I love Neil Shubin, between him and Jerry Coyne I have a very good grasp of what make evolution work. Everyday I run into people who not only do not understand biological evolution, they flat out refuse to accept it in favor or creation. They simply can not wrap their head around why biological evolution is so fundamentally correct but understanding it has significant importance in bot only medicine but in environmental conservation and even food production. Understanding evolution helps us all and is vitally important to the future of OUR species as well as all life on the planet. Because it has been the refusal to understand and accept evolution that gives people the excuse to destroy every environment they come into contact with at not only the cost of all life on the planet but to their very own health. Besides, evolution is so cool! It's amazing and fascinating and mind bogglingly complex that it just blows my mind that anyone can think life happened by magic.
So there is a toolkit that can be used to create a new organ or repeat an existing organ? Where did this toolkit come from? Why does a slight change create an such an "undesirable" trait? At 53:24 he suggested that mutations that cause a newly added limb would not be beneficial to the organism because the "wiring" to the central nervous system would not be present. Then how could limbs evolve if creatures did not posses the necessary ability to use them? More question than answers fro me.
The toolkit stabilized possibly 740 million years ago and the "variant" (Get it?) vertebrates and hence humans share does not differ substantially from that of insects and other arthropods.
This fell short for me. I'll challenge anyone to draw a non-fin having organism on a whiteboard, and describe to me how a fin evolved onto it. Do that for the fin on the center of an animals back. Consider that with random mutation the fin could spring out anywhere. How did the fin appear in the center of the back? (The ideal place) I get that a nub could spring up. I get that over time the nub could grow and change shape. The problem is it must satisfy the second tenant of evolution, natural selection, to continue growth and change shape. How would a random nub sticking out in a random location on a swimming animal, provide a benefit, such that it would win out over the non-nub havers. This is such a stretch at the most basic level. You all are cheating as I see it. You are looking backwards at the blueprint. You are seeing the similarities and filling in a story to show that they just naturally occurred on their own. It is a remarkable comparison. A remarkable design. It couldn't have happened on it's own, even with the billions of years "required." What was demonstrated by this video is the similarity in the design. The "tool kit". The title is not accurate. Put down Wikipedia and grab a pen and paper. Add a fin to an animal that doesn't have one and rationally work that process out, that it would emerge at random and with benefits continuing simultaneously as it emerges.
The fin that did not develop in a place which promoted balance, speed etc would of gotten those beings without that development eaten and so therefore that line would not of survived and carried on their genetic line...so the being that slowly developed fins which increased balance, speed and some sort of survival advantage in their specific environment got to breed and passed down its genes. ITS THAT SIMPLE!!!
@@whatabouttheearth the point is that a random growth emerging, only causes problems for the host long before you get to anything of benefit. Fins and their design are so important. Huge boats have tiny rudders that guide and steer them. Random growth of a fin would be negative before it could be positive, thus my challenge. You are certain of its simplicity and I am certain of its impossibility.
Peter Michael you must keep in mind the huge time scale we’re talking about. There were probably millions of fish with random useless nubs before one happened to have a beneficial hydrodynamic properties.
Odd. You come up with a critique saying it's not the phenotype but the DNA which should be looked at. Fair enough, but when somebody tells you it's being done, and it gives the same result you start ranting. It's YOU who argumented against your own preposition, we didn't even have to. The reason is that you have no idea what you're talking about, like all creationists. I suggest you try to watch a few scientific videos about evolution, like lectures by Shubin. Warning: you may learn something.
Watching this 10 years later. The subject is still enticing in biology. Pity the definition available then was relatively low, which showed some images only poorly. A basic concept of evolution is elegantly explained.
Sorry to be so offtopic but does anybody know a trick to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly forgot my password. I would love any tips you can give me
@Khalil Ty i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process atm. Seems to take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
The title is very misleading... Oh, I forget, this is youtube: As interesting as it is, he doesn't actually describe HOW NEW ORGANS develop, only the likelihood that it is possible that they can... If you disagree, you clearly did not watch this video or comprehend it.
They never do, they never do. Further, he claims descent with modification is Darwin's idea. It really isn't. By this means, he avoids talking about the actual theory at all!
@@patldennis Patrick, I said, ''descent with modification.'' Darwin most certainly did NOT originate that idea. That it isn't his idea is easy to show in many ways. And in any case, even Darwin himself in his foreward to the 6th edition to the Origin of Species makes this clear. There is a huge difference between a theory about the history and a theory about the mechanism that drives that history. They are in fact very different concepts. In fact, the historical theory (descent with modification) could be completely true, while the proposed theory about its mechanism be untrue. Again they are different. And the historical theory is not Darwin's.
I think you missed the point presented in the lecture. Dr. Shubin was not saying that this mirror imaging was the way that limbs evolved. He was establishing homology between the limbs of sarcopterygians and actinopterygians and the homology between gill arch and limbs.
bit of humour what are the ductless G-lands rudimentary organs. Manly Palmer Hall man grand symbols of the mysteries. Interesting tendril/proboscis maybe evolution branch animal>vegetable plant>animal insects seeds animal tree. [Xi] characteristic function chromatic number chi. snake eyes leafs forever [?] wings&leafs
Are there simple early organisms that are just the basic arch? Such building block creatures colonize and join and are more successful? Then variations on the same structure, a colony of these variations, is also successful, and it replicates? When times get tough, they can fall back on the basic component, again and again. But I do not know the names of creatures, so I do not know what to tell you to look for. Something that had one bone, then two with a hinge. With two, you can grasp. A clam? A mouth? A pouch? A foot? A body and tail? One extra degree of freedom, enough to make two more successful than one alone? Then colonies of hinged pairs of various sizes and shapes? And the specialized regions with their unique and long lived genetic stability? They could have been single cells or colonies before, then those unique colonies joined and, staying unique and differentiated, but working together, were more successful? Are there single celled organisms that preferentially express these gene you talk about? Or colonies of single cells? Could they have joined and found success in working together, so successfully most larger assembled creatures are made up of these derived components? Are the tentacles of hydra the same? Thank you, Neil, for a thought provoking video.
At the end of the day evolution is still extrapolation piled on top of conjecture. It's a historical science. We're told pakicetus morphed into the whale. Where are the hundreds of thousands of intermediate fossils? Then there's the Cambrian Explosion. And you can forget about a chemical or mechanical process for origins. Impossible.
@A BallerYou are wrong. The problem is that your ignorance keeps you from knowing how wrong you are. It's clear you have not spent up to five minutes in total studying evolution. Why are there no marsupials in Africa or Eurasia? Why do gorillas, chimpanzees and humans have the same dental formula? Why are there no mammalian snakes? Only evolution can answer those and numerous other questions. Your religion can't do that.
@A Baller Darwinian evolution is the only viable explanation for the disparate observations. With its supernatural old miracle man it's actually religion that's the shoehorn.
Intelligent design proponents should be informed of the great medical (and other) advances due specifically to detailed understanding of evolutionary biology. However, rational, compassionate people would not deny treatments to anyone despite their beliefs, for ethical reasons. (emph on reason)
@ChrisKnight22 I'm sure that assertion "came to you in a dream" because there's no other way for a person to come up with such a harebrained conclusion about existence. Did someone carrying a book tell you that? I'm sure that's all the empirical evidence you'd need to believe in spiritualism. By the way, I'm also a spiritual afterlife-salesman. If you pray to the deity that I tell you exists and give me your money I'll ensure that you have a nice car waiting for you in the clouds after you die.
Oh yes, and he also says "design" two minutes later. Note that the sameness changes in a chain of different species over time. That means the designer stepwise improves on previous designs, not changing more than needed. Congratulations, you discovered the principle of evolution.
@k halliday Your first sentence is vague. I think you are also using the wrong "to". A better way of writing this, would be: Do you find it difficult to use precise grammar?. Or you could say, "hard to use"precise grammar, as oppose to ,"hard too?",seems like it is a dangling term. If" to" then would need a verb I think. In other words, "hard to..."what"?. Well, you are saying :" hard to use correct grammar",so then I think your use of "too", is misspelt.
@k halliday So I have then corrected my original statement. I find it quite freeing to just write comments on youtube. My father was an English teacher, and corrected my speech and writing constantly. It s also been a long time since I went to university. I also fell off a cliff and had a brain injury. However, my days of feeling of being free to write comments, without capitals, and worrying about spelling that much, or grammar, are over. This is true because of uptight people, who insist I make corrections. But I can play that game , if need be.
@k halliday Also, I made some good points on another youtube, and the person said I should be embarrassed at my bad grammar , and non use of capitals etc. . That definitely was true[at my errors of grammar, and spelling etc]. However, the points I made I think were valid. To then criticize bad writing, but not criticize my points, must be a power game. It then makes the person feel superior, yet they usually don t challenge the comment itself. So they may feel frustrated at my valid comments. To feel better they criticize my spelling, or non use of capitals. This has been my general observation. But what also is been my observation, on the same page of comments, there are many fleeting comments, with spelling errors, and other errors, but they don t comment on them. So I figure, they must be upset at my point that was made in the first place. Why don t you say that to others that made errors on this same comment section?
That your finding anything difficult to believe invalidates it is a logical fallacy. A baby doesn't understand where baby formula comes from. That nevertheless doesn't matter.
Good video. But there was no need criticizing Micheal Jackson's nose. After all, it was a so called scientist that made it like that through numerous surgeries; using substandard equipment that you still may handle maybe in your labs or hospital. Please do not criticize people just because you want to prove a point. You seem to be a great scientist but arrogance can pull you down if you are not careful.
All this comparative anatomy only shows sameness in biology. it does not show, or hint, at the origin for sameness. A creator would also do it this way. Biology would have laws just as in physics. Sameness in body plans is not evidence for common descent. Why does this guy think so? he is just reenforcing his bias of common descent. Further if there is a common design in biology then likewise this design would allow the same paths to be followed to change body plans as needed for survival. Fossils do not show biology trails if looking at the fossils. Its only a bias of geology deposition conclusions. the fossils are just snapshots in time. Where in this video is the biology evidence that organs have common descent or come from evolution?
No it doesnt. Descendants of particular species only have structures (or the genes for them) of their ancestors. Wings of beetles evolved from body coverings. Mammals (bats) and birds can't evolve wings like beetles because they don't have the genes for the body coverings. Tetrapods, including mammals, evolved from lobe-finned fish which have arm and lower leg bones and have muscles on these bones. Ray-finned fish dont have these muscular fins or the bones and couldnt have led to tetrapods. All organisms are constrained by the possibiities of the genes of ancestors.
Look up the Panda's Thumb by Gould. Panda thumbs developed from sesamoid bones because they lost the thumb bones possessed by the generalized mammals, and still possessed by humans.
When life started there was a LOW oxygen environment. Oxygen did not free up in a big way till plants evolved. Evolution does not violate thermodynamics. Energy still flows in the direction dictated in thermodynamics.
