After leaving my old religion, I developed a voracious appetite for lectures like this, I immensely enjoyed the lecture and the question and answer that follows. Thank you for posting this. Will be binging more lectures. Thank you again.
@@elguapo2831Evolution is not in question. Neither is gravity. Or the germ theory of disease. The evidence for evolution is so massive, so clear, that it would be perverse to deny it. Modern medicine relies heavily on our knowledge of evolution.
Oh hey funny seeing you here did you take a look at the 5 seperate times I linked a paper giving your exact question a pretty concise and undeniable answer? Or did you do what your type of person tends to do, which is close your eyes after reading the first line of the abstract and just imagine it says what you want to hear. @@elguapo2831
There are several species who have grandmothers in important roles that are important to the survival and training of babies. They include elephants, humans, orcas and three species of whales.
It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, including the OAS gene which is related to immune response and indeed I got my covid shots, but got covid anyway, with a reaction of a very mild head cold. But this beneficial gene comes with a down side of immune responses that can be actually damaging. I have arthritis which is unpleasant, but not until after reproductive age. My oldest son died from an auto-immune disease at age 6 and my youngest daughter developed lupus at about age 5 which was unpleasant, but not anything that would interfere with reproduction and she lived to age 50.
"It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, ..." - Maybe. I may have too. It has nothing to do with biological evolution since Neanderthals were humans like us.
22:50 i remember in the pandemic them blaming differential outcomes between ethnic groups on racism. I said it was likely genetics and vitamin D. I was called a racist, they will never apologise
I likened it to reinacting the introduction of viruses much like the introduction of fatal illnesses when Europeans first invaded the Americas. My friends in the medical professions confirmed the deaths of many people with origins from the Americas who had otherwise good health.
A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges. Modern human society has significantly reduced the impact of our environment on reproductive success. What would be the avenue for evolution in this scenario?
"A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges." - There is no scientifically proven evolution. There is only scientifically proven intraspecific adaptive variation which can't generate evolution. There is also speciation. Speciation neither can generate evolution. Darwinists use the word "evolution" while they in fact are talking of speciation. It seems like the neo-Darwinists have forgotten their "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwinian evolution would've needed mind blowing variety of genes in UCA for producing future changes in the basic anatomical structure of innumerable species during the history of life. The idea of speciation being a road to evolution is ridiculous. Speciation normally happens in some isolated population, when natural selection (elimination!) favors certain genes and eliminates individuals with less profitable genes. This leads to gene loss and one-sidedness in the gene pool of that population. It is useful for a while but may lead to a catastrophe if the living conditions change. If speciation gets far enough, a subspecies appears. A subspecies is as far as the speciation ever can get. It is also the dead end. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. Why do you think over 90% of world's original species has gone extinct? Answer is speciation.
1. We might still face significant environmental changes (think climate change) 2. Instead of physical evolution, we might be going through a cultural evolution where ideas attached to people are what drive the way we change (take for instance cultural expectations about how many children to have, diets, exercise routines …)
@@abenezer_ Climate change will not affect reproductive success. Darwinian evolution depends on the ability of beneficial genetic mutations out-competing other variants through reproductive efficiency. I don't see this happening unless there is a major step backward in human civilization. In fact, we are at a stage where both advantageous and disadvantageous genetic variations have the potential to persist, as selective pressures have diminished. Cultural evolution, however, is likely to progress, driven by the relentless force of technological innovation that continues to mold our societies.
I have twin sons. They are English, Irish and German for the most part. They were born with celiacs dease/lactose intolerance. This is a very difficult condition to survive eating a Western Diet. They almost died. I attribute this condition to having a limited genetic pool to come from. After learning about their condition and modifying the diet, they started to thrive. Our conclusion was that they should NOT marry a causation and told them this and why. Both sons married from a gene pool as far from New England as they could get, They married mainland Chinese. My grandson was tested for celiacs and was negative. Neither he or his cousin show any signs of this genetic defect. Both are very intelligent and express superior qualities from the general population. This confirms that hybrid breeding within the species is the best for the entire population.
Non reproducing people can still effect evolution by influencing the reproductive success of others. By taking care of the kids and teaching useful information, making rules and customs, etc. The Pope has a huge influence on human evolution, even if he never has offspring.
Queston: Humans at one time didn't use language. Now we use language heavily and have developed regions in the brain specifically to process language. Is there any genetic change that corresponds to this change?
It's maybe not currently practical, but I'm wondering about the gene that protects from Covid. Could people have their DNA scanned for this gene, and that could help them decide whether or not to be vaccinated.
It’s very unlikely a single gene is responsible for some people being less affected by COVID infection. Even if there is a combination of genes that gives one higher resistance to COVID, I don’t know how one could determine what they are. And doing a DNA scan on every person in the world before deciding which vaccines would be of limited value for them seems unworkable.
24:35 His words very much put *intent* in the evolutionary process. Yes, it's just an easy way to refer to random processes, but "words have meaning", whether we want them to or not; such ideas worm their way into people's (both experts and the "laity") brains, and we start to think it's Truth instead of shorthand.
6:29 i wonder if these humans maybe used cremation or some form of fire to decompose the body after death resulting in very little skeletal remains left? Could that be a possibility? Maybe cultural practices or something similar?
Interesting is that we are first species that try to direct evolution of our own species (we make large effort for weak and unfit to survive and have children - hospitals, social programs, programs to protect weak members of society etc.) and even other species ("save the polar bears" etc...)
Grandparents not only impact the care of their children. They impact the survival of their grandchildren and it’s not uncommon to take care of their grandchildren
I remember hearing about how the Romans interacted with foreign gods during their conquests and how they would adopt the gods of other societies because they saw those gods as personally beneficial. Sounds like this process.
With rapid evolution of some human genes over the last 300,000 years very pointedly emphasizesing that we are causing and so are accelerating the speed of human evolution. How long before we are a different species from us.
Most East Asian cultures don't drink milk or have developed cheese making. One of the exceptions is the Mongolian tribes. I there any evidence that acceptance of milk products could come from the Denisovans?
I almost quit when you said "at the rate we are going we may not be here for much longer" So, your study of himan evolution has revealed no surprises, you were able to predict everything from previous observations, and, therefore, you can predict with a objective, scientific, and statistically robust certainty, what will happen in future! Wow. That's almost unbelievable
Ohhh! The conclusion around 44:00 just explained why my dad is the way he is. Born in London, to Londoners, and has rheumatoid arthritis. Although I'm sure the other half of my genetic mix being from Yorkshire is why I don't have arthritis by now. All the joint trouble is environmental, because I'm prone to falling off things.
The lineage did NOT become extinct....the next 50+ in line to the throne, were excluded because of their religion and the Stuart line gave way to 51st.(?) in line...namely the first of the Hanovarian Georges.
"The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system" - All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. A top example of largely accepted pseudoscience is the theory of evolution. While still an unproven theory, it is marketed as a scientific theory and an observable fact.
@@jounisuninen Wrong. The deck of cards analogy would be right if it were not for the fact that new genetic material is created by mutation and by addition to the genome through well understood processes
Funny i was watchin a vid earlier said modern humans according to our genome is 180- 200,000 bp. Alongside neandathal and denisovan who were present till 30,000 bp. I have other ideas
I disagree totally with the claim "We have no bearing on evolution after our reproductive age." Let me demonstrate this as clearly as I can: - The lecturer's statements that inform his audience about how our offspring are the future of our genetic legacy, can have a significant effect on how his audience approaches their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them. Similarly, the advice of our elders can also influence our approach to mate selection and raising children. If this isn't a potentially significant effect on their reproductive future, and thus their potential 'evolution', I don't know what is... Other than that I agree with most of the rest... Great to see all the maps of records of genes and some key inherited traits, and how they are present in various regions. Much work went into preparing that info.
It's a bit of a semantic point that I feel is not well taken by any audience. Consider first that once an organism reproduces, it does not have any further capacity to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. All of the "epigenetic" influences that may arise from cultural or environmental factors that would effect future generations do have their effect on future generations rendered upon reproduction. So if someone claims "you have no bearing on evolution after your reproductive age" it still technically holds true in the sense that the effects of your direct contribution to your species *is* over, and for whatever further effect you may have on your offspring and their reproductive habits, or your group as a whole, it still ends for the individual unit upon reproduction.
@@thomabow8949Yes, after reproducing, an organism does not have any 'direct capacity' to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. This is true. What I was pointing out is reproduction is not where parental influence on our genetic destiny ends. Parental and familial example and influence on their children can have a huge impact on how they approach their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them, their approach to mate selection and raising children. You cannot ignore these 'environmental influences' on how our genotype is expressed. It has been long understood that BOTH the genotype and environmental influences determine how our genes are expressed, and there's no doubt the environmental influences I listed can have a huge impact on how individuals succeed at 'socializing' and thus can have a tremendous impact on our reproductive, and thus our 'genetic' success.
@@thomabow8949 it is totally illogical to think humans cannot be influenced by our parents in many crucial ways that affect such genetically significant outcomes as our mate choices, our success in life, and even how many kids we have. These can all have an impact on our reproductive outcomes, and thus our evolution as a species. Yes, these are 'indirect' effects on our genetic outcomes, but certainly no less real than the direct influences.
@@soupdragon151 Actually, parents influence their children's behavior all the time. That influence can have a significant effect on if and when they marry, as well as who they marry... It's not true that after reproductive age we've no effect on our genetic legacy.
@@AMC2283 Explain how a first simple cell can randomly create new proteins in groups to build new body parts…..you would be the first to do it. Moor on.
@@edgein8632 You want to learn about random mutations and the scientific age of earth. Not a pseudoscientific one, as I remind you that even Christian scientists are accepting evolution these days because of overwhelming evidence. If you don't believe in evolution, can you tell me how much you did learn this Scientific theory and what are the 3 main types of evidence that you have problems with?
@@ep8569 Education is not your thing obviously. The evolution we all see AND ACCEPT is Darwinian or micro evolution. 100% of the time these sometimes beneficial mutations happen by a loss of information. Mutations degrade a late stage trivial gene that creates a birth defect basically. Polar bears lost pigment, wolves lose genes to become dogs, Darwin’s finches getting smaller beaks….even pit bulls adding muscle by degrading a growth regulation genes are examples of how it works. Never does evolution build anything new. Sit down, the educated people are talking.
This lecture was on RUclips/Gresham just 2 weeks ago. As a subscriber, having wasted 20 minutes confirming this was a repeat and drafting this simple comment, I would appreciate if "re-runs" were advertised as such. As is, it feels like someone at Gresham was trying to deceive the audience. And in this age of "fake news/info," that's a self-destructive path for a college to take.
The recording date is listed in the video description; Gresham aren't deceiving anyone who cares to read it. Perhaps they accidentally released a video earlier than intended - it happens all the time. Fake news is false news; 3-week-old lectures are just old news
What about Africans? Do they have any advantages/disadvantages for not having inherited Neanderthal DNA for example ? What if any evolution of Homo sapiens took place in Africa after the migration events from there? Why are Africans and non-Africans so genetically similar? In general, where do Africans fit into the « out of Africa » scheme ?
I don't see any mathematical proof that evolution here....just a lot of sentences, but no proof....(Hint: Evolution is impossible as proven by the Foundational Rules of Statistics and Probability that any random event which requires a chance of occurrence greater than 1 x 10 to the 40th power is regarded as NEVER GOING TO OCCUR...!!)
Here you go. EvolutionVolume 70, Issue 6 p. 1354-1363 Statistical evidence for common ancestry: Application to primates David A. Baum, Cécile Ané, Bret Larget, Claudia Solís-Lemus, Lam Si Tung Ho, Peggy Boone, Chloe P. Drummond, Martin Bontrager, Steven J. Hunter, William Saucier First published: 03 May 2016 This is a history lecture, not a scientific one. The evidence to support his statements is found in the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, like the one above, that are available for you to view for yourself. I suspect however that your ignorance is willful, and there is no cure for that. You're welcome.
@@soupdragon151 And I didn't mean any offence to the lecturer. It had to do with his accent more than anything. Also, he has a tendency to speak at a normal pace and then suddenly speed up, which results in garbled words.
That we have been evolving for a small amount of time and we probably have a small amount of time, may not be true. We don't know how non-life matter transform into life and consciousness (and that by expending a lot of resources, spending billions of years, overcoming a host of terminal conditions[black hole catastrophes if not terminal radiation sources etc.] I wonder if it is all for a small amount of time (we cannot rule out that we still have a lot to evolve into). Purely considering 'purpose', we seem to have to be programmed to withstand many miracles of design. We haven't seen enough yet.
It was a little concerning to hear Robin May's ringing endorsement of the MRNA technology and his pronouncement that the genetic material in these injections does not combine with or affect the cellular DNA. Aside from the simian DNA contaminants, it is not clear what effect the MRNA is having when it enters cells.
Uhh. Perhaps the argument doesn’t hold for humans since we have complex family structures like elders passing on knowledge and holding power over groups…. War. Etc…. We are and probably did evolve a little differently than wolves…. So being able to live long enough to ensure your children survive after mating and through adulthood and possible through a second generation are perhaps important….
Or...the two types did not mate at a 50/50 rate per species so future crosses with 100% sapiens drowned out the neanderthal genes. Not that the genes did not aid us until today. Consider current DNA tests that show DNA from other races but it is so dilute that it does not show in our phenotype.
I would just ad that on Earth are groups of people like for example Mongolians which are lactose intolerant but their society is build on eating milk products, foods and drinks which are fermented. And there is theory that if we introduce fermenting bacteria into our guts it could replace natural tolerance to milk for milk intolerant people.
Why cant these scientists don't remember is all humans didn't leave Africa. Still a lot of us are still there. Africa really have a more interesting history.
My son curiously has no wisdom teeth, is low weight, has a full head of hair, great vision, does not have the gene for prostate cancer. plays violin, and is in IT. Perhaps he should be a premium sperm donor.
The most "pressing" environmental change affecting the future of homosapiens is the introduction and subsequent evolution of electronics to the habitats.
Yes this must be discussed because affects evolution since earth magnetic waves of earth that we had 100,000 years ago with animals, bugs, viruses with magnetic waves as they were that now disturbed and chemicals in environment that enters all species. Older the mother father reproduce the more chance for broken genes produces more defective offerings thus birth babies before 30 or chance of defective offerings.
"Hold up, hold up just a minute," in the words of Barak Obama. Are you saying that Socrates, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Dostoevsky, to name a few, have had zero impact on the path of humankind?
Yes and no. That's the original meaning of the word (specifically as a form of group punishment for rebellious legions), but since we no longer use decimation the meaning of the term has changed in common usage.
@@jeffspaulding9834 I had to laugh at an actor starring in the TV series "The Last Ship". he was being interviewed about the apocalyptic series and, with great seriousness said, "its set at a time in the future when 90% of the world's population has been decimated". So I thought to myself, OK - 9%" of the world's population....bad, very bad, but hardly a near extinction event.
@@msbananananner4739 If you listen to the BBC you can hear that it's not a spelling issue. The English have come to confuse those two words. A 'Google search' has no value as an argument.
Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. From neantherthal remains (bones). Then you compare a 100% neanderthal sequence to moderns europeans have 2-6% neanderthal DNA africans have none. Interestingly everyone has different sequences so you add up all the different strands something like 80% of the genome is still "alive" its just extremely dispersed.
this is an interesting video that talks about the survival of the fittest but what it does not say is gene function is under the control of our creator who evolved genes according to the times and no gene can give a survival advantage unless he designs it to be so and this is the bottom line in survival of the fittest hypothesis and humans and animals have gene function assigned to them at birth and evolution to a new gene sequence occurs then when conception takes place and humans who survive have the fittest gene pool and that is why i am here and you too as allah gave us fitness in our gene pool and so we know chance does not produce perfection but evolve we do by design by him the creator there omar
Gene recombination happens after fertilization when parents' genes are reshuffled. In that way we get intraspecific variation but not evolution. There is no evolution whatsoever because evolution would need a continuous flow of unforeseen new genes. There aren't unforeseen new genes on this planet. Mutations do not produce new genes, they only destroy existing genes. ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
@jounisuninen No, mutations don't destroy existing genes. They change them. Genes can be duplicated. Duplicated genes can have their own mutations and gain a new function while the original genes remains with the original function. Genes can also be deleted which could cause some inhibitor gene function to be lost which could cause such traits as increased encephalization.
After leaving my old religion, I developed a voracious appetite for lectures like this, I immensely enjoyed the lecture and the question and answer that follows. Thank you for posting this. Will be binging more lectures. Thank you again.
Why do you believe in evolution?
Do you know what you call a belief in something that you cannot see?
Blind faith.
Stella, so this new religion of Evolution fits your style better?
@@elguapo2831Evolution is not in question. Neither is gravity. Or the germ theory of disease. The evidence for evolution is so massive, so clear, that it would be perverse to deny it. Modern medicine relies heavily on our knowledge of evolution.
@@statutesofthelordEvolution is reality. You can see it. The evidence is massive.
Oh hey funny seeing you here did you take a look at the 5 seperate times I linked a paper giving your exact question a pretty concise and undeniable answer? Or did you do what your type of person tends to do, which is close your eyes after reading the first line of the abstract and just imagine it says what you want to hear.
@@elguapo2831
This was a wonderful lecture to listen to. I enjoyed its interesting content as well as the very fair and engaging professor.
A truly excellent lecture. Many thanks for posting this. Looking forward to more from Prof. May.
There are several species who have grandmothers in important roles that are important to the survival and training of babies. They include elephants, humans, orcas and three species of whales.
There is a significant impact of grandparents on their grandchildren’s lives.
Or the lack of grandparents, for those that have no family or family that don't partake
Very enlightening, hugely informative, excellent lecture. Many thanks!
Thank you very much for this such an informative video .
Professor Robin May is star. Thank you.
I cannot get enough of Robin May. Truly captivatint speaker.
captivatint - now THERE'S a new word for you.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServicescaptivatnik? lol
He certainly has no clue about the dates he bandies about.
Perhaps I ought to have checked my spelling there. Maybe I was just too captivated? 😂
Wonderful talk. I can't wait for the upcoming lectures by Prof. May!
Grandparents can make a difference to the survival of their grandchildren.
It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, including the OAS gene which is related to immune response and indeed I got my covid shots, but got covid anyway, with a reaction of a very mild head cold. But this beneficial gene comes with a down side of immune responses that can be actually damaging. I have arthritis which is unpleasant, but not until after reproductive age. My oldest son died from an auto-immune disease at age 6 and my youngest daughter developed lupus at about age 5 which was unpleasant, but not anything that would interfere with reproduction and she lived to age 50.
"It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, ..." - Maybe. I may have too. It has nothing to do with biological evolution since Neanderthals were humans like us.
50,000 Nianderthal mix
40:30
541. Plague of Justinian
1359. Balck Death
22:50 i remember in the pandemic them blaming differential outcomes between ethnic groups on racism. I said it was likely genetics and vitamin D.
I was called a racist, they will never apologise
I likened it to reinacting the introduction of viruses much like the introduction of fatal illnesses when Europeans first invaded the Americas. My friends in the medical professions confirmed the deaths of many people with origins from the Americas who had otherwise good health.
A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges. Modern human society has significantly reduced the impact of our environment on reproductive success. What would be the avenue for evolution in this scenario?
"A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges." - There is no scientifically proven evolution. There is only scientifically proven intraspecific adaptive variation which can't generate evolution. There is also speciation. Speciation neither can generate evolution.
Darwinists use the word "evolution" while they in fact are talking of speciation. It seems like the neo-Darwinists have forgotten their "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwinian evolution would've needed mind blowing variety of genes in UCA for producing future changes in the basic anatomical structure of innumerable species during the history of life. The idea of speciation being a road to evolution is ridiculous.
Speciation normally happens in some isolated population, when natural selection (elimination!) favors certain genes and eliminates individuals with less profitable genes. This leads to gene loss and one-sidedness in the gene pool of that population. It is useful for a while but may lead to a catastrophe if the living conditions change. If speciation gets far enough, a subspecies appears. A subspecies is as far as the speciation ever can get. It is also the dead end.
All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. Why do you think over 90% of world's original species has gone extinct? Answer is speciation.
1. We might still face significant environmental changes (think climate change)
2. Instead of physical evolution, we might be going through a cultural evolution where ideas attached to people are what drive the way we change (take for instance cultural expectations about how many children to have, diets, exercise routines …)
@@abenezer_ Climate change will not affect reproductive success. Darwinian evolution depends on the ability of beneficial genetic mutations out-competing other variants through reproductive efficiency. I don't see this happening unless there is a major step backward in human civilization. In fact, we are at a stage where both advantageous and disadvantageous genetic variations have the potential to persist, as selective pressures have diminished.
Cultural evolution, however, is likely to progress, driven by the relentless force of technological innovation that continues to mold our societies.
Absolutely Fabulous - so stimulating and thought provoking. Loved it.
Very interesting, thank you
Amazing lecture
I have twin sons. They are English, Irish and German for the most part. They were born with celiacs dease/lactose intolerance. This is a very difficult condition to survive eating a Western Diet. They almost died. I attribute this condition to having a limited genetic pool to come from. After learning about their condition and modifying the diet, they started to thrive. Our conclusion was that they should NOT marry a causation and told them this and why. Both sons married from a gene pool as far from New England as they could get, They married mainland Chinese. My grandson was tested for celiacs and was negative. Neither he or his cousin show any signs of this genetic defect. Both are very intelligent and express superior qualities from the general population. This confirms that hybrid breeding within the species is the best for the entire population.
Great informative lectures but could you please state if they are repeats
Wonderful lecture,very thought provoking and insightful.
A wonderful presentation. Thanks, Prof. Robin May
26:15
Dogs helped us learn how to keep and domesticate other animals
After we domesticated them, after we domesticated each other.
@@trojanpro
Dogs and humans are the quintessential symbiotes.
Non reproducing people can still effect evolution by influencing the reproductive success of others.
By taking care of the kids and teaching useful information, making rules and customs, etc. The Pope has a huge influence on human evolution, even if he never has offspring.
Queston: Humans at one time didn't use language. Now we use language heavily and have developed regions in the brain specifically to process language. Is there any genetic change that corresponds to this change?
He mentions this in the video where at least one of those changes are.
Supreme lecturer !
Was this taken down? Why is it uploaded again?
oh ,i didnt see the first one , i am glad i can listen to this ,,old,, one
@@safsult It is a presentation, you can watch it! Barring a vision impairment.
Old upload/We have alread seen this lecture. This even seems in a lower video quality.
Link to the higher quality original?
Huh? Its 1080p the highest for free content
Excellent !!!
Many Thanks 🙂
Awesome. Even the slightest change in people is evolution .
13:00 could these retained genes from the Neanderthals have any influence upon behavior or cognitive function?
They were less intelligent but you never know
Great info here.
Great video. Thanks!
Better each time I listen. As a wide variety plant eater, be interesting to see how evolution deals with climate change
Thanks for another excellent talk.
This was quite brilliant
Incredibly interesting and enlightening!!!
Brilliant lecture TY
It's maybe not currently practical, but I'm wondering about the gene that protects from Covid. Could people have their DNA scanned for this gene, and that could help them decide whether or not to be vaccinated.
there's about zero guarantee that any virus wouldn't adapt to an antibody
It’s very unlikely a single gene is responsible for some people being less affected by COVID infection. Even if there is a combination of genes that gives one higher resistance to COVID, I don’t know how one could determine what they are. And doing a DNA scan on every person in the world before deciding which vaccines would be of limited value for them seems unworkable.
24:35 His words very much put *intent* in the evolutionary process. Yes, it's just an easy way to refer to random processes, but "words have meaning", whether we want them to or not; such ideas worm their way into people's (both experts and the "laity") brains, and we start to think it's Truth instead of shorthand.
@19:55
Could this be part of the reason that African Americans have had a more difficult history dealing with COVID-19?
Are we at risk by over using antibiotics, that we might be creating an evolutionary arms race that we will likely lose?
6:29 i wonder if these humans maybe used cremation or some form of fire to decompose the body after death resulting in very little skeletal remains left? Could that be a possibility? Maybe cultural practices or something similar?
Excellent lectures but the new intro with the interruption near the beginning is really annoying.
Interesting is that we are first species that try to direct evolution of our own species (we make large effort for weak and unfit to survive and have children - hospitals, social programs, programs to protect weak members of society etc.) and even other species ("save the polar bears" etc...)
The best tasting garlic species are sterile; almost completely dependent on human cultivation
Thank You
45:00
Inject inactivated, killed plague antigens to alleviate rheumatoid arthritis??
How would that help? Its elevated response to antigens that causes RA in teh first place adding even more is only going to make it worse
Grandparents not only impact the care of their children. They impact the survival of their grandchildren and it’s not uncommon to take care of their grandchildren
I remember hearing about how the Romans interacted with foreign gods during their conquests and how they would adopt the gods of other societies because they saw those gods as personally beneficial. Sounds like this process.
Not all hunter gatherer societies were nomadic.
How do you evolve against lactose intolerance if evolution is based on mating? How do you see if a potential mate doesn't have lactose intolerance?
The concept is that a person who can survive and grow by drinking milk late in life lives long enough to reproduce.
With rapid evolution of some human genes over the last 300,000 years very pointedly emphasizesing that we are causing and so are accelerating the speed of human evolution. How long before we are a different species from us.
Most East Asian cultures don't drink milk or have developed cheese making. One of the exceptions is the Mongolian tribes. I there any evidence that acceptance of milk products could come from the Denisovans?
Considering they were extinct several tens of thousands of years before dairy farming that seems unlikely
Human evolution with his mind, before his physicaly body.
Every evolution begin with their brain, DNA and last the appearance.
The graph at 33:21 looks very interesting. I didn't find its exact source, does anyone have the article reference ?
Thanks
I almost quit when you said "at the rate we are going we may not be here for much longer"
So, your study of himan evolution has revealed no surprises, you were able to predict everything from previous observations, and, therefore, you can predict with a objective, scientific, and statistically robust certainty, what will happen in future!
Wow. That's almost unbelievable
A throwaway joke about the current state of world politics. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Not true, if i am old and cant have baby i can still invent something and influence evolution like that
Let us know how that works out.
did you say ergophyline?
Ohhh! The conclusion around 44:00 just explained why my dad is the way he is. Born in London, to Londoners, and has rheumatoid arthritis.
Although I'm sure the other half of my genetic mix being from Yorkshire is why I don't have arthritis by now. All the joint trouble is environmental, because I'm prone to falling off things.
The lineage did NOT become extinct....the next 50+ in line to the throne, were excluded because of their religion and the Stuart line gave way to 51st.(?) in line...namely the first of the Hanovarian Georges.
Triggered 🚨
Good lecture.
I thought quantum mechanics and radio frequency communications was hard, we got it easy compared to this.
Come again? This is one of easiest lectures to understand a 10 year old could grasp it. Physics theoretical or otherwise is incomprehensible
Yes, and fortunately for all of us, it has taken place without any interference or input from you!
We've had many cats and only the two ginger ones like milk.
A perfect proof for evolution ... 🤣
Im using my brain watching this
Yes. The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system
"The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system" - All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family.
A top example of largely accepted pseudoscience is the theory of evolution. While still an unproven theory, it is marketed as a scientific theory and an observable fact.
@@jounisuninen Wrong. The deck of cards analogy would be right if it were not for the fact that new genetic material is created by mutation and by addition to the genome through well understood processes
Funny i was watchin a vid earlier said modern humans according to our genome is 180- 200,000 bp.
Alongside neandathal and denisovan who were present till 30,000 bp.
I have other ideas
I disagree totally with the claim "We have no bearing on evolution after our reproductive age."
Let me demonstrate this as clearly as I can: - The lecturer's statements that inform his audience about how our offspring are the future of our genetic legacy, can have a significant effect on how his audience approaches their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them. Similarly, the advice of our elders can also influence our approach to mate selection and raising children. If this isn't a potentially significant effect on their reproductive future, and thus their potential 'evolution', I don't know what is...
Other than that I agree with most of the rest... Great to see all the maps of records of genes and some key inherited traits, and how they are present in various regions. Much work went into preparing that info.
It's a bit of a semantic point that I feel is not well taken by any audience. Consider first that once an organism reproduces, it does not have any further capacity to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. All of the "epigenetic" influences that may arise from cultural or environmental factors that would effect future generations do have their effect on future generations rendered upon reproduction. So if someone claims "you have no bearing on evolution after your reproductive age" it still technically holds true in the sense that the effects of your direct contribution to your species *is* over, and for whatever further effect you may have on your offspring and their reproductive habits, or your group as a whole, it still ends for the individual unit upon reproduction.
@@thomabow8949Yes, after reproducing, an organism does not have any 'direct capacity' to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. This is true. What I was pointing out is reproduction is not where parental influence on our genetic destiny ends. Parental and familial example and influence on their children can have a huge impact on how they approach their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them, their approach to mate selection and raising children.
You cannot ignore these 'environmental influences' on how our genotype is expressed. It has been long understood that BOTH the genotype and environmental influences determine how our genes are expressed, and there's no doubt the environmental influences I listed can have a huge impact on how individuals succeed at 'socializing' and thus can have a tremendous impact on our reproductive, and thus our 'genetic' success.
@@thomabow8949 it is totally illogical to think humans cannot be influenced by our parents in many crucial ways that affect such genetically significant outcomes as our mate choices, our success in life, and even how many kids we have. These can all have an impact on our reproductive outcomes, and thus our evolution as a species. Yes, these are 'indirect' effects on our genetic outcomes, but certainly no less real than the direct influences.
@@garymaclean6903 Its far less real as there is no genetic legacy
@@soupdragon151 Actually, parents influence their children's behavior all the time. That influence can have a significant effect on if and when they marry, as well as who they marry...
It's not true that after reproductive age we've no effect on our genetic legacy.
10:21
Are humans, our lineage, related too "LUCA"?
the last universal common ancestor on this planet? it's a safe bet
@@AMC2283 Explain how a first simple cell can randomly create new proteins in groups to build new body parts…..you would be the first to do it. Moor on.
@@edgein8632 you mean basic organic chemistry clown?
@@edgein8632
You want to learn about random mutations and the scientific age of earth. Not a pseudoscientific one, as I remind you that even Christian scientists are accepting evolution these days because of overwhelming evidence.
If you don't believe in evolution, can you tell me how much you did learn this Scientific theory and what are the 3 main types of evidence that you have problems with?
@@ep8569 Education is not your thing obviously. The evolution we all see AND ACCEPT is Darwinian or micro evolution. 100% of the time these sometimes beneficial mutations happen by a loss of information. Mutations degrade a late stage trivial gene that creates a birth defect basically. Polar bears lost pigment, wolves lose genes to become dogs, Darwin’s finches getting smaller beaks….even pit bulls adding muscle by degrading a growth regulation genes are examples of how it works. Never does evolution build anything new. Sit down, the educated people are talking.
This lecture was on RUclips/Gresham just 2 weeks ago. As a subscriber, having wasted 20 minutes confirming this was a repeat and drafting this simple comment, I would appreciate if "re-runs" were advertised as such. As is, it feels like someone at Gresham was trying to deceive the audience. And in this age of "fake news/info," that's a self-destructive path for a college to take.
The recording date is listed in the video description; Gresham aren't deceiving anyone who cares to read it. Perhaps they accidentally released a video earlier than intended - it happens all the time. Fake news is false news; 3-week-old lectures are just old news
Get over yourself
Nonsense man... What's wrong with you?
Like evolution, no one cares.
Subscribers usually receive output early as one part of the contract .
Often this is highlighted to you in an email.
What about Africans? Do they have any advantages/disadvantages for not having inherited Neanderthal DNA for example ? What if any evolution of Homo sapiens took place in Africa after the migration events from there? Why are Africans and non-Africans so genetically similar? In general, where do Africans fit into the « out of Africa » scheme ?
I don't see any mathematical proof that evolution here....just a lot of sentences, but no proof....(Hint: Evolution is impossible as proven by the Foundational Rules of Statistics and Probability that any random event which requires a chance of occurrence greater than 1 x 10 to the 40th power is regarded as NEVER GOING TO OCCUR...!!)
Here you go.
EvolutionVolume 70, Issue 6 p. 1354-1363
Statistical evidence for common ancestry: Application to primates
David A. Baum, Cécile Ané, Bret Larget, Claudia Solís-Lemus, Lam Si Tung Ho, Peggy Boone, Chloe P. Drummond, Martin Bontrager, Steven J. Hunter, William Saucier
First published: 03 May 2016
This is a history lecture, not a scientific one. The evidence to support his statements is found in the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, like the one above, that are available for you to view for yourself. I suspect however that your ignorance is willful, and there is no cure for that.
You're welcome.
.75 playback speed helped a lot.
He was speaking slowly enough already I kept waiting for him to get to important points (sorry lecturer no offence)
@@soupdragon151 And I didn't mean any offence to the lecturer. It had to do with his accent more than anything. Also, he has a tendency to speak at a normal pace and then suddenly speed up, which results in garbled words.
That we have been evolving for a small amount of time and we probably have a small amount of time, may not be true. We don't know how non-life matter transform into life and consciousness (and that by expending a lot of resources, spending billions of years, overcoming a host of terminal conditions[black hole catastrophes if not terminal radiation sources etc.] I wonder if it is all for a small amount of time (we cannot rule out that we still have a lot to evolve into). Purely considering 'purpose', we seem to have to be programmed to withstand many miracles of design. We haven't seen enough yet.
Wut?
It was a little concerning to hear Robin May's ringing endorsement of the MRNA technology and his pronouncement that the genetic material in these injections does not combine with or affect the cellular DNA. Aside from the simian DNA contaminants, it is not clear what effect the MRNA is having when it enters cells.
Uhh. Perhaps the argument doesn’t hold for humans since we have complex family structures like elders passing on knowledge and holding power over groups…. War. Etc…. We are and probably did evolve a little differently than wolves…. So being able to live long enough to ensure your children survive after mating and through adulthood and possible through a second generation are perhaps important….
Agree...
Or...the two types did not mate at a 50/50 rate per species so future crosses with 100% sapiens drowned out the neanderthal genes. Not that the genes did not aid us until today. Consider current DNA tests that show DNA from other races but it is so dilute that it does not show in our phenotype.
I would just ad that on Earth are groups of people like for example Mongolians which are lactose intolerant but their society is build on eating milk products, foods and drinks which are fermented. And there is theory that if we introduce fermenting bacteria into our guts it could replace natural tolerance to milk for milk intolerant people.
The ice finished
Why cant these scientists don't remember is all humans didn't leave Africa. Still a lot of us are still there. Africa really have a more interesting history.
I wish I inherited the Neanderthal gene for muscle mass
My son curiously has no wisdom teeth, is low weight, has a full head of hair, great vision, does not have the gene for prostate cancer. plays violin, and is in IT. Perhaps he should be a premium sperm donor.
Excellent stuff !
Scientific, not quasi-science.
Non extra-terrestrials living under the Earth.
Fascinating indeed!
I guess its more than 300 thousands years, the first ape called lucy was 2 million year old
Australopithecus is a different genus
@@AMC2283 And yet the precursor to Homo and almost certainly the ancestor
The most "pressing" environmental change affecting the future of homosapiens is the introduction and subsequent evolution of electronics to the habitats.
Yes this must be discussed because affects evolution since earth magnetic waves of earth that we had 100,000 years ago with animals, bugs, viruses with magnetic waves as they were that now disturbed and chemicals in environment that enters all species. Older the mother father reproduce the more chance for broken genes produces more defective offerings thus birth babies before 30 or chance of defective offerings.
What's this guy on about! 6 year old kids running around with beards would be awesome!
"Hold up, hold up just a minute," in the words of Barak Obama. Are you saying that Socrates, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Dostoevsky, to name a few, have had zero impact on the path of humankind?
What precisely do you mean by "path of humankind"
The fact that we know those names and their respective work in the current year says otherwise
When did he say that? Thats an odd inference to draw.
“Decimate” means the removal of one in ten (10%). 😊
Yes and no. That's the original meaning of the word (specifically as a form of group punishment for rebellious legions), but since we no longer use decimation the meaning of the term has changed in common usage.
@@jeffspaulding9834 I had to laugh at an actor starring in the TV series "The Last Ship". he was being interviewed about the apocalyptic series and, with great seriousness said, "its set at a time in the future when 90% of the world's population has been decimated". So I thought to myself, OK - 9%" of the world's population....bad, very bad, but hardly a near extinction event.
I read recently that bad diarrhoea is genetic ………. It’s in your jeans! 😂 whey hey … I’ll get my coat 🧥
26:49 Swathe is a verb. It is not a swath. Come on, people. Learn your language.
a two second google search will tell you that swathe is the British spelling of swath, and indeed is both a verb and a noun
@@msbananananner4739 If you listen to the BBC you can hear that it's not a spelling issue. The English have come to confuse those two words. A 'Google search' has no value as an argument.
@@PJinBston if it's an argument you want, feel free to direct it at the dictionary
@@PJinBston SO what's the difference between the two words?
Opps, has.
How do we know which are the Neandertal genes: by comparing with humans whose ancestors never left Africa?
Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. From neantherthal remains (bones). Then you compare a 100% neanderthal sequence to moderns europeans have 2-6% neanderthal DNA africans have none. Interestingly everyone has different sequences so you add up all the different strands something like 80% of the genome is still "alive" its just extremely dispersed.
this is an interesting video that talks about the survival of the fittest but what it does not say is gene function is under the control of our creator who evolved genes according to the times and no gene can give a survival advantage unless he designs it to be so and this is the bottom line in survival of the fittest hypothesis and humans and animals have gene function assigned to them at birth and evolution to a new gene sequence occurs then when conception takes place and humans who survive have the fittest gene pool and that is why i am here and you too as allah gave us fitness in our gene pool and so we know chance does not produce perfection but evolve we do by design by him the creator there
omar
It seems that this mixing change genes
Gene recombination happens after fertilization when parents' genes are reshuffled. In that way we get intraspecific variation but not evolution. There is no evolution whatsoever because evolution would need a continuous flow of unforeseen new genes. There aren't unforeseen new genes on this planet. Mutations do not produce new genes, they only destroy existing genes.
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
@jounisuninen No, mutations don't destroy existing genes. They change them. Genes can be duplicated. Duplicated genes can have their own mutations and gain a new function while the original genes remains with the original function. Genes can also be deleted which could cause some inhibitor gene function to be lost which could cause such traits as increased encephalization.
What are they looking for when they take down people's jeans ?