable of surviving. The genes only approach is what we have observed and what you have said is true, but it does not disprove it at all. If an individual does not survive with a mutation, which does happen, then that individual will die off before it gets the chance to reproduce, which is the entire concept of evolution. It is beneficial to have small amounts of changing, since they will be able to reproduce with those without the mutation. It would be very unlikely to be born from parents without this mutation and find a mate that has it. Therefore, it comes down to natural selection, which is in environment. But the environment does not affect mutations at all. To sum that up since it is very long and some prefer the short version: This biological inertia is only existent because genetic mutations are rare and we are only made to carry children that are still of our species. Of course a human won't give birth to a lion cub. They are not genetically similar. A human with a mutation is still a human. It takes many generations of mutations to eventually reach something that cannot reproduce with the original species.

In the genetic game of life? Yes. But there are many ways of defining success if that makes you feel better.

There is no gene for poorness that could be transmitted through generations so from the aspect of evolution that doesn't make any sense. However I get your point, and Richard Dawkins has jokingly said that since we have to look at commonalities between those who have a lot of offspring, one common factor is the incapability of using contraceptives, so if there was a gene for that, it would be beneficial from the viewpoint of evolution.

my dad used to do that to me

Humans used to do that :p (and still do)

+Pierre Stöber In different environtments certain behavior can have different outcomes, if it works for a bird, it might not work for a human. You should watch 4:15 and followig again.

WHAT?!!

+Carly If it's designed, then it's designed to evolve

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is observable. If life was designed, the designer made it ever changing, not static. An intelligent designer could have set evolution in motion, overseen its every process, and guided it to the intended results.

@@math6844 you’re trying to extrapolate micro to macro This isn’t “evolution “

this only reason humans are so smart is because early humans created tools that would allow them to hunt alot of food witch contains fat which lets the brain grow larger and larger eventually becoming the brains we have today. :)

It's important to consider that first of all, humans are extremely social creatures which means they are always working together. More importantly however, humans are extremely good at learning and passing that knowledge to future generations who will retain it. I think this is key for their success today. A man might eat some berries and then die. His peers him saw him do that and now assume that those berries are poisonous. They spread the word to the tribe who will tell the young children not to eat those berries and will remember that information for the rest of their lives. So another factor to take into account is that humans have an excellent memory. This is what makes them intelligent. This goes beyond evolution, because our LEARNED behavior allows them to survive and adapt to a variety of environments and situations. Hope my opinion helped. Or you know, you could always say "Because God".

zerg ling hahaha that's a great metaphor for human achievements XD a really tall pile of dirt

+Antonis Rountas To an extent. The traits that make people who are most likely to have children will be past on. This while there are slightly more man than women in the world the numbers are fairly even and we tend to have very limited sexual partners and in the world people (especially in the western world) don't tend to die by being out competed so the aspects of natural selection is more limited in humans. Certain traits will most likely slowly die out like a tendency towards fatal diseases that kill at a young age or become more prevalent due to the advantage it gives like attractive looks and intelligence but in a situation where their is limited competition while mutations will occur at a normal rate their abundance in the population will be limited and it is unlikely that two groups will break off very quickly due to the fact we often have children with people of other groups and groups are not isolated from each other.

+Antonis Rountas yes, but slower since there is less selective pressure (food? np disease? np) we're also evolving very differently than with most other species because our selective pressures are so different. if you were to look at physical fitness alone, we're "evolving" to less physically fit as a race since we no longer have to run away from bears. and since there are less pressures, fewer things will change as a race (slower evolution)

spenn20 I'm assuming your joking because if your not you've been misinformed.