My 13 year old son assures me that I am in fact a living fossil. I would encourage science to continue to use the term. If we stop using the term living fossil my son will need to find a more creative way to describe my character. I don't think that I'm emotionally ready for that.
The genes the ginko has evolved and gained for dealing with stuff reminds a lot of the creatures from microcosm os who also seem to have gained a solution for everything and anything. I guess once you've found the perfect body shape, you just make it stronger and more resilient.
The video mentions that Crocodiles and Horsehoe crabs have still gone through plenty of genetic changes, so calling them living fossils is a misnomer, but if those genetic changes don't actually result in meaningful physiological changes for the organism and how it operates in a given ecological niche, then does having those changes really matter in regards to refuting the concept of a "Living Fossil"? The point would still stand that in comparsion to a lot of other organisms they've mostly stuck to their existing evolutionary adaptions and niches and haven't shifted in those roles much.
As mentioned they've changed to adapt to climate etc, but their external shape is the same. Much as a lot of people these days can digest milk as adults but we still look like shaved monkeys.
The real place to look would be clonal organisms where we are pretty sure some "individual" plants have been around for thousands of years. They have much slower genetic change so if we can find one that's millions of years old we can hope that it's genetically unchanged (but that means asking what exactly an individual is)
I agree fundamentally, but there are changes a creature may have undergone that wouldn't have changed the structure that might be significant enough (individually or in aggregate) that it makes a difference. Like, have alligators always had antibiotic blood, or is that a more recent trait? Has the horseshoe crabs eyes changed to adapt to new ocean compositions and temperatures? Again, I fundamentally agree. I think the change in "branding" as it were gives us the opportunity to think about adaptations to "mechanical" changes to otherwise thematically stable environments, along with what Hank mentioned about conservation. I also can't help but think of the scientific and engineering breakthroughs we could have by reinvigorating the public's interest.
I think a lot of genetic changes are random drift, often of "silent" genes (if noncoding DNA is still a gene?), but lots of chemical changes can take place without affecting form. In animals, that may just be the immune system and perhaps what the liver and digestive systems do to detoxify and metabolise new foods and environmental hazards. Plants can't run away, so are chemical weapons factories. The phytochemistry of "primitive" angiosperms like the magnoliads strikes me as more interesting than that of most orchids even though orchids were historically seen as the "most advanced" (based largely on sexual organs, as botany does, but also on species diversity though daisies might outdo orchids there and certainly are more successful in terms of numbers of plants or weight of biomass).
The way I've always seen it, representing life as a tree from which branches emerge means that we ultimately are in need of a way to classify which limbs of the tree have branched less, and Living Fossil is a pretty solid way to represent those organisms. A limb that branches less has found a niche and held it for a long time uninterrupted, making it a Living Fossil by this definition.
If we put these "living fossils" and their actual fossilized ancestors, would the "living fossils" out compete their ancestors in most cases or not usually. How adapted are they?
If we are considering modern conditions, the modern counterpart will probably out compete the older generation due to the newer one having adaptations to the modern conditions. If the conditions were similar, then it really depends.
Since all species evolve to meet the needs of the status quo, they do not need to get "better" overall, only fit more effectively. Because of this the competition results would be decided by the environment they are in. If it is better for modern species, then said modern species will survive but may have to continue fighting older fossils with adaptations for the same environment, & same for other situations
@@carlosandleon Nope. Evolution happens over time and between generations. Being that ancestral generations are, definitionally, earlier than later generations, they have undergone fewer generations and thus less evolution than their descendants. Ergo, they are inherently less evolved.
Why was I expecting a story on a newly discovered snail species that uses the process of fossilization to help grow and strengthen its shell and be a literal living fossil?
“Scientists recently discovered that ‘Living Fossils’ are not, in fact, fossilised remains that are alive. This revelation was surprising, and indicates a possibility that horseshoe crabs are not made of horseshoes, and blue-footed boobies are not breasts with blue feet.”
This seems like a very nuanced debate, and it'll never ever take off in the general public. Focusing conservation efforts on ancient lineages is common sense though, having living creatures similar to ancient ones is an invaluable tool.
I've always thought of "living fossils" as a very generalised and colloquial term, so it's, well, interesting that they're putting in the effort to standardise it... Maybe this is why scientists are fun at parties
When Japan entered the modern age and had access to meat instead of mostly fish, their height started to increase. They are taller now. Some changes are improvement in diet.
If they are almost identical to ancient ancestors, I still think living fossil is an apt name even if they are quite different genetically. It's not a scientific term after all?
Gingkos might be endangered in their native Japan, but we use them ALOT in landscape architecture here in the midwest and eastern US. All of those defences make them fantastic street trees. Source: I'm a landscape architect
Yes, I wondered about that too! I don't know about Japan, but here in Korea they line almost every street. You really notice them when they start to drop their fruits...
@@jrekwq First, they come from China, not Japan. Are there are very few wild populations of Gingko left. Second, in urban areas, the requirement for male trees, to avoid the offensive odor of females, means that only a few clones are planted, further reducing genetic diversity. A city that contains thousands of ginkgo trees may in fact contain thousands of copies of a few individuals.
@@greenupclose7587 ah you're right they do come from China. I always mix them up because theres a story about the first two gingkos in the US having been gifts from Japan.
You know you've visited your local natural history museum a lot when you can identify a display from it. The Deinosuchus hatcheri in the beginning is from the NHMU :)
What about the Wollemi Pine? Thought to be extinct for some 200 million years, found alive about 20 years ago. Every living tree is genetically identical. Can we at least call these living fossils?
"They're still directly related to ancient organisms." This is such an inane statement. Find me an organism that isn't directly related to ancient organisms, and I'll congratulate you on creating a revolution in the field of Biology.
Wollemi pines in Australia probably come under this heading, being known by 200 million year old fossils until a couple of groves of them were discovered in 1994. Thankfully the groves were saved from the 2020 bushfires.
Hey Hank, where did you get that incredible shirt? I kept zoning out into the pattern, losing track of the monologue and having to back up and replay it. I should note that I am easily distracted. None the less, this was a great episode since I've always wondered how you can call a living thing a fossil. Apparently you can't which reassures me that I will not fossilize for a very long time after death despite the evidence of my slowly eroding body.
Most sharks for sure don't fit under living fossil, but what about the ones that still have the older gill set? I think it's 5.. 6? whatever, the ones that have an extra on each side, like ice ones.
Reminds me of the video Veritasium did recently on the evolution of bacteria in cell culture labs. Even with an unchanging environment, the bacteria continued evolving ever so slowly. Evolution doesn't appear to be something that even can be stopped.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio Crocodiles don't count and sci show should be ashamed of themselves The animals that looked like crocodiles 200 million years ago were purely the product of *convergent evolution* Crocodylomorphs rapidly radiated out into diverse ecological niches from terrestrial herbivores to small agile predators of insects and small vertebrates and fully marine adapted pelagic megafauna there is a huge diversity of form and ecology among the clade such that any grouping of croc-like crocodylomorphs will be paraphyletic for excluding the huge diversity of other crocodylomorphs that they lived alongside up until those groups went extinct either in the end cretaceous mas extinction or in the case of the Sebecids, at the end of the Miocene. Basal modern Crocodilians first appear in the fossil record during the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous (~95 Ma) and likely diversifying into the modern alligatoroids, gavialoids and crocodyloids before the Campanian stage of the Cretaceous. (~83 Ma) Now if the late cretaceous is sufficiently old to be a living fossil then a lot of other organisms would qualify as well given that modern crocodilians appeared more recently than birds and many angiosperm groups. Of course since they started to rediversify and colonize terrestrial niches in the Cenozoic (which lived as recently as the early Holocene only disappearing alongside the other Australian megafauna soon after the arrival of H. Sapiens) so I don't think they can count even then.
@@Dragrath1 "Basal modern Crocodilians first appear in the fossil record during the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous (~95 Ma)" Seems old enough to be called living fossils to me, but im not a genetician nor a biologist, so my opinion don't really count lmao
@@bruhman5385 I'm with you on that. Seems old enough to me, too. Heck, when I'm out fossil hunting, if it's turned to stone it's a fossil to me, regardless of what time period it is from. 👍
Not sure why sharks and rays are considered living fossils considering primitive sharks produced bone (doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00723.x) and by current definition, as cartilaginous fish, they don't (or do they?.....TBD).
Ok so I'm just coming off of another video that described a 33 year long evolution experiment involving bacteria where it was described that the bacteria go through highly varying rates of evolutionary change and even EVOLVE to EVOLVE AT DIFFERENT RATES. So... why assume that an animal MUST have significantly genetically drifted when it has been demonstrated that the rate of evolution IS flexible? It's not like we almost ever get viable genetic samples from fossils to know for sure.
I wonder if maybe everything from those ancient time periods were resistant to stuff like that. To survive all the crazy stuff that's happened between then and now. Maybe ginko has had this ability all along. And maybe everything else that has evolved since just missed out on developing that skill. But yeah, it does seem like a highly useful skill to have.
How do they know their genomes have changed if you can't get DNA from a true fossil (stone replaced organic matter, only the shapes were preserved). I browsed some of the papers and articles referenced and I really don't see how they can conclude that they follow "normal" or close to normal evolutionary rates, if so, they must be certainly somehow confined to retain a basic phenotype, what is all kinds of weird considering how othe branches evolve phenotype variations at much faster rate (just think whales from land mammals, or slender bipedal humans out of robust mostly quadripedal apes, or tail-less and toothless birds out of dinosaurs, etc.) I was watching yesterday a video on how the most extensive evolutionary experiment (on bacteria) produced a quasi-plateau: organisms never really stop mutating/evolving but they dramatically slow down their rate of evolution when they reach a near-optimal adaptation to their niche.
Counterpoint about the genome changes: it could be that the vast majority of that change is benign or has only very small effects. A lineage of organisms maintaining their same shape for millions of years shows that ot is extremely well suited to its environment, and represents the closest thing to an optimal organism for its niche. Crocodiles for example haven't changed much because there is little to improve on. Could a better large aquatic stealth hunter be made than a crocodile? Maybe. Could it be made _from_ a crocodile? Seems not, or else crocodiles would have changed much more. So the crocodile family has peaked. The current members represent the best that they can do in the current conditions.
please could you add related/sister channels to your channels page? when i can't remember the name of one of the related channels but can remember this one it is very frustrating to not be able to find the link i want anywhere. thanks :)
My nominee for an ELF would be the Meta sequoia in China (aka Dawn Redwood) which was discovered around 1946 and has a fascinating history as a remnant of of ancient forests that loved in Siberia millions of years ago when the climate was much warmer. I think it deserves a video of its own. It is now a popular tree to plant in many places around the world.
Hex said "I guess once you've found the perfect body shape, you just make it stronger and more resilient." I guess ginkos, crocs, horseshoe crabs and coelacanths live by the motto: If it works don't mess with it.
Older taxonomic groups can sometimes be paraphyletic, and paraphyletic groups and in paraphyletic groups some of the members will be more closely related to organisms outside the group than other members inside the group.
Darwin’s notion of “living fossils,” EPI values, & and the distinction between genetic change and changes in appearance are key. I also really appreciate “Breaking Points,” Krystal & Saagar’s new show: th-cam.com/video/YLqg4T4cqNg/w-d-xo.html
i had no idea the gingko was in danger 😱 it is so common as an ornamental tree in parks and stuff.. i also lost my mind and bought a tiny one for my balcony 😬😂
Personally, I think Cyanobacteria would qualify as a living fossil, even though they already have evolved a lot, they still walk and talk like their direct, distant ancestors that popped up around the end of Hadean era. It's still mind-blowing that they have around for four billion years (and yes, directly responsible for the first ever extinction and ice age, both of which they managed to survive), and for which they are still responsible for the air we breathe now.
6:44 How is 5.3 million years "ancient" in the sense of evolution? That is more recent than humans diverging from chimpanzees. Is that a mistake? If not, what are they getting at with it?
My theory about living fossils is that they have no pressure to physically evolve. They've reached such a highly adapted form to deal with their environment, they have no further need to change.
I agree with you on that. Their genetic material has not undergone change while in the stasis of amber entombment. However, some genetic damage may have occurred through radiation and slow chemical degradation, et.al.
the main difference on the Living Fossil version of the Spanish environmentalists and the group of non-Spanish taxonomists relies that one is focused on conservation issues and the other just involves its evolutionary background non matter if they´re endangered or not. One is a very focused view and the other is a broader sense, I like more the one involving the evolutionary reference than the environmental one which only might serve just for conservacy importance issues.
Scientists compare the DNA of two species descended from a common ancestor to determine how much the genome has changed over time. The more differences, the faster the change
usb c appears to be unchanging, but actually its changing just as much as usb always has, its just that the constraints of the time limit its shape from changing with it
I viewed living fossils as organisms that admittedly look similar, but also have occupied the same niche for a very long time with limited additional species that have branched off, keeping the same hunting style, behavior, and traits. Dragonfly's as a whole have too many species but crocodiles are more limited. Sharks probably wouldn't fit either except specific species that have lasted a really long time. But that's not my field.
So riddle me this, if DNA has a half life of around 520 years and a maximum readable lifespan of about 1.5 million years, what exceptional improvements in genetics have we made recently that allows us to compare living fossils to their actual fossilized ancestors on a genetic rather than physiological basis? Or are we just comparing them to their more recent ancestors and drawing our conclusions based on the extrapolation of this data? Or are we looking at them compared to their closest living relatives and estimating divergence and rates of change for that family using a phylogenetic approach? So, how do we know the ginkgo (8:21) or coelocanth (8:52) have 62 more genes than they did 10 million years ago? How are we coming to these conclusions?
DNA changes don 't necessarily mean changes in proteins or anything else. They're only important when they affect how the organism fits into its ecological niche. Modern and ancient horseshoe crabs might be functionally similar despite different DNAs.
@@johnkabiro7098 From the research I have done so far as old as the pandemic the word is out, Bitcoin May reach $100k by next year, and is going to change a lot of people's life.
@T Classic Really sad to know you Buy and hold.the best way to make money in Bitcoin is not storing, you trade in the forex market. As you're a beginner and don't know how to do this.i can recommend a certified broker for you.
I'm a little confused on the concept of "ancient lineages" considering all life came from a common ancestor... aren't all existing lineages thus the same age?
SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
Just fyi, your yale source link leads to a 404
Like i live in Sweden so when u uppload a vid i cant be the first person to comment
The Times are different
My 13 year old son assures me that I am in fact a living fossil. I would encourage science to continue to use the term. If we stop using the term living fossil my son will need to find a more creative way to describe my character. I don't think that I'm emotionally ready for that.
Is Neel Nand your son? :P
th-cam.com/video/XI7_HE3Bkk4/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgyVcOFW8FtNsqSYmO14AaABAg
@@sapphirII I've never heard of Neel Nanda before. This Dad joke was one of my own.
@@perceivedvelocity9914 I was just joking since they said their dad was living fossil and you said your son calls you that.
To qualify as an ELF in my book, you gotta have:
1. Pointy ears.
2. +2 to DEX.
3. Enjoys camping.
*kidnaps elf*
4. Immune to sleep and charm.
5. Distrust of Dwarves
@@anarchyantz1564 This goes into the book.
6. Can talk to animals
7. Having magic energy
Don't forget : Arrogant hippies.
I feel like a living fossil every time I get out bed.
You feel like live creature made of stone?
@@marvalice3455 no, I move like one.
Lmfao damn I can relate to u my bones and joints be sounding like those noisemakers that u spin around
Watch this comment get 500 likes
Happens to me when I can't get out of bed.
My dad’s a living fossil, I even have to dust him off from time to time.
🥲😂
I feel you, bro
Amazon sells dust covers for furniture, zip him up in one and save yourself the work.
I hope that doesn't mean what I think it means...
@@kettei5408 🤢
The genes the ginko has evolved and gained for dealing with stuff reminds a lot of the creatures from microcosm os who also seem to have gained a solution for everything and anything.
I guess once you've found the perfect body shape, you just make it stronger and more resilient.
it's more impressive for the ginko because they don't reproduce as fast as microorganisms
Why animals keep evolving into crabs too
@@WolfgangDoW return to monke or evolve to crab
like a video game character who's already maxed their good abilities so they just start dumping points into element resistance
that is actually keanu reeves’ motto
6:27 - "for an organism to qualify as an ELF....."
It must work for Santa!
The video mentions that Crocodiles and Horsehoe crabs have still gone through plenty of genetic changes, so calling them living fossils is a misnomer, but if those genetic changes don't actually result in meaningful physiological changes for the organism and how it operates in a given ecological niche, then does having those changes really matter in regards to refuting the concept of a "Living Fossil"? The point would still stand that in comparsion to a lot of other organisms they've mostly stuck to their existing evolutionary adaptions and niches and haven't shifted in those roles much.
it means that scientist categorize an actual living fossil is a dinosaur that goes cryogenic sleep for million of years
As mentioned they've changed to adapt to climate etc, but their external shape is the same. Much as a lot of people these days can digest milk as adults but we still look like shaved monkeys.
The real place to look would be clonal organisms where we are pretty sure some "individual" plants have been around for thousands of years. They have much slower genetic change so if we can find one that's millions of years old we can hope that it's genetically unchanged (but that means asking what exactly an individual is)
I agree fundamentally, but there are changes a creature may have undergone that wouldn't have changed the structure that might be significant enough (individually or in aggregate) that it makes a difference. Like, have alligators always had antibiotic blood, or is that a more recent trait? Has the horseshoe crabs eyes changed to adapt to new ocean compositions and temperatures?
Again, I fundamentally agree. I think the change in "branding" as it were gives us the opportunity to think about adaptations to "mechanical" changes to otherwise thematically stable environments, along with what Hank mentioned about conservation. I also can't help but think of the scientific and engineering breakthroughs we could have by reinvigorating the public's interest.
I think a lot of genetic changes are random drift, often of "silent" genes (if noncoding DNA is still a gene?), but lots of chemical changes can take place without affecting form. In animals, that may just be the immune system and perhaps what the liver and digestive systems do to detoxify and metabolise new foods and environmental hazards. Plants can't run away, so are chemical weapons factories. The phytochemistry of "primitive" angiosperms like the magnoliads strikes me as more interesting than that of most orchids even though orchids were historically seen as the "most advanced" (based largely on sexual organs, as botany does, but also on species diversity though daisies might outdo orchids there and certainly are more successful in terms of numbers of plants or weight of biomass).
This sounds like a solution to a genetics' version or ship of theseus.
The way I've always seen it, representing life as a tree from which branches emerge means that we ultimately are in need of a way to classify which limbs of the tree have branched less, and Living Fossil is a pretty solid way to represent those organisms. A limb that branches less has found a niche and held it for a long time uninterrupted, making it a Living Fossil by this definition.
If we put these "living fossils" and their actual fossilized ancestors, would the "living fossils" out compete their ancestors in most cases or not usually. How adapted are they?
If we are considering modern conditions, the modern counterpart will probably out compete the older generation due to the newer one having adaptations to the modern conditions. If the conditions were similar, then it really depends.
Since all species evolve to meet the needs of the status quo, they do not need to get "better" overall, only fit more effectively. Because of this the competition results would be decided by the environment they are in. If it is better for modern species, then said modern species will survive but may have to continue fighting older fossils with adaptations for the same environment, & same for other situations
their ancestors aren't necessarily less evolved, just more adapted to conditions then
@@carlosandleon Nope. Evolution happens over time and between generations. Being that ancestral generations are, definitionally, earlier than later generations, they have undergone fewer generations and thus less evolution than their descendants. Ergo, they are inherently less evolved.
The real test is if they could mate with the ancestors
Why was I expecting a story on a newly discovered snail species that uses the process of fossilization to help grow and strengthen its shell and be a literal living fossil?
Or a crab species that uses fossilized shells as it's own.
So basically we need to keep coelacanths alive to get all the Reggies.
Don’t forget the whales
The whaaaaales
So could you say the term "living fossil" is a living fossil? eh? eh?
🥁
@@golgarisoul 💥
Ah science puns
So are you saying that humanity's understanding of the world has been...
Evolving?
😲😲😲😲
👏👏👏👏
Yup
Scientists to sharks: you’ve changed, man
“Scientists recently discovered that ‘Living Fossils’ are not, in fact, fossilised remains that are alive. This revelation was surprising, and indicates a possibility that horseshoe crabs are not made of horseshoes, and blue-footed boobies are not breasts with blue feet.”
You get it.
This seems like a very nuanced debate, and it'll never ever take off in the general public. Focusing conservation efforts on ancient lineages is common sense though, having living creatures similar to ancient ones is an invaluable tool.
I can give up living fossil, but I still can't give up Pluto....
Well that title is certainly an exercise in wordplay.
I've always thought of "living fossils" as a very generalised and colloquial term, so it's, well, interesting that they're putting in the effort to standardise it... Maybe this is why scientists are fun at parties
When Japan entered the modern age and had access to meat instead of mostly fish, their height started to increase. They are taller now. Some changes are improvement in diet.
If they are almost identical to ancient ancestors, I still think living fossil is an apt name even if they are quite different genetically. It's not a scientific term after all?
Gingkos might be endangered in their native Japan, but we use them ALOT in landscape architecture here in the midwest and eastern US. All of those defences make them fantastic street trees. Source: I'm a landscape architect
Yes, I wondered about that too! I don't know about Japan, but here in Korea they line almost every street. You really notice them when they start to drop their fruits...
@@strawberryefeu lol yea same here in the states!
@@jrekwq First, they come from China, not Japan. Are there are very few wild populations of Gingko left. Second, in urban areas, the requirement for male trees, to avoid the offensive odor of females, means that only a few clones are planted, further reducing genetic diversity. A city that contains thousands of ginkgo trees may in fact contain thousands of copies of a few individuals.
@@greenupclose7587 ah you're right they do come from China. I always mix them up because theres a story about the first two gingkos in the US having been gifts from Japan.
So what I'm hearing as the main takeaway from this video is that we should start referring to fantasy elves as "endangered living fossils".
You know you've visited your local natural history museum a lot when you can identify a display from it. The Deinosuchus hatcheri in the beginning is from the NHMU :)
D•E•A•R
What about the Wollemi Pine? Thought to be extinct for some 200 million years, found alive about 20 years ago. Every living tree is genetically identical. Can we at least call these living fossils?
"They're still directly related to ancient organisms." This is such an inane statement. Find me an organism that isn't directly related to ancient organisms, and I'll congratulate you on creating a revolution in the field of Biology.
Wollemi pines in Australia probably come under this heading, being known by 200 million year old fossils until a couple of groves of them were discovered in 1994. Thankfully the groves were saved from the 2020 bushfires.
Those are such cool trees! The San Diego zoo’s safari park is currently working on growing those because the climate is very similar to Australia’s!!
"Invasive species" will likely be need to be redefined now as well.
Really scraping the barrel with this vid aren't we SciShow!
Keep it up though, luckily I'm as boring as you lot and I loved it.
My Paleontology course last semester used coelacanth and only a few other fishes as "living fossils" 7:40 mentions these. Great video.
Hey Hank, where did you get that incredible shirt? I kept zoning out into the pattern, losing track of the monologue and having to back up and replay it. I should note that I am easily distracted. None the less, this was a great episode since I've always wondered how you can call a living thing a fossil. Apparently you can't which reassures me that I will not fossilize for a very long time after death despite the evidence of my slowly eroding body.
Most sharks for sure don't fit under living fossil, but what about the ones that still have the older gill set? I think it's 5.. 6? whatever, the ones that have an extra on each side, like ice ones.
"For an organism to qualify for as an ELF, it has to meet three criteria..." Sorry, you missed the fourth - it has to be "unbelievable". (OH!)
So wait…. We have DNA from billions of year old fossils to know that their genomes have changed?
Reminds me of the video Veritasium did recently on the evolution of bacteria in cell culture labs. Even with an unchanging environment, the bacteria continued evolving ever so slowly. Evolution doesn't appear to be something that even can be stopped.
Thank you sir, I have often winced at that term.
I like "persistent phenotypes" - not only for alliteration, but it better sums up the situation.
Surprised the Tuatara wasn't mentioned.
D•E•A•R
I loved your History series a few years back and used them in my classroom when teaching American and World History! Thanks, Hank!
The only living fossil I know of is the nautilus 😄
pronghorn?
Crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, and coelacanths.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio Crocodiles don't count and sci show should be ashamed of themselves The animals that looked like crocodiles 200 million years ago were purely the product of *convergent evolution* Crocodylomorphs rapidly radiated out into diverse ecological niches from terrestrial herbivores to small agile predators of insects and small vertebrates and fully marine adapted pelagic megafauna there is a huge diversity of form and ecology among the clade such that any grouping of croc-like crocodylomorphs will be paraphyletic for excluding the huge diversity of other crocodylomorphs that they lived alongside up until those groups went extinct either in the end cretaceous mas extinction or in the case of the Sebecids, at the end of the Miocene. Basal modern Crocodilians first appear in the fossil record during the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous (~95 Ma) and likely diversifying into the modern alligatoroids, gavialoids and crocodyloids before the Campanian stage of the Cretaceous. (~83 Ma)
Now if the late cretaceous is sufficiently old to be a living fossil then a lot of other organisms would qualify as well given that modern crocodilians appeared more recently than birds and many angiosperm groups. Of course since they started to rediversify and colonize terrestrial niches in the Cenozoic (which lived as recently as the early Holocene only disappearing alongside the other Australian megafauna soon after the arrival of H. Sapiens) so I don't think they can count even then.
@@Dragrath1 "Basal modern Crocodilians first appear in the fossil record during the Cenomanian stage of the Cretaceous (~95 Ma)"
Seems old enough to be called living fossils to me, but im not a genetician nor a biologist, so my opinion don't really count lmao
@@bruhman5385 I'm with you on that. Seems old enough to me, too. Heck, when I'm out fossil hunting, if it's turned to stone it's a fossil to me, regardless of what time period it is from. 👍
Not sure why sharks and rays are considered living fossils considering primitive sharks produced bone (doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00723.x) and by current definition, as cartilaginous fish, they don't (or do they?.....TBD).
D•E•A•R
We are all evolving together. And by all i mean the entire biosphere.
Ok so I'm just coming off of another video that described a 33 year long evolution experiment involving bacteria where it was described that the bacteria go through highly varying rates of evolutionary change and even EVOLVE to EVOLVE AT DIFFERENT RATES.
So... why assume that an animal MUST have significantly genetically drifted when it has been demonstrated that the rate of evolution IS flexible? It's not like we almost ever get viable genetic samples from fossils to know for sure.
National geographic : these lizards , unchanged for millions of years..
Lizards : heyyyy.. I m not that old
@@theeconomicninjayoutubecha4416 whatsapp me 911
Back up: Ginkgos have evolved resistances to atomic radiation? I am real curious what this protects against and how it works.
I wonder if maybe everything from those ancient time periods were resistant to stuff like that. To survive all the crazy stuff that's happened between then and now. Maybe ginko has had this ability all along. And maybe everything else that has evolved since just missed out on developing that skill. But yeah, it does seem like a highly useful skill to have.
While that last one may or may not be a good descriptor of the proposed category, it definitely sounds useful and worthwhile to give a name.
Abandon Monke;
Progress to *CRAB*!!!
Really interesting video, love these cutting edge paleo topics
How do they know their genomes have changed if you can't get DNA from a true fossil (stone replaced organic matter, only the shapes were preserved). I browsed some of the papers and articles referenced and I really don't see how they can conclude that they follow "normal" or close to normal evolutionary rates, if so, they must be certainly somehow confined to retain a basic phenotype, what is all kinds of weird considering how othe branches evolve phenotype variations at much faster rate (just think whales from land mammals, or slender bipedal humans out of robust mostly quadripedal apes, or tail-less and toothless birds out of dinosaurs, etc.)
I was watching yesterday a video on how the most extensive evolutionary experiment (on bacteria) produced a quasi-plateau: organisms never really stop mutating/evolving but they dramatically slow down their rate of evolution when they reach a near-optimal adaptation to their niche.
Counterpoint about the genome changes: it could be that the vast majority of that change is benign or has only very small effects. A lineage of organisms maintaining their same shape for millions of years shows that ot is extremely well suited to its environment, and represents the closest thing to an optimal organism for its niche.
Crocodiles for example haven't changed much because there is little to improve on. Could a better large aquatic stealth hunter be made than a crocodile? Maybe. Could it be made _from_ a crocodile? Seems not, or else crocodiles would have changed much more. So the crocodile family has peaked. The current members represent the best that they can do in the current conditions.
please could you add related/sister channels to your channels page? when i can't remember the name of one of the related channels but can remember this one it is very frustrating to not be able to find the link i want anywhere. thanks :)
My nominee for an ELF would be the Meta sequoia in China (aka Dawn Redwood) which was discovered around 1946 and has a fascinating history as a remnant of of ancient forests that loved in Siberia millions of years ago when the climate was much warmer. I think it deserves a video of its own. It is now a popular tree to plant in many places around the world.
Excellent video. Ive learned a lot watching this channel over the last few years. Thanks!
Hex said "I guess once you've found the perfect body shape, you just make it stronger and more resilient." I guess ginkos, crocs, horseshoe crabs and coelacanths live by the motto: If it works don't mess with it.
Older taxonomic groups can sometimes be paraphyletic, and paraphyletic groups and in paraphyletic groups some of the members will be more closely related to organisms outside the group than other members inside the group.
I feel like he went out of his way to not say "elf".
I know! So disappointed over this missed opportunity:(
Isn't the genome a kind of time capsule, that we are just learning how to read?
The titles always get me lol
ikr
this title is a mouthful and I laughed so much at it
The human caused extinction event is super depressing
Aren't we all living fossils in a way?
Darwin’s notion of “living fossils,” EPI values, & and the distinction between genetic change and changes in appearance are key. I also really appreciate “Breaking Points,” Krystal & Saagar’s new show:
th-cam.com/video/YLqg4T4cqNg/w-d-xo.html
i had no idea the gingko was in danger 😱 it is so common as an ornamental tree in parks and stuff.. i also lost my mind and bought a tiny one for my balcony 😬😂
D•E•A•R
Id love to see a video on living fossils
Personally, I think Cyanobacteria would qualify as a living fossil, even though they already have evolved a lot, they still walk and talk like their direct, distant ancestors that popped up around the end of Hadean era. It's still mind-blowing that they have around for four billion years (and yes, directly responsible for the first ever extinction and ice age, both of which they managed to survive), and for which they are still responsible for the air we breathe now.
Should change the name to 'Evolving Fossils'
D•E•A•R
6:44 How is 5.3 million years "ancient" in the sense of evolution? That is more recent than humans diverging from chimpanzees. Is that a mistake? If not, what are they getting at with it?
Nice content about fossils. We have started looking for fossils on our channel. Jurassic coast is a great place. Love to visit the states
I mean it makes sense since well evolution towards crabs is a thing, so we know they all will be one crabs
Does the unusual pattern on the speaker's shirt twinkle or glisten when the image is small? Was it picked for that reason on purpose?
December 2021: The global cost of Ginkgo lumber continues to skyrocket as dads around the world build...
"ELF into a Shelf"
I’m too high to be reading this title lmaoooo
My theory about living fossils is that they have no pressure to physically evolve. They've reached such a highly adapted form to deal with their environment, they have no further need to change.
legend has it that a new living fossil is the average guy getting home from work on a monday
Real living fossils would be things like those 45 million year old bacteria spores, recovered from amber and successfully revived after all this time.
I agree with you on that. Their genetic material has not undergone change while in the stasis of amber entombment. However, some genetic damage may have occurred through radiation and slow chemical degradation, et.al.
So, if they were to bring together the EPI and the ELF, what would happen?
@Pinned by SicShow thankyou, but I don't use any social media other than this. If there is any link I should check out?
A combination of the 2 processes talked about neat the end would probably be helpful
What have the changes in the horseshoe crabs genetics actually changed about the horseshoe crab...?
the main difference on the Living Fossil version of the Spanish environmentalists and the group of non-Spanish taxonomists relies that one is focused on conservation issues and the other just involves its evolutionary background non matter if they´re endangered or not. One is a very focused view and the other is a broader sense, I like more the one involving the evolutionary reference than the environmental one which only might serve just for conservacy importance issues.
We're all living fossils. Millions of years from now, aliens are gonna be digging up our bones and wondering what we used to be.
Wouldn't that make us "future fossils"?
Finally we can look for ELFs without sounding absolutely crazy. I wonder how many are in Iceland?
I did not hear in this video how scientists obtained complete genomes of ancient animals and, if they can, why can't they clone dinosaurs?
They did not. Ancient genomes are based on what we know from their modern descendants, phylogenetic analysis is based on anatomy.
Scientists compare the DNA of two species descended from a common ancestor to determine how much the genome has changed over time. The more differences, the faster the change
Very informative
How did they find out those particular coelacanth genes arose in the last 10 million years?
Judging by looks alone isn't enough?!
I never knew
usb c appears to be unchanging, but actually its changing just as much as usb always has, its just that the constraints of the time limit its shape from changing with it
I think the Tuatara is an endangered living fossil
I read the thumbnail as "long live fossils fuels" and was very confused lol
Gingko may be endangered in the wild, but it is in no danger of extinction. It is overplanted in cities around the world.
I viewed living fossils as organisms that admittedly look similar, but also have occupied the same niche for a very long time with limited additional species that have branched off, keeping the same hunting style, behavior, and traits. Dragonfly's as a whole have too many species but crocodiles are more limited. Sharks probably wouldn't fit either except specific species that have lasted a really long time. But that's not my field.
* mention of Spain: exists *
Me, immediately: OLEEEEEEE ESPAÑITA
Great vid!
62 new jeans? That's one fashionable fish!
So riddle me this, if DNA has a half life of around 520 years and a maximum readable lifespan of about 1.5 million years, what exceptional improvements in genetics have we made recently that allows us to compare living fossils to their actual fossilized ancestors on a genetic rather than physiological basis? Or are we just comparing them to their more recent ancestors and drawing our conclusions based on the extrapolation of this data? Or are we looking at them compared to their closest living relatives and estimating divergence and rates of change for that family using a phylogenetic approach?
So, how do we know the ginkgo (8:21) or coelocanth (8:52) have 62 more genes than they did 10 million years ago?
How are we coming to these conclusions?
The only living fossil now recognised is Queen Elizabeth
DNA changes don 't necessarily mean changes in proteins or anything else. They're only important when they affect how the organism fits into its ecological niche. Modern and ancient horseshoe crabs might be functionally similar despite different DNAs.
There is risk in everything,so be prepared for ups and downs.
Diversification is relevant, and once you have confidence in your investment, you can adjust your profit and make bigger bets.
Just do the necessary research, study and analyze before making any investment.
@@johnkabiro7098
From the research I have done so far as old as the pandemic the word is out, Bitcoin May reach $100k by next year, and is going to change a lot of people's life.
Many people are struggling from grass to grass, the concept of Bitcoin after it became a household name.
@T Classic Really sad to know you Buy and hold.the best way to make money in Bitcoin is not storing, you trade in the forex market. As you're a beginner and don't know how to do this.i can recommend a certified broker for you.
I'm a little confused on the concept of "ancient lineages" considering all life came from a common ancestor... aren't all existing lineages thus the same age?
Depends where the lineage starts. For example the lineage of humans arose from apes but when we say human lineage we usually mean the HomoGenus
So if you keep an endangered living fossil around in your house you could say that you have...
...
an elf on a shelve?
@@theeconomicninjayoutubecha4416 low effort b8. git gud