it is a theoretical number based on gene diversity in human population and its founder effect. but gene diversity is different in distinct races like the most diverse among African people . that is one of the argument for the African cradle theory.
As a physicist I noticed that the concept of "fitness landscape" seems very similar to the physical conceptof (scalar) potential. Which actually kinda makes sense, as every natural science is ultimately based on physics.
Love the topics and the subject matter and I enjoy your enthusiasm in presenting it. Is it possible for the videographer to focus the camera on the slides rather than on the presenter, when discussing the slides?
@KarlDMarx but the electric car wasn't invented before the ICE car was it? Nor was the technology viable for cars until the lithium ion battery was invented. And its an analogy, to get a point across. Which it does perfectly.
Wonderful, provocative topic! I can eagerly accept the role of chance in evolution, and I don't think we should stop there. Contingency, paradox, compounded effects, dynamic filters, dialectical enhancers, redundancy, feedback mechanisms, potentiation, dynamic pulsing, bootstrapping and conditions that act as gauntlets or multipliers or course correctors are all undeniable powers of change in dynamic systems like natural selection. And speaking of dynamic systems, how can we ignore phase-change thresholds and transformations!? In other words, anything that we use today as metaphors or memes in modern life--think siloes, influencers, resonance, opportunism, settler gaze, willful ignorance, disruptive innovation--might be profitably applied to illuminate the long, incredibly complex history of evolution. And this can happen without denying or defying Darwin's essential idea, in all its brilliant, generative grandeur.
Technically, your ICE car already has an alternator and a battery. You can increase the alternator power, then add an electric motor to assist the propulsion (like in certain motor sports). Congratulation, you have an hybrid car. You can then reduce the direct contribution of the ICE to propulsion and directly transfer more power to the electric motor until the ICE is only there to power the electric parts (the second mode is more efficient) Since you don't need the complex transmission anymore, it can start disappearing, and a mutation of the battery to a big lithium one is beneficial. And you can add a plug to charge the battery instead of using only the ICE Since you use the ICE less and less, its size decrease until it's gone and voila, you have an electric car "evolved" from an ICE with only "small" beneficial changes
The problem with analogies that that they never quite fit, that's why they are called analogies. And the obvious objection to that analogy was "yeah, but we have hybrid engines".
@KarlDMarx he was talking about cars, which were originally invented with an ICE. Not the engine technology itself. Also, its an analogy. Its not supposed to be a 1 to 1 representation of reality.
I hadn't heard about the bottleneck 900,000 years ago, but I had heard about the one 72,000 years ago that left about the same number, and seems to appear on the chart. So why wasn't this later bottleneck mentioned?
Probably because newer data has overturned that earlier data. That's how science works. He did say the data he was referring to was published only weeks before the lecture.
That's one problem with natural selection, it works great as a thought experiment, as we constantly act according to our own anticipated/desire future. But take that human anticipation away, and natural selection is a much weaker force against a backdrop of chaos.
The theory of evolution was tinged with political overtones that still persist. Then, they resulted in the writing of two books that had profound though unexpected effects on the future of natural history. On the sociological plane, a valiant attempt to stem the tide of the French ungodly was made by Thomas Robert Malthus with his Essay on Population, while on the theological side William Paley set out in his Natural Theology to prove that the study of natural history inevitably led to belief in a divine Creator. Malthus generalized the principle that "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio I can see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this law which pervades all animate nature." Unwittingly, no doubt, Malthus here placed man on the same plane as the rest of the animal kingdom. Among plants and animals the growth of population was kept down by mortality due to "want of room and nourishment" and falling a prey to predators. In man, if in spite of famines and epidemics and the preventive checks imposed by reason, the population nevertheless increased too fast, those of its members who could least afford the necessities of life were doomed to misery and death. On the other hand, if the checks to the increase in numbers of a population through delayed marriage and abstinence were artificial and too effective, there would be no competition or compulsion to work exerted on those whose livelihood depended on it, and the results would equally be misery from the effects of immorality, idleness, and sloth. It followed, as H. N. Brailsford has pointed out that all attempts to preserve life were contrary to the correct application of principle, charity was an economic sin, altruism "unscientific," and presumably the medical profession pursued an anti-social aim. Since the possibilities of variation, shown by cultivated plants and domestic animals, were in Malthus' view strictly limited, progress was impossible; attempts to achieve it as in the French Revolution were doomed to failure; and mankind could neither improve nor be perfected. Malthus' book was reprinted several times and the main lines of evidence on which his argument rested were on his own admission more and more undermined, but he nevertheless stuck to the slogan like antithesis between geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase for growth of population and of subsistence. In this, Malthus performed a service to science, because most of those of his contemporaries who were aware of the struggle for existence in nature ran away from the horrors of tooth and claw and tried to veil it, minimize it, or moralize on the greater 439 class UH Manoa
Impressive display exposition of population growth against the earth's capability to support life notswithstanding natural disasters as nature's way to keep a balanced ecology and environment. Not to worty, sir, Mother has everything under control, thank youll
"If you roll enough dice enough times sometimes you can get 25 sixes in a row" Ok, I'm going to take what was almost certainly meant figuratively literally like a pedant. If you were only rolling 25 dice then that's 6^25, there's one microstate that satisfies the macrostate condition, which if you were rolling one a second would take about 600bn years before you'd expect to roll all 25 as sixes. Obviously that changes massively with more dice. If you roll trillions of dice then the chances of it not happening become vanishingly remote with a single roll. So yes, even pedantically, it's a valid statement.
Yup, you might indeed. All microstates are equally likely. There's a nice little thought experiment that says if the universe is large enough, but still finite, then there will be so many planets/solar systems that the ways to arrange its atoms are only so many because of something called the Planck limit. Long story short, if you go far enough away you'll find another me and another you having this exact conversation, on not just one but thousands of planets. Not other dimensions of many worlds; this universe only far away. If the universe is even bigger still then there's an exact version of you where you've never rolled a die your whole life and got anything other than a six out of nothing by pure chance. All you need is enough macrostates and all microstates become practically a certainty. It's quite a few though. :)
What is the fundamental difference between the random chance asteroid incident and any other sudden chance of eco-system change (i.e. humans landing on an island) except for the global impact? Why is the former an example for a random chance while the latter is not?
All species seem wonderfully adapted and to offer different ideas to survive in a changing Environment. There is a considerable confusion about Randomness. for example cosmic catastrophes such as meteorites or chance events like founder effects are clearly on the selection side. Mutations on the other hand concern the production of Proteins, made of up to 35 000 amino acids. And even small changes can change the folding and function in dramatic ways. May points to genetic drift as the source of mutations, which is reasonable but seems unproven. How multicellular organisms transform in cohorts is not known, pretension we do won't help.
there are two types of evolution: incremental and leap. incremental is a slow visible gradual change driven by constant evolutionary selection. leap is when something complex appears all of a sudden ( EV on the market). the background of it is gene duplication and latent mutations. functional gene got an extra copy which can start accumulate mutations while the other part functions as normal. when a, set of such genes manage to cooperate in a cascade of functions and either by evolutionary pressure or just that the last modul of a, system clicks into place the new trait appears and will be subjected to evolutionary selection.
I love the Founder Effect....i've often thought some evolutionary reasoning istautological based on wide assumptions. The founder effect explains how random differences can develop between two populations that don't offer any advantages .. but without careful thought we migh infer the difference signal some advantage.
It was said that species specialize and at its peak, that species could go extinct because it is very difficult to go backward. Would you say this is happening to humans? As we in some situations intentionally eliminate biodiversity in food for example or the overuse of antibiotics; are we creating multiple pitfalls that could lead to our own extinction? And how likely is it without (if possible) factoring in unnatural causes like nuclear war.
“Random” and “chance” are words we use to describe a process too complicated to calculate. However, that is just about not knowing all the variables. In theory, everything random can be known and thus no longer random.
05:00 it is odd to argue that species can't be adapted to random events like meteorite strikes. While no organism can be adapted to resist every random event, it is plain that many species were well adapted to resist the effects of that meteorite strike. Ie the one out of four that did not become extinct.
I don’t think they are adapted to the random event, rather their adaptation to their environment was the chance that allowed them to survive the random event. Ie the therapsids were small burrow dwellers because of the dinosaurs, and this is what allowed them to survive. They weren’t small burrowers to help them survive meteor strikes.
30:49 "Now, hopefully pretty much all of us in this room have fairly had a COVID-19 vaccination." Would there be funding by the pharma industry involved?
Because we are a social species. What counts is the survival of each generation, meaning your survival is not only based on your genetic makeup, but the health and structure of your whole social group. And maybe having some not reproducing members of the society is an advantage for the group. It would be bad if 100% of the offspring of a generation refused to procreate, but if it's only 5-10% who do that, it can be stable from one generation to the next.
Teddy Sachs disease is also genetic and kills the person long before they have time to reproduce and pass the gene on. It survives because there are both dominant and non-dominant genes. That's what half of this video was about.
It is not determined entirely by genetics. There is a minor genetic component. This was proven by the famous Twins Study. Regardless, everyone should be treated with respect and decency.
@autoclearanceuk7191Not "to enable", that suggests evolution has a purpose. Perhaps Homosexualityl continues to exist because it coincidentally benefits the survival of humans and so survives the evolutionary process.
That's all fascinating and makes perfect sense. Except that randomness excludes teleology and purpose in evolution. Only a little thought shows how the two are not correlated concepts. And... vegans associating with other vegans is a form of genetic isolation? This was a joke. Right?
Teleology? God has no place in science as they don't appear to exist in any scientific way and so cannot be put forward as a candidate explanation for anything. And the vegan thing is about groups. If a group randomly has a genetic disposition (nothing to do with being vegan, just a random genetic coincidence in the first group), then that groups disposition to breed within the group will retain and grow that original random occurrence. Perhaps veganism isn't as clear as example as Amish, but the concept still exists and works.
Actually, evolution is not random. Mutation is random. If a particular mutation proves to be more advantageous in survival and procreating, then that mutation (along with other such mutations) will go on to form new species.
Human evolution has stopped dead in its track's. Women haven't evolved sufficiently to breed with suitable mates to further the species. Animals seem to have mastered that.
Evolution doesn't stop, it isn't a process that CAN stop because it's just a description of the genetic results of continued survival. Humans ARE evolving, as is everything, it's just that the timescale is too short.
Why does the lecturer find it necessary to make remarks about the race and gender of early evolutionary scientists, i wonder. Virtue signaling comes to mind.
Why did you notice it? And why does it bother you? I didn't notice him doing it because I'm not obsessed with seeing wokeness everywhere, clearly you are.
What ever happened to scientific observation. Until we actually observe evolution it's all hocus pocus. We can theorize all day and random chance away your thinking but we still need observable evidence. Now explain that.
Well, we actually do observe evolution and we observe a great amount of evidence. What we have no evidence for, what is actually hocus pocus would be creationism or gods.
We have studied the evolution of flies, because they breed quickly enough that we can study their breeding across many generations in a shirt time. And, guess what, we have physically *SEEN* that evolution *DOES* seem to happen (as predicted by the mountain of scientific evidence we have found and analysed over the last 170+ years). Science is simply observing, testing and predicting what we find in reality. It's not a doctrine or a set of laws that nature "must follow" - it's just an attempt by motivated and educated humans to discover how the universe works and it seems to work, as the existence of TH-cam, medicine, cars, education, agriculture etc clearly demonstrates. As soon as a god pops up in the calculations, you'll be the first to know, but no sign so far!
Random Chance in Evolution 1835pm 20.11.23 random and arbitrary do not have the same meaning. though your thesaurus would suggest they are. optimizing meaning and clarification may be worth indulging in.
@@daviddawson1718 31.1.24. Random Chance in Evolution - Robin May you been listening to lenny bruce again... to come up with something witty re: your penchant for being proper. to do this.... how is one to do this, achieve this....? only the working class will help you with your grammar. struggle, brother!!!! we'll make a concomitant comic of you yet. those murders you done.... sorry, wrong lecture.
"Random chance" is redundant. Chance is random. It wouldn't be chance if it wasn't. Also, arbitrary choices are not random choices. Arbitrariness and randomness are different things.
Depends how you feel about non-uniform probability distributions though; in common usage I think that most people would term an unfair dice as non-random.
I’m currently watching several of your uploads , wonderful way to spend the afternoon, thanks so much to the folk involved!
All the best Jules
Great lecture, very interesting!
A really interesting and understandable presentation. It would be interesting to hear about the 1300 population idea and how it was determined.
it is a theoretical number based on gene diversity in human population and its founder effect. but gene diversity is different in distinct races like the most diverse among African people . that is one of the argument for the African cradle theory.
I finally subscribed to science group via facebook as Gresham recommended.
Thank you Gremshaw.
Yay ! Brilliant !
The subjective sensitivity of some posters betrays their biases. Getting over yourself can be a Sisyphusian task.
Sisyphusian! Wow. Dont you mean insensitivity? Are you really into " Greek" culture?
Explain that phenomenon using evolution! Random chance plus time plus energy won't get you there.
I a, glad this series came up in my algorithm. Thanks!
Very well done and educational. Worth viewing.
As fascinating as the previous lecture.
WONDERFUL!!! WHAT A RIVETING LECTURE!!
I feel the same on the Issue of Extinction. Lost Cures. ❤
Wow!
“Random” means “ I cant calculate”
As a physicist I noticed that the concept of "fitness landscape" seems very similar to the physical conceptof (scalar) potential. Which actually kinda makes sense, as every natural science is ultimately based on physics.
Love the topics and the subject matter and I enjoy your enthusiasm in presenting it.
Is it possible for the videographer to focus the camera on the slides rather than on the presenter, when discussing the slides?
You don't want to see the lecturer interacting with the slide?
I love the analogy that you can't gradually evolve from an internal combination engine to an electric engine in a car.
As erudite as this guy is he picked a bad example. The invention of the electric motor preceded the one of the infernal combustion engine.
@KarlDMarx but the electric car wasn't invented before the ICE car was it? Nor was the technology viable for cars until the lithium ion battery was invented. And its an analogy, to get a point across. Which it does perfectly.
Wonderful, provocative topic!
I can eagerly accept the role of chance in evolution, and I don't think we should stop there. Contingency, paradox, compounded effects, dynamic filters, dialectical enhancers, redundancy, feedback mechanisms, potentiation, dynamic pulsing, bootstrapping and conditions that act as gauntlets or multipliers or course correctors are all undeniable powers of change in dynamic systems like natural selection. And speaking of dynamic systems, how can we ignore phase-change thresholds and transformations!? In other words, anything that we use today as metaphors or memes in modern life--think siloes, influencers, resonance, opportunism, settler gaze, willful ignorance, disruptive innovation--might be profitably applied to illuminate the long, incredibly complex history of evolution.
And this can happen without denying or defying Darwin's essential idea, in all its brilliant, generative grandeur.
Technically, your ICE car already has an alternator and a battery.
You can increase the alternator power, then add an electric motor to assist the propulsion (like in certain motor sports). Congratulation, you have an hybrid car.
You can then reduce the direct contribution of the ICE to propulsion and directly transfer more power to the electric motor until the ICE is only there to power the electric parts (the second mode is more efficient)
Since you don't need the complex transmission anymore, it can start disappearing, and a mutation of the battery to a big lithium one is beneficial. And you can add a plug to charge the battery instead of using only the ICE
Since you use the ICE less and less, its size decrease until it's gone and voila, you have an electric car "evolved" from an ICE with only "small" beneficial changes
Very insightful thought
Well, perhaps he hasn't really thought about his example. The electric motor was invented before the infernal combustion engine.
The problem with analogies that that they never quite fit, that's why they are called analogies.
And the obvious objection to that analogy was "yeah, but we have hybrid engines".
@KarlDMarx he was talking about cars, which were originally invented with an ICE. Not the engine technology itself.
Also, its an analogy. Its not supposed to be a 1 to 1 representation of reality.
I hadn't heard about the bottleneck 900,000 years ago, but I had heard about the one 72,000 years ago that left about the same number, and seems to appear on the chart. So why wasn't this later bottleneck mentioned?
Probably because newer data has overturned that earlier data. That's how science works.
He did say the data he was referring to was published only weeks before the lecture.
That's one problem with natural selection, it works great as a thought experiment, as we constantly act according to our own anticipated/desire future. But take that human anticipation away, and natural selection is a much weaker force against a backdrop of chaos.
The theory of evolution was tinged with political overtones that still persist. Then, they resulted in the writing of two books that had profound though unexpected effects on the future of natural history. On the sociological plane, a valiant attempt to stem the tide of the French ungodly was made by Thomas Robert Malthus with his Essay on Population, while on the theological side William Paley set out in his Natural Theology to prove that the study of natural history inevitably led to belief in a divine Creator. Malthus generalized the principle that "Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio I can see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this law which pervades all animate nature." Unwittingly, no doubt, Malthus here placed man on the same plane as the rest of the animal kingdom. Among plants and animals the growth of population was kept down by mortality due to "want of room and nourishment" and falling a prey to predators. In man, if in spite of famines and epidemics and the preventive checks imposed by reason, the population nevertheless increased too fast, those of its members who could least afford the necessities of life were doomed to misery and death. On the other hand, if the checks to the increase in numbers of a population through delayed marriage and abstinence were artificial and too effective, there would be no competition or compulsion to work exerted on those whose livelihood depended on it, and the results would equally be misery from the effects of immorality, idleness, and sloth.
It followed, as H. N. Brailsford has pointed out that all attempts to preserve life were contrary to the correct application of principle, charity was an economic sin, altruism "unscientific," and presumably the medical profession pursued an anti-social aim.
Since the possibilities of variation, shown by cultivated plants and domestic animals, were in Malthus' view strictly limited, progress was impossible; attempts to achieve it as in the French Revolution were doomed to failure; and mankind could neither improve nor be perfected. Malthus' book was reprinted several times and the main lines of evidence on which his argument rested were on his own admission more and more undermined, but he nevertheless stuck to the slogan like antithesis between geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase for growth of population and of subsistence. In this, Malthus performed a service to science, because most of those of his contemporaries who were aware of the struggle for existence in nature ran away from the horrors of tooth and claw and tried to veil it, minimize it, or moralize on the greater 439 class UH Manoa
Impressive display exposition of population growth against the earth's capability to support life notswithstanding natural disasters
as nature's way to keep a balanced
ecology and environment. Not to worty, sir, Mother has everything under control, thank youll
"If you roll enough dice enough times sometimes you can get 25 sixes in a row"
Ok, I'm going to take what was almost certainly meant figuratively literally like a pedant.
If you were only rolling 25 dice then that's 6^25, there's one microstate that satisfies the macrostate condition, which if you were rolling one a second would take about 600bn years before you'd expect to roll all 25 as sixes.
Obviously that changes massively with more dice. If you roll trillions of dice then the chances of it not happening become vanishingly remote with a single roll.
So yes, even pedantically, it's a valid statement.
And yet, you might roll 25 x 6 on your second roll because that probability doesn't state WHEN it will occur.
Yup, you might indeed. All microstates are equally likely.
There's a nice little thought experiment that says if the universe is large enough, but still finite, then there will be so many planets/solar systems that the ways to arrange its atoms are only so many because of something called the Planck limit. Long story short, if you go far enough away you'll find another me and another you having this exact conversation, on not just one but thousands of planets. Not other dimensions of many worlds; this universe only far away.
If the universe is even bigger still then there's an exact version of you where you've never rolled a die your whole life and got anything other than a six out of nothing by pure chance.
All you need is enough macrostates and all microstates become practically a certainty. It's quite a few though. :)
What is the fundamental difference between the random chance asteroid incident and any other sudden chance of eco-system change (i.e. humans landing on an island) except for the global impact? Why is the former an example for a random chance while the latter is not?
Neither is truly “random”
All species seem wonderfully adapted and to offer different ideas to survive in a changing Environment. There is a considerable confusion about Randomness. for example cosmic catastrophes such as meteorites or chance events like founder effects are clearly on the selection side. Mutations on the other hand concern the production of Proteins, made of up to 35 000 amino acids. And even small changes can change the folding and function in dramatic ways.
May points to genetic drift as the source of mutations, which is reasonable but seems unproven. How multicellular organisms transform in cohorts is not known, pretension we do won't help.
there are two types of evolution: incremental and leap. incremental is a slow visible gradual change driven by constant evolutionary selection. leap is when something complex appears all of a sudden ( EV on the market). the background of it is gene duplication and latent mutations. functional gene got an extra copy which can start accumulate mutations while the other part functions as normal. when a, set of such genes manage to cooperate in a cascade of functions and either by evolutionary pressure or just that the last modul of a, system clicks into place the new trait appears and will be subjected to evolutionary selection.
I love the Founder Effect....i've often thought some evolutionary reasoning istautological based on wide assumptions.
The founder effect explains how random differences can develop between two populations that don't offer any advantages .. but without careful thought we migh infer the difference signal some advantage.
It was said that species specialize and at its peak, that species could go extinct because it is very difficult to go backward. Would you say this is happening to humans? As we in some situations intentionally eliminate biodiversity in food for example or the overuse of antibiotics; are we creating multiple pitfalls that could lead to our own extinction? And how likely is it without (if possible) factoring in unnatural causes like nuclear war.
“Random” and “chance” are words we use to describe a process too complicated to calculate. However, that is just about not knowing all the variables. In theory, everything random can be known and thus no longer random.
Nonsense.
Yes, everything random can be known(identified?) But not necessarily expected. This is the area we need to work on.
Nothing is actually random. Some things have an even distribution and a complex mechanism.
So, some 1000s of years hence, it'll be Planet Of The Pandas?
Certainly not a planet of spell casting Christian’s.
05:00 it is odd to argue that species can't be adapted to random events like meteorite strikes.
While no organism can be adapted to resist every random event, it is plain that many species were well adapted to resist the effects of that meteorite strike. Ie the one out of four that did not become extinct.
I don’t think they are adapted to the random event, rather their adaptation to their environment was the chance that allowed them to survive the random event. Ie the therapsids were small burrow dwellers because of the dinosaurs, and this is what allowed them to survive. They weren’t small burrowers to help them survive meteor strikes.
1300 humans is very suspicious
Why?
I thought that the current analysis of the Dodo's going extinct was primarily caused by rats, a different introduced species.
Probably a distinction without a difference in terms of his point about the environment changing - but I also noticed that as a sloppy example
30:49 "Now, hopefully pretty much all of us in this room have fairly had a COVID-19 vaccination." Would there be funding by the pharma industry involved?
Just being sensible I think.
If homosexuality is genetic, who does the charcteristic not die out ?
Because we are a social species. What counts is the survival of each generation, meaning your survival is not only based on your genetic makeup, but the health and structure of your whole social group.
And maybe having some not reproducing members of the society is an advantage for the group.
It would be bad if 100% of the offspring of a generation refused to procreate, but if it's only 5-10% who do that, it can be stable from one generation to the next.
@@XH13 - so your theory is that homosexuality exists to enable the long term reproduction success of the wider group of people.
Teddy Sachs disease is also genetic and kills the person long before they have time to reproduce and pass the gene on. It survives because there are both dominant and non-dominant genes. That's what half of this video was about.
It is not determined entirely by genetics. There is a minor genetic component. This was proven by the famous Twins Study.
Regardless, everyone should be treated with respect and decency.
@autoclearanceuk7191Not "to enable", that suggests evolution has a purpose. Perhaps Homosexualityl continues to exist because it coincidentally benefits the survival of humans and so survives the evolutionary process.
That's all fascinating and makes perfect sense. Except that randomness excludes teleology and purpose in evolution. Only a little thought shows how the two are not correlated concepts.
And... vegans associating with other vegans is a form of genetic isolation? This was a joke. Right?
Teleology? God has no place in science as they don't appear to exist in any scientific way and so cannot be put forward as a candidate explanation for anything.
And the vegan thing is about groups. If a group randomly has a genetic disposition (nothing to do with being vegan, just a random genetic coincidence in the first group), then that groups disposition to breed within the group will retain and grow that original random occurrence. Perhaps veganism isn't as clear as example as Amish, but the concept still exists and works.
Actually, evolution is not random. Mutation is random. If a particular mutation proves to be more advantageous in survival and procreating, then that mutation (along with other such mutations) will go on to form new species.
Evolution is straightforward. Mutation is both random and erratic.
His point is that many changes to the environment that govern natural selection are “random”
Human evolution has stopped dead in its track's. Women haven't evolved sufficiently to breed with suitable mates to further the species. Animals seem to have mastered that.
Evolution doesn't stop, it isn't a process that CAN stop because it's just a description of the genetic results of continued survival. Humans ARE evolving, as is everything, it's just that the timescale is too short.
Why does the lecturer find it necessary to make remarks about the race and gender of early evolutionary scientists, i wonder. Virtue signaling comes to mind.
Definitely. He contradicts himself as well :) devalueing alot of what he says
Why did you notice it? And why does it bother you?
I didn't notice him doing it because I'm not obsessed with seeing wokeness everywhere, clearly you are.
@@bipolarminddroppings it is extremely noticeable? Wdym?
Because they may affect, cloud and stain what should be unbiased
observations and perceptions.
It's called "making an effort", you cynical twit.
What ever happened to scientific observation. Until we actually observe evolution it's all hocus pocus. We can theorize all day and random chance away your thinking but we still need observable evidence. Now explain that.
Well, we actually do observe evolution and we observe a great amount of evidence. What we have no evidence for, what is actually hocus pocus would be creationism or gods.
We have studied the evolution of flies, because they breed quickly enough that we can study their breeding across many generations in a shirt time. And, guess what, we have physically *SEEN* that evolution *DOES* seem to happen (as predicted by the mountain of scientific evidence we have found and analysed over the last 170+ years). Science is simply observing, testing and predicting what we find in reality. It's not a doctrine or a set of laws that nature "must follow" - it's just an attempt by motivated and educated humans to discover how the universe works and it seems to work, as the existence of TH-cam, medicine, cars, education, agriculture etc clearly demonstrates. As soon as a god pops up in the calculations, you'll be the first to know, but no sign so far!
Brilliant presentation, but the constant body movement rather wore me out. lol
Perhaps you need to work on your fitness levels 😅
@@joelonsdale Without question! 😆
Think what you will of evolution, but everything damn sure did not come about by an unprovable magic invisible sky man myth
Its not chance driving evolution.
Yes, I'm sure you, a random Internet commenter, knows more about evolution than a creditentialled professional who teaches the subject for a living...
BS is BS no matter how its presented.
Random Chance in Evolution 1835pm 20.11.23 random and arbitrary do not have the same meaning. though your thesaurus would suggest they are. optimizing meaning and clarification may be worth indulging in.
Sentences should start with a capitalized letter. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Clarification and meaning are things in which to indulge.
@@daviddawson1718 31.1.24. Random Chance in Evolution - Robin May you been listening to lenny bruce again... to come up with something witty re: your penchant for being proper. to do this.... how is one to do this, achieve this....? only the working class will help you with your grammar. struggle, brother!!!! we'll make a concomitant comic of you yet. those murders you done.... sorry, wrong lecture.
"Random chance" is redundant. Chance is random. It wouldn't be chance if it wasn't. Also, arbitrary choices are not random choices. Arbitrariness and randomness are different things.
Depends how you feel about non-uniform probability distributions though; in common usage I think that most people would term an unfair dice as non-random.
Nope. Not all probabilities (chances) are random.
I want a semantics fight! 🤕
Thats not true. If you have a 100% chance of making a shot the outcome is not random.
Chance is the probability. It's random if it's random.. you can cheat and still have a chance of failure.= unrandom chance.