That would be an interesting video. Darwin had a very interesting theory that involved heritable acquired changes. It might also be interesting to discuss actual examples of Lamarckian evolution. There are some. Epigenetics for instance. Learned behaviour and language might also be considered examples, as well as some computer viruses. I'm pretty busy now with teaching and getting these videos out for my students, but perhaps when that is done. Cheers.
The evidence.... The sequence of nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating each species from a zygote was written by a genius. Randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will simply destroy the instructions for creating that animal and won't produce some kind of phenotypic transformation towards a new different animal. Randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will only produce garbage.
@@planetdog1641 Complexity is not "irreducible", I'm afraid. There is no logical reason to assume that complex structures cannot evolve through evolution. No biological structure has been identified that could not have appeared from simpler components through numerous small steps, with the occasional aid of exaption.
@@planetdog1641 Over 95% 0f animals are invertebrates, i.e. they have no bones, yet the majority of these have muscle. So, muscles are clearly useful in the absence of bone. Soft bodied animals use hydrostatic systems (water compressed by contractile cells) for support. The contractile cells in these animals do the same job as muscle cells, yet are clearly far simpler. There is a similar spectrum of use and complexity for nerve cells and for nervous tissues. Some animals have very simple nerve cells arranged in a simple nerve net with nothing resembling a central nervous system. In some tissues, muscle cells are modified to act as nerve cells! (Both cell types are excitable and can generate electric signals). Bone originally appeared for protection and support and evolved and changed as muscles evolved and changed. Nothing here is irreducible, in fact you have chosen a strong example of the opposite. It appears to me that you have decided what you wish to be true and have maintained this belief by refusing to learn anything about the topic. Ignorance does not constitute evidence, I'm afraid. Cheers.
@@vesuvandoppelganger "The evidence....The sequence of nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating each species from a zygote was written by a genius." This is not evidence, this is unsubstantiated opinion. As mentioned in the video, the vast majority of nucleotide substitutions are deleterious. Some substitutions are silent, they have no effect due to the redundancy of the genetic code (there can be as many as six ways to code for the same amino acid). Very rarely, a change may be beneficial. For example, a change to the portion of a gene that codes for the active site of an enzyme will usually shut down the enzyme, but on rare occasions may allow it to bind to new substrates. Gene duplication provides new copies of genes for mutations to work on. Enzymatic changes can absolutely affect phenotype. Changes to master genes coding for transcription factors can bring about larger changes. It's interesting that you state "randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will only produce garbage." This is indeed usually the case, and it's thought to account for the fact that 98% of the DNA in humans is none coding (so-called "junk DNA"). While mutations may be random, selection (by definition) is not.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Awesome.
Would you be interested in making a video explaining Lamarckism in detail and why it's considered faulty?
That would be an interesting video. Darwin had a very interesting theory that involved heritable acquired changes. It might also be interesting to discuss actual examples of Lamarckian evolution. There are some. Epigenetics for instance. Learned behaviour and language might also be considered examples, as well as some computer viruses. I'm pretty busy now with teaching and getting these videos out for my students, but perhaps when that is done. Cheers.
42:19
Gibbons, orangutans, humans, pygmy chimpanzees and gorillas were separately created.
This is not supported by evidence. If you have evidence to back your claim, please provide it.
The evidence....
The sequence of nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating each species from a zygote was written by a genius. Randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will simply destroy the instructions for creating that animal and won't produce some kind of phenotypic transformation towards a new different animal. Randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will only produce garbage.
@@planetdog1641 Complexity is not "irreducible", I'm afraid. There is no logical reason to assume that complex structures cannot evolve through evolution. No biological structure has been identified that could not have appeared from simpler components through numerous small steps, with the occasional aid of exaption.
@@planetdog1641 Over 95% 0f animals are invertebrates, i.e. they have no bones, yet the majority of these have muscle. So, muscles are clearly useful in the absence of bone. Soft bodied animals use hydrostatic systems (water compressed by contractile cells) for support. The contractile cells in these animals do the same job as muscle cells, yet are clearly far simpler. There is a similar spectrum of use and complexity for nerve cells and for nervous tissues. Some animals have very simple nerve cells arranged in a simple nerve net with nothing resembling a central nervous system. In some tissues, muscle cells are modified to act as nerve cells! (Both cell types are excitable and can generate electric signals). Bone originally appeared for protection and support and evolved and changed as muscles evolved and changed.
Nothing here is irreducible, in fact you have chosen a strong example of the opposite. It appears to me that you have decided what you wish to be true and have maintained this belief by refusing to learn anything about the topic. Ignorance does not constitute evidence, I'm afraid. Cheers.
@@vesuvandoppelganger "The evidence....The sequence of nucleotide bases that are the instructions for creating each species from a zygote was written by a genius." This is not evidence, this is unsubstantiated opinion. As mentioned in the video, the vast majority of nucleotide substitutions are deleterious. Some substitutions are silent, they have no effect due to the redundancy of the genetic code (there can be as many as six ways to code for the same amino acid). Very rarely, a change may be beneficial. For example, a change to the portion of a gene that codes for the active site of an enzyme will usually shut down the enzyme, but on rare occasions may allow it to bind to new substrates. Gene duplication provides new copies of genes for mutations to work on. Enzymatic changes can absolutely affect phenotype. Changes to master genes coding for transcription factors can bring about larger changes. It's interesting that you state "randomly changing the nucleotide base sequence will only produce garbage." This is indeed usually the case, and it's thought to account for the fact that 98% of the DNA in humans is none coding (so-called "junk DNA"). While mutations may be random, selection (by definition) is not.