I think of the inspection of planes in WW2 when they returned. Using the inspections they determined where they should increase the armor, and where less armor might work, because of the consistent bullet patterns they found on returning planes. Wherever there was a hole, it was likely less necessary to armor. It wasn't vital, because "Look, it survived well with this hole here." The planes that didn't return had holes where armor was needed most. Likewise, where the DNA can stand mutation least and still be surviving is what you see in that report. Vital stuff that mutates results in critical systems failure, and death.
ROLtheWolf is correct. This video misinterprets both papers. They don’t assert non-random mutations. They are providing statistical evidence of the fact that certain mutations are more likely than others to kill the subject before reproductive age. That is a much narrower topic than this video suggests, though it’s still useful data. For example, one wouldn’t expect the rare hemoglobin mutations to play a central role in cancer, or ALS, which typically kill older subjects.
@@timbob1145 why would animals select mates that increase surviviorship? Why do living things want to stay alive? Why would surviviorship mate selecting increase species surviveability since everyone is doing it? Why would they break into defined species?
This makes sense. It's been assumed for quite some time that there is a real time environmental influence on DNA. It's a complex dance between natural selection, random mutations, and environmental pressures. This gives evolution the most elasticity.
Totally. I read in a science magazine of a study where they took some stem cells and grew them on a surface they could move to mimic the movement of a human lung; the stem cells grew into or changed into lung cells.
You said it so succinctly and precisely. Thank you. Would you include "variation" which I think means each individual progeny is somewhat different from parents?
But my question is: What is the mechanism and HOW is it influenced by the environment. This almost implies that the genome is « aware », to some degree, OF its environment, right? If so, what is the mechanism of that Awareness?
Anton is the one reason why I'm interested in science and space so much, he's the most wonderful person out there! More people should start sharing his content so he can reach 1 million subs!
One of the things I was pondering back in college, as a budding computer scientist was if you could weight a small program using recursion that would over time build out a larger structure. I also noticed in a genetics class that DNA was a sort of double binary system that had stop bits and tons of recursion :)
In hind sight it makes quite sense that this kind of Meta-Evolution would emerge over long periods of time. After all DNA and their proteins are not insubstantial holders of information, but rather physical parts of every organism and subject to being changed. The ability to more or less easily evolve/mutate certain parts of a genome can thus be thought of as trait just like hair color or beak shape. This obviously adds a whole new level to the already staggering complexity of evolution... but that's just life i guess.
Chemistry itself in its most basic form has always been seen as bound/limited by certain parameters (of temperature; pressure etc. etc,) All this talk of randomness is mainly uttered by god-believers, strawmanning the nature of reality as _chaotic_ in an attempt to make it seem in need of a supernatural order-bringer, while it already contains those, naturally.
This has a little bit of similarity to machine learning I think. Neural nets like to settle into niches, a network might settle on a particular solution and stay there, which is natural because of how they work. The amount of pressure to fall into a particular solution is usually pretty much unchanging in a lot of algorithms, many of them will stay on a solution for huge amounts of training time, and a lot of difficulty in training them comes down to this. Some more effective machine learning algorithms tend to be less consistent in that area, they can become more fluid or less fluid, e.g. with deep learning where you have nodes and connections being added or removed, which results in particular solutions being strengthened more or weakened and that lets the algorithm edge into other solutions and get better at "evolving" in certain areas. Very cool!
@@emet-selch3485 the arguement is then who designed the designer. Whatever process the designer used to design itself, could be extrapolated to explain how the universe designed itself. Overall it leads to god being a metaphor for the universe itself. With the personality of God being the collective unconscious of sentient beings. The experience of joy and suffering as heaven and hell. The development of medicine and technology is then the process of bringing the kingdom of God onto earth. Meaning eternal joy for mankind. Theoretically immortality is possible if we figure out how to reverse the degradation of our dna. All the "glory" comes from sentient beings working together, aka trusting in God. Just my thoughts
I've seen evidence of sound having genetic mutation properties. Two trees growing next to each other growing each other's branches and leaves. Another location had ivy and two trees swapping. The two trees shared each other's bark, and the ivy changed how it shaped its leaves as it grew up the trees. The ivy on the ground was normal, but the further up the tree it climbed, the more the changes to the leaves were visible.
@@ultramovier Oh, I was hoping you did. You're initial comment seemed real interesting and I was kinda hoping to be able to learn more about this specific example.
I think that the news headline that has appeared so often about this study that "mutations are not random" is misleading. At least from what I understand, many organisms have developed the ability to protect certain vital parts of their genome from random mutations -- a mechanism similar to the manner in which computers used in critical applications have for many years used error-correcting memories to avoid data corruption. Other less critical parts of the genome, though, (like the DRAM in consumer laptops) are still exposed to random changes or mutations. These replication errors when they occur are still random and not self-correcting, although the type and frequency of mutation is certainly influenced by changes in the environment (e.g., exposure to UV light from the sun, temperature extremes, chemical exposure, etc.).
It's like saying that a dice loaded 2/6th to the number 6 is somehow not random. It's obviously still a matter of probability which is what matters. And still arbitrary with regard to 'meaning' that people start looking for.
Well like the universe it could be not just random but also have some determinism as well 😐also it’s not like we would we know this planet formed in the first place 😑
Great post. When you were talking about the plants mutating it seemed to suggest that the plant has a spirit or self-aware consciousness about it. Plants are master engineers and one rule of engineering is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"....and plants abide by this rule of thumb. Awareness of what works.
It may, but we may be applying too much of human understanding of consciousness/sprit/existence to them. Their existence is unique, and may be an experience / conscious that is too alien to relate with
Interesting. These observations make sense and would seem to be straightforward enough to explain in terms of protection and repair mechanisms being differentially targeted. More, as we know our epigenetics are directly effected by environment and are passed on in their effected form it's reasonable to assume that might in turn explain how an environmental pressure might specifically target the mutation rate in relevant parts of the genome.
Yup, this is exactly where my mind took it too. Seems like the most natural candidate for mediating this kind of mutanogenic bias. I'd been assuming something like this had to be the case, but it's satisfying to see studies confirm it.
The thing about lung mutation is that human lung size varies between ethnicities that live on different elevations. Of course there's more variability allowed.
It makes sense not being random, since you can see evolution as sort of an optimization function. So with time will trend towards evolutionary traits that allow to prolong the persistence of these traits.
I was never convinced by total randomness in evolution and had a vague idea about a DNA fitness to environmental gap . . . where the limitations of the DNA composition of the individual that still manages to produce offspring somehow carries with it a record of its performance in the environment, and when offspring are produced, the genetic deficit would be filled in as much as possible with the optimal genes of the parents activated in that direction. I am a total layman with no credentials . . . it was just an idea I had in high school biology.
I mean total randomness doesn't exist anyway in evolution, since an organism can only function with specific mutations (in a specific environment). It would just be a question of time when those mutations randomly occur and are "naturally selected" to stay. Natural selection isn't random at all, so neither is evolution as a whole.
The fact the child lives to adulthood and in turn reproduces is how the "deficit" is filled. Evolution is a cruel mistress, and many a dead infant is a testament to that cruelty. It's not really filled in with the optimal genes, it's whatever the hell the zygote received from the sperm and egg. That's how you get autosomal recessive diseases like sickle cell anemia. (Which fun fact, evolved as a defense against malaria, more or less)
The molecule’s order is very complex meaning it has a lot of possible rules that effect its variables (system’s reaction + its compounds reaction) but a narrow set of functions. It is perceived as random when the processes are different but the results are mostly the same. Like matter and it’s elements, or the formation of stars. Those are like saturation graphs, and biology is like stairs. I think…
@Sam You can even start looking before the infant stage: Only 40-60% of fertilized eggs survive until birth. It's absolutely insane; up to 60% of pregnancies are naturally aborted because the child is incapable of living. Of course, most of that happens in the first few days before the woman even knows she is pregnant...
I wondered the same thing. "If beneficial adaptations happen rapidly, that has to be a guided process and not random mutations" is a line you might hear from intelligent design believers. But what if "intelligence" isn't some kind of creator deity, but rather DNA being somewhat self-aware? What if an organism's experiences inform the DNA how it needs to change to best adapt? DNA probably isn't conscious, but I don't know how you'd prove that. Like it's pretty surprising that our brains' neuronal interactions create an abstract sensation of consciousness that we live inside of all the time. I can't say for sure it's impossible for other intricate chemical arrangements to have a "will" of their own, since consciousness appears to spring up naturally from complex matter. I also wouldn't claim that's true for sure. Maybe it all really is blind and random.
It seems like if there's a mutation in a crucial system, it often leads to death. This also happens with human embryos, to the tune of some 78% of fertilized embryos self terminating due to genetic failure. The result is, only less crucial systems see evolution through the ages.
@@privard89 A non official quick run down on mutations can be looked up on Wikipedia. That's enough to get you started as the footnotes lead to more technical studies.
@@mugwump7049 You are not allow to use it as a reference when publishing scientific papers....I challenge you to follow their sources. If you tell me that you collected any information from wiki...you are discredited. I suggest you look in to the history of the site and who purchased it and who is in control of editing material. Peace!
Thanks Anton, you do such an excellent job in appeasing all learning types. Auditory learners with your dissertation, visual learners with excellent graphics, and kinesthetic learners with your live interaction. I wonder if calling them mutations in the science community is appropriate. Unless we have been monitoring a species throughout its evolutionary history, we should not call it a mutation. We should be calling them changes. Mutation implies that there is some absolute definitive was the DNA is structured based on instant of time when we have studied it. DNA is changing and evolving all of the time. This is a great post. Thanks Anton.
Again, I enjoyed your review, Anton. Some additional background seems appropriate … There are a number of genes that have been highly conserved over millions of years and across a vast number species. Example: Fen1 in C. elegans (a primordial worm) used for sex reconfiguration that is 90% identical to human (used in insulin function). Just how such genes can remain unchanged is a fascinating question. Epigenetics, the modification of the genome of offspring by life experiences (like physiological stress) of parents is also well established. We have also known about “hot spots” in genomes where alterations of DNA sequences occur faster than most other sites. What’s cool about this work is another level of adaptation, one of active anticipation. Non-random, “planned” mutations opens a new door to understanding the timeline of evolution.
how genes remain unchanged is through the act of God in my belief at least. For a gene to stay consistant through millions of years, avoid all random mutation, disaster, disease, alteration, epigenetic modification; to leave all this to 'chance' sounds really absurd to me unless a divine being is put into place.
@@qasimahmad6748 That's sounds like the age-old God of the gaps fallacy where if something hasn't been fully explained by scientific theory yet, just insert God. "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
@@qasimahmad6748 A gene staying consistent is not necessarily a result of "just chance". If a gene is essential for an organism to survive or reproduce, then obviously any mutation that may happen will not stay, since all the offspring either dies or is unable to reproduce. No randomly selected God of gaps required.
@@Hugh_I yh but than what does that? what 'ensures' the gene stays. If a gene is important, a cell would need to be self aware to 'ensure' a certain specific gene survives. Now yes we have our usual DNA checkups after every stage of a cycle, immune cells targeting malignant cells to prevent cancers forming, and other various mechnisms, but these are general methods occuring naturally that I don't have the time to tell them all. And none of these are made to ensure survival of specific genes. And how does the cell know this gene is important? Yes, in future we might find more research discovering how cells ensure specific genes are kept checked and safe but again something had to make the cell think that.
Just a point of clarification: Gene mutation actually occurs very rarely, about 10^-6 in humans. By itself gene mutation has very little effect on evolutionary change. But combined with other evolutionary pressures such as genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, mating, etc. it does have an effect. The finch beak example is actually an example of epigenetic changes or genetic flow more than genetic mutation. However, the bias in genetic mutations is still extremely interesting. Love your videos.
doesn't it occur in every human but mostly doesn't result in any significant change? regardless that number seems extremely low. 0.1% of humans have down syndrome which is already 1000 times your figure and that's just one mutation
Initial mutation due to DNA replication errors is about 1/10^4 base pairs, with the inherent proofreading function of the replication machinery bringing that down to about 1/10^6 base pairs. Additional DNA repair mechanisms reduce that further, it is generally estimated as 1/10^8 base pairs. Which sounds really impressive, until you realize that every single time a human cell replicates its DNA, it copies 8x10^8 base pairs: on average. And that's without mutations from chemicals and radiation. And there are several trillion cells in the human body, and several hundred replications to produce the germ cells for the next generation. It's true that only a small percentage of that DNA is actually part of structural genes, but a larger (and unknown) percentage may be involved in regulating the expression of the genes. We're ALL mutants. EDIT: had to fix my math. That's why I'm a biologist, not an engineer.
@@jimmyjimjimmyjimjimjimjim4437 Well, strictly speaking all mutations are inheritable, as long as the mutations are in the 'germ line,' the set of cell divisions that produce sex cells. So somewhere between hundreds and thousands of mutations per generation. Most of which probably have absolutely no effect on gene function or expression. But some do. And that's about as exact as we can be. lol.
There are a variety of factors that could cause part of the genome to be more likely to be mutated than other parts. Germline DNA is stored in some physical configuration that leaves parts of the chain more susceptible to radiation damage, for instance.
Hello Anton, since you say you're going to do more videos about this subject, please consider the following: The Nature article you cited says it exactly right; mutations occur randomly *with respect to their consequences*. It's been known for decades that different mutations happen at different rates, and that different parts of genomes mutate more and less often. To say that mutations are *purely* random is an oversimplified strawman. There are some genes whose functions are critical to organisms' survival, where almost any change would prove fatal. There are also some genes whose functions are not critical, where change is tolerated or even beneficial, depending on the environment. It makes evolutionary sense for organisms to detect and correct mutations of genes that are critical to their very existence, while wasting less time and energy on mutations of genes which are not mission-critical. These are the differences the Nature article documented. So contrary to its conclusions, the Nature article affirms the "long-standing paradigm". The Genome Research article you cited is more deeply flawed. Its conclusions are based on samples from only eleven individuals, which is a statistically meaningless amount. Also, the authors make no effort to track different mutations, in order to compare those rates with the one they claim to track. Your comments about Thalassemia and Sickle-Cell are confused. These diseases are not the same. They have different causes and different symptoms. Three different genes, HBA1, HBA2 and HBB, determine the structure of hemoglobin proteins. Each of these genes have different versions or alleles or mutations. The mutations which cause Sickle-Cell are not the same mutations which cause Thalassemia. But all of them create hemoglobin which breaks down much faster than the standard form, a cause of anemia. However, these different alleles also change the shape of the protein, which is why they protect against malaria, because the parasite depends on a specific shape in order to enter a red blood cell. It makes evolutionary sense for populations which live where malaria is endemic, to have genomes which have more hemoglobin mutations. Some of those mutations won't make any difference, some will be fatal, and some will be like those which cause Thalassemia and Sickle Cell, a compromise between protecting against malaria and doing their job of moving O2 and CO2 in and out of the body. But it's not the case those additional mutations are more likely to be beneficial. Even if hemoglobin genes are more likely to mutate, the effects of those mutations remain random *with respect to their consequences*. Given that so many of your commenters share your misunderstandings, I look forward to any future videos where you correct them.
I was searching through the comments for a reply like yours, although i am not a scientist myself, sometimes Anton seems to "promote" some ideas and notions that seem to me a little... unscientific to say the least (being it in cosmology, biology which seems to be his area, or physics). Oversimplification of very complex subjects as biology is a dangerous road to go when you want to popularize new research done, his biases ring like a bell in this one where his excitement on the subject is easy recognizable . When i hear words like : "contrary to the "established" ideas ie. Darwinian Evolution..." an alarm inside me ticked... So i read through the comments to find some clarification on the subject. I totally agree with your points.
Signal boost. From the start of the video I found issues with his claim that the consensus was a totally random mutation rate across all genes. It has been known for decades that this is untrue, and there are (I believe) entire regions of genes which are actively protected against mutation at all. The idea of dragging Lamarckism into this just smelled wrong as well. There IS epigenetic theory where parental internal chemical conditions, even those guided by behaviour and emotional states, can affect offspring gene expression, is documented. But that doesn't directly guide evolution in a genetic drift sense, it is a local trend in characteristics on the short term.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense at all to me that an organism should “know” which genes are critical to their very existence and which are non-mission critical? If it is so, it seems to me that those critical to their existence would most likely also be those that make it the organism that it is, hence if they can never be changed or if it’s very difficult for them to successfully mutate you’re pretty much just ruling out evolution as we know it, aren’t you?
Back when I was young, sickle cell was categorized as a genetic disease. This was before the benefit (protection against malaria) was known. It affected mostly those of African descent in cold climates such as New York or Chicago because as the temperature starts to drop the capillaries contract to preserve the core temperature protecting the organs. The shape of the blood cells with people having this trait causes them to become stuck in the narrow passages causing pain, mostly in the extremities. The only reason it is a problem at all is people with this trait were now in an area much different from the environment it developed in. In a tropical or subtropical region that person gets all of the benefit with none of the liability of that mutation. The interesting part is that our technology seems to have advanced further than evolution's ability to adapt with planes, ships, and controlled environments.
Various stressors can precipitate a sickle cell crisis including dehydration, strenuous exercise and exposure to high altitude. "Sickle cell trait is not a benign condition and continues to be associated with sudden death in individuals during periods of extreme physical exertion." - Bruce L. Mitchell (2018) 'Sickle cell trait and sudden death'. Sports Medicine - Open.
Sickle cell is still dangerous even in tropical climates. It just benefits in defense against protozoa, which is a greater benefit than random sickle cell death (in terms of parent fitness)
I love your cast. It covers lots of scientific research areas and anyone explaining how the universe works for the common person without resorting to hyperbole involving mystical thinking is necessarily also de facto performing a public service to humanity.
Wait, I remember reading YEARS AGO that parts of the chromosomes mutate more than others. In particular the ends mutate faster. So genes under rapid evolution end up there, like the red and green cone pigment genes in people, which are on the tip of the X chromosome. And some genes are just unstable and are only held in their correct form by evolutionary pressure, like the genes for achondroplastic dwarfism and retinitus pigmentosa. Achrondroplastic dwarfism is relatively common and usually is a spontaneous mutation. Then there are all the myriad polyglutamate diseases where a glutamate-encoding triplet like CGG starts to stutter and increase in number, most famously in Huntingdon’s disease.
Mutation is random. The ability to guard certain DNA sequences is itself an evolved trait. For example, in the case of the gene vs. malaria - it makes sense to that a creature able to mutate that gene would be better able to respond to changes in the malaria protozoa and would fare better than one that didn't, whereas if there was no selection pressure to fight malaria it's better to have it more static to protect against certain potential cancers forming. It's all a balancing act and the slightest pressure over a sufficiently long period of time can make quite a difference.
To my knowledge the case is even weaker - the mentioned human mutation is objectively "bad", while it does protect against malaria, it kills part of the offspring and even causes a shorter life expectancy. However when malaria is present, this completely reverses. So just by natural selection the fittest will cause far less people in regions without malaria... The same might be the case with the pant - the less mutating genes sound like they would cause an early death if they happened to mutate, so the selection might simply weed out occurring mutations... So far this does not cause a clear contradiction to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
@@friedrichschwarz1547 Yes the "bad" mutation is "good" in a warmer climate with malaria, but "bad" in a colder climate where there is no malaria. The environment controls what the "best" gene is. Natural selection.
Well, I'm impressed with the DNA repair mechanism you mentioned, which is essential to all life. Your first-life-no-earth would need that ingenious feature really quick to get off the launch pad. Same as the reverse-rna-transcription mechanism.
this is good, I never really liked the "random mutations" explanation, I always thought nature seems to be more intelligent than that, especially in the case of mimicing the environment for example - we still need a better explanation for how mutations happen
Science is just guessing too. All the times the mainstream ideas were proven wrong, with their bias demonizing those who spoke out. Happens now as it did in the past. We keep learning, but never want to admit we are wrong.
Mutations are still random, is just that some parts of the chromosome mutate less than others because of their position (Locus). Also, some genes that are part of complex systems like metabolism do not mutate much, not because they don't get random mutation, but because almost all mutations in those genes are lethal for the organism.
Haha very nice answers, i was just kidding since the human eye seems just so stupid in regards of optimization 🙃 i know there are enough theories trying to explain this circuamstance
This makes perfect sense to me, and is how I actually thought evolution worked given my limited understanding of the deeper complexities of it. I've always seen it as outside factor effects species, those best suited to deal with situation, and/or those who are able to adapt to that change are who survive and spread genes.
I’m wondering if this could be connected to dietary,with the mutations maybe also being present in the animals on the menu contributing to faster processing of the mutations ? I love that you have my brain in overdrive every single day on so many different subjects 😵💫
A very interesting discussion Anton. With the idea of some species stopping evolution, in a sense not having mutations occur (an evolutionary dead end?) it makes me wonder whether there are more cases of this type of animal or creature in the Oceans than on land. the reason I suggest this is that biologists have suggested lately that viruses play a huge role as do bacterium on the development and evolution of species by substituting parts of an animals DNA with that of the virus or bacteria. It seems to me without actually checking that there would be more viruses in a terrestrial environment than in the oceans for example, even though that is where life arose. The oceans have some of the oldest known unchanged species on the planet, including the bacteria; The phytoplankton; the algae's; the Jellies; the worms and corals and sponges. Where as on land, even though there is bacteria, it would be a stretch to suggest they had not changed markedly from their original beginnings on land due to mutation and adaptation. Plants for example and inexplicable developed lignin in the structure a complex carbohydrate that had never existed previously, but allowed plants become woody and grow very tall. The only problem with this new mutation was that no other organism produced enzymes that could break it down, such as fungi, until much much later - Hence all the non decomposed, preserved coal deposits.
Ok. This is cool. So… How does DNA ‘know’ how to prefer one sequence over another? Did that preference develop through random chance? At some point, if all organisms have a common ancestor, then all organisms were capable of extreme mutation as a species. At what point did that stop (and start again)? And it had to stop (and start again) at multiple stages at multiple points for multiple species for us to have the taxonomical outcomes we see now. Randomness would have a better chance of constructing the Taj Mahal than the intricacies we see in the history of life on this planet.
I think it's a very old theory that mutation is not random but Occam's Razor makes people choose the simplest explanation until new information comes along. And suggested by how closely a plant and the insect consuming it seem perfectly designed for interaction.
So mutations are largely responsible for the evolutionary process, but organisms have also evolved over time to mutate a certain way. It almost seems like a paradox or a thought loop.
It is, because mutating in non-random ways implies that the process is guided. Who guides it? Does the DNA think for itself? Saying so is absurd. A guided process doesn't make sense in materialism, the view adopted by the scientific community.
It never was random, often a misused term. There is no guiding by something of course, but rather impacted or as a reaction by environment etc. It's good these things were now researched in more detail. Don't forget there are already over 130.000 completed and successful studies regarding evolution, each proving and adding to our understanding. In case some apologist still claims its fake (sigh.....) - a biochemist
Lamarckian evolution was already somewhat apparent once epigenetics came into play, since gene expression is influenced by epigenes, which can commonly change as a result of the individual (or their parent's) life experience, and be passed down.
"The Universe exists by chance, we exist by chance." "No no no, we can explain, the DNA evolves due to self preservation and the affect of the environment and..." I guess the genomes are more self aware proactive than me.
If you look deep enough....you are going to find that their answer are breaking down. I personally never knew the deep problems with evolution and DNA "migration".
Yea but what about the individual 😐in fact it’s not like we knew this planet would form we were most likely dead 😑in fact when we die and our bodies dissolve into nothing we will be in the same place as if we did not exist in the first place 😑
I heard a talk at the biology department in 2018 focussed on epigenetics. And they predicted that within the next 10 years - a lot of darwinist evolution results will be challenged and disproven. Causing a reference cascade and changing the whole concept of evolutionary pressure and adaptation.
DNA evolves. DNA apparently has evolved a feedback system that opens certain regions to mutation. What mutations is not controllable, just the possibility. One trigger for this is environmental stress.
Yes, that's good and I agree as far as the the conceptualization of the mechanisms of DNA go. But as I commented in response to another comment-and please excuse the clumsy way I express the point: according to a host of experiments conducted with quantum systems in the last 20 years (Anton Zeilinger's team comes to mind), there is no actual materially existent DNA in reality because there is no actual materially existent world. These experiments have conclusively falsified local realism, and so the only place DNA exists is in our conscious experience. So whatever it is that exists in reality that incites the impression of DNA in our consciousness must be entangled with whatever exists (really itself) that provides an impression of a natural world in our consciousness more generally.
Random mutations, yet another one of evolution hypothesis most key foundation proven to be false. And how do evolutionists solve it? Proposing the evolution of non-random mutations through random mutations. This isn't science. How do you end up with a feedback mechanism when nature has no goal?
While working with evolutionary algorithms, for example to optimize factory schedules, it became clear to me that there was an advantage in representing schedule elements (e.g. jobs) as _objects_ (methods and data) that would make their _own_ interpretation of "mutate" (etc.) commands/signals, so as to avoid any "runt offspring". As one would expect, this vastly increased the rate of convergence to useful solutions. Taking this "algorithm evolution" further, different types of mutation could be prioritised, e.g. essentially as "rules of thumb" derived from logged pathways to successful (useful solution) results of many previous runs. In some kind of biology or pre-biology, featuring individuals within a soup of other individuals and occasional random signals/triggers (e.g. radioactive decay particles) I guess this would translate into ("be implemented as") a messy (evolved) combination of relative exposure surfaces (e.g. critical stuff being physically surrounded by veneer stuff?) and repair (implying data redundancy - in individuals or through interactions with a "standards-reinforcing" population). Just playing with these ideas.
I've always thought that life has a certain ability to develop itself based on how it is behaving, not just the other way around. Instincts are based in genetics, which is an example of behavior guided by DNA. But if behavior unaffected by DNA occurs, your offspring may be more likely to adapt to it. Sudden changes in available diets for example have already shown to change behavior, but that new behavior may then go on to change your genetics.
spot on tbh. environment plays huge role in impacting genome expression. i mean take skin colours for example lol, thats all due to environmental effect and we are still the same species. same with behaviour and emotions, they can alter your metabolism long term like depression
I personally believe that DNA has some sort of awareness about what's happening and can change rather quickly. Evolution just can't be random. Random mutations are often harmful or not helpful at all.
That idea has been scoffed at a lot over the decades, but I think there is some merit to it. Though the most logical explanation is that genetics can "meta game" evolution, by way of some portions of the genome being more robust vs. mutation than others, which allows for mutations to be more likely to occur in areas which may be beneficial. Still a random mutation vs evolutionary pressure equation, but with the added element of variable mutatability in parts of the genome AS an evolutionary trait. That's the working theory anyway. Some do think that body stresses can influence mutations though, in a way which relates to the stress applied. No mechanism is known to do that, but a real scientist doesn't dismiss ideas ;)
I love that you always find interesting themes for yourself Anton. You don't and haven't locked yourself in a single or very limited scope of themes. Keep interesting my friend and never stop learning.
I don’t really think people are still taught all mutations are random as Anton mentions? Even in a basic undergrad genetics or evolution classes your told there are certain biases in which genes undergo mutations or are preserved preferentially Still An amazing video !
Well, "it's complicated" (tm). Preferential mutation rate in different parts of the genome IS a randomly generated survival trait which is selected for with environmental evolutionary pressure. It's kinda the same old random/pressure equation, but with a dose of 'meta gaming' injected. Any species which can limit mutations to really key survival features, while allowing easier mutation to peripheral features, has an evolutionary edge. It's definitely a step beyond the old Darwin modeling though.
What an interesting finding in these studies - they could really lead us to a much deeper understanding of how evolution really works on a deeper level than we've known before! Thanks for this video, and for all you do. ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤
The most basic natural illustration of this is Ectomycchorizae. It's a fungus connected by mychorrizae to a plant root. It somehow also seems to pass genetic traits between the 3 organisms using mychorrizae like a pipeline or an electrical connection, not sure which, and seems to even pull other DNA from other things if it's compatible. Lichens do this also, I have seen one change from cyan to red over like a year basically. I think it's based on survival mostly, they adapt quicker this way so whatever stimuli are present guide the evolution, which seems to happen vastly faster But it requires the right environment like I said.
Congratulations to those scientists who have LONG SAID that Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinism are hopelessly inadequate to account for all of the life forms which we see around us.
I never believed that evolution was just random mutations. We adapt and grow to our environments, it's what human beings do. We adapt, and survive. Life has a sort of intelligence. Kinda like AI, but organic. There is no such thing as random.
@@George5323 I agree that materialism fails at explaining life, but your view isn't compatible with a non-materialistic world. Saying "life has some sort of intelligence" implies the molecules in your body do think and direct mutations to gain beneficiary traits.
@@dbk5816 it's not the molecules that guide evolution. Life isn't your molecular structure. Your molecular structure allows for life to manifest, but it isn't what life is.
@@dbk5816 dont conflate science with materialism or physicalism...which is already hanging on a thread anyway...property dualism(panpsychism) or substance dualism and my preferred Analytic idealism makes much more sense
Besides random mutations, markers involve not one link in the genome, but a set of links involving many strands of the genome, making artificial manipulation so risky.
Is it really that hard to explain how areas with lots of mosquitos that interface with animals’ and humans’ blood quite often throughout the lives of their victims is mysteriously involved in genetic mutation pressure within those locations? There is obviously direct environmental stimuli for these mutations.
Yes, but what he was explaining is that there was also a selective pressure for the survival of groups that were more likely to have mutation in the genes involved. So there might be other effects.
_How?_ Even if a mosquito could cause a mutation in the host's germ-line DNA, how could it preferentially attack the region of the DNA that codes for the host's blood?
@@VidkunQL I don’t think that’s a mosquito question but perhaps related to proteins, the complement system response, tRNA, or epigenetic response, something other than the mosquito itself selecting.
I always like how DNA is represented like a ladder (twisted) rather than the weird shape it has with phosphates and sugars as loops and boats they are actually like.
On a serious note I betcha Rupert sheldrake might have a good bend on why this is but it’s just my opinion. I think morphic resonance has a scientific base we haven’t discovered yet. No woo, just an undiscovered natural database in the dark matter or something badass like that
One of the best proposed advantages of having a memory of natural selection, is imprinting and remembering advantageous traits that have occurred in the past and producing forces that nudge selection toward an outcome that isn't 100% novel. Our DNA learned to employ the use of fractal patterns that are essentially self similar hierarchical patterns. Is it any surprise that natural selection has the ability to possess another layer or level of complexity that introduces advantageous traits by referencing information patterns that have contributed to success in ancestor organisms?
This is just another step towards proving my own theory based on evolutionary records. The fact is, there was never enough generations of complex organisms to explain evolution via random mutations. The fact that species are able to change dramatically over the course of relatively few generations can not be explained away by random mutations causing one group to out-compete another. The changes would have been gradual and randomized. This would not cause a single distinct evolutionary path for an entire species within a particular biome (a la Darwin's finches). Evolution is quite clearly guided by the environment, but not at random. I believe the reason cells (especially certain cells) reproduce at all during the lifespan of an organism is to record the environment and encode that information into our DNA. The following generation inherits genetic mutations which result from the lifestyle of the parent(s). I first inferred this from the number of clearly detrimental evolutionary changes some species exhibit, but which have no impact on survival. Negative changes into a more specialized species should not out-compete if they are occurring at random, but they frequently do so long as they have no overall impact on survival. There's nothing in Darwinian theory to explain why gaining or losing a trait with a completely neutral impact on the species should rapidly become dominant across the entire gene pool. Unless the mutations are responding directly to stimuli. This COULD be proven by sequencing the entire genetic code of individuals of the same species throughout their lifetime while exposing them to intense environmental pressure which should trigger an evolutionary response. We would also have to sequence the gametes just in case only reproductive cells experience these evolutionary responses. Take a few thousand specimens and expose them to differing environmental pressures and in theory you should see similar mutations in the DNA of the species when exposed to the same environmental stressors, and DIFFERENT mutations when exposed to different stressors. EDIT: I believe this is also linked to the reason why certain cells in the body are rarely, if ever, replaced. The "essential elements" to an organism can't afford to change very much, because it's not as if evolution were intelligent. Environmental pressure may trigger an evolutionary response, but the responses aren't actually intelligent. If our DNA suddenly changed how heart cells work, they might not work at all. So things that the body can't do without are perhaps protected from mutation by slow or non-existent cellular reproduction.
This works with what they've discovered that certain genes activate differently in siblings, even in twins. How that is handed down over generations is certainly debatable.
oh how unusual, another person with their own personel theory. i presume your theory has made predictions and verified them with experiment? perhaps you could point me to your paper.
@@cosmikrelic4815 no one said they had a paper, he said he had a theory, as in an idea. Thanks for keeping the status quo of TH-cam comments being trash.
nice science. the proteins protecting the body is like my interest in the catalyst of the dna and the sugar having an impact on the dna and person. interesting dna science. i liked how it showed a different version of the dna, more complex and yet simple.
People often misunderstand darwinian evolution as "random". Its not random at all. Even if this study didnt exist, and if DNA mutations were 100% random, EVOLUTION itself, the macroscopic effect of DNA mutations, has never been random. And no, this doesnt mean a white bearded god is deciding fate. Even within humans ourselves, evolution is self-guided by sexual selection. That's the reason Peacocks have their ennormous tail feathers, despite it actually HURTING their ability to evade prey and remain undetected. Its because species constantly "breed themselves" into a specific direction, either subconciously or conciously. The point is, evolution was never random, concious beings, no matter if they're as small as an ant, choose preferable sexual partners and behaviors to continue those genes and proliferate those mutations. The only time its "random" is when we're talking about flora. And yet people always think of evolution as a random RNG process. Its not. It's more akin to a tech tree, with branching choices, each choice being a currently living population with said genes. The collective of the species "chooses" which branch to pursue, by sexually prefering them. Thats not random by any definition. People are so insanely illogically afraid of "NO I DIDNT SAY GOD GUIDES EVOLUTION", that they overlook the most obvious logical conclusions, that actually have nothing to do with god. If they say evolution isnt random, they're so terrified of being associated with religion that they simply cannot say that, even if its logical and completely unrelated to a higher divine power. Just look at Anton, it took him less than 1 minute before he panic-included caveats "btw heh heh lol btw WAIT this does NOT mean im talking about god guiding evolution heh dont turn off please". Come on. Can't we be more mature about these discussions rather than tiptoeing like scared schoolkids? Nobody said god.
Interesting studies are done now about electric communication between cells. Maybe you could make a video about that topic. It's somewhat related to this topic (maybe). Some scientists think that there is a layer of electrical activity which goes over the borders of cells. This layer is able to hold memory and make clever decisions like the building process of cells at a specific location. Very interesting.
I never really liked the "completely random mutation" explanation for evolution. Sure, some evolution will be due to random changes, it's just the nature of DNA and RNA replication, but it always seemed to me that an evolutionary reaction mechanism must also be in place. Life has been evolving on this planet for over 3 billion years, which always seemed to me to be plenty of time to evolve the ability for DNA to be altered in a more targeted way in response to environmental pressures. In fact, given the time scales involved, it would seem almost impossible for life to *not* evolve a mechanism of this sort. Such a trait would be useful enough that selective pressures would hugely favor any organism with this ability.
3 billion years is an extremely, extremely short time to explain DNA sequencing randomly. Look up the thought experiment called "infinite monkey theorem". It highlights how it is impossible to create functional DNA letters sequencing randomly.
Hi Anton, those ideas are actually a few decades old -- as are good arguments and examples. I like to recommend you the book E. Jablonka / M. Lamb (2005): "Evolution in four Dimensions" -- or the revised edition published in 2014.
There is God. The world neither anything that lives here couldn't create themselves. Or have you not seen, that also this world with it's cool, and warm streams in ocean, and rains and sunshine's etc. are actually organised more like in living body, than randomly. The only thing which is missing is the seams, and joints and wires which are typical in human build, but that just proves that God is much more than we humans are. Everything looks natural when it has made with deepest wisdom and with enormous power.
2:00 you're completely misinterpreting the terminology.. In line with common misconception that evolution is "random". Evolution was never random, evolution is the macroscopic changes in a species, that come about due to that species sexually selecting for desired traits, be it subconciously or conciously (as seen in humans, where in the modern day, intelligence is more highly selected for than agression, while in the ancient world such as in sparta, agression and martial prowess was selected for). This isnt random, this is guided, by the species itself, and applies to all species, even insects. MUTATIONS are random, the microscopic changes in DNA that THEN give rise to macroscopic effects. Yet you keep misinterpreting the two. Mutations isnt directly equal to evolution, and vice versa. Mutations are random. Evolution is sexually selected (and by the environment). A mutation will never become dominant if its not sexually selected for by said species. If human beings absolutely detested green eyes, those genes would have died out. Nothing random about it, its choice by concious self-aware beings.
@@brucegelman5582 The mutations themselves are random, the "selection" part of natural selection is not: in this case, the insects themselves are the ones providing the selective pressure on the orchids that rewarded those initially random mutations that made them even slightly similar. Essentially, the insect brain ended up "designing" the orchids (by selecting specific mutated individuals)
This discovery will alter the methods of using mutation to date the divergence of species quite significantly. Using different parts of a gene with different mutation rates could very accurately date a divergence. It also implies a form of meta- evolutionary or even non- evolutionary pressure on the gene that selects for how genes are selected. It will be interesting to see where this goes in future.
I had a similar stance but it was more like "I feel like this isn't right", and decades later, it turned out I was right, what I was vindicated on was that introns, or "junk" DNA can't just be junk... well, it isn't. Simply made no sense we'd just carry around and replicate useless genetic info for millions of years
@@VidkunQL if genes arbitrarily mutated at random, it seems unlikely that evolution would have made it so far in such little time, especially once you start getting to organisms that take months to reproduce. Idk, I havent done the math, but it seems pretty intuitive that arbitrary random mutation should take like trillions of years or more to get from our primate ancestors to humans. There are 10^120 possible chess games, and that's only an 8x8 board with 32 pieces. A strand of DNA is way more complex than that! Of course, there is still randomness to it. But now, we know definitively that there is some bias in which genes are more likely to mutate, and that there seems to be environmental influence. So, it is not totally random.
I am a sickle cell with the genotype SS. Before seeing this video I made observations that lead me to hypothesis the results of this study. I live in Ghana, West Africa. I noticed that over the years I've been meeting more and more people with the HBs trait. 15 years ago it was present in abou 1/15 people. Now it's more like 1/10
I like how a disclaimer crept in, 'it doesn't mean it's guided or there's a higher power' but I'm guessing it also does does not, not mean the opposite is the same, also fun fact... Random is a word we use when we don't know all the composition, variation, information, bla, bla,...etc...
I have often wonder why evolutionary science does not classify different kinds of mutation? Mutations that are chromosome damage, mutations that are a real mutations, like a new gene sequence, mutations that are epigenetic where something inhibits gene function. Odd that when something gets this specific and serious about the science of mutations it becomes a completely different science, like epigenetics.
Hello Anton! I love your Channel but I feel the need to maybe comment on the HBs model. This is classical example study to show how the cost in the fitness of a mutation is highly dependent on the environmental pressure. People who are homozygous for HBs have sickle cell disease that triggers the deformation of the red blood cells (sickling) under low oxygen pressure. So places high above sea level would severely compromised the fitness on the individual, meanwhile on tropical climate and at sea level or people living under local high oxygen levels would not be as affected. By far most people on tropical regions where malaria is endemic is heterozygous for the mutation so the cost of fitness is not that high and the alleles have a higher probability of fixation. The papers on the arabidopsis model is really interesting because they invite discussion on how epigenetic control can allow for a higher level of “quality” control on critical genes for basic celular processes, explaining the differential rate of mutation and its predicted effect on allelle frequency. But the phenomenon is not without the reach of the predicted behavior of a nearly neutral molecular evolution model. Please keep up the good work. Love your channel !
It does kinda make sense that mutation protections should be strongest on critical genes then secondary ones. As every system, it propably has costs. So it trying to be cost effective makes sense. My theory: - every gene carries a "criticality" score in it's metadata (which we apparently can not yet read) - if you mix DNA and both versions of the gene have a high "criticality" score, the new DNA will have a slightly higher score - if a gene mutated, that score is lowered (it might be working like a checksum too) - if a you mix DNA and one version has a low score and the other a high one, the resulting DNA will have a lower criticality score. If it mutated and you still reproduced, clearly it was not a critical gene Mutation protections then focus on things with a high "critcality" score Metadata. Because those are the ones that realy need to stay, or you end up with a dead body (which are rather bad at reproducing)
I wonder if there is a mechanism (perhaps analogous to cookies on a computer) where DNA tracks how many ancestors have the same version of a gene? And, if it records that one type is predominant, then an associated function can increase the resources devoted to protecting that gene from mutation. Whereas if there are already many types, then it does not waste resources in doing that. This simple mechanism would preserve gene variants which are vital to survival (by decreasing the likelihood of a mutation passing through screening uncorrected). Not doing this on already varied genes both saves resources (or targets scarce ones where they are most needed) and grants the species the benefits of faster evolutionary experimentation with parts of the organism which may benefit from change. Living fossils may have lost the discrimination in the above function, such that it just protects all genes to the maximum. And the species may still survive if the conditions it lives in remain stable. Conversely other species may receive a mutation to this control mechanism which has the opposite effect, namely making mutations more likely globally. If (as seems likely) too many offspring fail to survive, then this change would not proliferate. However (especially for species with many offspring) it would also give the opportunity for very rapid changes. Which could be useful in times of extreme adversity or environmental change.
Interesting. Perhaps there are some parallels to machine learning here. During "training," a machine learning algorithm enhances or reduces the effect of a specific input on the final result. It makes sense that, over countless generations, an organism would "learn" that large changes to specific regions would be detrimental (i.e, the result does not reproduce) while changes to other regions perhaps have big benefits.
Since the mechanism of protection is an evolved phenotype, influenced by the genes, then it can be explained that selective pressure on the genes ends up favoring more or less mutation rates of specific parts based on the envirnment. So, if a section of a gene proves resilient, that means that its mutation is mostly harmful in the current environment, and if it is more open to mutation, then it is mostly beneficial for that part to mutate. The mutation rate can be something that evolves and mutates too. Once the environmental pressure changes, a once resilient gene could benefit from being more mutatable once it is harmful in the new environment. It could mutate in a typical way and get missed by gene correction methods too.
When I worked as a teacher in Japan, I started to notice that students who participated regularly in some sports (such as ballet) developed very different bodies (not just their muscles but their skeletal structures) than, their classmates, even their siblings, who participated in other sports such as soccer, judo, kendo, or track and field. The younger they started, the more obvious which club they were in. Now if a family had a predisposition to to be large or thin, then they would still be to a degree but the sport made them develop in a way that would basically allow categorizing like “thin judo” or “heavy ballet”. So if these kids bodies were basically moulding themselves to best conform to the daily stresses that they were undertaking, it would make sense that the body would have some sort of molecular equivalent at work to push the development and/or genetic mutation to protect against certain diseases.
Was on the toilet taking my Anton break. The dude inthe next stall was taking a Anton break too...we're wonderful people
TMI
@@Premed1981 nah this was exactly the info I requested.
@@rellethias one of my turds has more atoms in it than stars in the observable universe..... science
goddamnit don’t you wonderful people have headphones
@@emanuelpetre5491 I do but between splashes I could here Anton coming from his stall
I think of the inspection of planes in WW2 when they returned. Using the inspections they determined where they should increase the armor, and where less armor might work, because of the consistent bullet patterns they found on returning planes. Wherever there was a hole, it was likely less necessary to armor. It wasn't vital, because "Look, it survived well with this hole here." The planes that didn't return had holes where armor was needed most.
Likewise, where the DNA can stand mutation least and still be surviving is what you see in that report. Vital stuff that mutates results in critical systems failure, and death.
Sounds fine in theory, but if so that process would produce Lovecraftian horrors rather than species that adapt quickly within fixed parameters.
Its the mate selection that keeps the horror down.
ROLtheWolf is correct. This video misinterprets both papers. They don’t assert non-random mutations. They are providing statistical evidence of the fact that certain mutations are more likely than others to kill the subject before reproductive age.
That is a much narrower topic than this video suggests, though it’s still useful data. For example, one wouldn’t expect the rare hemoglobin mutations to play a central role in cancer, or ALS, which typically kill older subjects.
@@timbob1145 why would animals select mates that increase surviviorship? Why do living things want to stay alive? Why would surviviorship mate selecting increase species surviveability since everyone is doing it? Why would they break into defined species?
That was my first thought, some sections of DNA are so critical that changes result in death, so the change is not propagated.
This makes sense. It's been assumed for quite some time that there is a real time environmental influence on DNA. It's a complex dance between natural selection, random mutations, and environmental pressures. This gives evolution the most elasticity.
Totally. I read in a science magazine of a study where they took some stem cells and grew them on a surface they could move to mimic the movement of a human lung; the stem cells grew into or changed into lung cells.
You said it so succinctly and precisely. Thank you. Would you include "variation" which I think means each individual progeny is somewhat different from parents?
You forgot about consciousness...
But my question is: What is the mechanism and HOW is it influenced by the environment. This almost implies that the genome is « aware », to some degree, OF its environment, right? If so, what is the mechanism of that Awareness?
@@asage5801 The higher self....
Anton is the one reason why I'm interested in science and space so much, he's the most wonderful person out there!
More people should start sharing his content so he can reach 1 million subs!
How about people study science, engineering and math... on their own?
One of the things I was pondering back in college, as a budding computer scientist was if you could weight a small program using recursion that would over time build out a larger structure.
I also noticed in a genetics class that DNA was a sort of double binary system that had stop bits and tons of recursion :)
In hind sight it makes quite sense that this kind of Meta-Evolution would emerge over long periods of time.
After all DNA and their proteins are not insubstantial holders of information, but rather physical parts of every organism and subject to being changed.
The ability to more or less easily evolve/mutate certain parts of a genome can thus be thought of as trait just like hair color or beak shape.
This obviously adds a whole new level to the already staggering complexity of evolution... but that's just life i guess.
Sounds like a differential equation situation. Where evolution can actually affect the rate of evolution.
Chemistry itself in its most basic form has always been seen as bound/limited by certain parameters (of temperature; pressure etc. etc,) All this talk of randomness is mainly uttered by god-believers, strawmanning the nature of reality as _chaotic_ in an attempt to make it seem in need of a supernatural order-bringer, while it already contains those, naturally.
This has a little bit of similarity to machine learning I think. Neural nets like to settle into niches, a network might settle on a particular solution and stay there, which is natural because of how they work. The amount of pressure to fall into a particular solution is usually pretty much unchanging in a lot of algorithms, many of them will stay on a solution for huge amounts of training time, and a lot of difficulty in training them comes down to this.
Some more effective machine learning algorithms tend to be less consistent in that area, they can become more fluid or less fluid, e.g. with deep learning where you have nodes and connections being added or removed, which results in particular solutions being strengthened more or weakened and that lets the algorithm edge into other solutions and get better at "evolving" in certain areas.
Very cool!
@@BorisNoiseChannel laws of the universe are designed. Designed by a designer.
@@emet-selch3485 the arguement is then who designed the designer. Whatever process the designer used to design itself, could be extrapolated to explain how the universe designed itself. Overall it leads to god being a metaphor for the universe itself. With the personality of God being the collective unconscious of sentient beings. The experience of joy and suffering as heaven and hell. The development of medicine and technology is then the process of bringing the kingdom of God onto earth. Meaning eternal joy for mankind. Theoretically immortality is possible if we figure out how to reverse the degradation of our dna. All the "glory" comes from sentient beings working together, aka trusting in God. Just my thoughts
This might give us a good starting point to understand how mutations could be so rapid at some times especially after great disasters.
This is already old news. You can search "evolution of evolvability".
I've seen evidence of sound having genetic mutation properties. Two trees growing next to each other growing each other's branches and leaves. Another location had ivy and two trees swapping. The two trees shared each other's bark, and the ivy changed how it shaped its leaves as it grew up the trees. The ivy on the ground was normal, but the further up the tree it climbed, the more the changes to the leaves were visible.
Do you have something specific in mind?
@@TroublezAhead00 no
@@ultramovier Oh, I was hoping you did. You're initial comment seemed real interesting and I was kinda hoping to be able to learn more about this specific example.
I think that the news headline that has appeared so often about this study that "mutations are not random" is misleading. At least from what I understand, many organisms have developed the ability to protect certain vital parts of their genome from random mutations -- a mechanism similar to the manner in which computers used in critical applications have for many years used error-correcting memories to avoid data corruption. Other less critical parts of the genome, though, (like the DRAM in consumer laptops) are still exposed to random changes or mutations. These replication errors when they occur are still random and not self-correcting, although the type and frequency of mutation is certainly influenced by changes in the environment (e.g., exposure to UV light from the sun, temperature extremes, chemical exposure, etc.).
It's like saying that a dice loaded 2/6th to the number 6 is somehow not random.
It's obviously still a matter of probability which is what matters.
And still arbitrary with regard to 'meaning' that people start looking for.
Well explained. As someone who has studied evolution, I would say you have it exactly right.
News headlines about studies often do more harm than good.
I completely agree Mr McGowan
Well like the universe it could be not just random but also have some determinism as well 😐also it’s not like we would we know this planet formed in the first place 😑
Always get a like Anton. Congratulations on nearing a million subscribers. It's an easy solution as your podcast is a great show. Thanks!
Only a matter of time:)
Should be closer to 2 million imo. Anton is a bigger rockstar to me than Drake.
maybe Mutation and Evolution will get him/us there sooner than later 🙂Anton Rocks!
Great post.
When you were talking about the plants mutating it seemed to suggest that the plant has a spirit or self-aware consciousness about it.
Plants are master engineers and one rule of engineering is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"....and plants abide by this rule of thumb.
Awareness of what works.
It may, but we may be applying too much of human understanding of consciousness/sprit/existence to them. Their existence is unique, and may be an experience / conscious that is too alien to relate with
Interesting.
These observations make sense and would seem to be straightforward enough to explain in terms of protection and repair mechanisms being differentially targeted. More, as we know our epigenetics are directly effected by environment and are passed on in their effected form it's reasonable to assume that might in turn explain how an environmental pressure might specifically target the mutation rate in relevant parts of the genome.
Yup, this is exactly where my mind took it too. Seems like the most natural candidate for mediating this kind of mutanogenic bias. I'd been assuming something like this had to be the case, but it's satisfying to see studies confirm it.
The thing about lung mutation is that human lung size varies between ethnicities that live on different elevations. Of course there's more variability allowed.
what doesn't vary?
@@marksmod basic biological processes and species defining characteristics
@@samsonsoturian6013 those can actually still vary a surprising amount even within individuals in species
It makes sense not being random, since you can see evolution as sort of an optimization function. So with time will trend towards evolutionary traits that allow to prolong the persistence of these traits.
So...like AI
As far as I understood, they studied the mutation on a short period of time, where an evolution should not affect to much.
@@yt.personal.identification THE SIMULATION
As long as it's not a refactor 😂
_What?_ How do you get from "persistent traits persist" to "mutations are non-random"?
I was never convinced by total randomness in evolution and had a vague idea about a DNA fitness to environmental gap . . . where the limitations of the DNA composition of the individual that still manages to produce offspring somehow carries with it a record of its performance in the environment, and when offspring are produced, the genetic deficit would be filled in as much as possible with the optimal genes of the parents activated in that direction. I am a total layman with no credentials . . . it was just an idea I had in high school biology.
I mean total randomness doesn't exist anyway in evolution, since an organism can only function with specific mutations (in a specific environment). It would just be a question of time when those mutations randomly occur and are "naturally selected" to stay. Natural selection isn't random at all, so neither is evolution as a whole.
The fact the child lives to adulthood and in turn reproduces is how the "deficit" is filled.
Evolution is a cruel mistress, and many a dead infant is a testament to that cruelty.
It's not really filled in with the optimal genes, it's whatever the hell the zygote received from the sperm and egg. That's how you get autosomal recessive diseases like sickle cell anemia. (Which fun fact, evolved as a defense against malaria, more or less)
The molecule’s order is very complex meaning it has a lot of possible rules that effect its variables (system’s reaction + its compounds reaction) but a narrow set of functions. It is perceived as random when the processes are different but the results are mostly the same. Like matter and it’s elements, or the formation of stars. Those are like saturation graphs, and biology is like stairs. I think…
@Sam
You can even start looking before the infant stage:
Only 40-60% of fertilized eggs survive until birth.
It's absolutely insane; up to 60% of pregnancies are naturally aborted because the child is incapable of living. Of course, most of that happens in the first few days before the woman even knows she is pregnant...
I wondered the same thing.
"If beneficial adaptations happen rapidly, that has to be a guided process and not random mutations" is a line you might hear from intelligent design believers.
But what if "intelligence" isn't some kind of creator deity, but rather DNA being somewhat self-aware? What if an organism's experiences inform the DNA how it needs to change to best adapt?
DNA probably isn't conscious, but I don't know how you'd prove that. Like it's pretty surprising that our brains' neuronal interactions create an abstract sensation of consciousness that we live inside of all the time. I can't say for sure it's impossible for other intricate chemical arrangements to have a "will" of their own, since consciousness appears to spring up naturally from complex matter. I also wouldn't claim that's true for sure. Maybe it all really is blind and random.
It seems like if there's a mutation in a crucial system, it often leads to death. This also happens with human embryos, to the tune of some 78% of fertilized embryos self terminating due to genetic failure. The result is, only less crucial systems see evolution through the ages.
Never knew this. Sounds very interesting. Do you have a good link?
@@privard89 A non official quick run down on mutations can be looked up on Wikipedia. That's enough to get you started as the footnotes lead to more technical studies.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus "Wikipedia".....mKay...?
@@Misitheus Wikipedia isn't necessarily a cesspool of bullshit. There's plenty of valid information in there, especially when sourced.
@@mugwump7049 You are not allow to use it as a reference when publishing scientific papers....I challenge you to follow their sources. If you tell me that you collected any information from wiki...you are discredited. I suggest you look in to the history of the site and who purchased it and who is in control of editing material. Peace!
I love the expansion of topics. You are an invaluable source of cutting edge science to the common public. Don’t stop!
Thanks Anton, you do such an excellent job in appeasing all learning types. Auditory learners with your dissertation, visual learners with excellent graphics, and kinesthetic learners with your live interaction. I wonder if calling them mutations in the science community is appropriate. Unless we have been monitoring a species throughout its evolutionary history, we should not call it a mutation. We should be calling them changes. Mutation implies that there is some absolute definitive was the DNA is structured based on instant of time when we have studied it. DNA is changing and evolving all of the time. This is a great post. Thanks Anton.
Again, I enjoyed your review, Anton.
Some additional background seems appropriate …
There are a number of genes that have been highly conserved over millions of years and across a vast number species. Example: Fen1 in C. elegans (a primordial worm) used for sex reconfiguration that is 90% identical to human (used in insulin function). Just how such genes can remain unchanged is a fascinating question.
Epigenetics, the modification of the genome of offspring by life experiences (like physiological stress) of parents is also well established.
We have also known about “hot spots” in genomes where alterations of DNA sequences occur faster than most other sites.
What’s cool about this work is another level of adaptation, one of active anticipation.
Non-random, “planned” mutations opens a new door to understanding the timeline of evolution.
Where there is a plan , there is a planner? Is DNA self aware?
how genes remain unchanged is through the act of God in my belief at least. For a gene to stay consistant through millions of years, avoid all random mutation, disaster, disease, alteration, epigenetic modification; to leave all this to 'chance' sounds really absurd to me unless a divine being is put into place.
@@qasimahmad6748 That's sounds like the age-old God of the gaps fallacy where if something hasn't been fully explained by scientific theory yet, just insert God.
"...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."
@@qasimahmad6748 A gene staying consistent is not necessarily a result of "just chance". If a gene is essential for an organism to survive or reproduce, then obviously any mutation that may happen will not stay, since all the offspring either dies or is unable to reproduce. No randomly selected God of gaps required.
@@Hugh_I yh but than what does that? what 'ensures' the gene stays. If a gene is important, a cell would need to be self aware to 'ensure' a certain specific gene survives. Now yes we have our usual DNA checkups after every stage of a cycle, immune cells targeting malignant cells to prevent cancers forming, and other various mechnisms, but these are general methods occuring naturally that I don't have the time to tell them all. And none of these are made to ensure survival of specific genes. And how does the cell know this gene is important? Yes, in future we might find more research discovering how cells ensure specific genes are kept checked and safe but again something had to make the cell think that.
Just a point of clarification: Gene mutation actually occurs very rarely, about 10^-6 in humans. By itself gene mutation has very little effect on evolutionary change. But combined with other evolutionary pressures such as genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, mating, etc. it does have an effect. The finch beak example is actually an example of epigenetic changes or genetic flow more than genetic mutation.
However, the bias in genetic mutations is still extremely interesting. Love your videos.
doesn't it occur in every human but mostly doesn't result in any significant change? regardless that number seems extremely low. 0.1% of humans have down syndrome which is already 1000 times your figure and that's just one mutation
Initial mutation due to DNA replication errors is about 1/10^4 base pairs, with the inherent proofreading function of the replication machinery bringing that down to about 1/10^6 base pairs. Additional DNA repair mechanisms reduce that further, it is generally estimated as 1/10^8 base pairs. Which sounds really impressive, until you realize that every single time a human cell replicates its DNA, it copies 8x10^8 base pairs: on average. And that's without mutations from chemicals and radiation. And there are several trillion cells in the human body, and several hundred replications to produce the germ cells for the next generation. It's true that only a small percentage of that DNA is actually part of structural genes, but a larger (and unknown) percentage may be involved in regulating the expression of the genes.
We're ALL mutants.
EDIT: had to fix my math. That's why I'm a biologist, not an engineer.
@@andrewbobb3170 What happens to the numbers when you limit it to inheritable mutations?
@@jimmyjimjimmyjimjimjimjim4437 Well, strictly speaking all mutations are inheritable, as long as the mutations are in the 'germ line,' the set of cell divisions that produce sex cells. So somewhere between hundreds and thousands of mutations per generation. Most of which probably have absolutely no effect on gene function or expression. But some do. And that's about as exact as we can be. lol.
Thanks, I was thinking the same thing about the finches.
There are a variety of factors that could cause part of the genome to be more likely to be mutated than other parts. Germline DNA is stored in some physical configuration that leaves parts of the chain more susceptible to radiation damage, for instance.
Thank you Anton for always explaining complicated subjects so I can understand it.
Hello Anton, since you say you're going to do more videos about this subject, please consider the following:
The Nature article you cited says it exactly right; mutations occur randomly *with respect to their consequences*. It's been known for decades that different mutations happen at different rates, and that different parts of genomes mutate more and less often. To say that mutations are *purely* random is an oversimplified strawman.
There are some genes whose functions are critical to organisms' survival, where almost any change would prove fatal. There are also some genes whose functions are not critical, where change is tolerated or even beneficial, depending on the environment. It makes evolutionary sense for organisms to detect and correct mutations of genes that are critical to their very existence, while wasting less time and energy on mutations of genes which are not mission-critical. These are the differences the Nature article documented. So contrary to its conclusions, the Nature article affirms the "long-standing paradigm".
The Genome Research article you cited is more deeply flawed. Its conclusions are based on samples from only eleven individuals, which is a statistically meaningless amount. Also, the authors make no effort to track different mutations, in order to compare those rates with the one they claim to track.
Your comments about Thalassemia and Sickle-Cell are confused. These diseases are not the same. They have different causes and different symptoms. Three different genes, HBA1, HBA2 and HBB, determine the structure of hemoglobin proteins. Each of these genes have different versions or alleles or mutations. The mutations which cause Sickle-Cell are not the same mutations which cause Thalassemia. But all of them create hemoglobin which breaks down much faster than the standard form, a cause of anemia. However, these different alleles also change the shape of the protein, which is why they protect against malaria, because the parasite depends on a specific shape in order to enter a red blood cell.
It makes evolutionary sense for populations which live where malaria is endemic, to have genomes which have more hemoglobin mutations. Some of those mutations won't make any difference, some will be fatal, and some will be like those which cause Thalassemia and Sickle Cell, a compromise between protecting against malaria and doing their job of moving O2 and CO2 in and out of the body. But it's not the case those additional mutations are more likely to be beneficial. Even if hemoglobin genes are more likely to mutate, the effects of those mutations remain random *with respect to their consequences*.
Given that so many of your commenters share your misunderstandings, I look forward to any future videos where you correct them.
I was searching through the comments for a reply like yours, although i am not a scientist myself, sometimes Anton seems to "promote" some ideas and notions that seem to me a little... unscientific to say the least (being it in cosmology, biology which seems to be his area, or physics). Oversimplification of very complex subjects as biology is a dangerous road to go when you want to popularize new research done, his biases ring like a bell in this one where his excitement on the subject is easy recognizable . When i hear words like : "contrary to the "established" ideas ie. Darwinian Evolution..." an alarm inside me ticked... So i read through the comments to find some clarification on the subject. I totally agree with your points.
Signal boost. From the start of the video I found issues with his claim that the consensus was a totally random mutation rate across all genes. It has been known for decades that this is untrue, and there are (I believe) entire regions of genes which are actively protected against mutation at all. The idea of dragging Lamarckism into this just smelled wrong as well. There IS epigenetic theory where parental internal chemical conditions, even those guided by behaviour and emotional states, can affect offspring gene expression, is documented. But that doesn't directly guide evolution in a genetic drift sense, it is a local trend in characteristics on the short term.
Out of curiosity what education level are you? I am currently 4th year undergrad in molecular bio and love your reply
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense at all to me that an organism should “know” which genes are critical to their very existence and which are non-mission critical? If it is so, it seems to me that those critical to their existence would most likely also be those that make it the organism that it is, hence if they can never be changed or if it’s very difficult for them to successfully mutate you’re pretty much just ruling out evolution as we know it, aren’t you?
Is this another case of a study promising more than it delivers to sound groundbreaking?
Back when I was young, sickle cell was categorized as a genetic disease. This was before the benefit (protection against malaria) was known. It affected mostly those of African descent in cold climates such as New York or Chicago because as the temperature starts to drop the capillaries contract to preserve the core temperature protecting the organs. The shape of the blood cells with people having this trait causes them to become stuck in the narrow passages causing pain, mostly in the extremities. The only reason it is a problem at all is people with this trait were now in an area much different from the environment it developed in. In a tropical or subtropical region that person gets all of the benefit with none of the liability of that mutation. The interesting part is that our technology seems to have advanced further than evolution's ability to adapt with planes, ships, and controlled environments.
Various stressors can precipitate a sickle cell crisis including dehydration, strenuous exercise and exposure to high altitude. "Sickle cell trait is not a benign condition and continues to be associated with sudden death in individuals during periods of extreme physical exertion." - Bruce L. Mitchell (2018) 'Sickle cell trait and sudden death'. Sports Medicine - Open.
Sickle cell is still dangerous even in tropical climates. It just benefits in defense against protozoa, which is a greater benefit than random sickle cell death (in terms of parent fitness)
I love your cast. It covers lots of scientific research areas and anyone explaining how the universe works for the common person without resorting to hyperbole involving mystical thinking is necessarily also de facto performing a public service to humanity.
Wait, I remember reading YEARS AGO that parts of the chromosomes mutate more than others. In particular the ends mutate faster. So genes under rapid evolution end up there, like the red and green cone pigment genes in people, which are on the tip of the X chromosome. And some genes are just unstable and are only held in their correct form by evolutionary pressure, like the genes for achondroplastic dwarfism and retinitus pigmentosa. Achrondroplastic dwarfism is relatively common and usually is a spontaneous mutation. Then there are all the myriad polyglutamate diseases where a glutamate-encoding triplet like CGG starts to stutter and increase in number, most famously in Huntingdon’s disease.
Yes, none of this info is new, however very few people are exposed to it in a 'typical' biology education, unfortunately :(
Recently discovered and suscribed. Good stuff! Thanks. Looking forward to next genetics video.
I was planning on guiding human evolution--but then things got really crazy at work.
Wow, how are you finding this stuff? Great work! Such a source of amazing data!
The maths were always overwhelmingly against the random mutation theory.
And yet so called scientists peach it like fact!
Can't admit that since that will highlight that god is the only real answer.
Yes, bacteria going to mankind is 10 to the 24 newest tower against a random mutation in natural selection is absurd
Do like all the information that you present for the world. Thank you my Canadian friend. I enjoy your videos immensely
Mutation is random. The ability to guard certain DNA sequences is itself an evolved trait. For example, in the case of the gene vs. malaria - it makes sense to that a creature able to mutate that gene would be better able to respond to changes in the malaria protozoa and would fare better than one that didn't, whereas if there was no selection pressure to fight malaria it's better to have it more static to protect against certain potential cancers forming. It's all a balancing act and the slightest pressure over a sufficiently long period of time can make quite a difference.
To my knowledge the case is even weaker - the mentioned human mutation is objectively "bad", while it does protect against malaria, it kills part of the offspring and even causes a shorter life expectancy. However when malaria is present, this completely reverses. So just by natural selection the fittest will cause far less people in regions without malaria... The same might be the case with the pant - the less mutating genes sound like they would cause an early death if they happened to mutate, so the selection might simply weed out occurring mutations... So far this does not cause a clear contradiction to the Darwinian theory of evolution.
@@friedrichschwarz1547 Yes the "bad" mutation is "good" in a warmer climate with malaria, but "bad" in a colder climate where there is no malaria. The environment controls what the "best" gene is. Natural selection.
Well, I'm impressed with the DNA repair mechanism you mentioned, which is essential to all life. Your first-life-no-earth would need that ingenious feature really quick to get off the launch pad. Same as the reverse-rna-transcription mechanism.
this is good, I never really liked the "random mutations" explanation, I always thought nature seems to be more intelligent than that, especially in the case of mimicing the environment for example - we still need a better explanation for how mutations happen
Then explain the fricking human eye...
Science is just guessing too. All the times the mainstream ideas were proven wrong, with their bias demonizing those who spoke out.
Happens now as it did in the past. We keep learning, but never want to admit we are wrong.
Mutations are still random, is just that some parts of the chromosome mutate less than others because of their position (Locus). Also, some genes that are part of complex systems like metabolism do not mutate much, not because they don't get random mutation, but because almost all mutations in those genes are lethal for the organism.
@@timkurz6086 There’s a long evolutionary path for the eye beginning with jellyfish.
Haha very nice answers, i was just kidding since the human eye seems just so stupid in regards of optimization 🙃 i know there are enough theories trying to explain this circuamstance
This makes perfect sense to me, and is how I actually thought evolution worked given my limited understanding of the deeper complexities of it. I've always seen it as outside factor effects species, those best suited to deal with situation, and/or those who are able to adapt to that change are who survive and spread genes.
I’m wondering if this could be connected to dietary,with the mutations maybe also being present in the animals on the menu contributing to faster processing of the mutations ?
I love that you have my brain in overdrive every single day on so many different subjects 😵💫
A very interesting discussion Anton. With the idea of some species stopping evolution, in a sense not having mutations occur (an evolutionary dead end?) it makes me wonder whether there are more cases of this type of animal or creature in the Oceans than on land. the reason I suggest this is that biologists have suggested lately that viruses play a huge role as do bacterium on the development and evolution of species by substituting parts of an animals DNA with that of the virus or bacteria. It seems to me without actually checking that there would be more viruses in a terrestrial environment than in the oceans for example, even though that is where life arose. The oceans have some of the oldest known unchanged species on the planet, including the bacteria; The phytoplankton; the algae's; the Jellies; the worms and corals and sponges. Where as on land, even though there is bacteria, it would be a stretch to suggest they had not changed markedly from their original beginnings on land due to mutation and adaptation. Plants for example and inexplicable developed lignin in the structure a complex carbohydrate that had never existed previously, but allowed plants become woody and grow very tall. The only problem with this new mutation was that no other organism produced enzymes that could break it down, such as fungi, until much much later - Hence all the non decomposed, preserved coal deposits.
Makes sense it not being completely random. Otherwise it would be strange how fast (relatively speaking) it often happen.
Wow, that's a lotta people to thank! Love the way you succinctly sum up the research article.
Ok. This is cool. So… How does DNA ‘know’ how to prefer one sequence over another? Did that preference develop through random chance? At some point, if all organisms have a common ancestor, then all organisms were capable of extreme mutation as a species. At what point did that stop (and start again)? And it had to stop (and start again) at multiple stages at multiple points for multiple species for us to have the taxonomical outcomes we see now.
Randomness would have a better chance of constructing the Taj Mahal than the intricacies we see in the history of life on this planet.
I think it's a very old theory that mutation is not random but Occam's Razor makes people choose the simplest explanation until new information comes along. And suggested by how closely a plant and the insect consuming it seem perfectly designed for interaction.
So mutations are largely responsible for the evolutionary process, but organisms have also evolved over time to mutate a certain way. It almost seems like a paradox or a thought loop.
It seems paradoxical, yes. I suspect some may find that rather inconvenient.
It is, because mutating in non-random ways implies that the process is guided. Who guides it? Does the DNA think for itself? Saying so is absurd. A guided process doesn't make sense in materialism, the view adopted by the scientific community.
I really enjoy your listening to your presentations and range of content. Thank you.
It never was random, often a misused term. There is no guiding by something of course, but rather impacted or as a reaction by environment etc.
It's good these things were now researched in more detail.
Don't forget there are already over 130.000 completed and successful studies regarding evolution, each proving and adding to our understanding.
In case some apologist still claims its fake (sigh.....)
- a biochemist
Random is merely a word we attach to phenomena beyond our understanding
@@FsimulatorX ye and in this case it's often abused by certain people to attack the theory.
@@CyberBeep_kenshi What theory you mean? Some specific one about mutations / evolution, or just generally?
I always thought the same thing. Glad I was right after watching this video.
Birds aren't real
Lamarckian evolution was already somewhat apparent once epigenetics came into play, since gene expression is influenced by epigenes, which can commonly change as a result of the individual (or their parent's) life experience, and be passed down.
"The Universe exists by chance, we exist by chance."
"No no no, we can explain, the DNA evolves due to self preservation and the affect of the environment and..."
I guess the genomes are more self aware proactive than me.
If you look deep enough....you are going to find that their answer are breaking down. I personally never knew the deep problems with evolution and DNA "migration".
Yea but what about the individual 😐in fact it’s not like we knew this planet would form we were most likely dead 😑in fact when we die and our bodies dissolve into nothing we will be in the same place as if we did not exist in the first place 😑
I heard a talk at the biology department in 2018 focussed on epigenetics. And they predicted that within the next 10 years - a lot of darwinist evolution results will be challenged and disproven. Causing a reference cascade and changing the whole concept of evolutionary pressure and adaptation.
That’s already happened. See James Shapiro, Perry Marshall, Denis Noble, Third Way, Systems Biology, etc.
DNA evolves. DNA apparently has evolved a feedback system that opens certain regions to mutation. What mutations is not controllable, just the possibility. One trigger for this is environmental stress.
Isn't it all about adaptation anyway
Yes, that's good and I agree as far as the the conceptualization of the mechanisms of DNA go. But as I commented in response to another comment-and please excuse the clumsy way I express the point: according to a host of experiments conducted with quantum systems in the last 20 years (Anton Zeilinger's team comes to mind), there is no actual materially existent DNA in reality because there is no actual materially existent world. These experiments have conclusively falsified local realism, and so the only place DNA exists is in our conscious experience. So whatever it is that exists in reality that incites the impression of DNA in our consciousness must be entangled with whatever exists (really itself) that provides an impression of a natural world in our consciousness more generally.
Random mutations, yet another one of evolution hypothesis most key foundation proven to be false. And how do evolutionists solve it? Proposing the evolution of non-random mutations through random mutations. This isn't science. How do you end up with a feedback mechanism when nature has no goal?
While working with evolutionary algorithms, for example to optimize factory schedules, it became clear to me that there was an advantage in representing schedule elements (e.g. jobs) as _objects_ (methods and data) that would make their _own_ interpretation of "mutate" (etc.) commands/signals, so as to avoid any "runt offspring". As one would expect, this vastly increased the rate of convergence to useful solutions. Taking this "algorithm evolution" further, different types of mutation could be prioritised, e.g. essentially as "rules of thumb" derived from logged pathways to successful (useful solution) results of many previous runs.
In some kind of biology or pre-biology, featuring individuals within a soup of other individuals and occasional random signals/triggers (e.g. radioactive decay particles) I guess this would translate into ("be implemented as") a messy (evolved) combination of relative exposure surfaces (e.g. critical stuff being physically surrounded by veneer stuff?) and repair (implying data redundancy - in individuals or through interactions with a "standards-reinforcing" population).
Just playing with these ideas.
I've always thought that life has a certain ability to develop itself based on how it is behaving, not just the other way around.
Instincts are based in genetics, which is an example of behavior guided by DNA.
But if behavior unaffected by DNA occurs, your offspring may be more likely to adapt to it.
Sudden changes in available diets for example have already shown to change behavior, but that new behavior may then go on to change your genetics.
spot on tbh. environment plays huge role in impacting genome expression. i mean take skin colours for example lol, thats all due to environmental effect and we are still the same species.
same with behaviour and emotions, they can alter your metabolism long term like depression
Thanks for covering this Anton, you're a great content creator!!!
I personally believe that DNA has some sort of awareness about what's happening and can change rather quickly. Evolution just can't be random. Random mutations are often harmful or not helpful at all.
That idea has been scoffed at a lot over the decades, but I think there is some merit to it.
Though the most logical explanation is that genetics can "meta game" evolution, by way of some portions of the genome being more robust vs. mutation than others, which allows for mutations to be more likely to occur in areas which may be beneficial. Still a random mutation vs evolutionary pressure equation, but with the added element of variable mutatability in parts of the genome AS an evolutionary trait. That's the working theory anyway. Some do think that body stresses can influence mutations though, in a way which relates to the stress applied. No mechanism is known to do that, but a real scientist doesn't dismiss ideas ;)
I love that you always find interesting themes for yourself Anton. You don't and haven't locked yourself in a single or very limited scope of themes. Keep interesting my friend and never stop learning.
I don’t really think people are still taught all mutations are random as Anton mentions?
Even in a basic undergrad genetics or evolution classes your told there are certain biases in which genes undergo mutations or are preserved preferentially
Still An amazing video !
Long time ago for me, but I only remember been taught that "the randomness" is limited by differing level of protection/immunity against change.
Well, "it's complicated" (tm).
Preferential mutation rate in different parts of the genome IS a randomly generated survival trait which is selected for with environmental evolutionary pressure.
It's kinda the same old random/pressure equation, but with a dose of 'meta gaming' injected. Any species which can limit mutations to really key survival features, while allowing easier mutation to peripheral features, has an evolutionary edge. It's definitely a step beyond the old Darwin modeling though.
What an interesting finding in these studies - they could really lead us to a much deeper understanding of how evolution really works on a deeper level than we've known before!
Thanks for this video, and for all you do. ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤
How is this new? We've known this for a while. Some parts of each chromosome are more protected than others, so they accumulate less random mutations.
It's new to me... And it's cool.
This is news to me too. Thanks Anton.
You realize this is popular scientific explanation?
This is fascinating Anton. Lots to unpack and think about.
Thank you Anton for my daily dose of Science :)
The most basic natural illustration of this is Ectomycchorizae.
It's a fungus connected by mychorrizae to a plant root.
It somehow also seems to pass genetic traits between the 3 organisms using mychorrizae like a pipeline or an electrical connection, not sure which, and seems to even pull other DNA from other things if it's compatible. Lichens do this also, I have seen one change from cyan to red over like a year basically.
I think it's based on survival mostly, they adapt quicker this way so whatever stimuli are present guide the evolution, which seems to happen vastly faster
But it requires the right environment like I said.
Congratulations to those scientists who have LONG SAID that Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinism are hopelessly inadequate to account for all of the life forms which we see around us.
One avenue of evolution I haven't seen discussed yet is the sharing of useful mutations between different species via bacteria and viruses.
I never believed that evolution was just random mutations. We adapt and grow to our environments, it's what human beings do. We adapt, and survive.
Life has a sort of intelligence. Kinda like AI, but organic. There is no such thing as random.
That doesn't make sense in materialism.
@@dbk5816 not everything is material
@@George5323 I agree that materialism fails at explaining life, but your view isn't compatible with a non-materialistic world. Saying "life has some sort of intelligence" implies the molecules in your body do think and direct mutations to gain beneficiary traits.
@@dbk5816 it's not the molecules that guide evolution. Life isn't your molecular structure.
Your molecular structure allows for life to manifest, but it isn't what life is.
@@dbk5816 dont conflate science with materialism or physicalism...which is already hanging on a thread anyway...property dualism(panpsychism) or substance dualism and my preferred Analytic idealism makes much more sense
Besides random mutations, markers involve not one link in the genome, but a set of links involving many strands of the genome, making artificial manipulation so risky.
There was a study on how our first 9 Monts shapes rest of our lives
Wonderful as always anton 🙃
Is it really that hard to explain how areas with lots of mosquitos that interface with animals’ and humans’ blood quite often throughout the lives of their victims is mysteriously involved in genetic mutation pressure within those locations? There is obviously direct environmental stimuli for these mutations.
Yes, but what he was explaining is that there was also a selective pressure for the survival of groups that were more likely to have mutation in the genes involved. So there might be other effects.
_How?_ Even if a mosquito could cause a mutation in the host's germ-line DNA, how could it preferentially attack the region of the DNA that codes for the host's blood?
@@VidkunQL I don’t think that’s a mosquito question but perhaps related to proteins, the complement system response, tRNA, or epigenetic response, something other than the mosquito itself selecting.
@@mraarone "Something" does it? Somehow?
That's really no improvement on saying that the mosquito does it.
@@VidkunQL okay!
I always like how DNA is represented like a ladder (twisted) rather than the weird shape it has with phosphates and sugars as loops and boats they are actually like.
On a serious note I betcha Rupert sheldrake might have a good bend on why this is but it’s just my opinion. I think morphic resonance has a scientific base we haven’t discovered yet. No woo, just an undiscovered natural database in the dark matter or something badass like that
One of the best proposed advantages of having a memory of natural selection, is imprinting and remembering advantageous traits that have occurred in the past and producing forces that nudge selection toward an outcome that isn't 100% novel. Our DNA learned to employ the use of fractal patterns that are essentially self similar hierarchical patterns. Is it any surprise that natural selection has the ability to possess another layer or level of complexity that introduces advantageous traits by referencing information patterns that have contributed to success in ancestor organisms?
This is just another step towards proving my own theory based on evolutionary records. The fact is, there was never enough generations of complex organisms to explain evolution via random mutations. The fact that species are able to change dramatically over the course of relatively few generations can not be explained away by random mutations causing one group to out-compete another. The changes would have been gradual and randomized. This would not cause a single distinct evolutionary path for an entire species within a particular biome (a la Darwin's finches).
Evolution is quite clearly guided by the environment, but not at random. I believe the reason cells (especially certain cells) reproduce at all during the lifespan of an organism is to record the environment and encode that information into our DNA. The following generation inherits genetic mutations which result from the lifestyle of the parent(s). I first inferred this from the number of clearly detrimental evolutionary changes some species exhibit, but which have no impact on survival. Negative changes into a more specialized species should not out-compete if they are occurring at random, but they frequently do so long as they have no overall impact on survival. There's nothing in Darwinian theory to explain why gaining or losing a trait with a completely neutral impact on the species should rapidly become dominant across the entire gene pool. Unless the mutations are responding directly to stimuli.
This COULD be proven by sequencing the entire genetic code of individuals of the same species throughout their lifetime while exposing them to intense environmental pressure which should trigger an evolutionary response. We would also have to sequence the gametes just in case only reproductive cells experience these evolutionary responses. Take a few thousand specimens and expose them to differing environmental pressures and in theory you should see similar mutations in the DNA of the species when exposed to the same environmental stressors, and DIFFERENT mutations when exposed to different stressors.
EDIT: I believe this is also linked to the reason why certain cells in the body are rarely, if ever, replaced. The "essential elements" to an organism can't afford to change very much, because it's not as if evolution were intelligent. Environmental pressure may trigger an evolutionary response, but the responses aren't actually intelligent. If our DNA suddenly changed how heart cells work, they might not work at all. So things that the body can't do without are perhaps protected from mutation by slow or non-existent cellular reproduction.
This works with what they've discovered that certain genes activate differently in siblings, even in twins.
How that is handed down over generations is certainly debatable.
oh how unusual, another person with their own personel theory. i presume your theory has made predictions and verified them with experiment? perhaps you could point me to your paper.
@@cosmikrelic4815 oh, how unusual, a *troll* on TH-cam...
@@glenwaldrop8166 no paper though i see.
@@cosmikrelic4815 no one said they had a paper, he said he had a theory, as in an idea.
Thanks for keeping the status quo of TH-cam comments being trash.
nice science. the proteins protecting the body is like my interest in the catalyst of the dna and the sugar having an impact on the dna and person. interesting dna science. i liked how it showed a different version of the dna, more complex and yet simple.
People often misunderstand darwinian evolution as "random". Its not random at all.
Even if this study didnt exist, and if DNA mutations were 100% random, EVOLUTION itself, the macroscopic effect of DNA mutations, has never been random. And no, this doesnt mean a white bearded god is deciding fate.
Even within humans ourselves, evolution is self-guided by sexual selection.
That's the reason Peacocks have their ennormous tail feathers, despite it actually HURTING their ability to evade prey and remain undetected. Its because species constantly "breed themselves" into a specific direction, either subconciously or conciously.
The point is, evolution was never random, concious beings, no matter if they're as small as an ant, choose preferable sexual partners and behaviors to continue those genes and proliferate those mutations.
The only time its "random" is when we're talking about flora.
And yet people always think of evolution as a random RNG process. Its not.
It's more akin to a tech tree, with branching choices, each choice being a currently living population with said genes. The collective of the species "chooses" which branch to pursue, by sexually prefering them. Thats not random by any definition.
People are so insanely illogically afraid of "NO I DIDNT SAY GOD GUIDES EVOLUTION", that they overlook the most obvious logical conclusions, that actually have nothing to do with god. If they say evolution isnt random, they're so terrified of being associated with religion that they simply cannot say that, even if its logical and completely unrelated to a higher divine power.
Just look at Anton, it took him less than 1 minute before he panic-included caveats "btw heh heh lol btw WAIT this does NOT mean im talking about god guiding evolution heh dont turn off please".
Come on. Can't we be more mature about these discussions rather than tiptoeing like scared schoolkids?
Nobody said god.
Interesting studies are done now about electric communication between cells. Maybe you could make a video about that topic. It's somewhat related to this topic (maybe). Some scientists think that there is a layer of electrical activity which goes over the borders of cells. This layer is able to hold memory and make clever decisions like the building process of cells at a specific location. Very interesting.
I never really liked the "completely random mutation" explanation for evolution. Sure, some evolution will be due to random changes, it's just the nature of DNA and RNA replication, but it always seemed to me that an evolutionary reaction mechanism must also be in place.
Life has been evolving on this planet for over 3 billion years, which always seemed to me to be plenty of time to evolve the ability for DNA to be altered in a more targeted way in response to environmental pressures. In fact, given the time scales involved, it would seem almost impossible for life to *not* evolve a mechanism of this sort. Such a trait would be useful enough that selective pressures would hugely favor any organism with this ability.
Actually, mutation is still completely random. What's that, we've learned to read the fine prints of this chaotic processes.
3 billion years is an extremely, extremely short time to explain DNA sequencing randomly. Look up the thought experiment called "infinite monkey theorem". It highlights how it is impossible to create functional DNA letters sequencing randomly.
Hi Anton, those ideas are actually a few decades old -- as are good arguments and examples. I like to recommend you the book E. Jablonka / M. Lamb (2005): "Evolution in four Dimensions" -- or the revised edition published in 2014.
4? just 4?
@@gothboschincarnate3931 Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and in humans also symbolic.
There is God. The world neither anything that lives here couldn't create themselves. Or have you not seen, that also this world with it's cool, and warm streams in ocean, and rains and sunshine's etc. are actually organised more like in living body, than randomly. The only thing which is missing is the seams, and joints and wires which are typical in human build, but that just proves that God is much more than we humans are. Everything looks natural when it has made with deepest wisdom and with enormous power.
Nice coverage, Anton. This is actually my concentration at the University.
The was test on Trained mice to fear the smell of flowers their babies that never felt the shock not smelled flowers had the fear
Anton , this is Amazing ! I already have a red “Hello Wonderful Person” T-shirt , but I will get something else
2:00 you're completely misinterpreting the terminology.. In line with common misconception that evolution is "random".
Evolution was never random, evolution is the macroscopic changes in a species, that come about due to that species sexually selecting for desired traits, be it subconciously or conciously (as seen in humans, where in the modern day, intelligence is more highly selected for than agression, while in the ancient world such as in sparta, agression and martial prowess was selected for).
This isnt random, this is guided, by the species itself, and applies to all species, even insects.
MUTATIONS are random, the microscopic changes in DNA that THEN give rise to macroscopic effects.
Yet you keep misinterpreting the two.
Mutations isnt directly equal to evolution, and vice versa.
Mutations are random. Evolution is sexually selected (and by the environment).
A mutation will never become dominant if its not sexually selected for by said species.
If human beings absolutely detested green eyes, those genes would have died out.
Nothing random about it, its choice by concious self-aware beings.
How does this explain physical and pheromone mimicry of some orchids to get insects to pollinate them
@@brucegelman5582 The mutations themselves are random, the "selection" part of natural selection is not: in this case, the insects themselves are the ones providing the selective pressure on the orchids that rewarded those initially random mutations that made them even slightly similar. Essentially, the insect brain ended up "designing" the orchids (by selecting specific mutated individuals)
This discovery will alter the methods of using mutation to date the divergence of species quite significantly. Using different parts of a gene with different mutation rates could very accurately date a divergence. It also implies a form of meta- evolutionary or even non- evolutionary pressure on the gene that selects for how genes are selected. It will be interesting to see where this goes in future.
I've been saying it for at least 20 years! Random mutations can't work, just do the math. I'm amazed that so many "scientists" got it wrong.
Why can't they work? What math? Walk us through it, please.
I had a similar stance but it was more like "I feel like this isn't right", and decades later, it turned out I was right, what I was vindicated on was that introns, or "junk" DNA can't just be junk... well, it isn't. Simply made no sense we'd just carry around and replicate useless genetic info for millions of years
@@VidkunQL if genes arbitrarily mutated at random, it seems unlikely that evolution would have made it so far in such little time, especially once you start getting to organisms that take months to reproduce. Idk, I havent done the math, but it seems pretty intuitive that arbitrary random mutation should take like trillions of years or more to get from our primate ancestors to humans. There are 10^120 possible chess games, and that's only an 8x8 board with 32 pieces. A strand of DNA is way more complex than that!
Of course, there is still randomness to it. But now, we know definitively that there is some bias in which genes are more likely to mutate, and that there seems to be environmental influence. So, it is not totally random.
@@SJNaka101 You're right: you haven't done the math.
@@VidkunQL i don't get it, what are you saying? Are you disputing the studies in the video?
Always enjoy Anton topics and insites.
DNA isn't the only Molecule for carrying information
I had thought that it has been speculated that some of the first cells may have used RNA.
I’ve been rude lately in some posts but damn if we aren’t all extremely lucky to have Anton lol :)
🖖❤️
I am a sickle cell with the genotype SS. Before seeing this video I made observations that lead me to hypothesis the results of this study. I live in Ghana, West Africa. I noticed that over the years I've been meeting more and more people with the HBs trait. 15 years ago it was present in abou 1/15 people. Now it's more like 1/10
💖🌞
Good info Anton👍🏼
I like how a disclaimer crept in, 'it doesn't mean it's guided or there's a higher power' but I'm guessing it also does does not, not mean the opposite is the same, also fun fact... Random is a word we use when we don't know all the composition, variation, information, bla, bla,...etc...
Definitely a channel with one of the most intelligent comment sections on TH-cam.
I have often wonder why evolutionary science does not classify different kinds of mutation? Mutations that are chromosome damage, mutations that are a real mutations, like a new gene sequence, mutations that are epigenetic where something inhibits gene function. Odd that when something gets this specific and serious about the science of mutations it becomes a completely different science, like epigenetics.
Hello Anton! I love your Channel but I feel the need to maybe comment on the HBs model. This is classical example study to show how the cost in the fitness of a mutation is highly dependent on the environmental pressure. People who are homozygous for HBs have sickle cell disease that triggers the deformation of the red blood cells (sickling) under low oxygen pressure. So places high above sea level would severely compromised the fitness on the individual, meanwhile on tropical climate and at sea level or people living under local high oxygen levels would not be as affected. By far most people on tropical regions where malaria is endemic is heterozygous for the mutation so the cost of fitness is not that high and the alleles have a higher probability of fixation. The papers on the arabidopsis model is really interesting because they invite discussion on how epigenetic control can allow for a higher level of “quality” control on critical genes for basic celular processes, explaining the differential rate of mutation and its predicted effect on allelle frequency. But the phenomenon is not without the reach of the predicted behavior of a nearly neutral molecular evolution model. Please keep up the good work. Love your channel !
It does kinda make sense that mutation protections should be strongest on critical genes then secondary ones. As every system, it propably has costs. So it trying to be cost effective makes sense.
My theory:
- every gene carries a "criticality" score in it's metadata (which we apparently can not yet read)
- if you mix DNA and both versions of the gene have a high "criticality" score, the new DNA will have a slightly higher score
- if a gene mutated, that score is lowered (it might be working like a checksum too)
- if a you mix DNA and one version has a low score and the other a high one, the resulting DNA will have a lower criticality score. If it mutated and you still reproduced, clearly it was not a critical gene
Mutation protections then focus on things with a high "critcality" score Metadata. Because those are the ones that realy need to stay, or you end up with a dead body (which are rather bad at reproducing)
I wonder if there is a mechanism (perhaps analogous to cookies on a computer) where DNA tracks how many ancestors have the same version of a gene? And, if it records that one type is predominant, then an associated function can increase the resources devoted to protecting that gene from mutation. Whereas if there are already many types, then it does not waste resources in doing that.
This simple mechanism would preserve gene variants which are vital to survival (by decreasing the likelihood of a mutation passing through screening uncorrected). Not doing this on already varied genes both saves resources (or targets scarce ones where they are most needed) and grants the species the benefits of faster evolutionary experimentation with parts of the organism which may benefit from change.
Living fossils may have lost the discrimination in the above function, such that it just protects all genes to the maximum. And the species may still survive if the conditions it lives in remain stable. Conversely other species may receive a mutation to this control mechanism which has the opposite effect, namely making mutations more likely globally. If (as seems likely) too many offspring fail to survive, then this change would not proliferate. However (especially for species with many offspring) it would also give the opportunity for very rapid changes. Which could be useful in times of extreme adversity or environmental change.
Interesting. Perhaps there are some parallels to machine learning here. During "training," a machine learning algorithm enhances or reduces the effect of a specific input on the final result. It makes sense that, over countless generations, an organism would "learn" that large changes to specific regions would be detrimental (i.e, the result does not reproduce) while changes to other regions perhaps have big benefits.
thank you for your reporting sir
Since the mechanism of protection is an evolved phenotype, influenced by the genes, then it can be explained that selective pressure on the genes ends up favoring more or less mutation rates of specific parts based on the envirnment.
So, if a section of a gene proves resilient, that means that its mutation is mostly harmful in the current environment, and if it is more open to mutation, then it is mostly beneficial for that part to mutate.
The mutation rate can be something that evolves and mutates too. Once the environmental pressure changes, a once resilient gene could benefit from being more mutatable once it is harmful in the new environment. It could mutate in a typical way and get missed by gene correction methods too.
Yes, it's very important to make that side note. Otherwise these findings might induce people to think what you don't want them to think.
When I worked as a teacher in Japan, I started to notice that students who participated regularly in some sports (such as ballet) developed very different bodies (not just their muscles but their skeletal structures) than, their classmates, even their siblings, who participated in other sports such as soccer, judo, kendo, or track and field. The younger they started, the more obvious which club they were in.
Now if a family had a predisposition to to be large or thin, then they would still be to a degree but the sport made them develop in a way that would basically allow categorizing like “thin judo” or “heavy ballet”.
So if these kids bodies were basically moulding themselves to best conform to the daily stresses that they were undertaking, it would make sense that the body would have some sort of molecular equivalent at work to push the development and/or genetic mutation to protect against certain diseases.
We look at DNA and genes as linear sequences. We don't do 3D analysis as much. The 3D enviroment of each sequence