Dave, I am a doctor in geology and have been following your content for a while. Your videos are really good and I wish more kids would watch them, especially the anti-science people. Continue to do this very good job.
>> especially the anti-science people. " Like stephen meyer. Someone needs to stop that guy from misleading people. He is not a biologist, he is a philosopher, and not a good one.
I'm watching this video because I'm making a DnD monster and I want to better understand biology as inspiration for a fantastical creature and how to define it in words that anyone can understand. I don't thing the problem is necessarily anti-science people, we need more science *invested* people. For a lot of people, watching a complicated video like this is complicated and confusing and boring.
This is great, thanks so much Dave. This really helped me to understand better why Protostomia is divided into Spiralia and Ecdysozoa. I'm so excited to learn about all the more obscure phyla such as priapulida, velvet worms, loricifera, etc.
This is easily one of the best science content on this planet. Thank you so much. When you said « We are going to be discussing all of them » at 12:14 I felt so happy !!!
The fact we are Deuterostomes means that all of us, at one point, were nothing more than a bumhole. Unfortunately, some of us never mature out of that stage.
Awesome explainer, but I'm sad. I'm sad that I watched this the day it was released so I can't just move on to the next video. Yes I'm sad, but my sadness is abated by all the other great videos from Prof. Dave. Keep it up, because I use these videos to help teach my kids stuff when they ask me, "How does that work?"
My major is Biology, and all of these things I have already learned. But sometimes I forget things. So this is really helping me to recall everything that is important! Thanks.
I'm taking Zoology next semester. I can already tell this series will be helpful both for getting a head start and studying the material, just as the chemistry series was this semester. Thanks and well-done, Professor Dave!
Hi Professor Dave, amazing job on the tutorials, extremely educative, I always watch your series to improve my knowledge on invertebrates. I just wish you did tutorials on Nematoda and Crustacea. Thank you for all your work
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I actually have an exam on this topic on 18th December, and I want to learn this topic only from you because of the way you explain is just outstanding. So, please create more videos and expand this series.
I actually have an exam on this topic on 18th December, and I want to learn this topic only from you because of the way you explain is just outstanding. So, please create more videos and expand this series.
if anyone here wishes to have an easy resource for a detailed map of all known clades i recommend the phylogeny explorer project, it's extremely detailed.
Does anyone know where "Lophotrochozoa" is? Maybe it is because this is my first taxonomy video and I'm still a bit confused. It could be because I'm using another tree of life(from campbell biology, 11th edition, it was published in 2020 so it can't be that outdated... right?) but it is missing some things compared to 10:56. The biology textbook I'm using says that instead of Bilateria dividing into nephrozoa and xenacoelomorpha, it divides into Deuterostomia, ecdysozoa, and lophotrochozoa. How come it divided into 3 other groups? It also uses metazoa and eumetazoa(which you mentioned was defunct), so that could possibly contribute to why, but in that case(there's a test based on this textbook) should I keep using the defunct kingdom division(since the test is based on the textbook) or should I just use the most updated version of the tree of life? Thank you!
The blue double-highlight is a bit hard to see between the purple single-highlight and black context on the white background. When you double-highlight in the future, could you please include some additional visual cue like an underline?
Of course, you could still say that humans branched off from the common ancestor of us and sponges just as long ago as they did from us. Basality only makes sense in relation to a specific group. Sponges are more basal to all the other animals than any of them are to each other. You could still group all the other animals into their sister clade and say that they were more basal to all the sponges than any of them are to each other. There's nothing special about either non-sponge animals or sponges, it's an arbitrary decision based on what groups are most specious, familiar, and contain humans.
If we went back in time 500 million years, would the tree of life have fewer layers to it? In other words, would there be populations that we now consider to be orders or families, but back then would be considered a species because they hadn't diverged yet? If everything I just asked is correct, does that mean that we'll need to come up with a new layer at some point? It seems like we can't change the definition of species, and we can't really change the definition of domain, so where would that layer go?
Yea what you asked is obvious to assume since the biodiversity would be too scarce 500 million years back to categorise organisms into the current taxonomical system. For future evolution & branching of organisms - yea we might need new sub-categories to categorise em depending upon what they’ll evolve into. We already have sub-families, super-orders and sub-species.
Dave, why exactly are Ctenophorans not accepted to be less ancestral to the animal kingdom than Poriferans? I thought Ctenophorans had diploblastic tissue layers, while Poriferans didn’t? Or is diploblasty not a homologous trait?
I think it's just because our current hypothesis of the origin of multicellularity stems from colonial choanoflagellates which resemble collar cells in sponges, but I'm not sure if that's the only reason.
Just a quick question - would Protista really be polyphyletic if it's defined as "any eukaryote that's not an animal, plant or fungus"? Presumably that'd include the common ancestor of all eukaryotes, so all protists would share a single common protist ancestor rather than evolving from separate origins, so it'd be the eukaryote clade with the three other kingdoms removed from it. That sounds paraphyletic to me rather than polyphyletic!
A common ancestor with some but not all of its descendants is referred to as paraphyletic, whereas a common ancestor with all of its descendants (a clade) plus at least one outgroup taxa outside of the initial clade is referred to as polyphyletic. If Protista is deemed paraphyletic, then all Eukarya major taxa's common ancestor must also be Protista or be considered as such. With the current molecular and morphological data, it is accurate to say the classification Protista is a polyphyletic grouping that consists of clades which are the outgroup of the clade of (Animals, Plants, Fungi)
The thing is, Protist as a group is weird, it includes protozoans and many groups of algae. It is polyphyletic because not only it doesn't include animals plants and fungi, but because they have unique life forms that don't relate with the other kingdoms or each other. I think it should be divided in many other kingdoms and subkingdoms that includes plants, fungi and animals
@@pmathewizard Wouldn't Eukarya's common ancestor be considered a protist itself, though? I mean, if you took the eukaryote clade and removed the animal, plant and fungi clades, would you not be left with Protista by definition? Not saying I like Protista since it's far too diverse and has no unifying traits, so I agree it should be split up - into monophyletic clades if possible - but still, it seems paraphyletic to me since all protists descend from a common protist ancestor - the common ancestor of Eukarya - rather than separate clades.
@@shadowmax889 I agree it should be divided up, but unrelated? Don't all eukaryotes share a common ancestor? If we take the clade Eukarya and remove the animal, plant and fungi clades from it are we not left with the traditional kingdom Protista? Like I said, I'm not a fan of keeping Protista as a thing since it's far too diverse and has no unifying traits, but still, it seems paraphyletic to me, not polyphyletic since all eukaryotes have a common origin.
Because the blastopore in deuterostomes becomes the anus, and because all chordates are deuterostomes by definition, there is a time in our lives when we were nothing more than an asshole. Joke courtesy of Aron Ra.
I'm sure some of these small phyla have only @ 10 species. The way I learned it decades ago, there were 9 major and @ 5 minor phyla: Porifera / Ctenophora / Brachiozoa / Bryozoa / Platyhelminthes / Nematoda / Rotifera / Gastrotricha / Molluska / Annelida / Arthropoa / Echinodermata / Hemichordata / Chordata . Now there's over 30?
Well this series will cover that in a sense, as I am going from more basal phyla all the way up to chordata, so there will be a historical component to it.
Kent Hovind: wOaH, hOw DarE yOu SaY hUmAnS aRe PrImAtEs. (Using that dumb SpongeBob doll) mUh, KiNdS. Ray Comfort (in IRL soapboxing): sMaLl MInDeD pEoPlE aRe BeInG oPpReSsEd By SmAlL mInDeD pEoPlE wHo UsE bIg WoRds. The reason why I am alternating between lower and upper case lettering is to make it clear that I am mocking these people and how they reaction.
I believe you’re being a bit melodramatic. There are many species of invertebrates ( spiders, insects, gastropods,crustaceans, molluscs, etc.) that have yet to be named mainly because no one has taken the time to do the research . Unless you have a strong interest in it, taxonomy can be quite tedious. If you go through the literature as I said you will find a ton of unnamed critters in many ta
I may have missed this video, or it may be outside your expertise, but it would be a really cool somewhat related video if you can explain how things like catalysts, co-evolution/evolution not being a completely independent function, and self-organization make evolution and the type of diversity we see not an one in a gazzillion chance like people who don’t understand science pretend (I am looking at you Kent Hovind and other like-minded people) but it is actually a fairly likely thing to have occurred
Ah, sloth botany. Oh you thought I mean sloth zoology, no, sloths have blue-green algae and moths and other creatures. They are a small ecosystem themselves. The problem with some of the way people divide animals taxonomically is that it is too evolution specific. If we had a time machine maybe we could find out all our evolution ideas are wrong and would have to scrap this whole thing. Birds and mammals both have backbones while ants don't. If we found out that birds actually came from ants tens of millions ago that doesn't seem like we should move birds away from the chordate phylum into the arthropod; or even make a new one.
We can say with highest confidence birds did not evolve from ants based on genetics, transitional fossils, anatomy, etc. You're not wrong to say we may have some classifications incorrect, which is why we are continually studying these things to correct ourselves. In any case, the ONLY valid way to classify animals in a cladogram is with monophyletic clades, so taxonomy has to be evolution-based.
This is probably hard to believe, but after all your flat earth debunk vids, there is still a group of stubborn people that neglect the sphere model. I just came across a pretty hardcore flat earth group on facebook: The Flat Earth Model. What they don 't realise is that in their attempt to prove that the earth is flat since "I shouldn't see that far... They actually use the known earth's radius. How did they come up with that number. The irony is just beautiful. In other words: thank you experienced scientists, we will just keep on cherrypicking from your research
@@Joemamahahahaha821 in that theoretical timeline animals wouldnt exist. they never split from our common ancestor in this theoretical timeline only fungi and plants.
Not sure if you're joking, but flowers never would have turned into zebras because the two are in completely different kingdoms (flowering plants in Plantae, zebras in Animalia). Thus, they do not share a most recent common ancestor. If you're asking why we don't see evolution today, I can assure you we do. Speciation has been observed in the wild and induced in the laboratory many times. Most of the time, this involves relatively small changes which can compound into major changes over many generations. See Aron Ra's series "Systematic Classification of Life" for a more in-depth look at the paleontology behind the system. Also, if you're mentioning Jesus because you think evolution is anti-religious, rest assured that it's entirely possible to be a Christian and accept the reality of evolution.
I am referencing important prerequisite information that I have already covered in other videos. It's not "self-promotion". Don't tell me how to make educational content.
@Gabriel you feel this coz may be u r watching him continuosly for hours. Sometimes I also notice that, but man he is doing great work so atleat he can say what he want.
Dave, I am a doctor in geology and have been following your content for a while. Your videos are really good and I wish more kids would watch them, especially the anti-science people. Continue to do this very good job.
>> especially the anti-science people. "
Like stephen meyer. Someone needs to stop that guy from misleading people. He is not a biologist, he is a philosopher, and not a good one.
Also check Aron Ra's Cladistics series
I'm watching this video because I'm making a DnD monster and I want to better understand biology as inspiration for a fantastical creature and how to define it in words that anyone can understand. I don't thing the problem is necessarily anti-science people, we need more science *invested* people. For a lot of people, watching a complicated video like this is complicated and confusing and boring.
This is great, thanks so much Dave. This really helped me to understand better why Protostomia is divided into Spiralia and Ecdysozoa. I'm so excited to learn about all the more obscure phyla such as priapulida, velvet worms, loricifera, etc.
th-cam.com/video/i6l8MFdTaPE/w-d-xo.html
This is easily one of the best science content on this planet. Thank you so much. When you said « We are going to be discussing all of them » at 12:14 I felt so happy !!!
No
The fact we are Deuterostomes means that all of us, at one point, were nothing more than a bumhole. Unfortunately, some of us never mature out of that stage.
Is that from aronras systematic classification of life
Where the bio nerds at? This comment actually made me laugh 😂😂
@Eastern fence Lizard I will gratefully steal that insult/meme, my good Sir.
@Eastern fence Lizard reminds me of Robin Williams insults he gave in the movie HOOK "...paramecium brain!!!..."
Also explains how suppositories work
Awesome explainer, but I'm sad. I'm sad that I watched this the day it was released so I can't just move on to the next video. Yes I'm sad, but my sadness is abated by all the other great videos from Prof. Dave. Keep it up, because I use these videos to help teach my kids stuff when they ask me, "How does that work?"
My major is Biology, and all of these things I have already learned. But sometimes I forget things. So this is really helping me to recall everything that is important! Thanks.
Me too but my biology degree is 50 years old so it’s fascinating to be updated
@@dancingnature wow! I’m amazed
We all need to be reminded, do we not? 😊
Lots'a love, cheers, & Mabuhay, from tropical Philippines! #KeepLearning
studying for my final test... which covers all bases of science... and this is really helping thank you!
Best Professor Ever!
I'm taking Zoology next semester. I can already tell this series will be helpful both for getting a head start and studying the material, just as the chemistry series was this semester. Thanks and well-done, Professor Dave!
Best science teacher ever
This was great, I'm so excited for this series!
Sir make some videos on 1-motivation ti work and like how u approach problems.
And
2- Books and content u read and found amazing.
its insane how the professor is still responding to comments
The explaination is very nice 😀.
Thanks for you 😊
Hi Professor Dave, amazing job on the tutorials, extremely educative, I always watch your series to improve my knowledge on invertebrates. I just wish you did tutorials on Nematoda and Crustacea. Thank you for all your work
Every phylum will be covered!
Congratulations professor
Your videos have reached cairo university doctors
جاامد
Super job, science lover, I've never seen such a clear explanation on this subject ! 👌❤
Professor, would you consider doing a geography video series on different countries? I would very much enjoy it. Love your videos!
Perhaps! I'm planning world history so perhaps that will lead into geography.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I actually have an exam on this topic on 18th December, and I want to learn this topic only from you because of the way you explain is just outstanding. So, please create more videos and expand this series.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains What happened with the rest of zoology videos? Why do you hide it?
They will be released one per week.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains cool
I am totally amazed by people like you who are multi talented.
And here is me who can't study for physiology exam. I feel jealous.😁
I'm just curious; was that physiology exam one that was coming up? And if so, how did it go?
I thought, we call it Metazoa now, as it's a group under Holozoa kingdom)
Really interested what you can tell about Fungi)
Brilliant content, indispensable 👍🏽
Thank you, Mr. Dave
Animal phyla? More like "Awesomeness? Heck yeah!" Thanks again for all of these videos, on so many topics.
It would be really helpful if you will create more in-depth videos about Animalia.
I actually have an exam on this topic on 18th December, and I want to learn this topic only from you because of the way you explain is just outstanding. So, please create more videos and expand this series.
That would be this entire zoology series, which will end up with somewhere around 100 tutorials.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains No, no, I have an exam just on the Animalia Classification and names of different Animalia Phyla, I don't have my final exams.
if anyone here wishes to have an easy resource for a detailed map of all known clades i recommend the phylogeny explorer project, it's extremely detailed.
Does anyone know where "Lophotrochozoa" is? Maybe it is because this is my first taxonomy video and I'm still a bit confused. It could be because I'm using another tree of life(from campbell biology, 11th edition, it was published in 2020 so it can't be that outdated... right?) but it is missing some things compared to 10:56. The biology textbook I'm using says that instead of Bilateria dividing into nephrozoa and xenacoelomorpha, it divides into Deuterostomia, ecdysozoa, and lophotrochozoa. How come it divided into 3 other groups? It also uses metazoa and eumetazoa(which you mentioned was defunct), so that could possibly contribute to why, but in that case(there's a test based on this textbook) should I keep using the defunct kingdom division(since the test is based on the textbook) or should I just use the most updated version of the tree of life?
Thank you!
Great video. Have you heard of Stephen Jay Gould's "decimation and diversification"? Is this accepted as part of modern paleontology? Thanks.
The blue double-highlight is a bit hard to see between the purple single-highlight and black context on the white background. When you double-highlight in the future, could you please include some additional visual cue like an underline?
I sorta prefer when Dave eviscerates flat earthers. But this was very well done.
The word 'basal' refers to the place where it branches, the sponges were the first animals to branch off, before all other animals branched off.
Of course, you could still say that humans branched off from the common ancestor of us and sponges just as long ago as they did from us.
Basality only makes sense in relation to a specific group.
Sponges are more basal to all the other animals than any of them are to each other. You could still group all the other animals into their sister clade and say that they were more basal to all the sponges than any of them are to each other. There's nothing special about either non-sponge animals or sponges, it's an arbitrary decision based on what groups are most specious, familiar, and contain humans.
Appreciate the content Dave
If we went back in time 500 million years, would the tree of life have fewer layers to it? In other words, would there be populations that we now consider to be orders or families, but back then would be considered a species because they hadn't diverged yet?
If everything I just asked is correct, does that mean that we'll need to come up with a new layer at some point? It seems like we can't change the definition of species, and we can't really change the definition of domain, so where would that layer go?
no because we wont be able to tell whether a certain species was THE common ancestor, so it would be placed as a species and a part of the family
I think that’s a very good question - hope he answers it.
Yea what you asked is obvious to assume since the biodiversity would be too scarce 500 million years back to categorise organisms into the current taxonomical system.
For future evolution & branching of organisms - yea we might need new sub-categories to categorise em depending upon what they’ll evolve into. We already have sub-families, super-orders and sub-species.
Sir please make video for English basics
Just did an assignment about this
Dave, why exactly are Ctenophorans not accepted to be less ancestral to the animal kingdom than Poriferans? I thought Ctenophorans had diploblastic tissue layers, while Poriferans didn’t? Or is diploblasty not a homologous trait?
I think it's just because our current hypothesis of the origin of multicellularity stems from colonial choanoflagellates which resemble collar cells in sponges, but I'm not sure if that's the only reason.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Ok. Thanks for your input!
Do you have any plans on doing videos on outdated ideas, like Lysenkoism, Lamarckism, or soft inheritance?
Hmm, perhaps, maybe in a history of science series or something like that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains would love to see that series done by you, you make everything so enjoyable!
I find the location of my favorite the cute Tardigrada interesting. Ive got a family of them living on me now.
Can we watch this series for NEET?
Just a quick question - would Protista really be polyphyletic if it's defined as "any eukaryote that's not an animal, plant or fungus"? Presumably that'd include the common ancestor of all eukaryotes, so all protists would share a single common protist ancestor rather than evolving from separate origins, so it'd be the eukaryote clade with the three other kingdoms removed from it. That sounds paraphyletic to me rather than polyphyletic!
A common ancestor with some but not all of its descendants is referred to as paraphyletic, whereas a common ancestor with all of its descendants (a clade) plus at least one outgroup taxa outside of the initial clade is referred to as polyphyletic.
If Protista is deemed paraphyletic, then all Eukarya major taxa's common ancestor must also be Protista or be considered as such. With the current molecular and morphological data, it is accurate to say the classification Protista is a polyphyletic grouping that consists of clades which are the outgroup of the clade of (Animals, Plants, Fungi)
The thing is, Protist as a group is weird, it includes protozoans and many groups of algae. It is polyphyletic because not only it doesn't include animals plants and fungi, but because they have unique life forms that don't relate with the other kingdoms or each other. I think it should be divided in many other kingdoms and subkingdoms that includes plants, fungi and animals
@@pmathewizard Wouldn't Eukarya's common ancestor be considered a protist itself, though? I mean, if you took the eukaryote clade and removed the animal, plant and fungi clades, would you not be left with Protista by definition? Not saying I like Protista since it's far too diverse and has no unifying traits, so I agree it should be split up - into monophyletic clades if possible - but still, it seems paraphyletic to me since all protists descend from a common protist ancestor - the common ancestor of Eukarya - rather than separate clades.
@@shadowmax889 I agree it should be divided up, but unrelated? Don't all eukaryotes share a common ancestor? If we take the clade Eukarya and remove the animal, plant and fungi clades from it are we not left with the traditional kingdom Protista? Like I said, I'm not a fan of keeping Protista as a thing since it's far too diverse and has no unifying traits, but still, it seems paraphyletic to me, not polyphyletic since all eukaryotes have a common origin.
Most of the protist orders are more related to the other kingdoms than they are to other protists
So would protists be considered underneath archae or bacteria?
Because the blastopore in deuterostomes becomes the anus, and because all chordates are deuterostomes by definition, there is a time in our lives when we were nothing more than an asshole.
Joke courtesy of Aron Ra.
The series done by Aron Ra is the best ive ever seen. Ive re-watched it multiple times and get something new each time.
@@briank592 I agree. Aron Ra got me into paleontology and I haven't regretted falling down the rabbit hole since.
Professor sir which one came first arthropods or Molluscs
Sir upload whole classification of animilia
That's what this zoology series is, bud.
Excellent.
thank you man, this helps
Last time I studied biology was in the 1970s. The taxonomy has changed so much......
Edit for typo.
I'm sure some of these small phyla have only @ 10 species. The way I learned it decades ago, there were 9 major and @ 5 minor phyla:
Porifera / Ctenophora / Brachiozoa / Bryozoa / Platyhelminthes / Nematoda / Rotifera / Gastrotricha / Molluska / Annelida / Arthropoa / Echinodermata / Hemichordata / Chordata . Now there's over 30?
Boomer's head got exploded
@@発展途上国から日本へ在 Yes, evolution is one big tangled bush with many branches.
nicely done vid
thank you so much 🥰❣️
King Phillip Came Over From Germany Stoned.
Ha! Phil just thought it was Spain.
It would be great if Prof made a video about all the transitional species from LUCA to humans
Well this series will cover that in a sense, as I am going from more basal phyla all the way up to chordata, so there will be a historical component to it.
Hey, animals, I love animals! Who here is an animal? Raise your hand.
Charles darwin sends his regards..lol
@professor, I am not sure how the Phylum Chordate extends from Choanoflagellates any videos on it or where might I get the info?
That will take this entire zoology series to describe.
Hey Professor Dave,
I wanna learn about all the science and math I can. Where do I start?
Head to my home page and choose a playlist!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thanks!
it has changed Animalia, Plantae, fungi, protist,s and monera.
Protista sounds like really delicious noodles 🧐👌
Itsà prrotistà 🇮🇹
It sounds more like a collection of individuals one might encounter in an ancient Roman bordello.
This is good but i want it pdf or power point 😊
3:46 is there a link to this image?
I made it. Just take a screenshot.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains ok 👌
Kent Hovind: wOaH, hOw DarE yOu SaY hUmAnS aRe PrImAtEs. (Using that dumb SpongeBob doll) mUh, KiNdS.
Ray Comfort (in IRL soapboxing): sMaLl MInDeD pEoPlE aRe BeInG oPpReSsEd By SmAlL mInDeD pEoPlE wHo UsE bIg WoRds.
The reason why I am alternating between lower and upper case lettering is to make it clear that I am mocking these people and how they reaction.
I thought of hominids as erect bipedal apes but apparently all of the great apes are now classified as such.
does ken play classical or folk guitar songs
Great food
I believe you’re being a bit melodramatic. There are many species of invertebrates ( spiders, insects, gastropods,crustaceans, molluscs, etc.) that have yet to be named mainly because no one has taken the time to do the research . Unless you have a strong interest in it, taxonomy can be quite tedious. If you go through the literature as I said you will find a ton of unnamed critters in many ta
Thank you.👍
I may have missed this video, or it may be outside your expertise, but it would be a really cool somewhat related video if you can explain how things like catalysts, co-evolution/evolution not being a completely independent function, and self-organization make evolution and the type of diversity we see not an one in a gazzillion chance like people who don’t understand science pretend (I am looking at you Kent Hovind and other like-minded people) but it is actually a fairly likely thing to have occurred
Ah, sloth botany.
Oh you thought I mean sloth zoology, no, sloths have blue-green algae and moths and other creatures. They are a small ecosystem themselves.
The problem with some of the way people divide animals taxonomically is that it is too evolution specific.
If we had a time machine maybe we could find out all our evolution ideas are wrong and would have to scrap this whole thing.
Birds and mammals both have backbones while ants don't.
If we found out that birds actually came from ants tens of millions ago that doesn't seem like we should move birds away from the chordate phylum into the arthropod; or even make a new one.
We can say with highest confidence birds did not evolve from ants based on genetics, transitional fossils, anatomy, etc.
You're not wrong to say we may have some classifications incorrect, which is why we are continually studying these things to correct ourselves.
In any case, the ONLY valid way to classify animals in a cladogram is with monophyletic clades, so taxonomy has to be evolution-based.
This makes me want to finish my biology degree 😞
I wonder if Australian animals are so unique because of the island effect, but in massive scale
after watching this video i realize just how many types of animals and species there are
I can't find a link to the taxonomy video.
There's a card that pops up in this video. Otherwise it's in my biology playlist.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Okay, thanks
great video
What is a domain
This is probably hard to believe, but after all your flat earth debunk vids, there is still a group of stubborn people that neglect the sphere model.
I just came across a pretty hardcore flat earth group on facebook: The Flat Earth Model.
What they don 't realise is that in their attempt to prove that the earth is flat since "I shouldn't see that far... They actually use the known earth's radius. How did they come up with that number. The irony is just beautiful. In other words: thank you experienced scientists, we will just keep on cherrypicking from your research
❤❤❤
So my butt formed before my mouth? That explains some things...
All very interesting, but won't it just change again? I like Animal, mineral or Vegetable. Fungi obviously go in Vegetable. Delicious!
Fungi are not plants.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains i know, but I preferred it when they were🤣🤣🤣🤣
#Whatif? Fungi Evolved into animals, Mycozoa?
No, fungi and animals have a common ancestor.
I know that but what if, Speculative evolution, A world where True Fungi Evolve into animals? How would/Could that happen?
you know Theoretically
@@bonkaiblue7906 something can’t involve into a Clare that already exists really. That’s not really how it works
@@Joemamahahahaha821 in that theoretical timeline animals wouldnt exist. they never split from our common ancestor in this theoretical timeline only fungi and plants.
I read the title as "division of Klingons". It was not 😟
I like critters
It’s funny to me we’re more closely related to sea stars than bugs
I'm gonna speak up for baby Jesus here and ask why a flower can't turn into a zebra today ?
Not sure if you're joking, but flowers never would have turned into zebras because the two are in completely different kingdoms (flowering plants in Plantae, zebras in Animalia). Thus, they do not share a most recent common ancestor.
If you're asking why we don't see evolution today, I can assure you we do. Speciation has been observed in the wild and induced in the laboratory many times. Most of the time, this involves relatively small changes which can compound into major changes over many generations. See Aron Ra's series "Systematic Classification of Life" for a more in-depth look at the paleontology behind the system.
Also, if you're mentioning Jesus because you think evolution is anti-religious, rest assured that it's entirely possible to be a Christian and accept the reality of evolution.
@@dinohall2595 No shit ..lol
@@HULLGRAFFITI You posted sh1t twice. Dino was trying to be informative and polite yet you dismiss him. Why?
Now I know why Hovind is always bringing up “protistas” when he attempts to debunk evolution. Not only is he wrong, he’s wrong in the wrong century.
873 like
nice job science jesus
Is this guy the brother of coyote Peterson
I like your videos, but please... stop self-promoting previous videos every 20 seconds... this cuts off the pacing of your videos...
I am referencing important prerequisite information that I have already covered in other videos. It's not "self-promotion". Don't tell me how to make educational content.
i find it helpful for remembering concepts that he's gone over. i don't have the best memory and his method helps with that.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains that's right ...this help me to catch what I missed
@Gabriel you feel this coz may be u r watching him continuosly for hours. Sometimes I also notice that, but man he is doing great work so atleat he can say what he want.