this guy has produced some great vids. i loved the one about anecdotes.

Rhinocrocoduckpuss, welcome to my nightmares.

*talks *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 2:18pm PST - promote requested by gwiz665.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

That is one of the most succinct explanations of evolution I've ever seen.

It is nice to have someone who actually seems to understand evolutionary theory making these vids.
It is especially refreshing to hear someone explaining that mutation is not the only source of variation.

I suppose that it's too much to ask for a concise and clear explanation of evolution through the effects of transposable elements on gene regulation, or through plastic exposure of existing variation? ..or even through genetic drift, when for the love of ___ will someone acknowledge that drift happens?

One idea he doesn't cover is how the evolution of one species eventually gives rise to other species with a different number of chromosomes. I think this area of evolution is what led to the "dogs giving birth to cats" argument. A member of a species that gains or loses a chromosome through mutation shouldn't be able to reproduce with the relatives or its parents.

The explanation I have seen for this event is that it requires multiple individuals within a population to have the same non-detrimental mutation, in which case they could mate with each other to perpetuate their own new line of organisms. Obviously this would be an enormously improbable event, but when you're talking about billions of chances over countless years then it would almost certainly have to happen at some point.

Is there any other explanation for this situation that I am not aware of?

Psychologic, you are correct in saying that individuals with split, merged, extra, or in other ways funky chromosomes (aneuploid) are usually not viable, and are often sterile. However, if the individual is viable and fertile, finding a mate with the same issue is not always necessary. A beneficial aneuploidy can be passed on much as any other beneficial trait. And, with a terrific amount of luck, can increase in frequency within a population.

For instance, in humans with Down's syndrome, although fertility is severely reduced, many females can have children. You can imagine, that if this trisomy were in some way adaptive, it could eventually sweep the population. The rest of the genome would then likely evolve to accommodate the trisomy/new chromosome, and fertility would increase.

Here is a really neat paper where yeast evolve via aneuploidy to overcome the problems that occur when researchers delete an important gene:
http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(08)01196-3

As for needing to find a mate with a similar chromosomal aberration, you may be thinking of evolution through polyploidy, when the the entire chromosomal compliment is doubled (like you see evidence of in many plants and salamanders). That really screws things up, but because of the way in which plants reproduce, 'gametes' with double sets of chromosomes are common. Combine that with self fertilization and you have reproductive isolation and a new species in one generation.

very good video. too bad the people this is for don't listen.

ps. right at 2:14 he sounds like The Streets with a new single! LOL

now THIS clip should be shown in a classroom...

propaganda vs facts, now you choose, and for those who will continually prefer anything but facts will be artificially selected to be kicked in the nuts, repeatedly, to prevent them from breeding so that future generations will have a high probability not to experience this "science vs bullshits" confusion we are having right now

*animation

Adding video to channels (Animation) - requested by Fjnbk.

There are many creationists who accept "microevolution" (variation within a species via mutation or breeding) but not "macroevolution" (evolving from one species to another). I'd like to see him address that.

apparently there's no real qualitative difference, and even their meanings of the terms are confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

cool epigenetics shout-out at 2:40... classy sift.

evolutionary theory is harder to grasp than quantum mechanics, and i'm pretty sure nobody has ever learned quantum mechanics by watching a ten minute youtube video.

^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.

>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.


You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.

Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?

^As a matter of fact, yes, I am, since quantum theory has been well validated by experiment. And since it doesn't directly contradict any religious dogma, most religions find it easier to accept than evolution as well.
There is no great national debate about quantum mechanics like there is with evolution. It is the standard theory taught in college, and no one is clamoring to have other (contradictory) theories taught beside it.

I believe Einstein only thought some aspects of QM were ludicrous (like probability density functions). Didn't realize Schrodinger did. And there are many very smart people today who solidly accept it.

^Evolution has been validated by experiment to the same extent, if not more so, as quantum theory. There is no national debate about quantum mechanics because most people don't even know where to begin.

The only reason there is a national debate about evolution is that most people (erroneously) believe they understand it. You don't see creationists complaining about (or supporting) quantum mechanics because honestly how many creationists even understand enough of it to know why they should be for or against it?

Theres actually a lot of people with contrary theories to quantum mechanics. The string theorists are one example. Quantum mechanics is not *the* answer, it is just the best answer we have so far. In another 50 years it will be replaced or expanded upon just as Newtonian mechanics was. The same is true for evolution and every other scientific theory.

Science never has, and probably never will give us "the truth." It only provides models which enable us to make accurate predictions. The models of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Newton were all "wrong" yet they could accurately calculate the orbit of planets just as one can with relativity or quantum mechanics--the latter models merely expanded on the accuracy.

I like these videos not because they teach me anything, but because they are so clear and simple to understand that even people that I deem stupid has a chance of grasping the concepts they explain. The stupid people that irritates me the most however - those who have no curiosity - remain immune.

>> ^Aendolin:
There are many creationists who accept "microevolution" (variation within a species via mutation or breeding) but not "macroevolution" (evolving from one species to another). I'd like to see him address that.
apparently there's no real qualitative difference, and even their meanings of the terms are confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution


"Macroevolution" is just the accumulation of those small changes over time. We know the small changes happen, and that the small changes accumulate. The burden is on the anti-evolutionist to show evidence for a mechanism which reverts a species back to what it was before.

One point he makes is frightening:

Evolution rewards efficiency in reproduction...

Stupid people seem to reproduce like rabbits compared to smart people.

I vote for:
Basic evolutionary theory is far easier to grasp, but for some reason, god knows why, people keep getting it all mixed up.

Hmm, it's a tricky question. I think it's just evolution over long periods of time creating different species that Creationists oppose, not evolution per se. I don't believe many Creationists disbelieve in selective breeding or the evolution of traits within a species (since we have incontrovertible proof of that).

Analogously, I don't think most Creationists have any solid ground upon to debate the fundamentals of QM, and most don't care to do so. However, if you try to apply it to the creation of the universe, they will oppose it.

And yes, all scientific theories are just models that grow more accurate as our knowledge expands. Newtonian mechanics is perfectly usable at small speeds and large sizes, so I don't think it's been quite abandoned just yet (I believe all it took was Newtonian mechanics to get to the moon).

Also, QM consists of several subcategories: quantization of light; wave-particle duality, etc. I think string theory is mainly concerned with adjusting and refining certain aspects of QM (and combining it with relativity!) then replacing it.

Anyway, I think we basically agree with each other on the big picture, which is a good thing

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.

You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.
Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?


My own opinion is that evolutionary theory is rather easy to grasp and understand. Quantum mechanics, not so much. I mean, I can recite some of the implications of quantum mechanics, but they're still beyond imagination and I have no concept of how these things happen.

And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that.

Einstein and Planck essentially founded quantum theory, though Einstein wasn't fond of its implications, and Schrodinger is famous for pointing out how ridiculous it is. They all still believed it because the evidence indicates it's true. Not sure if you were implying that they were all disbelievers, but that's how I read that part of your comment.

^Exactly!

The famous Schrödinger's Cat was actually a thought experiment to show how riddiculous it is to extrapolate QM to large systems. QM is only applicable on very small scales, like the interaction between photons, electrons, hadrons, etc.

I'm merely quoting my quantum physics professor.

Yes its a very LOW probability, but the probability exists. Quantum mechanics also says that if you run full speed into a wall enough times, one of those times you will pass right through it.

QM states that all particles exist in a statistical "distribution" rather than at a particular location. It is only when you measure the particle that the location becomes fixed in space-time. This principle allows electrons to "tunnel" through a thin oxide (high probability with applied voltage bias and/or temperature), and it also allows all the particles in your body to "tunnel" through a wall at the same time (infinitely low probability).

Likewise, there exists a probability that all the particles which form a "cat" could be measured in such an arrangement (because each particle exists as a statistical distribution) that they form a "horse," if only for a fleeting moment. Again INFINITELY low probability, but it does exist.

Mindf*ck eh? And I'm asserting that evolution is even harder to truly comprehend than this!


"And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that."