Видео

We evolved from monkeys and apes that are no present day primate but rather entirely different apes and monkeys

Hey Clint - love your channels. Would you not put "Mutation is mostly random" up on the board? I believe many people think that evolution happens in order to fill a certain niche, towards a certain fenotype, with purpose. Almost as if there were a directing agent. That is another related misconception, potentially, but not the same, This one points at creationism - so these possible misconceptions could be related. Personally, I find that random mutation + natural selection = Darwinism is one of the most elegant theories there are. The reason for the "mostly" is the fact that our mutation repair mechanism is not random - may not be the right way to express that, maybe.

Thank you Clint for all the great videos! One question really bugs me: "the trout is closer related to us than to the white shark": isn't that an oversimplification? It feels counterintuitive, and I also see a logical problem there. Maybe the trout and the shark are not the best examples, as I guess cartilagenous and bony fish are indeed quite different, but to claim that the lamprey is closer related to humans than to the hagfish seems like kind of reductio ad absurdum. I mean, look at these two jawless fish... I think to define "relatedness" in a way that is more meaningful you have to take mutation rates and ecology into account. For example leaving the water and living on land will kind of dramatically estrange your species from your close relatives that still live in the ocean, it will obviously do a great change to your species' phenotype and possibly genotype(?). But in the phylogenetic tree it makes as much a difference as the split between hagfish and lamprey. Would it not be more helpful to quantify "genetic distances" (at least in living species) or something like "the amount of morphological change" (I see the problem with subjectivity here...) in extinct species to give some meaning to the length of the branches and the distance between the nodes of the phylogenetic tree? And then draw something like concentric circles around a species to define "relatedness"? My phylogeny knowledge is nearly exclusively based on Clint's content, so maybe this is utter nonsense or impossible or an outdated debate in professional circles. But I find it interesting. For example take some very early dinosaur, I don't know, Herrerasaurus or something even older/more basal. Of course it has a more recent ancestor with modern birds than with crocodiles. Maybe it even IS the bird's ancestor... But if it lived in close temporal proximity to the split between the ancestors of birds and crocodiles and the crocodiles' line would not change that much genetically and physically over the next 200 mio years or so whereas the evolution of birds would encompass several drastic changes: would that not make the very basal dinosaur more closely related to crocodiles than to birds in a way? I know that there are no living fossils and I've read that coelacanths do not have a small mutation rate and that a similar body plan does not mean genetic similarity, convergent evolution and so on. But does on the other hand a dramatic change in appearance or behaviour not require a substantial amount of genetic change? And thus create a big distance in "relatedness" if you understand it as something like "genetic similarity"? Is the lamprey's genome really more similar to the human genome than to the hagfish's genome? I guess I need something like a Clint for genetics... 😂

I still think paraphyletic groups sometime in more useful in classification when one group inside a monophyletic group already evolve in a way that is can be no longer fit in the broad definition of that kind of animal anymore (as when we go up in clades all land vertabrates are a kind of lobe finned fishes, indeed it is useful in evolutionary history but it start to make the simple question of how we can tell what kinds of of animal are there according to simple characteristic a bit confusing, their basic function already become different). Though I agree that polyphyletic groups are not useful.

When people use the word fish, they are usually referring to a cluster of traits. Like the word "tree" which does not conform to a specific group of plants. Your attempt to force it into a geneological context made this feel more tedious and frustrating than it needed to be. If we meant something geneological, we can use a word suited for that context. I just don't see the point in trying to force "fish" into this context.

What degree/percent of gene similarity must two lifeforms share in order to be considered as having come from a common ancestor?

I have a question: while monophyly is best for predicting thing and understanding the evolutionary lineage, isn’t there still quite a lot of descriptive utility in paraphylytic groups? If Clade A developed a unique trait or completely lost a trait over the course of its evolutionary history, and Clade A is nested within Clade B, couldn’t it be descriptively useful to refer to the group of “Clade B minus Clade A?” For example, “Diapsids *except for the dinosaurs*”. It seems to me that these groups still serve an immense descriptive purpose, so long as there’s a contextually meaningful trait that distinguishes the smaller clade from the larger clade it sits within.

I teach comparative anatomy, and after watching your vid, I’ve had a greater appreciation for the predictive power of cladistics.

amazing video. thank you!

Hello, the Ronald Jenner's concepts of "the lineage thinking" and "the cladistic blindfold" surely deserve an attention from all public educators and teachers. These concepts are explained in the following RUclips videos and the article: Springer article: Lineage Thinking in Evolutionary Biology: How to Improve the Teaching of Tree Thinking Two RUclips videos: - Ronald Jenner: Seeing Evolution Through a Cladistic Blindfold - Telling linear stories with branching evidence: tales from the history of narrative phylogenetics

I wish I could show this video to the instructor of my biology 101 course in university, who got really offended that I was correcting her TA for using the term "hypothesis" incorrectly in a demonstration.

One thing to remember is that even if the starting population has no variation, mutations can introduce new variation into a population over time. Unfortunately, mutations are like changing a random letter in a text - most of the time they just make nonsense.

3:00 Anunaki blood from the royal bloodline from aliens made humans 5 million years ago. Look at Baghdad Iraq the ancient city of Sumeria and the Cambodian ancient sites. Or the plain of jars in laos. The giants of those days. This guy just said there are no links of humans apes or chimpanzees until 5 million years ago. Soo it's gotta be genetic interference from an intelligent extraterrestrial 👽 or extradimensional being/beings....

I wish you didn't assume the viewer has a normal karyotype.

I remember which one is which by remembering that mitosis is the only kind of cell division that happens in your toes.

One way to do the unethical studies ethically is to have the control group be the ones exposed to the harmful factor, and the experimental group are people you intervene to *protect* from that factor. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project did this, by randomly assigning orphaned toddlers living in Romania to either receive "care as usual" (which, at the start of the study, meant institutional care, which has been linked to high risks of many different psychiatric issues) or to be transferred into foster homes funded by the BEIP. This was ethical because, had they not intervened, *all* of their subjects would've stayed in institutional care, and foster care was hypothesized to be better for the children than institutional care. Their hypothesis was confirmed so strongly that the Romanian government started their own foster care program and most of the care as usual group ended up eventually being transferred out of institutional care - however, even now, the difference between kids in the foster care group and the care as usual group are obvious, because of the different ages that the two groups left institutional care. For your smoking study idea, the ways to do this would be to intervene in some way that causes people who would otherwise have been smokers to become non-smokers. For example, you could randomly assign high school students to receive either anti-smoking instruction or some kind of control instructional module, and if the anti-smoking instruction was successful at reducing how many of them became smokers, you could then compare cancer rates between students who received or didn't receive anti-smoking instruction and infer that the differences are likely due to different rates of smoking between the two groups.

One problem with placebos is if you accidentally have the placebo be similar to the experimental procedure not only in superficial ways but also in the ways relevant to causing the effect you're studying. For example, if the smoking placebo involves inhaling some other kind of burnt substance, you might find that *both* groups wind up with higher rates of cancer than non-smokers, because tobacco isn't the only substance that releases carcinogens when burnt.

Wow, not sure which is worse.. having just a mouth and no anus or the other way round. 😮 😶 Edit: Aren't there astronomy videos about "the far side of uranus"?

"That would be the Latour, then?" Crap math, crap teachers, crap school board, and crap Liberals!!!

This analysis misses the fact that many studies were done in animals that followed this exact approach of randomization and placebo group. In some studies they even used a sham smoking device as an active control. The animals were often exposed to much higher doses than human smokers. None of the studies resulted in lung cancer from smoking. In fact, some of the results showed fewer tumors in smoking animals and less cancer in smoking animals who were exposed to radiation. All the research that is claimed to demonstrate a link between smoking and cancer is epidemiology, not science.

I'm an atheist. I accept scientific truth and evidence. But, Science is NOT a religion you believe in. in Science you KNOW not believe. I believe that Science is the best way and method to explain the physical world around us.

absolutely fantastic video. i didn’t understand meiosis and the metaphases and anaphases before but i understand them so much better now thank you so much clint you are saving my biology grade

Yeah nah, doesn’t make any sense because there is no common ancestor between humans and apes or chimpanzee. There is no evidence of a common ancestor and why the theory of evolution makes no sense.

Follow the money. Curriculum writers and publishers need to be paid. The problem is taking traditional math and turning it into tips and tricks, a methodology instead of just showing your work. Now you have to be able to explain your thinking. This curriculum model has been coined: "Common Core Crap" by numerous parents.

EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race appear?" The mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children, and so was all mankind made.." Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved." The confused girl returned to her mother and said, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?" The mother answered, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.

Google it 😂 it's called the human ape 😂 human's are primates great ape's and apes and monkey's are different ruclips.net/video/zRlkJz_8Rx8/видео.htmlsi=HLTAYtaHbb_Fo9qX

Super helpful! One of the best I have seen! blessings to you and your family!

This explanation about common core is about as good as common core itself!

While “anus” is the proper and polite terminology for the an excretory orifice, asshole is the subjective terminology for a particular kind of person. Although everyone has an anus, not everyone is an asshole, but there are far too many of them who are a detriment to society.

I’m 85 now, but when I was a teenager girls variously referred to me as an ape or an octopus. This was very unscientific. An octopus is an invertebrate. In that respect my mother once said that I was spineless. I must admit that, through the course of my life, women have often made a monkey out of me.

Literally my phone opened this video in my pocket by typing gibberish into youtube. I have absolutely no idea what any of this means and only found the video bc it also got pocket screenshotted somehow

Are you calling the King James Version Bible a lie? Fake? Made-up stories? Nothing in the Bible KJV makes sense if people went by this video.

Scientists said humans are mammals, and they are saying humans are primates. What's next, pigs? Lol, it all sounds like BS. Science is assumptions and best guess, theories, and hypotheses most of the time. Scientists have been wrong in the past, and scientists will probably be wrong again and again. There have been many types of humans, but humans have never been apes, Oragitanges, chimpanzees, or any primate. Humanity can't even have babies with primates or even get primates pregnant. Do you seriously think Noah and his family could have built the Ark while Noah and his family were apes or primates? Primates aren't that smart. Do you seriously think in the beginning that God created Adam and Eve as apes or primates? Oh, that's right, most scientists don't believe in God. Scientists believe in science there, for of course, maybe scientists are primates, while the rest of us are humans, lol not related to primates. Humans don't look like primates. Humans are way smarter than primates. Gullible people might fall for this, maybe.

Sadly our policy makers do not understand this

Skeletor: Remember racism never existed it's just apes that hates other apes until we meet again 🏃

I didn’t know this channel existed. Now he’s just doing biology stuff

I am so mad at me but so happy and excited at the same time u want to know why!!!! I am subscribed ti this channel but dont recall knowing about it and bec of this i haven't watched any of the vids!! Which means i have plenty to binge and learn and i was looking for ur channel to watch the last reaction vid and saw this so here i am and im excited to learn u r fuckin awesome just saying!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but phylogenetic trees are supposed to model species/whole groups and evolutionary processes. The Human example can lead to the misconception that it can model human generations, which it can't since humans are the same species.

The Lord made me

Using the term "Living Fossil" within a science communication context often leads to members of the public misinterpreting what's meant by the term. Often people believe that living fossils have "stopped evolving" or are the exact same species as they descended from, both can lead to misunderstandings of evolution and phylogeny. There are studies that have been conducted on what conclusions less scientifically literate individuals come to when encountering the term and they indicate that the use of the term 'Living Fossil' is often more damaging than helpful.

I'm so confused, wouldn't the cheetahs be more closely related to the grizzly bear because it closer to the first common ancestor? Or is it once you pass the first node you kind of disregard that specific species?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys, but there are humans who have now become monkeys.

Does not take a super smart person to know. In school when they talked about this I just felt way too different than everyone else. Bunch of sheep’s lol

Ah your full of shit like an outhouse! I find this harder to believe than creationism.....and believe me it too is right up there. But then I wonder about our abilities to comprehend and feel compassions of all different levels etc. It's all a fucking guessing game. Obviously no more humans will exist in the humongous universe. At least that's more likely settled by now.

when will more biology topic videos that are in class curriculum. I am a Bio Major on the PreMed track at Loyola University Chicago and enjoy these videos to learn concepts that I struggle in or just to review material.

My husband, who fell 150-200 feet during a parachute drill (gone wrong) in the Army says "Oh, humans most certainly bounce when they 'fall' out of a plane too... I'm living proof!" 😂 Essentially, he caught a pocket of cold air and plummeted. People a mile and a half away HEARD him land! He broke his back and suffered a severe hiatal hernia... about half his stomach went through his diaphragm. Crazy part: They discovered his broken back 2 years later (they were looking in the wrong spot), it took another 7 years to discover his hernia (they initially did an endoscopy to find the reason behind his horrific heartburn/acid reflux), and another 2 years before they operated (Covid)... ...and he WALKED OUT of the hospital the same day of his accident! He said he landed about 15 feet from the spot he bounced from. Literally blows my mind. 🤯

The irony of the statement “Math builds on itself-if you forget the foundation, the rest of the building collapses” isn’t lost on me. Just look at the wall behind him.

Where there more than one species of humans around 200,000 years like homo heidelbergansis, homo erectus, Neanderthals, denisovans, homo florencis and homo sapiens all a live at the same time before the rest of the other's went extinct around that time period.

I think common core is useful if you do the math in your head, but if you have to show your work, the traditional way makes more sense. IE, I was doing this type of math in my head when I was a kid, and the teacher would ask how I got the answer, and I couldn't really explain it, and they always thought I was cheating.

1. The closest living relatives to cheetahs would be tigers, leopards, and lions, because they share the cheetah's most recent common ancestor. 2. The two phylogenies represent the same hypothesis, because the relationships of each animal to their common ancestors are the same. Thank you so much for this video, it was very informative!