What is Evolution?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- Support Stated Clearly on Patreon: / statedclearly
Evolution is often considered a complex and controversial topic but it's actually a very simple concept to understand. Watch this short animation to see how evolution works. Share it with your friends on Facebook who might be confused or may have been mislead about the evolutionary process.
You can learn more about genetics and evolution by visiting our website at www.statedclearly.com
This video is our first animation with illustrations from the talented Rosemary Mosco. If you don't already know her work, make sure to check out her website at BirdAndMoon.com You'll love her biology comics, posters and t-shirts.
This video features custom music by AD at Proof Avenue. Check his other work at ProofAvenue.com
Sources:
The definition of Evolution:
"Genetic change in a population of organisms; in general, evolution leads to progressive change from simple to complex." - Biology, Seventh Edition, Raven, Johnson, Losos, Singer (college textbook) pg G-6 glossary
"Descent with modification...change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation." - Biology Eighth Edition, Campbell, Reece (college textbook) pg G-14 glossary
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." University of California Berkley evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite...
Dogs evolved from wolves: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...
Thanks to Hedvig Francke for providing Closed Captions in Swedish.
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
If you sort comments by "newest first" on this video, you WILL lose brain cells. This is a warning.
Thanks for the warning ☠️
R u sure??? Cause I don't feel anything
i lost some
💀💀💀
I found a comment I made, 6 years ago when I was an evolution denying, young Earth creationist and now as an atheist that thread was the cringest thing I have ever read.
I’m not even watching this for biology class. I just love learning about biology and evolution.
You are a fool.
Me to 🙃
Same
Forget "evolution", because there is not evolution!! Just devolution. Proof: you are getting older!!
I'll tell you what evolution is, it's a myth that can't be backed. Evolution has NO evidence whatsoever to back it up, so. Let's see the transitional forms, can you name them and show them? There should be transitional forms everywhere. So far no one has come up with anything. So I'll ask again, WHERE - ARE - THE - TRANSITIONAL FORMS?
Evolution: nature's way of repeatedly saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature" and hoping it sticks.
Evolution is an ongoing and continuous series of natural experiments where what works gets perpetuated and those that don't, perish.
LMAOOO
facts
hello, fellow biology students...
Got my evolution test in 2 hours :/
@@tyrel5013 Hopefully you did well on it! lol
I'm here from RE
@@tyrel5013 Did it go ok?
@@frankiestein7092 got a 39%😎😤
that means whoever we end up dating, we'll be related to them. oh sweet home alabama
Is that yoongi in your prfile pic
@@akankshagupta4138 no, it's jaemin from nct
@@lvezone nana 💔
@@junhoes7547 yeahh
Hey cousin
Does anyone know how to install minecraft mods?
How is that relevant here?? XD
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
if you're not gonna tell me how to install minecraft mods please don't watse my time.
Who has to watch this for science class on google classroom while at home?😁 Pretty good vid tbh..
@Jamie B np :D
😇😇
Yup
Me
Relateble
*The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution:*
*"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."*
Creationists, who are often scientifically illiterate, often make the claim that evolution is not really science. The AAAS, in essence, is saying they lie..
I thought I was studying biology but by reading comments in the section below I feel as if I was one of the viewers of war between religious and scientific people.. Well for me God is my soul and science is my teacher
Era Smith good
Thank u Jack postma
Vimal Sehgal for fuck sake look around you idiot
the world doesnt care about your feelings
if you die your conscious bo longer exist just like before you were born
this is the real world wake up
you say that your god love you even tho you have never met him before
fuck for all we know god might be a something more than someone
Vimal Sehgal How are the book sales going? I won’t be buying it. To say that the theory of evolution “is atheistic and anti soul, not science at all, based on blind faith irrationality and dogma only” is one of the silliest and most inaccurate things I have ever read. Your baseless claims show your lack of knowledge.
@@halogen5580 WHo knows? what if you are wrong? Anyways, we'all eventually find what will happen to us. God bless you brother.
Why is there 18k comments about religious comments and like 2 religious ones
Look at the most recent comments
Johnson Jackson Agreed. TH-cam comments are just toxic and unreliable. I've been learning that I should be more in a position of just listening to every view, as long as they are being presented with kindness and a genuine open desire for truth, rather than getting tempted and baited into anger and argument and forcing myself into a narrow-minded spot just because I want to win. Truth > pride. Truth is love.
@@sponge6171 Oh wow. That actually helped me a lot. Thank you
@@armytbchaine6515 Anytime :)
@@sponge6171 powerful words! most people just want to fight and defend their hard line views from both side of the tracks
Evolution is not random. The mutations that lead to variation may be random, but evolution is not.
Thanks that’s a question on the assignment
Sorry to burst ur bubble but evolution is impossible its js a theory with no proof
He should cover that in the natural selection video
Hi! Who else got forced to watch this... but then actually enjoyed the video?💀😂
Shut uo
12345 IN ACTION yep forced to because of science class
science class damn
didnt like it just got forced to watch it >:(
i hate online school stfu
How to start an argument on TH-cam:
1. Write a comment.
2. Wait...
Ur wrong, dumbass!
(j/k, couldn't resist!)
Allan Floyd I know right.
Alex Davies You 2 are the dumbest fucks on youtube!!
Andrew Gambrel Only because your Mom isn't on TH-cam yet.
Andrew Gambrel Her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard...?
Almost 40% scientists believe in a higher power, yet the percentage of scientists who accept is above evolution 97% (the general public is 61%) so it's not a matter evidence conflicting with faith or believe. The evidence of evolution describes a physical process in nature that requires reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection. We can observe these processes taking place in the lab. It's both a theory and an observable fact.
Were are you getting your figures from? I question 40% of scientists believe in a higher power.
There is absolutely no reason at all to believe in a higher power like a god.
Howard San www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
it's actually 51% who believe in a God/higher power according to this survey, and secondly, please don't be one of those.
This is from November 5, 2009. this pole is bogus. For a start its American and America is apparently a deeply religious country. These fugues are outdated, based in America and probably wrong in the first instance anyway. Your statement is flawed in a major way, how about posting some accurate and relevant figures that reflect what you implied.
funnybot152
"please don't be one of those." Im the person that questions other peoples figures and judging from your sources I was right to lol. Whats the point if your figures are outdated and irrelevant. Is America the science epicenter of the world lol, No and not even close.
its amazing how few people understand such a simple and obvious process even at this very basic
level ... An excellent series of videos 👍
@@combinedeffects4799 Damn bro, are you like 12 years old, ranting and raving at science like a lunatic?
"best your hoax theory can accomplish are explaining minor variations of the same kind. The rest is atheist imagination in overdrive ."
Yet you believe in the bible and intelligent design, things that have zero supporting evidence, over the most substantiated theory in the history of science. Evolution is science not atheism. You either understand it, or you're an ignorant buffoon. Pretty obvious what the case is here.
"you can’t make micro into macro"
This is a 5 year old level of argument, long refuted by actual experts in the subject and based on a straw man. There is no such thing as a "kind" in biology. Spew less lies, please.
"believing that the impossible will become the inevitable"
Then prove it is impossible. Oh wait, idiotic creationists like you don't do the whole proof thing. You just state whatever fantasy is comforting to you and use it as a basic to deny any science and knowledge that conflicts. You are a pathetic peasant that just repeats what professional liars say. Try looking at both sides instead of regurgitating old debunked propaganda.
"you are supporting a hoax theory that is allowed to survive because anyone who opposes it in academia and tries to be honest is threatened and persecuted"
Show me on the doll where evolution hurt you. You are ranting like a 3rd grader who just learned basic addition and subtraction arguing against calculus. You need knowledge and understanding before discussing science. That's just the simple fact, and you don't have anything other than fantasy as an explanation, while evolution has millions of research papers, fossils and experiments that support it. ID has zilch, but thanks for playing, "Who wants to be moron."
Literally every argument you made was ad hominem. I've never seen a more pretentious, pathetic rant in my life. Oh look, you're a far right Trumper, no shock, a science denier and faux outrager who wants to be the victim in every situation yet can't even refute a SINGLE piece of evidence supporting evolution. Typical Christian conservative LIAR.
It's horseshit.
@@MrGreen-fi5sg Like you?? because evolution is a real thing how do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly? Evolution
@@TheGamingCapybara Actually the metamorphosis of a caterpillar is NOT an example of evolution. it's a totally different process .
@@MrGreen-fi5sg Horseshit ?, so you deny evolution happens? do you also deny the earth is spherical or that germs exist? because it really is the same level of ignorance.
Who else is here because of "Biology Class"
Hereeeeeee, sighhh
me
Nope science
Yup
We dont see evolution in our biology class...
There is no debate between Creationism and Evolution.
Just like there is no debate between the flat earth society and people who accept the earth is round.
You are right. Creation is correct, while evolutionism is false. There is no debate.
Joe, stop screaming you're magically right.
Joe Richmond Just like the earth is flat and Santa exist... ;)
...and the earth is hollow and the sun revolves around the earth and stars fall from the sky.
which creation? torrah, new testament, hindu, islam etc theres no evidence for any of those but there is evidence for evolution and evolution doesnt disprove a god it shows that a god is unnecessary for the diversity of life
Even Religion evolves.. Oooooh The Irony...
Almost everything evolves lol
amen😂
If a religion changed, why would one believe it? They wouldn't. Simple.
who here is watching this for home learning during lockdown? im pleased im looking at evolution at home instead of school cos i have my old friend google around XD
Baha, same
Science isn't about beliefs, it's about testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
when?
So you all believe that the big bang, if I can get this straight, A MASSIVE EXPLOSION came out of nowhere when nothing wasn't anything. That's supernatural, supernatural as in can't be explained by normal science as we know it.
@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 we are allowed not to know things lol
@@bobbertonsmivelton7019 If you ever learn how to check facts for yourself you would realize that someone fed you a line of shit. NO, you did not "get it straight", you bought creationist bullshit. There was no _"MASSIVE EXPLOSION."_ If you ever bother to learn about a subject, and you should before demonstrating your ignorance, you would find that the term "Big Bang" was initially used derisively by astronomer Fred Hoyle who believed in a "steady state" universe.
The hypothesis of an expanding universe was proposed in 1927 by the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître, who was also a Catholic priest. He proposed an expanding universe as a model that would explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae and that the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied, suggesting there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift and their distance from observers.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence for Lemaître's hypothesis. Hubble's
observations showed that galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities (calculated from
their observed red-shifts) directly proportional to their distance from the Earth and each other.
The physics of the "Big Bang" Theory originating from a singularity suggested that the initial
condition of the universe would have been an extremely dense white hot plasma (an opaque fog)
the gravity of which would have been so,great as to prevent the escape of any radiation until it
cooled sufficiently to allow protons and electrons to bind forming the simplest elements (primarily
Hydrogen, with small amounts of Helium and Lithium). IF that assumption was correct, it was
hypothesized that some 'echo' of the Big Bang should be detectable in the form of residual
radiation.
The search for such evidence began in earnest about 1940 and by 1964 a group at Princeton proposed a series of elaborate experiments to aid that search when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered quite by accident by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. It earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.
From 2003 to 2010, NASA's WMAP spacecraft took very detailed pictures of the universe by means of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The images can be interpreted to indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (within one percent error) and that the Lambda-CDM model and the inflationary theory are correct. No other cosmological theory can yet explain such a wide range of observed parameters, from the ratio of the elemental abundances in the early universe to the structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the observed higher abundance of active galactic nuclei in the early universe and the observed masses of clusters of galaxies.
The "Big Bang" Theory was not some wild ass guess that scientists adopted to verify their "world view." Quite the opposite. Its acceptance by the scientific community only came about after much debate, in the 1970s when the evidence became beyond overwhelmingly persuasive that that there was an expansion of space from a pre-existing state. (Not from 'nothing' as creationists assert.)
It is not so much that "steady state' was proven wrong, but that the evidence supporting "Big Bang" became overwhelming. As Albert Einstein said "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms." The Big Bang theory certainly did that, providing explanation for the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law.
So, in the future it would benefit you to really "get things straight" and not be so eager to buy creationist bullshit.
SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES; all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a conclusion and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science..
I came just to look at the comments. Not disappointed
*Grabs popcorn*
The comments, even on videos like these, are vastly entertaining aye. The internet never fails me
@Cantrell K, LOL.
@Cantrell K lmao I'm gay but nah...ion want him.
@@cameronscott9248 I recommend the videos that debunk flat-earthers. The newest comments over there are great.
Creationist tactic #1: Lie
Creationist tactic #2: Lie some more.
Creationist tactic #3: Keep lying, no need for evidence; someone is bound to believe the lies.
Creationist tactic #4: When challenged to present any evidence for fabricated statements, respond with “prove it is a lie”.
Creationist tactic #5: Why stop lying now? You can always claim you are winning.
Creationist tactic #6: Claim you are morally superior.
Randall Wilks Atheists tactics #1 attack the believers
@Eden Zurlent, Except evolution is not just considered as a "belief", it's also considered as a proven fact. For which creationists deny.
You forgot quoting the bible
@@tagnochciao7102 Oh, yeah. You're right. They do that quite often, don't they? What they don't get is that TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE; not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. The rules of evidence are this: IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY...
*YOU LOSE!*
@@bensonchen3915 *_SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT BELIEFS, IT'S ABOUT TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES;_* all of which must be backed by evidence. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion that is initially PROVISIONAL (a hypothesis). There are degrees of certainty in science and as further evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the certainty it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it may be regarded as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which, in science, is the HIGHEST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY POSSIBLE. That is true for Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Heliocentric Theory, Theories of Relativity, et al. They are all explanations for observed phenomena and they are all backed by massive evidence.
Science is built on facts, much like a house being built of bricks. But a pile of bricks is not a house and a collection of facts is not science. They become science only after being assembled into a coherent explanation of observed phenomena that is a Scientific Theory. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate personal bias and follow evidence wherever it leads. THAT is the path to truth, and that is science.
bruh this vid is about evolution why everybody having a war over religion lmao
because unlike evolution, religion has logic "minus infinite"
@@thatkidwholovesfighting7638 ?
Because evolution goes agaisnt their beliefs
because young earthers think evolution is fake blah blah blah
look, I'm Christian (Catholic) and still believe in evolution. There is a possibility that evolution still occurred. Not necessarily in the bible but It's possible 🤷♂️
*HOW EVOLUTION WORKS It is helpful to understand that evolution is a molecular process. The random mutations that naturally occur during cell division and replication (mitosis and meiosis) are the raw material for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Mutations are ongoing and continuous for every living species. "Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.''*
Those genetic variants are subjected to a selection process that is performed by whatever environment the organisms find themselves. In this respect, evolution is an ongoing, continuous set of natural experiments. Those that work get perpetuated, those that don't, perish. It is as if the environment acted as an umpire who says "There are good mutations and there are bad mutations and there are neutral mutations, but they ain't nuthin' until I (the environment) calls 'em." That is Natural Selection. Neutral mutations just go along for the ride producing neither immediate benefit nor harm (Genetic Drift).
The result of those selection processes is organisms best suited for their current environment. Should that environment change, it would put the population under stress. If the population gene pool has sufficient genetic variation it increases the likelihood that at least some offspring should be able to survive and perpetuate the species (albeit one of slightly different genetic makeup).
What everyone should understand is that genetic changes do not occur because of some 'need'. The mutations are RANDOM and get selected if they are USEFUL. That is a process called Natural Selection and it is anything BUT random.
Let's take the example of the Panda. Bears in general are omnivores, eating plant matter, but with a marked preference for meat when available. The preferred food of the Panda however, is bamboo leaves, which have such low nutritional value that they must eat almost continuously. The Panda would certainly be able to extract more nutrition with a four chambered stomach (as in ungulates and whales) or something akin to a cecal valve that would slow the passage of food, but it has neither in its genetic toolbox. In feeding themselves, pandas are continuously stripping bamboo leaves from their stalks, a process that could be facilitated if they had a thumb.
Bears however do not have thumbs, nor do they have genes for them in their genetic toolbox. Nor do new features simply spring into existence. However, if a slightly altered body component provides some benefit, natural selection will perpetuate it. Evolution is modification with descent and results in incremental alterations to what is already there.
As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters in a garden until it can go no further. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path, avoiding those obstacles. The robot gardener (evolution) is not an intelligent force and cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose to get the job done.
While a thumb would be quite useful to a panda for stripping leaves, evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done". THAT is how evolution operates. The panda’s "thumb", developed over many generations of holding things, is clearly a co-opted “radial sesamoid” bone from the paw of a bear. Likewise, the 'Red Panda', a raccoon relative with a similar diet, has evolved a similar feature.
Based in part on the fact that no tetrapods, (terrestrial vertebrates) exist in the fossil record prior to about 370 million years ago, the Theory of Evolution would predict that tetrapods evolved from fish. If that were the case, there should have existed at one time a fish with characteristics of both fish and tetrapods. In other words a Transitional Species. Until about 2005, there was little evidence for such a creature. There were however, a class of fish called Sarcopterygians or Lobe Finned Fishes, that dominated Devonian seas. What characterized those lobe finned fishes was that those fins were supported by external bones and muscles. Those bones, a single bone, connected to two bones connected to smaller bones, are analogous to the limb bones of all tetrapods, including humans. Most Sarcopterygian Fishes have long been extinct, but they are survived today by two species of coelacanth and six species of lungfish. ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/sarcopterygii.html
Still, what was missing was a fossil showing characteristics of fish AND tetrapods. When Neil Shubin and his team decided to search for a fossil that filled the gap between the Lobe Finned Fishes that dominated Devonian Seas and the earliest tetrapod fossils represented by Ichthyostega and Acanthostega dated about 370 mya. Since those fossils were found in geologic deposits indicating a freshwater environment and if the Theory of Evolution is correct in its hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from fish, then transitional fossils should be found in similar deposits somewhat older in age. The problem was that geologic deposits of that age are exposed at few places on the earth's surface. Fortunately, a great deal of geologic exploration has been done throughout the world, financed often times by oil and mining interests. They selected an area in the Canadian Arctic, Ellesmere Island, as having the greatest likelihood of success. It took 4 years of searching during the short summers of that hostile environment but succeeded, returning in 2004 with 9 specimens of the fish they named Tiktaalik. It was exactly what one would expect a transitional fish-tetrapod to look like and was found in deposits dated 375 mya. If this was not the direct ancestor of tetrapods, it was something very much like it.This is a great example of using evolutionary theory as a predictive tool.
Btw, biointeractive(dot)org is a great source of information for all of science. If anyone has an interest in expanding their knowledge of science they should use it.
The genetic variation within a population is referred to as a gene pool. Organisms can move freely within that population breeding with each other, perpetuating any new mutations that work and eliminating those that are less than optimal. Each offspring will most resemble its parents, yet will vary slightly genetically because of unique mutations acquired during meiosis. Thus the genetic makeup of a population will change ever so slightly with each successive generation.
Populations are not stable, they expand and contract with changing conditions. So long as there is sufficient genetic variation within a population there will be some members capable of surviving those conditions and perpetuating the species. The alternative is extinction.
When populations expand and migrate to new territories, some portions of it will become genetically isolated from each other and no longer share a common gene pool. In such cases, each such sub population will carry a subset of the parent population genome, but subsequent mutations will be unique to each new population (the genotype) that will come to differentiate that population from others (Genetic Drift).
To the extent that such populations encounter differing environmental conditions, that environment will exert different evolutionary pressures on that population. New mutations will have a much greater chance of coming to dominance within a smaller population than they would in the larger parent population where they would be one among the many. Over thousands of generations genetic differences accumulate in the different gene pools making interbreeding ever more difficult until at some point speciation can be said to have occurred. Because speciation is a process, rather than an event, it would be no more possible to pinpoint where speciation occurred than to identify where on the color spectrum orange becomes red.
Excellent your text. I think the vast majority of people don't understand this mechanism well. Evolution is the hypothesis that best explains life on Earth. Mutations + Natural Selection = Evolution. When you use Panda as an example, we can conclude that it is a mistake to call a Species as being "more evolved" or at the "top of the evolutionary scale" as some like to think about the human kind, after all the concept of "elegance" it's pretty relative since the Panda adaptation does the job.
Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated
Deleted comment:
Jesus911 2 hours ago (edited)
Evolution would have to be a result of deleting dna because the simplest life forms are complicated
@Jesus911 It is very obvious that religion has destroyed your ability to think.
Another deleted comment:
Jesus911
Randall Wilks ameobas 290 to 670 billion dna base pairs. You have 3 billion. Yeah no buddy i went to a secular university and I am a biologist and let me tell you that the university tried to do that
Very well and clearly explained, the speaker has a good steady calm voice, well enunciated ☺
Science and Divinity cannot be separated
Its the opposite, world-leaders always used science to influence world-folk and since ever highest leading staff also arrogate to change divinity, all for selfish benefit
So is Darwin a Project of world-leading Freemasons
Reality is not based on theories. We are here to find out what is already given, not to add speculations - this is science. Any subjective attempts are based on bad intentions. Human has created nothing, so cannot know and must only learn.
Sent Prophets revealed "reality" and last holy book Koran explains lifes before humans, evolution and all creation. Koran expains embroyonal development of baby, long before doctors had no tools to find out this; and many more truth.
If you are prejudiced, you will not seek, but act inbetween your and others limitedness. Those who ain´t seek divine way, won´t face matter of salvation, as not agreed truth that came from of a direction their ego haven´t awaited at life
yeah he made for narration
thats crazy but did i ask?
@@GabeAdventures nope I dont remember asking either
@@MONKIMAJOR i dont remember asking u to ask me if i asked u
So remember kids, on thanks giving, you're really eating grandpa!!! LOLLLLLLLL
Mammals are distantly related to reptiles, but the lineage goes back much further than one or two generations. On Thanks Giving you are eating a descendant of ancient reptiles.
Not grandpa. Distant cousin Eddy.
Your ancestors are dead. The turkey is your cousin.
LOL
dynamitecrip Now, we are all sons of bitches
I press “read newest first” and what do you know, it’s creationists being deranged part: 532
I find asking them a question on the subject (evolution) is their form of kryptonite. If you don't let them change the subject they always head for the hills! lol
@@vanenmar7491 Yeah, a little questioning is all it take for them to dig themselves down to china XD
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Diversification and Geographic Distribution of Species.* As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian continental landmass that included New Guinea and Tasmania as the ancient continent called Sahul were quite different from those elsewhere in the world. Prior to ancient man's arrival, the mammals populating that landmass were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world. So too, were the egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of humans that brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass since placental mammals diverged from their non-placental forebears in the Early Cretaceous or Late Jurassic. It remained isolated from all other eutherian (placental) mammal migrations.
.
The almost universal absence of both native land mammals and amphibians on isolated islands argues against a creation event and those islands tell of a different evolutionary history. Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently arrived at the same conclusion as Charles Darwin regarding natural selection being the engine of evolution, spent many years collecting biological specimens in the Amazon and later on the Indonesian archipelago and New Guinea. What he discovered was sometimes tremendous differences in the fauna of neighboring islands and he discovered a pattern to the distribution of species; those on the western side of a hypothetical dividing line were identical or similar to, mainland Asian species. Those on the eastern side of the divide were more similar to those of Australasia, Australia and New Guinea. This line, now known as the Wallace Line denotes an area of deep water channels that would have prevented migration when sea levels were lower as during Ice Ages, while other areas would have had dry land connections. The islands Bali and Lompok, separated by a mere 20 miles, have quite different fauna. Wallace's studies of species distribution and barriers to their migration has earned him the title "father of biogeography".
Birds can fly from island to island, reptiles can swim or float on driftwood, plant seeds can be carried to different islands by wind, water or birds, but amphibians cannot survive in saltwater and most land mammals are limited by the distances they can swim. Those deep water channels restricted them to one side of that dividing line.
New Zealand is another prime example. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. (There's that "half a wing" creationists talk about.) ;-)
Other isolated islands also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Galapagos and the Hawaiian Archipelago. The 13 or so species of Galapagos Finches, sometimes called "Darwin's Finches", are all relatively drab in color, varying in beak morphology and physical size. Despite their physical and genetic differences, creationists typically respond with "They are all still finches"; perpetuating their straw man version of evolution as "one animal turning into another." What they ignore is that the Theory of Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations; it can only produce changes in existing body parts. Genetic changes (Genotype) take place constantly, Physiological changes (Phenotype) take place incrementally over thousands of generations, and not due to single mutations but accumulations of diverse mutations.
On the Hawaiian Islands, the indigenous population came up with imaginative names for the colorful bird population. On the Galapagos however, there were no indigenous peoples to name these birds and they were given very prosaic names by the scientists studying them. Giving them names like Small Ground Finch, Medium Ground Finch and Large Ground Finch were descriptive but glossed over their genetic differences and gave credence to the creationist claim "They are still finches". Do a search on Galapagos Finches (aka Darwin's Finches)
On the Hawaiian Islands, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch, the Laysan Finch, underwent adaptive radiation into what was, at one time, 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. Unlike the Galapagos Finches that were similarly drab in coloration, the various Honeycreepers exhibit wide differences in plumage coloration and had widely varying bill shapes. Some of the nectar feeders have co-evolved with a specific plant species, their uniquely shaped bills providing pollination. Extinction of one of those bird species usually results in the extinction of its co-evolutionary plant counterpart.
Do a search on Hawaiian Honeycreepers.
The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed. Nor is that an isolated example, fully 95% of Hawaii's endemic plant species are found nowhere else in the world.
Mauritania had the Elephant Bird and the Dodo, neither one of which flew there, and they sure as hell didn't swim. Perhaps Noah dropped them off there while trying to find his way back to the Middle East, you think?
Madagascar, the world's fourth largest island, was separated from other landmasses for 88 million years. During that time plants and animals on the island evolved in isolation; 80% of which exist nowhere else in the world. In each of these areas, evolution took separate paths that refute the creationist concept of a creation event.
Since birds can fly and establish new and distant populations, they can establish diverse populations where genetic drift alone could result in new species and be further shaped by environmental and ecological factors. The fossil record shows that once birds were able to take to the air and migrate, there was rapid diversification. Again, when the asteroid impact that wiped out all the non-avian dinosaurs, it also resulted in the extinction of most avian dinosaur (bird) species. The plethora of new environmental niches again allowed birds to diversify rapidly. That expansion and diversification had been duplicated whenever the opportunity has presented itself.
Yet birds are not the only examples of rapid diversification. Cichlid fishes in Africa's Rift valley have exhibited the same diversification whenever new lakes were formed and founder populations made their way into them. The same has occurred with Anole lizards on Caribbean Islands.
Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.
Do a search on 'Explaining General Patterns in Species Abundance and Distributions' from Learn Science at Scitable.
Search these subjects:
*Anole lizard evolution*
*Cichlid fishes evolution*
Video: Evolution, Speciation, and Adaptation of Cichlid Fish
When two badgers get together and you know... "fall in love".
Kitsune lol
this person is definitely around 7 because they are saying what the video clearly said because sex is soooooooooooooo hilarious and apparently everyone needs to know about it.
Snorkel
And you’re clearly 9 because you don’t find sex funny.
SEX IS SO FUNNY AND EPIC
@@quackhead1895 ummm
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is uneducated on the concept of evolution. They either A) Don't understand the concept of evidence B) Don't understand the evidence that supports evolution C) Don't understand that the Theory of Evolution is on the same playing field as the Theory of Gravity, the Heliocentric Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory, and so on. My advice is to make an effort to learn so you don't make foolish choices.
***** You're right. I should have specified that they are not educated in this particular scientific theory
***** You just say "a lot of educated..." or you can really tell their names and arguments against the Theory?
I certainly don't believe nature is the force behind life. I found it rather comical that the narrator started the video off acknowledging that evolution doesn't tell us "how life began on earth" in the first place! what we believe about the beginning of all things really is the necessary starting point for our entire worldview. Just because something appears to be random and undetermined may not be that at all.
I disagree. Though what we believe about our origins is important, I don't think that's the starting point. The mechanism we use to determine what our beliefs will be is the starting point - it's where every single one of our beliefs comes from. If we are intellectually honest, we would determine each belief in the same way consistently. I personally try to use logic for myself.
Speaking of logic, what makes you think natural forces couldn't cause life to begin?
Do you want all at once? Tracing step by step from obvious things to deeply hidden is the only way to discover more.
Someone should try getting into contact with Stated Clearly and inform them of what’s happening to the comment section of their other popular evolution video.
Hello world! I am a girl from Russia, and I am preparing for exams) I do not know English, but I am very glad that there are subtitles for Russian!
Hello, hope your exams go well :)
It's time for some creationist bingo! First we take a look at Eagle Jones a few posts further down this page. What typical traits can we find in this interesting example?
- American? Check!
- God did it? Check!
- Evolution is a lie, no sources included? Check!
- Secret conspiration? Check!
- American christians is oppressed? Check!
5 points in two badly formulated sentences. That's something to be proud of Eagle boy!
Religion is horrible here in America. It's hard to convert people to Atheism without people saying how it's false without evidence, and they may try to turn it on you saying stupid things like, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" And, "That's stupid!"
@@themac7915 This is so unhealthy for both sides ):
@@themac7915 america sucks
Evolution is NEVER about "one animal turning into another" as creationists love to characterize it. Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically. Errors (mutations) always occur during cell division because replication is an imperfect process.
Evolution takes place within populations as mutations are subjected to the natural selection process and survivors pass their genes to successive generations via the gene pool.
When segments of a population become genetically isolated from each other their separate gene pools diversify due to mutations that are now unique to different gene pools. As those differing mutations accumulate, chance interbreeding between the now separate gene pools become increasingly problematical and speciation has occurred. It is no more possible to determine the exact point where speciation occurred, any more than it is possible to determine the point on the electromagnetic spectrum where red turns to orange. This is why it is so ludicrous for creationists to claim that there should be fossils of one species in the process of becoming another.
When speciation occurs, the two populations will initially be quite similar genetically and physiologically. Mutations unique to each population are continuous and lead to greater and greater differences between them. There is no point at which mutations stop. Many species with recent common ancestors can still interbreed but offspring are quite often sterile. For example, horses, donkeys and zebras can all interbreed and offspring are usually, but not always sterile. Dromedary (one hump) and Bactrian (two hump) camels can produce fertile hybrids of superior size and strength.Such hybrids are thought to be one factor in diversification of species.
On the larger scale, evolution results in incremental alterations to what is already there. As an analogy, imagine a robot gardener dragging a hose around various obstacles it encounters until it runs out of hose. Now an intelligent gardener could simply retrace his steps and take a different path. The robot gardener (evolution) cannot do that. With a limited tool kit, it can only (figuratively) add more hose. We see this throughout nature. One example being the Panda's "thumb". Now the Panda is a bear with a bear's paw. Their diet is bamboo leaves which they spend many hours per day stripping from their stalks and eating. A thumb would be quite useful in that activity, but evolution cannot rewind to produce one. Instead, it has taken "a piece of hose' (a wrist bone) and enlarged it to act as a stand in for a thumb. That is not an elegant solution and not a perfect one, but it gets the job done. Evolution is does not produce perfect solutions, but tweaks here and there to "get the job done".
In much the same way, the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in fish (yes fish have one). The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. It is a branch of the Vagus nerve responsible for hiccups (another vestige). The nerve in fish travels from the brain to the larynx past the heart. This is a direct route and would be consistent with 'intelligent design'. Through successive stages of evolution these organs moved further apart, yet the nerve still looped around heart arteries, in effect "adding more hose" to get the job done. In the giraffe, that amounts to about 15 feet of "extra hose".
There is a similar situation in the leg bones of the horse. In the course of evolution, running over hard baked plains favored the fusing of leg bones (Fibula and tibia) for a stronger bone. As in other mammals, there is an artery that passes between these bones. Had an "intelligent designer" been involved, the artery would have simply been rerouted a couple of centimeters and the bone totally fused. Again, the 'robot gardener' of evolution cannot backtrack to do this and a gap remains between the two bones the only function of which is to allow passage of that artery.
One often hears creationists claim that life is "perfectly designed", yet the various adaptations we see in the natural world are quite often just good enough to get the job done. Weak backs and knees are characteristics of humans; we have a common windpipe and trachea which results in many deaths each year from choking; we have a vestigial appendix that, while any remaining function is debatable, an inflamed one can be fatal.
We have 3 sets of muscles attached to our ears that would move them toward the source of sound that are now totally useless unless one considers wiggling ones ears to be a form of sexual attraction.
We all have a semi-lunar fold in the inner corners of our eyes with attached muscles that are vestiges of nictitating membranes many animals have as a "third eyelid".
Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability in the process of becoming bipedal, but the muscle is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called "Tennis Leg" occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution's leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body.
We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes. They certainly do not support the idea of "intelligent design". They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution
"Offspring will always differ slightly from their parents genetically." What are the differences between you and your father that you think lend support to your neo darwinist faith?
How long did it take 2 write that?
Mutations are almost always harmful.
Randall Wilks I am very curious on the scientific methodology used to determine “bad design” in life.Do we redesign the life with the theorized bad design and see if it’s “better”?
Clearly life is undergoing genetic degradation.This is evident by the increasing number of genetic diseases and disorders.It seems far more reasonable to say that “evolution” is a process that slowly but surely is causing a breakdown of our original design.Natural selection works to remove genetic diversity from the population and leads to extinction.This is evident by all the extinct animals found as fossils and the increasing extinction rate agreed upon by most scientists today.
The irony of your argument of “bad design” is that it is entirely subjective and it still infers design.It is hard to deny that life has purpose and purpose infers intelligence.Things that have specific functions infer intelligence and fore thought.Creation is the most reasonable and logical explanation for life. Evolutionists always make the debate about creation or evolution.Creation is how life started and we all have heard the anti-creationists declare that evolution has nothing to do with how life started. So why are Evolutionists opposed to creation? Is it maybe a defense of atheism or an issue with God? Lol!
It is not creation or evolution, it is about the limitations of evolution and what the evidence infers.It is a debate over the claims of universal common ancestry, not over if genes change over time.Of coarse offspring differs from their parents.Duh!
We just make reasonable inferences from the evidence.Claims like, we are related to carrots are absurd and completely unfounded by the evidence.Creationists have plenty of scientific evidence to support their objections and criticisms about universal common ancestry.I am completely unaware of any creationists that argue that life has not changed over time.How you have convinced yourself that intelligent design hinges on whether or not you think the design is bad, good, perfect or whatever, is beyond me? We are the most intelligent creatures on Earth and could we create a better human? Could we create the simplest form of life? Your arrogance highlights your ignorance of how much of life we don’t understand and how we are nowhere close to being able to create living things.
It sounds like you’re mad at your creator. Like a child, you think that pretending he doesn’t exist is a reasonable way to act.What is next?Hatred? Maybe revenge?Are you trying to teach him a lesson by spreading atheism? If you’re going to make claims about creationists, at least address their actual arguments and the evidence for those arguments.If your going to call a design bad, be consistent and admit it was designed.I really hope you find peace with God.I hope you stop seeing yourself as some bad design and recognize that you are of infinite value and are made in the image and likeness of the creator of the universe.God bless you.
Randall keep your comments short by the time someone read all of your comments they could have evolved into something else...
Not even able to read 5 comments in a row before encountering creationists...
This is sad, especially in the 21st century. Humanity is a weird thing...
Clips like this one tend to get overrun by autistic theist trolls over time.
Well we creationists are just as sick as seeing evolutionist comments like yours
The sheer amount of extremists both for and against religion is honestly shocking. It’s ridiculous.
@@nevermore7285 There's nothing more frustrating than seeing someone spread blatant misinformation that they know for a fact they have no evidence to back up simply because of their own personal religious beliefs.
@@Corzappy what facts are there about evolution? IT's all built on assumptions. You just buy it as fact when the reality is, it's a THEORY, not fact. Get your FACTS straight. :)
Great explanation that is very well explained and stated clearly.
The theory of evolution is a dogma without any scientific evidence. It was introduced not for scientific reasons but for ideological reasons. There are no fossils that prove evolution. Millions of fossils prove no evolution. Living things did not appear by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. And traces have been found that prove that people from the times when Darwinists claimed that people were half animals were fully human. There was no such thing as evolution. And countless studies in laboratories have failed to turn up any examples of beneficial mutations. Almighty Allah created living things not by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. The functions of all organs, which Darwinists call obsolete organs in living things, have been revealed. In other words, there is no such thing as an expired organ in humans or other living things.
I love it when creationists sit there on their behind a computer watching a video on evolution with provides facts and evidence, in an easy to understand way, and then sits there behind their computer screen saying nope! That's rubbish. Go read your bible. Just because your not convinced does not mean that evolution is false. That is called an argument from personal incredulity.
They just state that evolution is false and give no data to back up their statements ;-;
this is why im athiest
*****
How can u deny god=creator just because you was ape and still an ape? Why can god create human from ape?? The theory of evolution deny nothing ..
Tenuk868 It is not necessary to deny something that does not exist, just like those monsters under the bed.
***** "Dogs do have a common ancestor, it was a dog.". No. the common ancestor to all dogs are wolves.
I must say; I really do appreciate your time and effort into this very informative video! thanks :)
The theory of evolution is a dogma without any scientific evidence. It was introduced not for scientific reasons but for ideological reasons. There are no fossils that prove evolution. Millions of fossils prove no evolution. Living things did not appear by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. And traces have been found that prove that people from the times when Darwinists claimed that people were half animals were fully human. There was no such thing as evolution. And countless studies in laboratories have failed to turn up any examples of beneficial mutations. Almighty Allah created living things not by evolution but by the Cambrian explosion. The functions of all organs, which Darwinists call obsolete organs in living things, have been revealed. In other words, there is no such thing as an expired organ in humans or other living things.
I wasn't allowed to learn about this in school, so I thought I would try learning now.
It's never too late 👍
Is nobody gonna talk about the weird visual glitches throughout the video?
I was literally going through the comments to see if anyone else had them too.
for you people who do not accept evolution (not necessarily religious people because you can still be religious and believe in evolution) why do you go even go on these videos? Do you specifically go on this just to tell people on how its wrong without evidence or why we should believe you?
This is coming from a former intelligent design supporter. I used to go on these videos with an open mind and debating people on this matter on the comment section too BUT supported with evidence. I would seek the knowledge of why people believe certain things and if I don't believe in the same things as other people do I would argue with them without bias or close-mindedness. If their belief wins out using the current evidence then I will change my belief. Pure simple. And so I did because my beliefs are not static , but I always seek answers to things. This is the scientific way to think.
Its not you believing in something and trying to cherry pick for evidence you like that may support it.
But explain to me when we get Charizard?
According to the bible there once were so called "Leviathans", they were not quite like Charizard, since they lived in the Sea, so more like Gyarados. But the were able to spew fire, so I guess that could have been dragon rage attack or something. So if we ever find a Leviathan fossil I'm sure they could revive a biblical Gyarados Jurassic-Park-style :D Too bad so far no fossils of fire-breathing sea-dragons have been found :(
haiggoh Maybe just none of the fish ever made it to level 20?
CrowSephus
well they can only splash so what else would you expect? I guess exp share wasn't invented yet
haiggoh just gotta make it to level 15 then they get tackle and the whole process becomes much easier.
CrowSephus
haha, you out-nerded me ;)
Why are young earth creationists on this channel? Can't they just go to Answers -bullshit- In Genesis or Kent Hovind -fails- debate?
The folks at Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind need to make livings. They've found a way! A few tens of thousand of sheep get shorn (just a tiny bit) in the process.
You're thinking of it as predator-prey relationship. I agree but a case could be made that it's a symbiotic relationship. The shepherds need the money and the sheep need to be misinformed. Is harm done? Oh, absolutely! The sheep end up being vaccinated against scientific literacy. But if that's what the sheep want ...
*THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE* for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit.
Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists.
Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons.
The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009).
Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes.
In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization.
"THE HUMAN BRAIN IS REMARKABLE for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
When ancestral primates took to the trees, it placed a premium on visual acuity, depth perception and hand-eye coordination. Again, the brain expanded to accommodate that demand. Individual primates lacking those characteristics would have been more likely to fall to their deaths. That is natural section at work, improving the gene pool through elimination of the least fit.
Primate brains are, on an average, about double the size of other, similar sized mammals. Monkeys have larger cranial capacity and more complex brains than prosimians (Lemurs and Lorises). The brains of apes are still larger and more complex. The human brain is a continuation of the trend. It is a is a scaled up ape brain. This is consistent with evolutionary theory that, rather than creating new structures, evolution modifies what already exists.
Each increase in brain size corresponds roughly to increased cognition. Whereas the brains of other mammals are smooth, primate brains have convolutions that effectively increase surface area and the number of neurons.
The Neocortex is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and (in humans) language. The Neocortex is a major part of the brain of all primates, especially so in humans where cerebral cortex occupies 80% of the brain mass and contains 16 billion neurons (Avzevedo et al., 2009).
Thus far, we know of at least three uniquely human genes associated with greater human cerebral development: NOTCH2NL, ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C. The latter two came about from partial duplications of the parent gene found in apes.
In a related development, one mutation in our ancestors disabled the MYH16 gene making it a pseudo gene. That gene in apes gave them powerful jaw muscles which encircled the skull, possibly restricting encephalization. Other genes affecting human evolution are FOXP2 involved in the development of language and HACNS1 affecting limb and digit specialization." - The human brain
@@penginator89 Just wondering; what was your purpose in duplicating my post?
@@RandallWilks read the last 2 words of my duplicated comment
@@penginator89 You added the words '- The human brain'. That doesn't answer my question.
If evolution is real, then how come there's no transitional species between Pikachu and Raichu?
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
Damn. You got us. Time to pack it up.
If creationism is real, then how come we have transitions AT ALL? Why is the highest form of life in the Precambrian just a trilobite? Why no rabbits, monkeys, horses, foxes, mice, cats, dogs, squirrels in the entire Cambrian period? Why?
Becuase they had not EVOLVED yet.
CHECKMATE CREATARD.
Clue phone cretard: There is no transition between Pikachu and Raichu becuase, like your religion, they are fictitious. There ARE however transitions between terrestrial mammals and whales.
Adam Knapp There may be, pokemon is not real life, I hope you know its diffrent
The reason those fossils aren't found in the Cambrian is because the thunderstone hadn't been discovered yet.
There is one phrase from indian ideology.. which says
"Vasudev kutumbakam" means the whole world is one family..
This is why while I don't follow any particular religion, I believe there is a lot of wisdom in a lot of them. Some more than others. :)
@yugen dran could pass me the link of this research paper, I need to do some research?
@@nehasinghrajput8200 it's not so difficult to say "we do not know" okay? Yall religious people have difficulty saying that. We do not know what was before the big bang or if there was even a before. It doesn't mean your God did it.
BOND, James BOND i know its your opinion but you sound stupid as fuck
Further research proves otherwise
My wife is a biochemistry professor at a major research university. It is true that scientists are on average far less religious than the general public. But many are religious such as my wife's former Ph.D. thesis advisor who is active in his Methodist church.
But the evidence supporting evolution is far beyond overwhelming that these religious biologists, like their more secular peers, view it as a basic, established fact of biology. It is viewed as one of the underlying principles of all branches of biology and medicine. As such, modern biology lacks coherence without it.
Francis Collins, the former head of the NIH and an evangelical Christian, explains it this way:
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
Good on you for having a smart wife, and it’s also very true that scientists or people who associate themselves with science are far less religious than the masses because they have a better grasp with the logical understanding of the world and how it works.
*"But the evidence supporting evolution is far beyond overwhelming that these religious biologists, like their more secular peers, view it as a basic, established fact of biology."*
And like ALL self professing atheists, you do NOT seem to understand the difference between "Micro-evolution"... and "Macro-evolution".
"Micro-evolution", also called "genetic variation"... is "known science".
But "Macro-evolution" is nothing more than a "religious" belief!!
Conflating the two, seems to be the ONLY argument the self professing atheist ever had!!
THEREFORE: All you did with this remark is show everyone just how 'ignorant' the common self professing 'atheist' actually is!!
P.S Even IF "macro-evolution" was proven beyond ALL doubt... it does NOT explain the 'origin' of life on earth, and is therefore completely 'worthless'.
CONCLUSION: Anyone who claims that Macro-evolution is "science"... is simply 'ignorant'!!
@@jimhappnin1425Macro evolution is just the accumulation of micro evolution over many years. If you believe in micro evolution, why not macro evolution?
@jimhappnin1425 there is no credible scientific objection to evolution, micro or macro.
The origin of life is irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution, both micro and macro.
The difference between micro and macro evolution is the number of generations that the changes occur over, nothing more.
@@kingthief9118 *"If you believe in micro evolution, why not macro evolution?"*
ANSWER: Because "micro" evolution is simply a variation of the existing genetic code. It can cause size and color changes ONLY.
It creates things such as a horse and a zebra. Two different versions of the same kind of animal.
Whereas "macro" evolution must account for the formation of completely new genetic code, that would cause "new" organs to be developed.
Which supposedly creates things like water breathing gills being transformed into air breathing lungs.
And this can NOT happen without the use of 'intelligence'!!
*IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?* Answer from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
*It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."*
.
*In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.*
*The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.*
*Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.*
*One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.*
*In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.*
From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences © 2019 U.S. National Academy of Sciences. www.nap.edu/catalog/6024/science-and-creationism-a-view-from-the-national-academy-of
Evolution is not valid
@@jesussaves3376 Thank you. Your confession of abysmal ignorance is very courageous. Most people of marginally greater intellect than you find it best not to advertise the fact. You, on the other hand, flaunt your ignorance for the world to see. That takes incredible stupidity.
Very, very good clip. I've watched it several times. Illustrations are good, and the explanation very clear. Keep up with the good work.
This presentation made soooo much sense. It tells in simple manner that evolution is and relates the topic to a relatable subject. I love this presentation thumbs up!
the presentation is hight presumptuous and impossible
@@raysalmon6566 To a creationist whose mind is cluttered with creation mythology it must seem so. If your religion has convinced you that 'faith', belief in the absence of evidence, is in any way superior to evidence based science, then you have subordinated your intellect to that of ancient goat herders.
Scientist have made a new discovery!
Smartphones evolved from toasters, which evolved from screws, which were created by Iron molecules 1 billion years ago.
@@outofthebox9699 Ah, the words of an imbecile, flaunting his ignorance across the internet.
@@outofthebox9699 those where created by man
Creationists, show me fossils of bunnies in the Precambrian layer and I'll s-hut up.
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - THE HUMAN BRAIN* (part 1) - is remarkable for its size and complexity in relation to body mass. Even more remarkable is the fact that at 2% of average body weight, it requires 20% of total caloric intake to function. Still more remarkable is that the human infant, born of necessity at a very early stage of development, utilizes 60% of available calories for neuronal development. That brain continues expansion through adolescence and even into early adulthood. Such a long childhood is also a unique human feature, but is a continuation of a trend that began with our primate ancestors..
Our abilities to speak, make tools or fly to the moon are due to the increased cognitive abilities of a brain whose size and complexity increased incrementally over millions of years of evolution. Evolution is a PROCESS and not an EVENT. What we see over the course of evolution is incremental alterations of existing structures, not sudden changes.
This is what we see in the evolution of the human brain. Humans are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes and our genome reflects that ancestry. Early mammal survival in a world dominated by dinosaurs, depended on increased sensory perception (sight, smell and hearing) and the mammalian brain developed an expanded cortex to accommodate that demand.
Primates and rodents separated from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago. The rodent evolutionary path to success lay in their reproductive ability, primates on the other hand, relied on increased cognitive ability for enhanced survival. Rather than relying on having large litters of young, primates invested more time and effort producing one or two offspring, nurturing them over longer periods of time during which offspring learned from their parents. Primates are generally limited to two mammary glands, although supernumerary mammaries are not unheard of, even in humans. They are regarded as atavistic traits.
The best part about evolution is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.
Its all lie. If you believe or not God is exist.
@@martahailegiorgis3443 OK Marta go back to feed your children
Also.. believe in it or not cthulhu exist!!
You cannot use the same sentence to everything you can imagine.
@@martahailegiorgis3443 Are you a genetic twin to either of your parents? No?
Congrats! Evolution is real and youre wrong.
Very valuable presentation. Thanks! So glad this one mentions Alfred Russel Wallace, who should be as celebrated as Darwin.
Hello Stated Clearly! I just want to know where did u get the part which shows the DNA replication and mutation or you are the one who made it? Because I just need it for our science video lesson in school. If your willing can I ask for your permission to borrow that part and use it for education purposes. Thank you! I hope you can reply asap. Thanks -Edward
Thanks for your clear explanations. Your work is very understandable and it is easy to piece up the pieces between genetics and evolution.
Awesome we learnt a lot!!!!! I like how it was cartoonic that children can understand! Wonderful! A child or adult WILL like it mostly !!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!!
FINALLY!!! A comment that is not about what is fake ,religion or evolution.
Cartoonish. Just like the THEORIES behind the evolution religion. Spongebob. Pastor Kent Hovind cracks me up when he says that. JUST IMAGINE!
@@deantotherescue8429 you are so right. It is stupid.
You are believing in a lie.
Informative, slick and to the point. Great video and the first I have seen on your channel. I will definitely be watching more!
Imagine if people denied mathematics or language. That’s the same as science deniers like creationists
where is evidence for evilution?
nothing but fake lucy fossils made with pigs teeth!!!
the evilutionists commit tax fraud and tax evasion by funding their religion with government taxes. this is double felony. we should round up these heathen evilutionists and send them all to jail. start with mayling and randalwilts, fbi on their way
@@fortunenese1668 - Triggered much?
@@hammalammadingdong6244 by stating truth? self project ur butthurt elsewhere evotard
fortune nese - ad hominem attacks and ignorance are not evidence, amigo.
Hamma Lammadingdong Im pretty sure he’s just trolling and acting like a creationist. The funny thing is though I don’t really know, because some creationists I know act just like that seriously.
This is a very well put together video on evolution and the process behind it. Thanks for the upload.
We watched this is class today and you helped me understand the theories of evolution so much! Thank you! Our class of 2020 loves you!
You got deceived!
@@CarpenterBretL PEOPLE ARE REALLY WIRED TO THING THAT REALY HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD, HOLY MOLE.
That was really well done and explained so much with nice simple examples and terms.
Damn man you just cleared my 2 year old doubt in a couple of minutes. Thanks a lottttt.....
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
*WHAT ARE CREATIONISTS?* Creationists are, by their own admission, people who hold to any one of the thousands of creation myths that arose in primitive societies. Their one common thread is a belief that one or more supernatural entity used magic to create humans and everything else. The fact that there is no evidence to support such belief does not register with them. Their religion dictates what they are to believe and those that fail to do so are threatened with eternal punishment, because the deity loves you. On the other hand, those who willingly parrot the dogma of their particular belief system are promised an afterlife of 24/7 eternal bliss. (perpetual use of hallucinogens, perhaps?)
The one seemingly unifying concept of such supernatural belief systems is that the vast diversity of life on this planet could not possibly have come about by any NATURAL process, such as evolution. It is immaterial to creationists which supernatural entity (or entities) performed the miracle of creation, they are united in their opposition to evolution. To aide them in their denial, many adopt a "Statement of Faith" such as this from Answers in Genesis:
*_"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."_*
This makes creationism the antithesis of science. Science is a search for truth and truth is established by evidence, not by what anyone says. By what means can rational discussion be conducted when evidence is rejected? Virtually none. Such an attitude sets creationism at odds with science, which is a search for truth based on evidence. How logical is it for someone to claim they accept the findings of science in some regards, but not others? Trying to reason with such people is like administering medicine to the dead.
'Cognitive Dissonance' is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas or values. Beliefs instilled in children are particularly resistant to change, since they tend to become part of that person's identity. Thus any information contradicting those beliefs will be seen as an attack on one's self, causing extreme mental stress and discomfort.
There are but two means by which to resolve Cognitive Dissonance, to either change the belief or to deny and attack the information that contradicts that belief. "Belief is not an idea the mind possesses, belief is an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxton Bolton) . Belief is so inextricably enmeshed in emotion that rational thought becomes impossible. “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” - Albert Einstein
Breaking free of such indoctrination creates its own set of problems. Not only is there inner conflict, but any attempt to do so will certainly meet with resistance from family or circles of acquaintances who have been similarly indoctrinated.
Great video!! Really helped me with my biology study, thank you :))
No problem, ma'am
Beautiful woman
I really enjoyed the topic. It was clearly explained
Thanks for helping me with the test I’ll have tomorrow. Maybe I’ll do a little better now thanks to you:)
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
"In everyday speech, people tend to use the word 'theory' to mean an untested hypothesis, or even a guess. But the term 'evolutionary theory' does not refer to any single hypothesis, and it certainly is not guesswork. As used in science, 'theory' refers to the entire body of work on the understanding and application of a field of knowledge. When we refer to evolutionary theory, we are referring to our understanding of the mechanisms that result in biological changes in populations over time, and the use of that understanding to interpret changes and interactions of biological organisms."
-Life (the science of biology) Ninth Edition Sadava, Hillis, Heller, Berenbaum
Thanks actually it does make sense absolutely simple non complex advanced review for evolution good job
I have a dream: one day, I'll open a youtube video about evolution, and i will find just people with a degree in biology and same nerds posting underneath it. Really, just leave us alone! It is time you go bother astrophysicist about dark energy for Christ's sake!
Agreed
Alot of angry Christians in the comments it’s honestly funny looking at them quoting from their bronze age book saying it immediately debunks all of the evidence for evolution 😂😂
Ikr 🤣
If their bronze age book creation myth did happened , then we whould have :
Dirt being able to turn into men
Bone magicly turn into woman
Talking snake
@@b4li7
No, no, no, no, no. After the apple incident, God tracked down every snake in the garden and excised, from every chromosome in every snake, the genes that once gave snakes vocal cords and human level intelligence. He later did the same thing, planet-wide, with donkeys.
Bro but u can't prove evolution
@b4li7 what abt evolution fish say me grow legs boom fish go monkey 🐒 go into man🤣 😂 😆 I love making fun of idiots
*The DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES at conservative Baptist BAYLOR UNIVERSITY has issued this statement:*
*"The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.*
*Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks. Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.*
*The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists."*
www.baylor.edu/geology/index.php?id=62340
That site also has a link to download above referenced "Evolution and the Fossil Record" by Pojeta and Springer. (1 MB PDF file). It also provides links to the position statements from other scientific organizations.
This is a science department in religiously conservative (Southern Baptist) run Baylor University that has declared their intent to teach SCIENCE. Imagine that.
This was very informative! Amazing job! Subscribed!
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
Creationism in a nutshell:
"I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, nor would I recognize actual homework on it, nor do I understand or appreciate the homework that others have invested on the topic. However, I browsed a web page, talked it over with a minister and an MBA, and consulted a few like-minded and equally ill-informed people, so I feel confident in saying that scientists are full of cr@p."
Well said.
@Dan C.
What would you accept as evidence for God's existence
@Dan C.
Which one?
@Dan C.
Actually the bible god is not the only god that claimed to create everything there are other religions that their god claims the same claims
And how do you know that the nt is the word of god as it doesn't claim to be from god to begin with it could be someone who is just writing stuff?
@Dan C. Suggesting that a deity created everything solves nothing and only creates an endless cycle of 'what created the deity that created the deity that created... etc'.
Creationists don't like evolution and wish it would go away. They have been attempting to refute Darwin's ideas for 160 years and their lack of success makes them very frustrated. Since they have no facts by which to refute evolution, they turn to personal attacks on the man. One suggestion; since they have so far been unsuccessful in eliminating evolution, they might consider prayer. While I have personal doubts as to its efficacy, there are those who claim it works. If creationists were to put all their efforts into mass prayer and were successful, I might be convinced.
I'm a creationist,btw. The reason Creationists failed to refute Evolution is because a lot of pastors actually accepted some parts of Evolution.They didn't fight back the way they should have.
Do you believe we are the products of random chance?
@@ahryan8557 Uh yeah lol
but how can nothing become something
@@arsjproductions5743 Something from nothing is what the bible claims. What do you think "Out of the void" means? It asserts that life was 'created' where none had existed before. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the BIOLOGICAL PROCESS which gave rise to the vast diversity of life on this planet; what Charles Darwin termed "descent with modification".
Creationists assert life originated by supernatural intervention, for which there is ZERO evidence. Most scientists think it most likely came about by natural molecular combinations from inorganic precursor components. That is called _Abiogenesis,_ for which there is SOME evidence, but is inconclusive. In science, that is called a _Hypothesis,_ a possible explanation for observed phenomena. There is insufficient evidence for it to be regarded as a Scientific Theory. If further evidence were to demonstrate abiogenesis to be impossible, that hypothesis will be discarded. However, as additional evidence accumulates in support of a hypothesis, so does the confidence that it is correct. When all evidence supports a hypothesis and none refutes it, it can become a Scientific Theory, which in science is the highest level of certainty possible.
*EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Our Common Ancestry* with chimps is based on more than physical or genetic similarity. although those are pieces of evidence. Just as you have in your genome a defective gene you inherited from your parents who inherited it from their ancestors.That gene, named GULO, is what allows most other animals to produce vitamin C which is essential for good health. That gene has a specific mutation which prevents it from completing the final stage of vitamin C production and it is now a pseudo gene. Humans who do not get vitamin C in their diet (from fresh fruits and vegetables) get Scurvy, a disease that decimated the crews of sailing ships.
It turns out that chimps have that same defective gene, disabled by exactly the same mutation. That fact does not bother chimpanzees in the least, because their diet of mostly leaves and fruit provide all the vitamin C they need. Living chimps today of course got that defective gene from their parents who got it from their ancestors who happen to be our ancestors as well. Not only does every ape have that same pseudo gene with the same disabling mutation so in fact does every other primate in the sub order Haplorhini. That is Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, even Tarsiers, which are close to basal primates but not ancestral to the Strepsirrhini sub order (Lemurs, Lorises et al). That places the origin of that mutation to be about 63 million years ago and underscores their common ancestry.
And that is just one of the many pseudo genes passed from generation to generation from ancestors to present day organisms that are evidence for common ancestry. But those are just part of the problem for creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Evolution explains pseudo genes very well. Explaining why some "creative entity" would leave such things "on the cutting room floor" is quite another matter.
And as if that were not enough, there is the matter of Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's), the genetic 'fossils' of ancient retroviral infections. The thing about retroviruses is that when they enter a host organism's cell, they always insert DNA copies of their RNA into a random location of that host's genome. When that cell divides and replicates, the viral DNA will be replicated at that same location. If that cell is a germ cell, that DNA sequence can be replicated and passed through millions of generations and found in present day species. Again, that is also evidence of common ancestry. As always, the creationist/'intelligent design' people have no good explanation for them. qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b65fc4ce28f8463fccac2d53a765835b
Those ERV's make up 8% of the human genome which is an awful lot of DNA compared to just 2% that code for proteins. That expanse of DNA may be something of a 'Scrap Pile' of disabled viruses, but that doesn't mean that certain useful snippets can't be found and put to use. They certainly have. One such snippet is a segment of Human Endogenous Retrovirus W (HERV-W), named Synctin 1 which in humans aids the formation of the placenta.
See: "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809 Now, other placental mammals use other versions of synctins for placental development, but they are derived from different ERV's. The one utilized by the human genome is the same one used by the other apes and Old World monkeys, but not New World monkeys, which places common ancestry of those species (Catarrhini) more than 25 million years ago.
academy.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/endogenous-retroviruses.jpg
slideplayer.com/slide/5684143/18/images/63/endogenous+retroviruses.jpg
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/
www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
"Evolution is fake because MY magical book, that consists of MY magical beliefs says otherwise" This pretty much sums up every fundamentalist religious clown in this comment section. Evolution is fact, regardless if you believe it or not is irrelevant. Evolution will always happen even if you don't believe in it, just like gravity will always happen even if you don't believe in it.
Wait, we were created from cells right? Does religion deny that or something? Do let me know, I'm really interested in this science-religion debate/thing.
+Maddie K
So, recently the number of Creationists in the US has broke even with the number of Americans that believe in both God and evolution. That's 38% believe God created the universe as is, 38% believe God guided evolution, and 19% believe that life evolved without a god. (Gallup 2017) The point of this is that, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, many Christians-and probably believers of other religions-are being forced to accept that the origin story they're familiar with must be allegory.
However, those 38% that still believe the universe was created as is, are literalists; they take every Biblical description at face value. I myself used to be a Christian-and a Creationist at that-for around twenty years, so I have quite a bit of knowledge regarding scripture. Aside from the account in Genesis that establishes the order of creation in seven days, another problem Creationists have with evolution is that death is involved. In Genesis, it is the fall of man that allowed sin and death to enter the world. But natural selection requires death to work. And if Genesis is only figurative, then-to them-there is no meaning in Christ's sacrifice. There is no original sin to forgive.
This is the main problem Creationists have with evolution. Or at least, the one that I and other people at my church recognized as such. Rationalizing that some of Genesis is symbolic, that it wasn't a literal seven day creation is still stunted by this.
• Gallup, Inc. “In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low.” Gallup .com, 22 May 2017.
The Man in Orange
No. Your "magical" book only explains the 'why' not the 'how'.
Maybe you should sit with someone who has a greater understanding of this "magical book"
th-cam.com/video/U0u3-2CGOMQ/w-d-xo.html
The Man in Orange so did dinosaurs go extinct or did they all evolve into birds?
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
But we shouldn't only depend on those things, don't you see? Man cannot live apart from God.
"In Him was life, and life was the light of men." John 1:4. Apart from God we are nothing. Jesus gave his life, and this is what he got. Uneducated people who can't accept Him
I was 5 when this came out and this saved my grades in biology. Thank you🤝
So I'm watching this for class, but at the badger part I realized I've watched this before on my own time.
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
10/10-IGN "good animation"
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
+Edwin Luciano
Thank you for pointing out that words are still words regardless if it's Spanish or English words. They're all still words.
Back to poodles coming from wolves different in size and abilities, but they're still the same species. Just like words can come in different forms, they're still words.
You just proved my case. What we have discussed is just Natural Selection, NOT EVOLUTION.
Evolution says a dog mutated into a whale Edwin. Think about the changes a 50lb dog will have to go through in order to become a whale. That dog will have to gain over 20 tons of weight, lose it's legs, increase it's size 20ft or more in length, lose all it's hair, develop sonar abilities, lose it's keen sense of smell, grow fins, develop a blow hole ect ect. And on top of all that the dog will have to SURVIVE THAT WHOLE PROCESS.
Please understand the difference between natural selection and evolution.
+Dee Jay Oh. I see. You think that _Pakicetus_ is a dog. It's not even in the same order as the basal whale. No wonder you don't understand evolution. Your facts are all mixed up.
Dee Jay
It's not a rodent either. And a dogfish isn't a dog. And a tiger lilly isn't a tiger.
+Edwin Luciano
Clearly you have yet to research natural selection dealing with DNA information.
You believe an overgrown Possum evolved into a whale Edwin.
First off proteins cannot form DNA without the guidance of information from preexisting DNA. Proving us coming from a chemical soup FALSE.
But your still on words are still words....tsk tsk my friend tsk tsk.
I'm trying to help you out my friend. People care Edwin...people care.
+Dee Jay www.google.com.au/search?q=evolution+of+feathers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ8du9_fTLAhVHG5QKHcNND1QQ_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=699#tbm=isch&q=Pakicetus+transition+to+modern+wale
+Scott Pansini
Pakicetus has already been excluded from being a transitional fossil. The ears after being studied by a real biologist has confirmed it resembles more of a land mammal like giraffe..DEAD END.
Philip D Gingerich the main man who discovered rodhocetus admits NOW there are no transitional indications found in the fossil of rodhocetus...DEAD END.
The fossil record is misleading, distorted and based on evolutionists beliefs automatically being biased.
Very easy to understand and so helpful
Thank u.
Tiktaalik
Looking all the way back 375 million years ago, there is an intermediate fossil that represents the transition of vertebrate life from water to land. Tiktaalik roseae, discovered in Nunavut in 2004, is an ancient fish called a sarcopteryigian, or lobe-finned fish. Although it bears many similarities to fish like gills, scales, and fins, other key characteristics link Tiktaalik to land animals. While it did have fins, the bones inside the fins are homologous to the bones of the human hand and wrist, indicating it may have been able to bear weight. The animal also had a mobile neck and a strong ribcage, two critical traits that allowed four-legged (tetrapod) creatures to move onto land. Tiktaalik makes sense evolutionarily in the progression of other early tetrapods like the more aquatic Panderichthys and the clearly amphibious Acanthostega.
Probably the best test of any scientific theory is its usefulness as a predictive tool. In that respect, the Theory of Evolution has performed admirably. The Theory of Evolution would predict that, IF birds evolved from dinosaurs, there should be a progression of derived traits in dinosaurs leading up to the origin of birds and that is exactly what we see.
Arguably, the most complete transitional sequence in the fossil record is that from dinosaurs to birds. Birds didn’t just evolve from dinosaurs overnight, but the features of birds evolved one by one; first light bones and bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings.
Yes, wings evolved before flight. Just as there are birds today such as ostriches, emus, rheas, etc. that no longer fly, yet still use their wings for other purposes, there were winged theropod dinosaurs that may have used them to shelter young, for mating displays, or intimidating a predator or rival just as do birds of today.
Long before wings, the forelimbs of theropods evolved to allow them to reach forward to grasp prey with their claws. Those are the Maniraptors. That movement is exactly the same as that required for flapping wings. Archaeopteryx still had those grasping claws as did other early birds. The young chicks of the “Stinking Hoatzin” still retain remnants of them.
There is a succession of feathered dinosaur fossils with increasingly bird like characteristics i.e. Xiaotingia, Sinosauropteryx prima, Caudipteryx, Sinovenator and others. Any of these fossils showing such a mix of traits can be considered transitional. The whole lineage of feathered dinosaurs could be considered transitional. The fossil record even shows the stages of feather evolution from simple spikes to down to contour feathers and ultimately to quilled flight feathers. Today we have lots of feathered dinosaur fossils; so many feathered theropod
fossils in fact, that most paleontologiosts now think ALL theropods were probably feathered. There were dinosaurs with wings that couldn't possibly fly, like 5 foot 40 pound Zhenyuanlong suni and little ones like Microraptor that could fly. There were a great many almost-birds and not-quite-birds. And birds like Auronis, Archaeopteryx,
Shenzhouraptor, Rahonavis, Yandangornis Jixiangornis, Sapeornis,
Omnivoropteryx, Confuciusornis and Changchengornis that retain some dinosaur-like features such as teeth and long bony tails.
Evolution is NOT a linear process. Many of these species lived at the same time, displaying a matrix of characteristics. Evolution is a natural experiment. Some things work and get perpetuated, others may enjoy brief success before extinction.
With so many transitional fossils displaying both bird-like and dinosaur-like features, there is an almost seamless transition from dinosaur to bird (as well as a great number of dead end evolutionary experiments) and it is often difficult to separate the two. Doing so requires statistical analysis of nearly 1000 inherited and derived
characteristics.
How many theories or is there a reality?
Misunderstanding about science and religion, as there exists only one divine way, to be seeked, as only sence to all
Science and Divinity cannot be separated
Its the opposite, world-leaders always used science to influence world-folk and since ever highest leading staff also arrogate to change divinity, all for selfish benefit
So is Darwin a Project of world-leading Freemasons
Reality is not based on theories. We are here to find out what is already given, not to add speculations - this is science. Any subjective attempts are based on bad intentions. Human has created nothing, so cannot know and must only learn.
Sent Prophets revealed "reality" and last holy book Koran explains lifes before humans, evolution and all creation. Koran expains embroyonal development of baby, long before doctors had no tools to find out this; and many more truth.
If you are prejudiced, you will not seek, but act inbetween your and others limitedness. Those who ain´t seek divine way, won´t face matter of salvation, as not agreed truth that came from of a direction their ego haven´t awaited at life
have you personally studied dinosaur and bird genetics? Have you tested that theory or do you just take that easy answer instead of offending people?
One of the best videos I have watched over time. Clearly describes the topic.Well done/
How can Allah makes all this earth and heaven in 6 days..
@@abdouldenilab3130 ????? because the Creator can. You and i cant
@@abdouldenilab3130
Because Allah is just a story. Anything can happen in a story.
I would like to use this video but I am wondering why it keeps pixelating?
the amount of people who think evolution is a myth is scary tbh
true...
What is Evolution? Ask Triple H
lol
now that was funny
+Rocky Garcia haha
Good one
W
GoodScienceForYou
"Abstract
Analysis of human mutation rates and the number of genes required for human intellectual and emotional fitness indicates that we are almost certainly losing these abilities. If so, how did we get them in the first place, and when did things begin to change?" Dr. Gerald Crabtree, Professor of Genetics Stanford University."
You are trying to make it seem as if mutations could only be detrimental, but they're not.
*Beneficial mutations:* white skin (in cloudy, foggy areas), the frameshift mutation following a gene duplication that enabled the production of _Nylonase enzyme_, etc.
Don't worry, folks, natural selection constantly weeds out whatever is bad.
White skin comes from loss of pigmentation that protects the body from cancer. The UK is a prime example of this. Some huge percentage in rise of skin cancer there. (Skin cancer is a two fold disease. One is the skin allows natural radiation to mutate skin cells, and next the immune system is so degraded it cannot destroy them. You see it is all degradation.)
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470300_3
The ideal skin color was "olive" with the abilty to go light olive or almost black as needed, but was not a permanent condition. It was adaptable to any solar condition on earth. And we had hair at one time and that was lost.
The nylonase is absolutely evidence of DESIGN as found in all bacteria studies.
I don't think you have ever read any of the articles on this subject. You just "believe" because of your need to believe and for no other reason. Your education is horrible. You have faith in humans, and that has never worked out very well.
Science is all about destroying life on earth as can be seen by all the uses of science. Even medical science has rapidly degraded humanity.
I cited the article on this formation of "new" enzymes.
evolutionsciencenow.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-magical-evotard-fairy-of-bacteria.html
GoodScienceForYou
"White skin comes from loss of pigmentation that protects the body from cancer. The UK is a prime example of this."
Sun rarely even shines in the UK, pal.
"Some huge percentage in rise of skin cancer there."
Skin cancer is much more prevalent in countries with people with white skin, but with more sunny hours per year.
(Skin cancer is a two fold disease. One is the skin allows natural radiation to mutate skin cells, and next the immune system is so degraded it cannot destroy them. You see it is all degradation.)"
It is a way of helping us produce more vitamin D, because there is little sun in cloudy, foggy places like the UK
"The ideal skin color was "olive" with the abilty to go light olive or almost black as needed, but was not a permanent condition. It was adaptable to any solar condition on earth."
The ideal skin color is dependent upon how many hours the sun shines in a year, idiot.
"And we had hair at one time and that was lost."
*I am glad we lost it.* It was most likely due to sexual selection (a kind of artificial selection).
"The nylonase is absolutely evidence of DESIGN as found in all bacteria studies."
LOL. so Yahweh redesigned the bacteria in the 20th century? Ever heard about random mutation? This shit only needed 2 mutations; a gene duplication, and a frameshift mutation. Are you trying to suggest that this would be utterly impossible to happen by itself? Two lowsy mutations? Think before you comment.
Design 101
We recognize design by comparing things to nature. Thus, we can never determine whether a naturally occurring thing was designed or not.
"I don't think you have ever read any of the articles on this subject. You just "believe" because of your need to believe and for no other reason."
I read what I cited, obviously.
"Your education is horrible. You have faith in humans, and that has never worked out very well. "
I never said I have faith in humanity =)
We became intelligent too soon relatively to the ability to control our own emotions. This makes us a mess.
"Science is all about destroying life on earth as can be seen by all the uses of science."
Science is about acquiring knowledge (through the scientific method), and is the only means for that.
People use scientific knowledge both for destroying life, and preserving life. Science has doubled our lifespans through clean water, antibiotics, organ transplants, stem cells, etc.
"Even medical science has rapidly degraded humanity."
*I must say, I agree on that one.* It totally eliminates natural selection
"I cited the article on this formation of "new" enzymes."
*Your own stupid blog* (or any blog, for that matter) *doesn't count as scientific study.*
Try harder.
Evolution is still a fact, and we need science if we want to learn more about the world around us, whether you like it or not.
Eru Ilúvatar Evolution is a fantasy, taught by people who want to own you and make a slave of you. So far you have not shown any evidence for evolution but you still believe...Why? Are you really that dense. Go look at evidence without your religious faith.
Eru Ilúvatar P.S. My blog can never be "stupid" because I have an IQ much higher than any living person. It is the reason why I know what is going on and you don't.
You would do yourself and your family a big favor, and help them to a better life if you read the entire blog.
Your own theory that it takes millions of generations to have "evolution" is destroyed by the Nylonase flavobacterium. There are so many contradictions in your stupid religion.
evolutionsciencenow.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-magical-evotard-fairy-of-bacteria.html
GoodScienceForYou
"Your own theory that it takes millions of generations to have "evolution" is destroyed by the Nylonase flavobacterium. There are so many contradictions in your stupid religion."
No one ever said evolution only works if it takes millions of generations (straw man)
For example, humans evolved from ancient apes in just 2 million years, and 2 million / 20 (the length of a human generation) is just 100.000 generations.
BTW if it happens faster, it just makes evolution more obvious to everyone ;)
"My blog can never be "stupid" because I have an IQ much higher than any living person."
So your IQ is at least 229, yet you operate with red herrings and straw men?
Couldn't you figure out with your monster IQ that these are logical fallacies? :P
lol, you must love to be humiliated.. why don't you get a domina for yourself? :D
That information contained in the DNA is interesting.
thanks so much to the Stated Clearly team for making this video. This video make me understand about the concept of the evolution😁😁😁
Evolution is Descent with modification. The value of Scientific Theories is in their predictive ability. The Theory of Evolution would predict that every organism born will most resemble its parents yet will be slightly different genetically. The mutations that occur during meiosis are the basis for the genetic variation we see in every population of organisms. Those variations are subject to continual natural selection and only those that survive long enough to reproduce will pass their genes to the population gene pool. The genomes of every vertebrate contains not just inherited functional genes but genes that have been disabled by mutation. If such a gene were vital for survival, organisms carrying that gene would be eliminated by natural selection.
One class of genes that were vital for the survival of early mammals are Odorant Receptor (OR) genes odor detection and identification (Odorant Receptor genes). They constitute one of the largest multiple gene families in animals including primates. There are over 1000 of such genes in mammalian genomes, however the human genome retains only 339 active OR genes and a large number of OR genes that have been disabled by mutations (Pseudo genes). One can infer from this that odor detection was not a trait vital for human survival. It appears that when primates took to the trees, odor detection was far less vital for survival than depth perception and visual acuity. No primates have more than 400 active OR genes.
The theory of evolution would predict that as populations of species diverge and further speciation occurs, each such sub population would inherit a subset of the parent gene pool and that the gene pools of those populations would subsequently acquire further mutations unique to them. Each population starts with the active genes and pseudo genes inherited from its parent population that over the course of subsequent generations acquire further mutation that have the potential of modifying a gene or its regulatory sequence. There would also be the possibility of it disabling a gene by a frame shift or premature stop codon. The latter creating a pseudo gene. Again, any individual organism having a gene disabled that was vital for survival would be eliminated by natural selection. Non-vital genes, such as odorant receptors, would not significantly impair a tree dwelling primate's odds of survival. The Theory of Evolution would predict then that an evolutionary tree for primates could be constructed on the basis of active and inactive OR genes. And that is indeed the case.
Another gene in vertebrate genomes, named GULO, is what allows most other animals to produce vitamin C which is essential for good health. In humans, that gene has a specific mutation which prevents it from completing the final stage of vitamin C production and it is now a pseudo gene GULOP. Humans who do not get vitamin C in their diet (from fresh fruits and vegetables) get Scurvy, a disease that decimated the crews of sailing ships.
It turns out that chimps have that same defective gene, disabled by exactly the same mutation. That fact does not bother chimpanzees in the least, because their diet of mostly leaves and fruit provide all the vitamin C they need. Living chimps today of course got that defective gene from their parents who got it from their ancestors who happen to be our ancestors as well. Not only does every ape have that same pseudo gene with the same disabling mutation so in fact does every other primate in the sub order Haplorhini. That is Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, even Tarsiers, which are close to basal primates but not ancestral to the Strepsirrhini sub order (Lemurs, Lorises et al). That places the origin of that mutation to be about 63 million years ago and underscores their common ancestry.
And that is just one of the many pseudo genes passed from generation to generation from ancestors to present day organisms that are evidence for common ancestry. But those are just part of the problem for creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Evolution explains pseudo genes very well. Explaining why some "creative entity" would leave such things "on the cutting room floor" is quite another matter.
On top of that evidence, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's), the genetic 'fossils' of ancient retro viral infections. The thing about retroviruses is that when they enter a host organism's cell, they always insert DNA copies of their RNA into a random location of that host's genome. When that cell divides and replicates, the viral DNA will be replicated at that same location. If that cell is a germ cell, that DNA sequence can be replicated and passed through millions of generations and found in present day species. Again, that is also evidence of common ancestry. As always, the creationist/'intelligent design' people have no good explanation for them.
Those remnants of ancient viral infections, ERV's, make up 8% of the human genome which is an awful lot of DNA compared to just 2% that code for proteins. That expanse of DNA may be something of a 'Scrap Pile' of disabled viruses, but that doesn't mean that certain useful snippets can't be found and put to use. They certainly have. One such snippet is a segment of Human Endogenous Retrovirus W (HERV-W), named Synctin 1 which in humans aids the formation of the placenta.
See: "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693809. Now, other placental mammals use other versions of synctins for placental development, but they are derived from different ERV's. The one utilized by the human genome is the same one used by the other apes and Old World monkeys, but not New World monkeys, which places common ancestry of those species (Catarrhini) more than 25 million years ago.
academy.resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/endogenous-retroviruses.jpg
slideplayer.com/slide/5684143/18/images/63/endogenous+retroviruses.jpg
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/
www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/
Ape odor receptor genes
So there you have it, multiple lines of evidence all converging in the same direction. And THAT is as close to absolute certainty as it gets in science.
I love how creationist can't reply to your comments.. They lack way too much intelligence to even try to argue against you.
Dear Randall Wilks, I urge you to stop commenting because I am getting tired of liking your comments. Please stop.
Lol.
Hey, I got 3 letters. Now try more.
Okay, looks like The block has been removed. Hot damn.
Amazingly clear explanation!
Hello, can I use this as a reference? I have a reporting about evolution and this video helped me a lot to understand evolution more. Can I use some or information here? Thank you
The gray wolf is not the ancestor of the modern dog. They merely share a common ancestor, which is now extinct.
One difference that the common ancestor likely had to gray wolves is the lack of territorial behavior (instead, following the nomadic humans).
Not sure that is correct. Have wolves really evolved that much since we selectively bread them to become dogs? It was not that long ago. IF wolves were adapted to their environment, then they would not change that much that quickly. IT is quite likely that it was the Grey wolf (that still exists today) that we bread the dog from.
It is quite easy to see the behavioral (and biological) differences between gray wolves and domestic dogs. All one needs to do is look. Examples of this are the eating habits and the ways they raise their young.
Many feral dogs have very little prey drive, and survive solely by scavenging. The only feral dogs that DO have prey drive, are the ones that are direct descendants of hunting breeds (who were specifically bred to have a HEIGHTENED prey drive). This lack of prey drive makes sense, considering the self domestication of dogs was caused by their ancestors following humans to scavenge off their left overs. The ones who wasted the least amount of energy (by hunting, for example) were the ones to pass on their genes.
By comparison, if we look at any other domesticated carnivore, like ferrets and cats, we see that their prey drive almost always remains intact.
Wolves seem to help each other raise their young, but feral dog mothers are usually left to raise their puppies on their own. Wolves will also regurgitate food for the puppies, but dogs will not.
These are just some examples of the behavioral differences. However, there are also undeniable biological differences. For example, dogs usually come into heat twice a year, but wolves only come into heat once a year. The human insult "bitch" stems from the fact that a female dog will mate with any male she comes across. Wolves, on the other hand, tend to be monogamous until one of the partners dies (or becomes otherwise incapable of mating). Additionally, dog breeds that reach the same size as gray wolves, tend to suffer from size related health problems, and have reduced life spans.
So even if we did assume that gray wolves were the ancestor (which they most likely were not), it cannot be said that they have hardly changed. A quote from the Wikipedia page makes this clear: "The dog and the extant gray wolf are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the wolves that were first domesticated."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
The reason I find it so important to recognize the differences between these species, is that the assumption that they were "almost the same" leads to many welfare issues. Mostly by people trying to treat their dog "like a wolf".
Was it the Grey Wolf initially, or was it the Asian Red Wolf??
MadCity Jack Neither. The ancestor of domestic dogs is believed to be a megafaunal wolf species that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene. It is now extinct.
*HERE IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US - About Morality.* Please cite the passages that promote morality. Don't forget the quiz at the end.
1. You can own slaves. You can buy and sell slaves. You can even sell your own daughter (Exodus 21:7-10). If she fails to please her master, you must refund him the purchase price.
2. You can beat the living shit out of your slaves without being punished, as long as they do not die within two days (Exodus 20:20-21). Under what standards of morality is it ever okay to beat another human being like that and not suffer any consequences? It is reassuring the bible endorses property rights, but a source of morality it is not.
3. The bible not only condones slavery but sets prices for them (Leviticus 27:3-7). The bible obviously was concerned about human traffickers getting a fair price for their goods.
4. Surely Jesus had compassion towards slaves. He tells slaves to be obedient and subservient. That is why slave owners in the Americas pushed Christianity onto their slaves and punished those caught practicing their ancient religions.. Very reassuring. According to Jesus, it was okay to beat slaves, those who unwittingly made mistakes were to be given few lashes, those who knowingly violated rules were to be given many lashes. Ownership rights, you know.
5. Thou shalt not kill. Now THERE is a good one. However, it seems there are exceptions:
No sooner had Moses returned from his first trip up the mountains to find a party to which he had not been invited, in a fit of rage he orders his Levite goon squad to kill "every man his brother, and every man his friend and every man his neighbor." Exodus 32:28 "The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about 3000 of the people died." 'Tough Love' maybe?
6. But there are others. The bible requires the faithful to put to death by stoning;
Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:10);
Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13),
Non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21),
any of your neighbors foolish enough to mow their lawn on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15,Exodus 35:1-3,Numbers 15:32-36).
7. Oh, and speaking of rape, surely that ranks high on the ‘Thou shalt nots’ of the ten commandments. *NO???* It is not even mentioned???
An oversight perhaps? But then it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times) and such. Take a look at these REALLY important commandments (there are different versions within the bible). Thou shalt not:
Worship other gods
Work on the Sabbath (death penalty crime)
Take the name of the lord in vain (OMG, ANOTHER capital crime)
Make graven images
Covet thy neighbor’s wife or house or ass
And, oh yes, ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ are in there somewhere near the bottom. *But rape? Not one word!!!*
How about elsewhere in the bible? Surely somewhere the bible must condemn rape, no?
Oh, yes, here; Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her *and they are discovered,* 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives"
*YESSS! There it is. Rape is a PROPERTY crime*. The rapist has damaged the father’s PROPERTY and it is he that must be compensated. What justice for the victim of the rape? She has to marry her rapist. Surely she lived happily ever after, no? And what if they were not discovered and the girl kept quiet out of fear? The bible is quite clear about the fate of girls who are not virgins on their wedding day. Here, as elsewhere in the bible, women are chattel and have no say in their future.
It is interesting to note that, while the bible mandates death by stoning for adulterers and non virgin brides, raping an 'unbethrothed' virgin incurred only a monetary penalty. This is biblical justice? In any case, it begs the question; what is the penalty for raping a 'betrothed' virgin? Is compensation to be paid to her intended husband?
8. The bible endorses mass murder and sex slavery. Numbers 31:14-18 "14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. *17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."*
Numbers 31:35 - "And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." *THIRTY TWO THOUSAND VIRGINS* being divided up to be used by “god’s chosen people” at the same time their mothers and brothers by the tens of thousands were being slaughtered like animals. Many of those women would have been pregnant, their unborn fetus dying inside them. And what would have been the crime of young boys of whatever age? 2? 4? 10? There was no distinction about age. This is GENOCIDE, condemned by civilized nations of the world.
If you fail to feel a deep sense of moral outrage at this, how do you condemn ISIS for doing far less? Genocide in whatever form is an ugly stain on humanity. To claim it to be a moral act is the ultimate evil. Why then, should you regard the bible as a moral guide? Is ISIS any less evil?
So what response do we hear from zealots? Shock? Horror? No! Their predicable response is indifference and a callous “They had it coming to them.” We have heard those words echoed by unrepentant Nazis and the barbaric ISIS. And how does that equate to morality? Are not empathy and compassion the cornerstones of morality? Where then is there any morality here?
Perhaps it was just an oversight that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, or rape or molesting children, but yet it was so important to forbid mixing fabrics or cooking a kid in its mother's milk (so important that it needed to be repeated three times). What does that say about biblical priorities?
If the bible is the source of your 'morality', call a mental health hotline, NOW..
God sends Abraham to murder his own son, clearly an immoral act. Abraham is perfectly willing to do so. And for this, the bible praises Abraham. To a rational person, morality is doing what's right, no matter what one is told. Biblical morality is doing what you are told no matter what.
Although an angel was sent to 'stay Abraham's hand', no such courtesy was given Jephthah's daughter made into a burnt offering to the lord (Judges 11:29-40). That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. And what of Jephthah? Was this murderer of an innocent child punished in any way? *Was he condemned? NO. He is PRAISED. THE BIBLE TACITLY APPROVES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE.*
To suggest that morality stems from religion is not only wrong, it is frightening. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion. And the bible has a special message for women: "STFU". We see at every turn they are denied the rights afforded to men; they were regarded as property, either of their father or their husband. It can be a source of pride for women that apparently not a single one of them participated in the writing of the bible. The rights that women have today were not granted them by the bible, they had to fight for them. The bible endorses misogyny.
Some of the rules in the bible are downright strange. Take Leviticus 15:19- 24 for instance that forbids contact with a woman while she is "unclean" (during her period). I mean how is a guy to know? Surely it is impolite to ask. Donald Trump has a way of finding out, but I doubt the average guy could get away with it.
Atheists have greater claim to morality than those who espouse religion. They are moral because it is the intelligent way to behave towards our fellow man, not out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. If you are "moral" because of those constraints, you are a very dangerous person.
Slavery still exists, but it has been made illegal in virtually every part of the world, NOT because of guidance from the bible, but because it was the right thing to do. Morality stems from empathy and concern for our fellow man. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things; but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Dictators take control of a populace by instilling fear of punishment, how is religion any different than that?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Mark Twain once said _"It ain't the parts of the bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand."_
Now the question: Do YOU understand why the bible is said to be the source of morality? Because I sure don't..
DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORT THE IDEA OF BIOLOGICAL CHANGE OVER TIME (BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION)?
The answer from conservative Baptist run Baylor University Geosciences Department:
*Yes. The fossil record clearly indicates a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks, that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.*
*Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks.*
*Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact. The specific mechanisms of biological change over time continue to be a topic of active research, and include mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin as well as more recently developed ideas based on our growing knowledge of genetics and molecular biology. Using the methods of modern science, our knowledge of the fundamental mechanisms of life has grown enormously since the initial characterization of the role of DNA in reproduction, inheritance and evolution in the mid-1950s.*
The American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society, partnering with the most respected geoscience societies in America including the Geological Society of America, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (among others), have produced a booklet on evolution and the fossil record that can be downloaded as a PDF file. This booklet was written for the general public by people who have worked with the fossil record throughout their careers, and was thoroughly reviewed by other professional geologists and paleontologists.
thank you so much for the perfect introduction to evolution
th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html