We’re aware some people are seeing glitches and artifacts on the video. We’ve reviewed and it’s not in the master video file! Seems to be a problem on RUclips’s end with how they encode the videos (we aren’t the only channel affected), and we hope it’s fixed soon.
THANK YOU for mentioning this! I was starting to freak out, wondering if it was my computer about to croak. Well, at least it's not just your channel, and this was a great video anyways, so who care about a few weird visual glitches. Keep up the good work.
@@faustin289 Flying is complicated enough as is, I doubt anyone would be able to pull it off mid-coitus. Take the Bald Eagle's mid-air mating; they don't do it while flying, they do it while _falling._
I'm telling y'all cybernetics is where it's at, I heard developers talk about how the only people who would use it would be those who need it like amputees but I'm not convinced that if it were really effecient that it wouldn't become used recreationally and complimentary like to eliminate the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome or others like it
@@zombkillrb oh for sure, I dont dount people will be recreationally augmenting themselves for medical reasons but also for fun. Personally im looking forward to eye implants. Like imagine being able to take pics or zoom or have night vision with your eyes
Yeah, but they would have to switch back on a lot of genes that might have mutated away. Re-evolving giantism would probably be pretty hard for a domesticated species. At least without a special breeding program... 🤔
Yes, the tyrannosaurus genus died a long time ago, trex was one of the last tyrannosaurs, t-rex was already on the decline, it was evolving into a bird, it was growing feathers and turning into a chicken, the atmosphere and the climate, it was more efficient to be a small bird, think about that the next time you eat chicken wings, 11 year old dinosaur genus out ✌🏻
@@Clifford_Banes Dino bones were just like bird bones. And no, duck bones are stronger than the more solid mammal bones with the same cross section. That's exactly the reason why dinosaurs could grow to larger sizes than mammals. With the same cross section, a dino bone is stronger and thus can support more mass than a mammal bone
Sort of but not really. If say, zebras evolved lasers to fight off all their predators they would definitely be "good enough", but there would still be competition for mates and food and the like so the entire species as a whole would continue to get "better" even though all of the pressures are all internal. It would be a much, much slower evolution than would be produced by external pressures, but it would still happen.
If we all start actively pretending that large arms are super attractive, and seek mates with massive arms, that would be the first step towards a wing evolution.
Human hands > wings Our hands are one of those extremely high evolutionary peaks, arguably a higher one than wings. Look into how our fingernails absolutely blow away claws and then consider what our dexterity has enabled us to build as a species.
A lovely way to sum this up would be to state that “evolution is lazy”. Evolution will solve a problem in the easiest way possible. And will never go out of its way to make a species superior.
it will take years for species evolution to change, look at radiation it last till probably more than 24 yrs, maybe in the future humans or animals will resist radiation?
@@anunknownperson4018 surely resistance to radiation is one of the things that is actively being worked on by evolution right now… However as you correctly stated, this will take years.
Exactly, evolution has nothing to do with being superior, it is about being fit for your environment at the lowest cost. That's why not all animals end up big, predators or having high intelligence
Evolution: Make owl ears asymmeterical so they can use sound to see, let this snail shed its body and grow a new one from just its head, make this walking stick look just like a leaf, and this beetle shoots hot chemicals from its butt.
Oh yes it will. Right now, we are Nature's darlings because we're going to save the planet, once we get our ducks in a row that is. We needed the infinitely powerful Atomic Bomb, and for that She was willing to sacrifice trillions of us, but now that we have that, and the capacity to spot a meteor on its way to smash us, we can get civilized again and clean things up a bit. Remember, we're not done evolving; we're a work in progress. But we're also the Saints here, and all of Life on Earth is counting on us.
Worth mentioning that nature makes wheels, or at least rotors at the molecular scale, such as a flagellum, like a propellor for a protist, or the famous "waterwheel driven by protons", ATP Synthase.
Right, on the macro scale wheels get really hard because you have to be able to feed the "spinny bits" without having them attached to the circulatory system. At tiny scales all kinds of great stuff becomes practical!
@@hoi-polloi1863 id argue that on macro scale they're also irrelevant. So it's not only giant trouble, its giant trouble for bad results in return, wheels have lower fitness. Legs are simply superior in most natural environments, more directions of movement, work on nearly all surfaces and shapes. You also get possibility to jump and kick as a bonus. The only thing wheel has is theoretically better efficiency, theoretically not practically cause it's assuming movement on perfect flat surface, something that barely exists in nature.
i wish we could engineer those, but they apparently have to be huge, to support us and their own weight, cuz they also will be heavy, since we don't have much materials that are light enough and also efficient... so yeah... kinda a bummer
is an electrical eel not close enough to an equally doable evolutionary trait? I mean tasering crocodiles or lions sneaking up to you in the watering hole seems like a good savannah trait, why don't we see a lot of land animals develop this trait? Because it isn't all that useful on land, and takes a greater amount of food consumption to fuel the organs needed to generate the necessary stores of attack and in the Zebra's case why need it when you have a heard and one the most powerful hind kicks per square inch. A secondary defense system in an a mostly non aquatic life style doesn't evolve because it isn't efficient. Not when you already have useful defense systems.
And if I also add electric eels have developed this unique defense as an effective offense system as well. So it has double benefits for a predator. Not an herbivore in the long run on land.
Zebras could use a small glowing red spot to attract mates, then use a low wattage laser to distract lions (think laser pointer and cat), and then eventually power up the laser into a defensive weapon.
Now I really want to see the biological mechanism of a laser. I can almost imagine it right now. Energy storage and discharge like an electric eel, transparent structures abound, add in some bioluminescence and all it needs is cohesiveness light, which I'm sure evolution could figure out.
@@michaelprice3031 It could come slowly from your metabolism, or more quickly if light sensitive skin cells started charging up those eel-like batteries.
Though there's something to be said about moving downwards. No it's not really downwards, but simplification is a thing also, where organisms lose some traits
@@steelbear2063I was just thinking about the fact that if a species lost the need for something, they could "travel back down the hill" and possibly go up a new one
When I first learned about evolution, it was from Pokémon, I was 4 and I sat in a corner trying to evolve. Edit: I only believed evolution works like in Pokémon until I was 8 or 9.
Pokemon style evolution is EXACTLY how creationists think Evolution works, and use as a strawman to discredit it. "Why don´t we see apes turning into humans... like right now?". "Why no ducks turning into crocodiles?"
We learnt about that while studying genetic/evolution based optimisation algorithms. If you up the mutation rate to very high levels, you can sorta. But you also risk losing any advantages. It's like the chance of superpowers vs cancer.
I remember my grandparents having a Trabant. It was loud, stinky, had a tendency to fall apart and if you hit a cobblestone road, it would severely hamper your reproduction capabilities for a few days. Still the flexibility compared to the horse cart we often took to the market at weekends was superb. You also had no heater, so we used to put one of those propane gas canisters on the backseat with a heating unit on it. Oh and the doors stopped working towards the end, so we had to enter/leave through the window. Yeah... "Good" old times, eh? Nowadays even on the countryside every family has at least 2 cars, often more and you even see stuff like Teslas from time to time. Among a lot of tractors and the occasional horse/dog cart.
Funny, but you got the quote wrong. Its "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life thinking its stupid." or something to that affect.
Fun fact: Even if you are in bad shape or perhaps overweight, you are automatically one of the best long distance runners on the planet. Unless you aren't human, in which case your reading this is impressive.
I'd disagree. A 350 pound fatball can't walk 50 feet, let alone a mile or so. The human respiratory system is pathetic, it can't support weight. I'm ~185lbs at 5'8 and I can't run at maximum speed for more than 0.5 mile
@@somestranger175 Sorry, but i disagree based on facts. edition.cnn.com/2017/05/05/health/turning-points-mirna-valerio/index.html Its just one example, didnt find my original example, but there are plenty of indigenous runners that are fat for western standards, doing more kilometers a day than i move with bus in a whole week (jeah, work is pretty close
Good points all. Perhaps the image of a sumotori keeping up with a pronghorn is a bit ludicrous. It might be better to express "long distance runner" as "endurance predator." Though most quadripeds would leave humans in the dust in short races, our ancestors excelled in chases lasting several days, our only real challengers being the canids, particularly _lupus_ and _lycaon._ Upright bipedality means more of the musculature can be devoted to mobility as gravity is resisted by the bones; naked skin provided superior thermoregulation in hot climates; an omnivorous diet meant no need to spend hours browsing or grazing to restore energy and those peculiar primate feet (once well-toughened) could tackle a wide variety of terrain.
Another factor you didn't mention is "brittleness" (I think a term coined by Dawkins) - your hands and my hands are not exactly the same shape, but we both have hands that are ok as hands. A wheel cannot get very far from being perfectly circular before it is essentially useless - my collection of slightly warped bike wheels attests to that. So quite apart from the issue of damage-in-use, the peak that they sit on in evolutionary space has almost vertical sides - too steep to plausibly climb. All that said, there are microbes that use what may be called wheels or propellers, because the physics at small scale gives evolution a slightly different landscape to play on.
Everything you just said is made up. Never tested by any experiment, just like most evolutionary theories. I guess you're going to make me get into all the ways the virtual simulations are useless now huh. Well, long story short by the time computers came around everybody had already made up their mind when it came to whether or not evolution was true. The only experiments that evolutionists cared about, were done to test whether or not computers could be used to simulate evolution, which they can (although I think the first study/studies actually failed). However, cartoon physics can also be simulated on a computer, it means nothing. Most evolution simulations that are made, simply aren't even considered finished until they simulate evolution. Ergo it's impossible that one could be used to determine that evolution is impossible since all of the problems have either been lessened or stripped away (for instance, by making every possible piece of genetic code equate to a functional neural network wherein only one or two triggers are needed to survive). I've wanted to make my own evolution simulator to actually test whether or not evolution is possible for a long time, unfortunately, it's one of those projects that appears to be too hard to ever get around to.
Best way I've seen someone explaining square cube law. The volume increases at a higuer rate in comparison to area. It's possible to create a relation between the increments, but impossible directly between volume and area, as the area/volume ratio doesn't exist since the units differ.
Local optima is actually a great way to think about addictions. It's difficult to quit your addictions because you have to go down a lesser peak to find you pathway to a higher one.
You totally forgot to mention one curcially important thing on fitness: Fitness isn't determined by your survival rate, but by your reproduction. So going for something like Laser Zebras, it would be possible that a Zebra lives long enough to mate and give birth with a specific trait that may or may not lead to a laser organ in the long term. As long as their offspring can succsessfully mate and give birth again, the trait can be spread, solidified and further evolve over time. That's basically the reason, why hammer toes (hallux valgus) exist in humans or why we haven't outbred cancer or chorea huntington. The genes that lead to those phenotypes do so a bit after our reproduction age. People with the genetic dispositon for cancer or chorea huntington, f.e., can successfully produce offspring, as the "diseases" occur in their higher years (mid-thirties onwards). Hallux Valgus, with is a condition in which your biggest toe moves inward in a painful process, which may leave you unable to walk, if not treated, begins mostly after the menopause (or around the same time in men, but I think it's more common in women, correct me, if I'm wrong). But the trait can pass on and actually is about to solidify in certain lineages, as it doesn't lower your reproduction rate. And in this case, one offspring (or a set of non-phenotypically coding genes or a heterozygotous inheritance like albinism f.e.) is all evolution needs in the long run. Strange hands, which can become wings, however, won't necessarily lower your survival rate (as humans tend to keep those alive, who are close to them. Especially when they are helpful in other ways), but I can guess it would lower their reproduction rate, because how many people would mate with someone with bat-hands? Or as my biology professor once put it: Humans love strawberries. If there where one person to have strawberry-shaped, -colored and -tasting ears, it would have major sucess finding mates. So there would be some children with strawberry-ears, who in turn would have big success in finding mates and some generations onward, strawberry-ears would be a perfectly normal trait in humans. Evolution isn't logical, it isn't goal-oriented, but pretty situational and sometimes astonishingly complex.
Yess, thank you for pointing this out bc it's a crucial factor in the development of wings. Not many ppl would be excited to mate with someone who has an early phenotype for batwings, regardless of how cool the concept that their great grand kids might be able to fly. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective) higher degrees of consciousness gets in the way of the evolutionary process when it comes to selective breeding. Granted, many animals out there share our disposition against mating with others who look very different than us species wise but I get the strong impression that such hesitance is exacerbated the more sentient and self aware you become. Especially once you factor In human notions of traditionalism/ religion that would make such action a social taboo
Yep, being able to reproduce the most means that you’re the fittest. That’s literally what survival of the fittest means in biology. Im ashamed many people think it means the animal is simply the strongest or the smartest.
Actually, from what I've heard, they've found out our eyes actually benefit from the nerves routing backwards. There are fiberoptic like filaments that filter out a lot of the blue light that tends to dominate on the land. In the ocean you don't want to reduce the amount light because you take all you can get.
Because evolution didn’t account for excess food. Weight loss programs or just living with some belly fat are deemed “good enough” for humans to survive.
We evolved in a food scarce environment and we have only had an abundance of food for the last 100 years so we have not had enough time to adapt to this new age of abundance.
@@zukodude487987 An important thing to note here is that we most likely never will adapt to it either. At least not naturally. Basically we have created a society which doesn't actually require the human race's fitness to increase. The trend would logically even be the opposite, a decrease instead. Because in the society we have created normally the "lower class" births a lot more children than the more successful "upper class" families. Therefore over time increasing the prevalence of genes that actually don't "succeed" as well in our society (career wise and such).
@@jarzez There is no need to adapt, if people used their brains that we've evolved so much, they wouldn't become obese and would work out, be healthy, and live longer lives. We already have evolved in terms of nutrition, it's people's own will and decisions that leads to obesity, not a flaw in evolution
@@pcmasterracetechgod5660 Well, I dont necessarily disagree with you that people are overall not thinking about the health consequences enough. But you can easily argue that it is our current state of evolution that causes the majority of population to live unhealthy lives and make unhealthy decision. It's not like evolution and our decisions are unrelated, quite the opposite. Our brain is simply not evolved to naturally make healthy life choices in our current society. If it was, then we wouldnt have obesity for example.
Lol. My wife works for a lab in Colorado. She’s a lab scientist and she talks about bacterial flagella almost everyday. I have no idea wha she’s talking about
Smart comment. This yt guy “Its ok to be smart” LoL, doesn’t know about the flagella, otherwise he would have mentioned it. But then he would have to explain how it came about, and I don’t think he’s so smart that he could do that.
As a stem cell biologist, I think there are many crazy evolutionary processes which might seem impossible. We have ancient "viruses" in our DNA called transposons which can change their location, thereby destroying genes and contributing towards cancer. So naturally we have developed mechanisms to inactivate them (by modifying their DNA sequences). But our cells also use parts of transposons to control the activity of genes and also turn a lot of transposons on during our early development to form the embryo (I made a video about this). Of course, all of that is highly beneficial but also super crazy!
“As a...” As a committed scholar to philosophy (I am not), I say that this is quite pointless to say. Sure, this may add credibility, but only if you provide proof that you are a stem cell biologist, and then why does this matter much to the vague clause that followed it? Additionally, a lot of people will say the same thing as you, but they won’t add this dependent clause, but the target audience will believe either way. Rather than stating your authority, simply provide sources and other ways to verify and explore your section of biology, as you did do - it can’t be taken to be condescending and helps readers verify information - because even scientists can screw up, accidentally, and can just be wrong, so removing this clause at the beginning removes this feeling of sovereignty over knowledge. I understand that you are, hopefully, soon to be a doctor and attempting to advertise your channel, but I would suggest just to be more direct.
As a random person on the internet I am betting on the future of commercialised gene editing industry But that wouldn't hold weight since I am not a biologist, or am I?
TL;DR, I explain how evolution could actually produce lazer zebras (2nd paragraph if low on time or patience). I can appreciate that answering all questions pertaining to the abilities of evolution with the appropriate degree of nuance is no small task. This is why I have always found it useful to employ what I call 'conjecturifics' or 'conjecturific language;' language denoting an appropriate degree of uncertainty, such as "perhaps" when you are giving one two possible explanations where you have no inclinations, "I suspect" when it is your prefered explanation but not by a wide margin, 'I am confident' when it *is* prefered by a wide margin (ideally for good reason), etc. You actually did a pretty decent job of this, but I have an objection. When discussing the 'zebras acquiring lazer weapons' being impossible because of the transitionary stages being less fit, you assume the only path is one where components of the weapon would be acquired one at a time, and the weapon would only be useful upon completion. In reality, this is not the only path. There is the evolutionary path taken, for example, by the camera / eye. The eye started as a bit of light-sensitive brain tissue. This enabled early acquatic animals to determine when a predator was approaching, because a small amount of light was penetrating their outer layers - just as we can still see some of the light when we cover a flashlight with our hands - and this light was now being obscured. Over time, the tissue covering this light sensitive brain-matter was lost, leaving these early eyes exposed. Over time, that brain tissue specialized for photon detection exclusively. Over time, eyes changed shape into a chamber (from which the word "camera" is derrived) with a pinhole through which light from different point sources would be mapped to specific photon receptors. Over time, eyes developed shutters, or irises, to change the size of the pinhole, enabling animals to focus on things near or distant. Zebras could evolve bio-luminescence, as so many animals have, if their environment changed to grant them an advantage for doing so. This bioluminescence could evolve into stronger bursts of light if, for example, their environment consisted of a single source of nutrients which were stunned when struck with a burst of light. Competition between this predator zebra and this prey animal might result in the prey becoming resistant to increasingly strong bursts of light, and zebras producing increasingly powerful bursts of light. There. That is how evolution could actually produce lazer zebras. I very much doubt this will ever happen, but it is not 'impossible in evolution.'
So ... Laser blasting Zebra wouldn't be Vegetarian anymore? Make sense, i guess. As Heaven's Design Team watcher, I kind of agree with you. It's not impossible for Zebra to grow laser blasting organ. But by the time Laser Blasting Organ is developed, it wouldn't be the same as our "original" Zebra. Thing's just isn't the same. I mean come on... Laser is too great of an offensive weapon, it comes with great cost too, both against outsiders and their own kinds. "Linda, you deny my approach but you allowed him, just because he has better looking stripes? See if he likes big black spot on his head". Starts headshot other competitors, and ruined the whole community.
Yeah, in fact all animals actually move thanks to wheels, because ATP syntasis, the enzyme that allows the storing of energy into ATP, has a rotating mechanism. So we get the energy to move thanks to basically a wheel.
@@davidec.2853 because at the microscopic scale, ATP is active and working in the open nutrient solution, but people are not completely open in the air, and cannot directly obtain all the nutrients they need from the air
1. Evolution can definitely give wings if mutation happen, it will surely be of membrane than feathers. 2. Evolution can also make fish propellors but it will likely be a muscular than of metal. 3. Evolution can definitely make 5 legged cat through mutation. 4. Giraffes size chicken is really possible, U already know them as Non avian Dinosaurs. 5. Wheel is possible in evolution but it will most likely be made of Keratin than living cells. 6. Zebra with lazers is possible in evolution as we all know luminosity is possible biologically cause we already have fireflies, but fighting lazers r not possible which includes very very high amount of metabolic rate.
in american, i grew up calling them potato bugs (which is not, what a lot of other folks would call a potato bug; then, pill bug. now, wood louse. googletranslate
@@greenxmango8049 Technically they already exist, but they lack the genetic mutation accumulations to become what is outlined in that short series... also, if you're logging into things with the same email on multiple services, & don't have privacy settings that tell the various data loggers to ignore you, then obviously you're going to find a lot more "coincidental" things as it's financially appealing to those that employ the data loggers, since they get rewarded for snooping & suggesting. I know Firefox isn't the best browser out there in terms of resource management, but it certainly does a decent job of blocking those data loggers when surfing the internet. For the apps that you use, many have an opt-out section.
The dislike is from people who disapointed that Laser Zebra is impossible Edit: with recent yt update i can definitely say that this comment age [redacted]
Humans: Why hasn't evolution made zebras with Lasers. Evolution: You idiot I evolved you so you can make those things, Have you forgotten You are part of me?
I'm glad you mentioned the mulefas in "His Dark Materials". (For those not in the know: creatures that have a symbiotic relationship with a huge tree species producing round seeds, and which ultimately evolved to use these seeds as wheels. Oh, and they use naturally smooth hardened lava flows as "highways".) I've always found that to be wonderfully creative in that it's a *plausible* way evolution could produce animals with wheels.
Panda are omnivorous. We just sucked at taking care of them for the longest time. Same for making them reproduce. We're getting better, but we did a ton of damage.
@@lucasliam8238 lol true. Or they might take over human civilization and wreak havoc because no natural predator exists to maintain their exploding population.
I was just watching a recent SmarterEveryDay video explaining the biological flagella propellers used by some bacteria. I thought about it when you mentioned there aren’t any fish with motors, and there probably never could be since the same biological motor wouldn’t work at a large scale, but I still think it’s interesting.
For an animal to have natural wheels, it would need to excrete the wheel, then excrete the lubricant between the wheel and shaft/limb. If the wheel is damaged, it regrows it, not unlike growing fingernails or hair only it grows into a mass that separates after a degree of size is met.
technically possible if a mammal evolves armor segments on its limb's joints. It could then produce that chitin 'wheel' around its joints and find benefit in using them to roll downhill. There would have to be some kind of specific joint-attacking evolutionary pressure for the precursor to be selected, otherwise such chitin would just impair flexibility.
The true problem is that wheels are actually really bad outside of human civilization, almost all cars are bound to the road and will literally break when faced with something as mundane as a curb, any capable person can outrun an offroad if the terrain is bad enough, and we're not even the best animals at doing it, a cheetah can run at 130km/h on a terrain that most cars couldn't even get. What wheels excelled at back in the days was moving a very heavy load, but cargo transport is just a human problem
@@AdrianOkay True, maybe certain types of goat could find a niche for zipping down mountain trails. They do tend to make decent paths already and much of the problem of a car in the wild is the sheer size of the thing. Less energy intensive to coast downhill, perhaps a migrating goat lol. It's fun to try and think of an exception.
I'd say a flying reptile would be a good start, just add some snout, make it stand a bit upright and increase the size. Maybe add a skunk or bombardier beetle defense mechanism on its mouth for the fire breathing effect
@@jackmcavaney6565 they do be having wings though. But their size makes them sort of adorable. Multiply that by like x100 and shits gonna get really real, really fast 🤣
@@yachiyous9110 I'd say one of the real obstacles for true fire-breathing would be producing some adequate amounts of some combustible substance. Not impossible, but it would require lots of energy, so the animal would have to eat LOTS of food. That fire would basically have to help the animal to find lots of food to be viable.
There is something called genetic engineering. It is much faster than evolution or artificial selection. Maybe we can reduce the density of human bones and reduce or eliminate fat tissue so that humans weight is decreased. And also maybe we can strengthen our chest muscle through genetic engineering. And then we don't need to genetic engineer the wings. Just put artificial wings on and then you are ready to fly. But remember kids the answer to "Is this ethical?" is "Yes".
The fitness theory is flawed. Evolution is about ability to survive, not ability to excel. As long as a mutation does not kill before the mutant can breed, the evolution happens. Your babirusa example is one that refute that theory. Another example is the sickle cell mutation in Sub Saharan people. Both made the mutants less fit.
@@gorilladisco9108 the sickle cell mutation is actually to combat malaria. As a recessive gene, it offers protection at the risk of your children possibly dying if your partner has the gene as well. Instead of nearly 100% of your children dying from malaria, about 25% will have both genes and die, about 50% will have one out of two and be malaria-resistant while also not displaying sickle cell anemia, and about 25% will not have any anemia genes and will likely die of malaria. I’m sure there’s more at play than just the Eighth Grade Punnet Square™, but this is a simplified version of what happens that gets the point across well enough
Actually there is a small error in this script. You can move horizontally on the fitness landscape. Which means having a mutation that doesn't impair your survival/reproduction. And sometimes there's jumps, mytochondria being an example, horizontal gene transfer an other. Since humans have mainly flattened their own fitness landscape, there's lot of place for horizontal movement that would allow wings to develop, in theory. In practice i don't expect our species to ever naturally develop wings, and i doubt there'll be a lot of natural in us given enough time. Plus, hands are pretty ... handy 😣
Yes, horizontal movement on a landscape is possible and does happen, but is far more the exception than the rule, so I left it out to avoid confusion. But thanks for this comment!
@@besmart It is my opinion that you should have included this part. Your explanation of the fitness landscape made it sound as if species become stuck as they are with no place to go in evolution. While I know this is not the case, and I hope others do too, I feel this could confuse so many people.
@@besmart Humans are the exception with a past of natural selection and a future of genetic engineering artificial selection. It was confusing to hear you keep using humans as the example that could 'never' evolve traits or parts possible in other animals.
@@Thunderous115 I think one of the overlooked aspects is that the fitness landscape can change. An organism that is well-adapted to survive in its environment would see little selective pressure so evolution would be unlikely. But a new predator, change in climate, or disease outbreak changes the landscape and certain traits would be favored, triggering faster evolution
@@sapateirovalentin348 It's completely unrelated to Rick and Morty. It's about a nickname a close friend gave me related to my appreciation for good pickles.
I solved ethics myself other day. Everything I do is ethical and right, because I defined it as so, so it is. There's no possible action that I do that's not right and ethical. Even if it is illegal and could land me in jail, its still right, by the rule code I created. It was an action that I did, so it was right.
I love any time I can bring up the the square cube law as an explanation for why something can't work. It's so elegant and easily understood (as long as you aren't crap at explaining things), but it seems to be so seldom known to most non-scientific/engineering people, so in my experience you can generally WATCH the understanding dawn on someone's face and know that you helped someone to, at least in one small instance, alter how they perceive the world.
@@TheLiamis Effectively, but be careful about a few details. First, be sure to distinguish what you mean by "size", since size is kind of a vague term, it's more correct to say 2x _surface area_ (SA) = 4x _volume_ (V) (I get subbing in mass for volume, there isn't really a problem with that, since they are generally in a 1:1 direct proportion if you don't get into extreme circumstances like, say, the cores of planets or stars). But it also doesn't highlight the crux of the matter that volume increases faster than surface area. So to demonstrate numerically, while 2x SA = 4x V, _3_ x SA = _9_ x V, _4_ x SA = _16_ x V, 5x SA = 25 V, etc. One side gets much bigger much more quickly than the other as the "size" increases. The main point of the square/cube law is that the volume (mass) increases at a much faster rate than the surface area, because many structural properties and strengths of materials (like, say, bone) are dependent largely on surface areas (total or cross sectional). Since the mass of a bone increases faster than any cross sectional area, eventually the mass will be more than the bone can actually support for a given size. For things like cells, materials have to pass in and waste out of the surface of the cell, but only so much can pass through for a given surface area, but the larger the volume, the more processes (generally, not always) take place, so the more materials required and the more waste produced. Eventually, as the overall size of the cell increases, the surface area of the cell can't move material across itself quickly enough to either bring in enough raw material or get out enough waste for a given cells volume. There are biological workarounds/hacks that have been found in organisms here and there, sure, but for the vast majority of cells, dem's the breaks.
I just love how beautifully simple yet mind bogglingly complex life and evolution and genetics can be, both at the same time. Such simple base concepts. You can't evolve lower fitness. You have to go straight up. All iterations must provide a benefit. Yet those concepts build and build into incredibly complex lifeforms. It's so magical to me
I 100% agree! It's so mind-boggling. I will say that technically you can evolve lower. It's not something that commonly lasts longer than 1 or 2 generations. Each step in evolution is just a genetic mutation. Sometimes an organism with a mutation doesn't survive to adulthood. But some mutations will just be a mildly annoying trait. If the trait doesn't repel mates or cause sterility, the trait could be passed down. We think of it as only up, and it often is. But there are some cases of slight disadvantages. And with all of the technology that we have and are still creating, the chances of being able to live & reproduce even with a genetic mutation continue to increase. Tbh, I'm expecting humans to start having some notable changes in the next 300-ish years. Not a species-wide adaptation, but there could be some dramatic regional differences. Not wings probably, but who knows what kind of odd traits might develop over the next handful of generations.
Something I find amazing is how we evolved into multicellular organisms in the first place. I saw a video on strange things in the sea and one of them was a long, rope-like "creature" that was actually a colony of creatures, each one differentiating into a different function or into groups of like functions. My thought is that such a colony is a look at the dawn of a new species in the process of becoming, as well as a view of how we became more than unicellular animals.
Evolve small light to see the path better, then stronger light to scare off predators, then the lase to kill the predators. So there's absolutely the gradual way to develop this trait.
1:49 I like the idea of a young Joe having nightmares wherein he sleep-talks and says “No wheelies! Biology doesn’t allow for members of the animal kingdom to have wheels. It’s scientifically impossible! Ah!”
The fitness landscape is very interesting, and the best way to explain why something is impossible in evolution, but I think the fitness landscape is in a constant change, and this can allow evolution adaptations what we believed impossible.
A random mutation in series of random mutations to allow what we believe impossible (human wings) should still somehow prevail across millions of generations in populations. It doesn't matter how landscape changes, evolution across generations has sensible limits.
@@MartinzW no it’s more like the fitness landscape is arbitrarily complex. For every hill there is an infinite hierarchy of valleys in which that hill is the highest. Likewise in the opposing format…and so in this sense you can say that so long as we can not compute the landscape, then we would just see what we could compute just a change in that landscape. As cool as this video is, it’s far too pragmatic about evolution. I would not take these “x is impossible” as truth statements at all.
Right. The landscape can even be nearly flat sometimes. I guarantee that Featherhands is getting laid if he can somehow learn to play base guitar with those things.
Damn this video turned out to be a thousand times more interesting than I thought it would be, and I already thought it would be quite interesting to start with! Thank you sir for this amazing content, and thank you for making it understandable for a person who only did biology for a few years in middle school!
I feel like this is different for us because we get to decide to a large extent which traits get passed on due to most people being able to reproduce regardless of potential harmful traits. Hell we literally did it with dogs, food, bacteria, etc.
"Return to Oz" was one of several books by Frank Baum. I had two of them, as a kid. I've forgotten the name of the other one, but it had a frog person who came down from a table mountain, heart shaped people, spinning mountains and a creature called a Woozy.
@@teslaromans1023 Possibly, but people have suggested that I have a crazy imagination, and I've never touched the stuff. On the other hand, I've read many books and listened to many songs written by people who either might have been, or definitely were, influenced by mind altering drugs.
Things with electric reception in Aquatic animals sometimes turn into electric defenses seeing electricity is an improvement so maybe we will evolve electric powers.
"You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads. Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done. Can you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly throw me a bone here." -Dr. Evil
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
We’re aware some people are seeing glitches and artifacts on the video. We’ve reviewed and it’s not in the master video file! Seems to be a problem on RUclips’s end with how they encode the videos (we aren’t the only channel affected), and we hope it’s fixed soon.
THANK YOU for mentioning this! I was starting to freak out, wondering if it was my computer about to croak. Well, at least it's not just your channel, and this was a great video anyways, so who care about a few weird visual glitches. Keep up the good work.
But evolution can evolve laser Zebras... It evolves humans who then can put lasers on Zebras.
I see. So it’s not the drugs then.
I've already started looking for a hidden message there.
5-legged cats have actually been observed...maybe worth a correction.
“Why is there no giraffe-sized chickens”
Because they got wiped out by a space rock
became KFC in the modern age.
Some guy might think it is possible to clone them and figure out a way to do it that was plot of movie Death Birds.
They are exclusive for the Skyrim DLC of the Universe.
@@Eldritch-1 they got cooked
True
"If humans could fly, we'd consider it exercise and never do it" - Ron Swanson
I didn't know someone had said this before and honestly had a conversation about this last year.
... unless you could mate mid-flight.
@@faustin289 That would take a lot of mating.
I miss Parks and Rec lol
@@faustin289 Flying is complicated enough as is, I doubt anyone would be able to pull it off mid-coitus. Take the Bald Eagle's mid-air mating; they don't do it while flying, they do it while _falling._
I dont even want wings man i just want the lumbar spine to be able to support us
A truly underappreciated comment
for that the people with back pain shouldn’t propagate
@@blazingtrs6348 let's do it for science then
I'm telling y'all cybernetics is where it's at, I heard developers talk about how the only people who would use it would be those who need it like amputees but I'm not convinced that if it were really effecient that it wouldn't become used recreationally and complimentary like to eliminate the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome or others like it
@@zombkillrb oh for sure, I dont dount people will be recreationally augmenting themselves for medical reasons but also for fun. Personally im looking forward to eye implants. Like imagine being able to take pics or zoom or have night vision with your eyes
Some hairless ape: why don't we have giraffe-sized chickens?
Dinosaurs: am I a joke to you?
Elephant birds: Yes.
Dinosaurs are not bird but birds are dinosaurs
@@Hssnd_bbnsd birds are not dinosaurs but they are the only direct continuation lineup of dinosaurs, a semantic difference.
Yes, Urah raptors have feathers and so they are close to chickens 😆😆
@@erkinalp hala dinozor sayılıyor
Giraffe size chicken isn’t remotely impossible, that’s a T-rex
Yeah, but they would have to switch back on a lot of genes that might have mutated away. Re-evolving giantism would probably be pretty hard for a domesticated species. At least without a special breeding program... 🤔
Yes, the tyrannosaurus genus died a long time ago, trex was one of the last tyrannosaurs, t-rex was already on the decline, it was evolving into a bird, it was growing feathers and turning into a chicken, the atmosphere and the climate, it was more efficient to be a small bird, think about that the next time you eat chicken wings, 11 year old dinosaur genus out ✌🏻
@@Clifford_Banes Dino bones were just like bird bones.
And no, duck bones are stronger than the more solid mammal bones with the same cross section.
That's exactly the reason why dinosaurs could grow to larger sizes than mammals. With the same cross section, a dino bone is stronger and thus can support more mass than a mammal bone
It’s CRISPR time.
LMAO
I read this somewhere. Evolution isn’t about the “best” or even the “good”, it’s about the “good enough”
Sort of but not really. If say, zebras evolved lasers to fight off all their predators they would definitely be "good enough", but there would still be competition for mates and food and the like so the entire species as a whole would continue to get "better" even though all of the pressures are all internal. It would be a much, much slower evolution than would be produced by external pressures, but it would still happen.
@@altrag maybe lions would evolve laser beams or ways to deflect the laser.
@@nate7LP_my_dog_found_the_knife mirror lions 😳
You probably heard it on RUclips as I did too recently but can’t remember from which video
evolution is the greatest C - student
"Nature is infinitely creative" - Keep creating crabs...
I understood that reference!
Nice
You can’t argue with perfection
Ya I got crabs
Oh wait not that kind... nvm
I had the EXACT same experience with Return to Oz and the wheelers when I was a kid - the wheeler looking through the keyhole absolutely terrified me
*MOOOOOOAAAAAANNNNNN*
*GROOOAAANNN*
I do this for no reason
People : where's the laser zebras?!
Evolution : crabs, take it or leave it.
While crabs: We have microscopic vision that defines more than enough colors and we can make plasma out of our claws.
insert "silence brand" meme
Pistol shrimp who can fire heat bubbles out of their huge claw like a cannon: sup
@@anotherrandomguy8871 meanwhile mantis shrimp who can also create heat bubbles on impact with their club like arms: sup
Lmao I love that I understood the reference 😂
If we all start actively pretending that large arms are super attractive, and seek mates with massive arms, that would be the first step towards a wing evolution.
Human hands > wings
Our hands are one of those extremely high evolutionary peaks, arguably a higher one than wings. Look into how our fingernails absolutely blow away claws and then consider what our dexterity has enabled us to build as a species.
@@spiderpickle3255 b..but...wings.... :((
@@spiderpickle3255 ok but wings
nah, the only thing we all know it will happen is that humans will get higher and higher
@@monad_tcp Welp... I think that's enough weed today~
A lovely way to sum this up would be to state that “evolution is lazy”. Evolution will solve a problem in the easiest way possible. And will never go out of its way to make a species superior.
it will take years for species evolution to change, look at radiation it last till probably more than 24 yrs, maybe in the future humans or animals will resist radiation?
@@anunknownperson4018 surely resistance to radiation is one of the things that is actively being worked on by evolution right now… However as you correctly stated, this will take years.
Exactly, evolution has nothing to do with being superior, it is about being fit for your environment at the lowest cost. That's why not all animals end up big, predators or having high intelligence
Evolution: Make owl ears asymmeterical so they can use sound to see, let this snail shed its body and grow a new one from just its head, make this walking stick look just like a leaf, and this beetle shoots hot chemicals from its butt.
Oh yes it will. Right now, we are Nature's darlings because we're going to save the planet, once we get our ducks in a row that is. We needed the infinitely powerful Atomic Bomb, and for that She was willing to sacrifice trillions of us, but now that we have that, and the capacity to spot a meteor on its way to smash us, we can get civilized again and clean things up a bit. Remember, we're not done evolving; we're a work in progress. But we're also the Saints here, and all of Life on Earth is counting on us.
Worth mentioning that nature makes wheels, or at least rotors at the molecular scale, such as a flagellum, like a propellor for a protist, or the famous "waterwheel driven by protons", ATP Synthase.
Right, on the macro scale wheels get really hard because you have to be able to feed the "spinny bits" without having them attached to the circulatory system. At tiny scales all kinds of great stuff becomes practical!
Exactly what I was I thinking, feel like it should have at least been mentioned.
@@hoi-polloi1863 id argue that on macro scale they're also irrelevant. So it's not only giant trouble, its giant trouble for bad results in return, wheels have lower fitness.
Legs are simply superior in most natural environments, more directions of movement, work on nearly all surfaces and shapes. You also get possibility to jump and kick as a bonus.
The only thing wheel has is theoretically better efficiency, theoretically not practically cause it's assuming movement on perfect flat surface, something that barely exists in nature.
@@sznikers Sadly, I can't argue with ya. I want wheels for "rule of cool" reasons, but... yeah. It just doesn't work on realistic terrain.
5 millions years later
Laser Zebra: Well guess what.
Lmfao
Lmfao
@@ChaseTSY Lmfao
@@ChaseTSY Lmfao
@@therealgboi3895 Lmfao
when people say they want wings, i don't think anyone is thinking about turning their arms in to wings but having wings come out of their back.
Exactly. Angel style
i wish we could engineer those, but they apparently have to be huge, to support us and their own weight, cuz they also will be heavy, since we don't have much materials that are light enough and also efficient... so yeah... kinda a bummer
Yes
@@notmyopinion4981 but we could be smaller and have lighter bones maybe???
Seems even less likely
"Why haven't Zebras evolved laser turrets to fend off lions?"
FINALLY, SOMEONE IS ASKING THE REAL QUESTIONS!
is an electrical eel not close enough to an equally doable evolutionary trait? I mean tasering crocodiles or lions sneaking up to you in the watering hole seems like a good savannah trait, why don't we see a lot of land animals develop this trait? Because it isn't all that useful on land, and takes a greater amount of food consumption to fuel the organs needed to generate the necessary stores of attack and in the Zebra's case why need it when you have a heard and one the most powerful hind kicks per square inch. A secondary defense system in an a mostly non aquatic life style doesn't evolve because it isn't efficient. Not when you already have useful defense systems.
And if I also add electric eels have developed this unique defense as an effective offense system as well. So it has double benefits for a predator. Not an herbivore in the long run on land.
It is because zebras don't need laser turrets, they use their stripes to hypnotize predators
I was more concerned about sharks with freakin Lazer beams on their heads
@@terrytheinsane I hope you where joking because that is the most incorrect statement I have heard in a long time
“You don’t just get something because it’s cool”
My financial decisions beg to differ.
🫵😨 no stop how dare save your money good sir/mis/they
Don’t do itttttt😭😭
haha save go brrrrrr
Me after I bought my Mustang gt
Zebras could use a small glowing red spot to attract mates, then use a low wattage laser to distract lions (think laser pointer and cat), and then eventually power up the laser into a defensive weapon.
Now I really want to see the biological mechanism of a laser. I can almost imagine it right now. Energy storage and discharge like an electric eel, transparent structures abound, add in some bioluminescence and all it needs is cohesiveness light, which I'm sure evolution could figure out.
They'd have to eat a lot though to maintain enough energy to operate it. Perhaps they would develop biological solar panels too?
@@michaelprice3031
It could come slowly from your metabolism, or more quickly if light sensitive skin cells started charging up those eel-like batteries.
@@michaelprice3031 green zebras with chlorophyll
@@kindlin bn43 ^ 7
The hills and valleys representation of evolution is actually an incredible way of visualizing it
The same concept lies behind training artificial neural nets. Its an optimization problem, searching in the space of opportunities.
It's a useful framework for solving a lot of problems. Machine learning for one.
@@vast634Exactly, i was visualising gradient descent when he was talking about evolution
Though there's something to be said about moving downwards. No it's not really downwards, but simplification is a thing also, where organisms lose some traits
@@steelbear2063I was just thinking about the fact that if a species lost the need for something, they could "travel back down the hill" and possibly go up a new one
Meanwhile in another multiverse zebrazooka just started their world war 9.
nope
Kamikaze butterfly's don't stand a chance
it's funny to imagine these stuff happening in other realities.
@@chiefmaster2128 nah they'll team up with lemon starfish and destroy zebrazookas
@@A.aryan.n but the rocket rhinos stay on top
When I first learned about evolution, it was from Pokémon, I was 4 and I sat in a corner trying to evolve.
Edit: I only believed evolution works like in Pokémon until I was 8 or 9.
Well, did it work?
@@eternalblue4660 I evolved into a bored teenager.
@@saims.2402 now where you at, did you get to adulthood :D
@@amalirfan now I’m evolved into a RUclips commenting teenager
Pokemon style evolution is EXACTLY how creationists think Evolution works, and use as a strawman to discredit it. "Why don´t we see apes turning into humans... like right now?". "Why no ducks turning into crocodiles?"
i have a bachelors degree in biology and I was never taught about that "can only go uphill" thing in my four frickin years. thanks IOTBS lol
We learnt about that while studying genetic/evolution based optimisation algorithms. If you up the mutation rate to very high levels, you can sorta. But you also risk losing any advantages. It's like the chance of superpowers vs cancer.
Why is someone with a bachelor degree in bilogy watching a kids show?
@@Tyronejizz because its interesting and people like learning new things
@@jacobrutzke691 if he has a bachlor in biology he should already know why you can't evolve wings.
@@Tyronejizz so you can always learn new things and some times it's just fun to listen to something in the background
**Looks at the thumbnail**
**looks at my pet Zebra**
Me: "it's ok Gerald, don't listen to him, your lasers will grow in a few years"
We love you just the way you are..... :)))))))))))))
Wait you have a pet zebra?!!
🤣🤣🤣, it’s gonna be just fine Gerald.
@@Artist_of_Imagination toys may be 😂
Stop lying to that poor zebra
I remember my grandparents having a Trabant. It was loud, stinky, had a tendency to fall apart and if you hit a cobblestone road, it would severely hamper your reproduction capabilities for a few days. Still the flexibility compared to the horse cart we often took to the market at weekends was superb. You also had no heater, so we used to put one of those propane gas canisters on the backseat with a heating unit on it. Oh and the doors stopped working towards the end, so we had to enter/leave through the window. Yeah... "Good" old times, eh?
Nowadays even on the countryside every family has at least 2 cars, often more and you even see stuff like Teslas from time to time. Among a lot of tractors and the occasional horse/dog cart.
Looks at thumbnail
“Hey Ferb, I know what we’re going to do today!”
*muuuuuum
LASER ZEBRAS!!
@Funtime Florian Candace
Some biomechanical zebra
@@kusaisama dan
Einstein: "You can't teach a fish to climb a tree."
Mudskipper: *climbs tree
Einstein: ....
Funny, but you got the quote wrong. Its "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life thinking its stupid." or something to that affect.
@@odeofdespair ye but however stupid the fish thought it was, it finally climbed a tree
There's a fish literally called Climbing Perch
@@ludnixvonbithoven2644 xD not exactly how he said it. It's just for jokes
There are people with disabilities that did the almost impossible.
Birds: "If only we had hands instead of these useless wings, so we could build laser cannons."
Said 50 % of New Zealand birds
yeah, a lot of birds are fuckin' smart
Haha crows go brrrr
Building prosthetics for animals so they can be tool users... hmm.
Birds: i wish we had hands
Humans: i wish we had wings
the landscape graph was such a good visual representation
Fun fact: Even if you are in bad shape or perhaps overweight, you are automatically one of the best long distance runners on the planet. Unless you aren't human, in which case your reading this is impressive.
I'd disagree. A 350 pound fatball can't walk 50 feet, let alone a mile or so. The human respiratory system is pathetic, it can't support weight. I'm ~185lbs at 5'8 and I can't run at maximum speed for more than 0.5 mile
@@somestranger175 long distance runner, not long distance sprinter
@@somestranger175 Sorry, but i disagree based on facts.
edition.cnn.com/2017/05/05/health/turning-points-mirna-valerio/index.html
Its just one example, didnt find my original example, but there are plenty of indigenous runners that are fat for western standards, doing more kilometers a day than i move with bus in a whole week (jeah, work is pretty close
Good points all. Perhaps the image of a sumotori keeping up with a pronghorn is a bit ludicrous. It might be better to express "long distance runner" as "endurance predator."
Though most quadripeds would leave humans in the dust in short races, our ancestors excelled in chases lasting several days, our only real challengers being the canids, particularly _lupus_ and _lycaon._
Upright bipedality means more of the musculature can be devoted to mobility as gravity is resisted by the bones; naked skin provided superior thermoregulation in hot climates; an omnivorous diet meant no need to spend hours browsing or grazing to restore energy and those peculiar primate feet (once well-toughened) could tackle a wide variety of terrain.
@@somestranger175 Olympic level sprinters can't even maintain top speed in the 100m.
Humans are about efficiency(endurance) not raw speed or strength.
Another factor you didn't mention is "brittleness" (I think a term coined by Dawkins) - your hands and my hands are not exactly the same shape, but we both have hands that are ok as hands. A wheel cannot get very far from being perfectly circular before it is essentially useless - my collection of slightly warped bike wheels attests to that. So quite apart from the issue of damage-in-use, the peak that they sit on in evolutionary space has almost vertical sides - too steep to plausibly climb. All that said, there are microbes that use what may be called wheels or propellers, because the physics at small scale gives evolution a slightly different landscape to play on.
Everything you just said is made up. Never tested by any experiment, just like most evolutionary theories.
I guess you're going to make me get into all the ways the virtual simulations are useless now huh. Well, long story short by the time computers came around everybody had already made up their mind when it came to whether or not evolution was true. The only experiments that evolutionists cared about, were done to test whether or not computers could be used to simulate evolution, which they can (although I think the first study/studies actually failed). However, cartoon physics can also be simulated on a computer, it means nothing. Most evolution simulations that are made, simply aren't even considered finished until they simulate evolution. Ergo it's impossible that one could be used to determine that evolution is impossible since all of the problems have either been lessened or stripped away (for instance, by making every possible piece of genetic code equate to a functional neural network wherein only one or two triggers are needed to survive).
I've wanted to make my own evolution simulator to actually test whether or not evolution is possible for a long time, unfortunately, it's one of those projects that appears to be too hard to ever get around to.
Very disappointing, they totally missed out on "sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads"
Geneva Conventions forbid it
@@besmart Mutate the gene in Geneva convention to GENE-VA-riation Convention....and give us the damn psychedelic octopus.......
Get filthy rich. Get a team of Scientist to go wild with CRISPR and your in business.
@@ReprucssionsForever No, not *that* Geneva Convention. Joe means the 1952 Geneva Copyright Convention. Dr. Evil Jr would demonetize the video.
Dr Evil hhhhhhh
Best way I've seen someone explaining square cube law. The volume increases at a higuer rate in comparison to area. It's possible to create a relation between the increments, but impossible directly between volume and area, as the area/volume ratio doesn't exist since the units differ.
I think the flying fish is one such example of evolution taking it up a notch
I get it
and electric eels
Europeans: "You don't use wheels? You know, those round thingies that spin on axles?"
Mesoamericans: "Oh we put those on our toys for children"
Then they sacrifice them
@@chandrasekarannatarajan3542 there were people other than aztecs in the americas you know
I'll bet the toys were copied from other cultures from wheeled societies, perhaps the Chinese.
@@thememoryhole9355 they'd have to MEET the Chinese first
@@Sorrowdusk Yes. I'm suggesting the Chinese may have made it to the Americas, among others.
"thats why its impossible"
200000 years later,
Zebras: whanna bet
i doubt if its gonna still be a zebra
Possible but not inside 200k years
Dont give that nuub in the first reply likes
@ً ruh roh reggy
Sans
@@ph1l69 ye
Local optima is actually a great way to think about addictions. It's difficult to quit your addictions because you have to go down a lesser peak to find you pathway to a higher one.
"Survival of the Fittest" should be renamed to "Survival of the Good Enough"
“Survival of the Somewhat Mediocre”
Survival of the barely able to survive
@@Tururu134 Literally the lowest bar imaginable.
"Survival of the 'I didn't due today'"
"Survival of the 'I didn't due today'"
You totally forgot to mention one curcially important thing on fitness: Fitness isn't determined by your survival rate, but by your reproduction. So going for something like Laser Zebras, it would be possible that a Zebra lives long enough to mate and give birth with a specific trait that may or may not lead to a laser organ in the long term. As long as their offspring can succsessfully mate and give birth again, the trait can be spread, solidified and further evolve over time. That's basically the reason, why hammer toes (hallux valgus) exist in humans or why we haven't outbred cancer or chorea huntington. The genes that lead to those phenotypes do so a bit after our reproduction age. People with the genetic dispositon for cancer or chorea huntington, f.e., can successfully produce offspring, as the "diseases" occur in their higher years (mid-thirties onwards). Hallux Valgus, with is a condition in which your biggest toe moves inward in a painful process, which may leave you unable to walk, if not treated, begins mostly after the menopause (or around the same time in men, but I think it's more common in women, correct me, if I'm wrong). But the trait can pass on and actually is about to solidify in certain lineages, as it doesn't lower your reproduction rate. And in this case, one offspring (or a set of non-phenotypically coding genes or a heterozygotous inheritance like albinism f.e.) is all evolution needs in the long run.
Strange hands, which can become wings, however, won't necessarily lower your survival rate (as humans tend to keep those alive, who are close to them. Especially when they are helpful in other ways), but I can guess it would lower their reproduction rate, because how many people would mate with someone with bat-hands?
Or as my biology professor once put it: Humans love strawberries. If there where one person to have strawberry-shaped, -colored and -tasting ears, it would have major sucess finding mates. So there would be some children with strawberry-ears, who in turn would have big success in finding mates and some generations onward, strawberry-ears would be a perfectly normal trait in humans. Evolution isn't logical, it isn't goal-oriented, but pretty situational and sometimes astonishingly complex.
good point but sadly only a few will read this 😔
Yess, thank you for pointing this out bc it's a crucial factor in the development of wings. Not many ppl would be excited to mate with someone who has an early phenotype for batwings, regardless of how cool the concept that their great grand kids might be able to fly. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective) higher degrees of consciousness gets in the way of the evolutionary process when it comes to selective breeding. Granted, many animals out there share our disposition against mating with others who look very different than us species wise but I get the strong impression that such hesitance is exacerbated the more sentient and self aware you become. Especially once you factor In human notions of traditionalism/ religion that would make such action a social taboo
Yep, being able to reproduce the most means that you’re the fittest. That’s literally what survival of the fittest means in biology. Im ashamed many people think it means the animal is simply the strongest or the smartest.
So what your saying is that we need to make cancer happen earlier to phase it out of our dna
No sex for plebs!!!!
Actually, from what I've heard, they've found out our eyes actually benefit from the nerves routing backwards. There are fiberoptic like filaments that filter out a lot of the blue light that tends to dominate on the land. In the ocean you don't want to reduce the amount light because you take all you can get.
"We're still not gonna grow wings though."
Me: Drinks Redbull
I, for one, welcome our new evolutionary superior Laser Zebra overlords.
😂🤣😂👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Better that Boris!
@@emmagoff why do you have to get political?
@@Vrangelrip it was just a comment made in humour, as was the comment I replied to. Don't let yourself get offended because none was meant 🙏
Yes.
Ok, so why is my body evolving a fat belly for me?
That's clearly a loss in fitness. :(
Because evolution didn’t account for excess food. Weight loss programs or just living with some belly fat are deemed “good enough” for humans to survive.
We evolved in a food scarce environment and we have only had an abundance of food for the last 100 years so we have not had enough time to adapt to this new age of abundance.
@@zukodude487987 An important thing to note here is that we most likely never will adapt to it either. At least not naturally.
Basically we have created a society which doesn't actually require the human race's fitness to increase. The trend would logically even be the opposite, a decrease instead. Because in the society we have created normally the "lower class" births a lot more children than the more successful "upper class" families. Therefore over time increasing the prevalence of genes that actually don't "succeed" as well in our society (career wise and such).
@@jarzez There is no need to adapt, if people used their brains that we've evolved so much, they wouldn't become obese and would work out, be healthy, and live longer lives. We already have evolved in terms of nutrition, it's people's own will and decisions that leads to obesity, not a flaw in evolution
@@pcmasterracetechgod5660 Well, I dont necessarily disagree with you that people are overall not thinking about the health consequences enough. But you can easily argue that it is our current state of evolution that causes the majority of population to live unhealthy lives and make unhealthy decision.
It's not like evolution and our decisions are unrelated, quite the opposite. Our brain is simply not evolved to naturally make healthy life choices in our current society. If it was, then we wouldnt have obesity for example.
Let's just stare at bacterial flagella for a few hours and appreciate the one biological motor that does exist.
Maybe the one biological rotor? But I feel like you could call any muscle a biological motor, in a way. They just don't create rotational motion
@@DoofusSupreme muscles are pistons
@@zethwanner6755 true
Lol. My wife works for a lab in Colorado. She’s a lab scientist and she talks about bacterial flagella almost everyday. I have no idea wha she’s talking about
Smart comment. This yt guy “Its ok to be smart” LoL, doesn’t know about the flagella, otherwise he would have mentioned it. But then he would have to explain how it came about, and I don’t think he’s so smart that he could do that.
'when you're the best, why try harder?' - crabs
One thing that is worth mentioning is , the landscape keep changing, creating new ways to reach maxima or shutting down old paths to maxima as well
As a stem cell biologist, I think there are many crazy evolutionary processes which might seem impossible. We have ancient "viruses" in our DNA called transposons which can change their location, thereby destroying genes and contributing towards cancer. So naturally we have developed mechanisms to inactivate them (by modifying their DNA sequences). But our cells also use parts of transposons to control the activity of genes and also turn a lot of transposons on during our early development to form the embryo (I made a video about this). Of course, all of that is highly beneficial but also super crazy!
“As a...”
As a committed scholar to philosophy (I am not), I say that this is quite pointless to say. Sure, this may add credibility, but only if you provide proof that you are a stem cell biologist, and then why does this matter much to the vague clause that followed it? Additionally, a lot of people will say the same thing as you, but they won’t add this dependent clause, but the target audience will believe either way. Rather than stating your authority, simply provide sources and other ways to verify and explore your section of biology, as you did do - it can’t be taken to be condescending and helps readers verify information - because even scientists can screw up, accidentally, and can just be wrong, so removing this clause at the beginning removes this feeling of sovereignty over knowledge. I understand that you are, hopefully, soon to be a doctor and attempting to advertise your channel, but I would suggest just to be more direct.
How did our cells evolve the ability to do that?
@LifeLabLearner do transposons get activated by poor lifestyle choices? Or does their change in location happen randomly?
@@funkyflames7430 you're overanalysing it lmaoo
As a random person on the internet I am betting on the future of commercialised gene editing industry
But that wouldn't hold weight since I am not a biologist, or am I?
I swear the moment you said "aren't dolphins three-limbed animals?" my brain broke
If you inhale glue before bed, your brain will seal back while you sleep.
Some have 5!
@@pseudodao7040 Warning, side effects may include but are not limited to, clogged sinuses, coughing, difficulty breathing, and death.
@@MarlowPreston so inhaling glue leads to covid? Whaaaat?
@@pseudodao7040 So that's what China was doing... No wonder they tried to hide it, that's embarrassing
TL;DR, I explain how evolution could actually produce lazer zebras (2nd paragraph if low on time or patience).
I can appreciate that answering all questions pertaining to the abilities of evolution with the appropriate degree of nuance is no small task. This is why I have always found it useful to employ what I call 'conjecturifics' or 'conjecturific language;' language denoting an appropriate degree of uncertainty, such as "perhaps" when you are giving one two possible explanations where you have no inclinations, "I suspect" when it is your prefered explanation but not by a wide margin, 'I am confident' when it *is* prefered by a wide margin (ideally for good reason), etc. You actually did a pretty decent job of this, but I have an objection.
When discussing the 'zebras acquiring lazer weapons' being impossible because of the transitionary stages being less fit, you assume the only path is one where components of the weapon would be acquired one at a time, and the weapon would only be useful upon completion. In reality, this is not the only path. There is the evolutionary path taken, for example, by the camera / eye. The eye started as a bit of light-sensitive brain tissue. This enabled early acquatic animals to determine when a predator was approaching, because a small amount of light was penetrating their outer layers - just as we can still see some of the light when we cover a flashlight with our hands - and this light was now being obscured. Over time, the tissue covering this light sensitive brain-matter was lost, leaving these early eyes exposed. Over time, that brain tissue specialized for photon detection exclusively. Over time, eyes changed shape into a chamber (from which the word "camera" is derrived) with a pinhole through which light from different point sources would be mapped to specific photon receptors. Over time, eyes developed shutters, or irises, to change the size of the pinhole, enabling animals to focus on things near or distant. Zebras could evolve bio-luminescence, as so many animals have, if their environment changed to grant them an advantage for doing so. This bioluminescence could evolve into stronger bursts of light if, for example, their environment consisted of a single source of nutrients which were stunned when struck with a burst of light. Competition between this predator zebra and this prey animal might result in the prey becoming resistant to increasingly strong bursts of light, and zebras producing increasingly powerful bursts of light. There. That is how evolution could actually produce lazer zebras. I very much doubt this will ever happen, but it is not 'impossible in evolution.'
Hey, You are more creative than evolution. 😉
So ...
Laser blasting Zebra wouldn't be Vegetarian anymore?
Make sense, i guess.
As Heaven's Design Team watcher, I kind of agree with you.
It's not impossible for Zebra to grow laser blasting organ.
But by the time Laser Blasting Organ is developed, it wouldn't be the same as our "original" Zebra. Thing's just isn't the same. I mean come on...
Laser is too great of an offensive weapon, it comes with great cost too, both against outsiders and their own kinds.
"Linda, you deny my approach but you allowed him, just because he has better looking stripes? See if he likes big black spot on his head".
Starts headshot other competitors, and ruined the whole community.
He does say at the end that it's hard to say what is completely impossible when talking about plant eating spider.
This video unironically helped me with my self-esteem
Yen?
how
"Are snakes one limbed animals?" Please no. I didn't want to think about that today, and now I can't get it out of my head.
Boas, pythons, and pipe snakes have rear limbs. They're just tiny, but they're there.
it's okay; tails aren't *limbs* (even when they're used for propulsion); they're mobile extensions of the spine.
The snakes are the limbs
Is a head a limb? No snakes have no limbs, just body/torso and head
take five snakes and put them together
now you have the snake king
actually, microscopic organisms have a more "mechanical" way of transport and a lot of biochemical process resemble large scale machines.
Yeah, in fact all animals actually move thanks to wheels, because ATP syntasis, the enzyme that allows the storing of energy into ATP, has a rotating mechanism.
So we get the energy to move thanks to basically a wheel.
That's why we call it the "molecular machinery". Also, yeah ATP Synthase is pretty awesome. Basically a molecular motor.
That's really cool!
Same with motor proteins in our bodies. They have “wheels”.
@@davidec.2853 because at the microscopic scale, ATP is active and working in the open nutrient solution, but people are not completely open in the air, and cannot directly obtain all the nutrients they need from the air
1. Evolution can definitely give wings if mutation happen, it will surely be of membrane than feathers.
2. Evolution can also make fish propellors but it will likely be a muscular than of metal.
3. Evolution can definitely make 5 legged cat through mutation.
4. Giraffes size chicken is really possible, U already know them as Non avian Dinosaurs.
5. Wheel is possible in evolution but it will most likely be made of Keratin than living cells.
6. Zebra with lazers is possible in evolution as we all know luminosity is possible biologically cause we already have fireflies, but fighting lazers r not possible which includes very very high amount of metabolic rate.
In Dutch we don’t say ‘Roly poly’, we say ‘Piss beds’ and I think that’s beautiful ❤️
Pissy beds*
Still bruh moment
Yikes on bikes I love it.
in american, i grew up calling them potato bugs (which is not, what a lot of other folks would call a potato bug; then, pill bug. now, wood louse. googletranslate
P i s s b e d
*Fish with propellers is impossible*
200 millions years in the future: Flish.
Hmm...is your username coincidental?! Tell us what you know!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Those are fish with wings...entirely different dynamic... "The Future is Wild" was a fun thought experiment.
@@greenxmango8049 Technically they already exist, but they lack the genetic mutation accumulations to become what is outlined in that short series... also, if you're logging into things with the same email on multiple services, & don't have privacy settings that tell the various data loggers to ignore you, then obviously you're going to find a lot more "coincidental" things as it's financially appealing to those that employ the data loggers, since they get rewarded for snooping & suggesting.
I know Firefox isn't the best browser out there in terms of resource management, but it certainly does a decent job of blocking those data loggers when surfing the internet.
For the apps that you use, many have an opt-out section.
actually laughed out loud
Oh yes, of course.. the FLISH
The dislike is from people who disapointed that Laser Zebra is impossible
Edit: with recent yt update i can definitely say that this comment age [redacted]
Not impossible we will make laser zebras possible dammit !
Maybe because of the childish humour 👀
Nah tank zebra
Some day..
Actually no. It's by dumb creationists!🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
4:40
"please leave"
lol this is gold
Humans: Why hasn't evolution made zebras with Lasers.
Evolution: You idiot I evolved you so you can make those things, Have you forgotten You are part of me?
Wait, so evolution is god now? How the turn tables.
@@pomtubes1205 evolution is adaptation generation after generation for many years
@@gamingcreatesworlddd2425 I believe the earth is a cube. I don't comprehend.
@Sir Slimy No... how can it be a donut if you can't eat it?
@@pomtubes1205 actually you can eat it, just not the whole thing.... And it's better to eat the junk growing on the surface.
The editing in this is IMMACULATE
Beyond elucidation!
Dodos going extinct is the top 1 saddest death in anime
no that's reserved for dinos and pterosaurs
@@valinorean4816 also trilobites and sea reptiles
@@annedrieck7316 and ammonites
my dad went extinct
@@asiantom4935 I'M SORRY FOR YOU
"All I want are freakin sharks with freakin lasers attached!"- Doctor Evil
I'm glad you mentioned the mulefas in "His Dark Materials". (For those not in the know: creatures that have a symbiotic relationship with a huge tree species producing round seeds, and which ultimately evolved to use these seeds as wheels. Oh, and they use naturally smooth hardened lava flows as "highways".)
I've always found that to be wonderfully creative in that it's a *plausible* way evolution could produce animals with wheels.
Could you please direct me to video or something on this? It sounds way too cool for me not to research about!!
@@huzaifahahmed4303 if i remember correctly you can find that part at the beginning of second tome of "his dark materials"
it's the most epic thing ever imaginable
People for evolution of human wings: give evolution a reason; Make floor actual lava!
Or just Code it into our DNA
@@sumreensultana1860 Crispr-9 is going to make it possible.. soon, all the old fools need to go die off first though.
Then everyone dies because that's not how evolution works
imagen if the next stage of humans evolved with monkey tails... what I'm just Saiyan ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe we just evolve super legs to jump across stuff
5:36
I need this as a poster!
"Why are there no giraffe-sized chickens?"
Before about 66 million years ago, there were.
copied comment
@@clobre_ copied reply
@@clobre_ no one cares.
Panda are omnivorous. We just sucked at taking care of them for the longest time. Same for making them reproduce. We're getting better, but we did a ton of damage.
"plant eating snakes" I thought he was talking about plants that eat snakes lol. that would be dope
Pitcher plants can do that - if a snake happens to fall into them.
The plant would not be a vegetarian then.
@@Xelaria and there is some plants that are carnivorous, thank evolution
Venus flytrap.
@@gabor6259 a native organism of venus
All the little memes and references are really good! Well done to whoever matched those up!
I've never had it on my mind, but now I can't help but wonder what Zebras would do with lasers
They would protect themselves from Lions
@@lucasliam8238 lol true. Or they might take over human civilization and wreak havoc because no natural predator exists to maintain their exploding population.
Fight a lion
@@lucasliam8238 true
@@saims.2402 day 5000000 after the apocalypse:
All life on earth has evolved mirror skin and the laser zebras have gone extinct
Me and my homies: "why animals have no wheels???"
The smart guy: "well, to start you should know that in Mesopotamia they used to have chariots..."
Genuinely funny
Honestly, I found it much cooler to learn about what evolution can't do than what it can. I can't be the only one right?
Finding limitations is what learning is all about.
I hope in future CRISPR can help is break those limitations.
@@saturnianrings3920 me too
Agreed
Yea
I was just watching a recent SmarterEveryDay video explaining the biological flagella propellers used by some bacteria. I thought about it when you mentioned there aren’t any fish with motors, and there probably never could be since the same biological motor wouldn’t work at a large scale, but I still think it’s interesting.
It’s crazy that Joe had a video only 6 days ago and now we get another great video today, while the last break was a month
He is probably busy, I don’t mind a break if we keep getting quality content :)
"Hey smart people, Joe here" - JOE I NEED THIS PLEASE
OMG YESS
We are not smart people anymore
Me: Yeah!! I Missed that too...
Joe: Let's make a new video on "When regular things doesn't happen..."
ʕಠ_ಠʔ
For an animal to have natural wheels, it would need to excrete the wheel, then excrete the lubricant between the wheel and shaft/limb. If the wheel is damaged, it regrows it, not unlike growing fingernails or hair only it grows into a mass that separates after a degree of size is met.
technically possible if a mammal evolves armor segments on its limb's joints. It could then produce that chitin 'wheel' around its joints and find benefit in using them to roll downhill. There would have to be some kind of specific joint-attacking evolutionary pressure for the precursor to be selected, otherwise such chitin would just impair flexibility.
The true problem is that wheels are actually really bad outside of human civilization, almost all cars are bound to the road and will literally break when faced with something as mundane as a curb, any capable person can outrun an offroad if the terrain is bad enough, and we're not even the best animals at doing it, a cheetah can run at 130km/h on a terrain that most cars couldn't even get.
What wheels excelled at back in the days was moving a very heavy load, but cargo transport is just a human problem
@@AdrianOkay Ants and Beavers transport cargo, but I don't see them utilizing wheels.
@@AdrianOkay True, maybe certain types of goat could find a niche for zipping down mountain trails. They do tend to make decent paths already and much of the problem of a car in the wild is the sheer size of the thing.
Less energy intensive to coast downhill, perhaps a migrating goat lol. It's fun to try and think of an exception.
A Log Driver who uses dreadlocks? Nice
Infinite does not imply that everything is possible. There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them are 2.
🙌
Well put. This is a concept I love about infinity; infinite possibility does not mean every possibility.
wait nooo
Still waiting for a legit dragon to evolve itself to reality
I'd say a flying reptile would be a good start, just add some snout, make it stand a bit upright and increase the size. Maybe add a skunk or bombardier beetle defense mechanism on its mouth for the fire breathing effect
Aye yo we got draco lizards look them up they are sick as hell the lil homies got wings
@@jackmcavaney6565 they do be having wings though. But their size makes them sort of adorable. Multiply that by like x100 and shits gonna get really real, really fast 🤣
It's very difficult for a genuinely large and strong animal to fly.
@@yachiyous9110 I'd say one of the real obstacles for true fire-breathing would be producing some adequate amounts of some combustible substance. Not impossible, but it would require lots of energy, so the animal would have to eat LOTS of food. That fire would basically have to help the animal to find lots of food to be viable.
we just need to keep playing "the floor is lava" this will be the selection pressure that we have to adapt to AND WE WILL FLY
@Smit Shilpatul facts
We can just make a competitive sport for flying and only the hindret best people are allowed to mate. Just making evolution artificial.
YAYYY EUGENISM ! WOOOOOOO!!!
There is something called genetic engineering. It is much faster than evolution or artificial selection. Maybe we can reduce the density of human bones and reduce or eliminate fat tissue so that humans weight is decreased. And also maybe we can strengthen our chest muscle through genetic engineering. And then we don't need to genetic engineer the wings. Just put artificial wings on and then you are ready to fly. But remember kids the answer to "Is this ethical?" is "Yes".
We would just go back to regular ole monkeys who are very good at climbing things :(
“You can’t evolve anything that reduces your fitness”
Babirusa: hold my beer
Type 1 diabetes: hold my insulin
The fitness theory is flawed.
Evolution is about ability to survive, not ability to excel. As long as a mutation does not kill before the mutant can breed, the evolution happens.
Your babirusa example is one that refute that theory. Another example is the sickle cell mutation in Sub Saharan people. Both made the mutants less fit.
@@gorilladisco9108 the sickle cell mutation is actually to combat malaria. As a recessive gene, it offers protection at the risk of your children possibly dying if your partner has the gene as well. Instead of nearly 100% of your children dying from malaria, about 25% will have both genes and die, about 50% will have one out of two and be malaria-resistant while also not displaying sickle cell anemia, and about 25% will not have any anemia genes and will likely die of malaria. I’m sure there’s more at play than just the Eighth Grade Punnet Square™, but this is a simplified version of what happens that gets the point across well enough
@@dougthedonkey1805 It indeed made the mutant less fit than the normal version of the species.
@@gorilladisco9108 did you read what I said?
I love that you mentioned His Dark Materials! As soon as I started watching this, I thought of those cool creatures!
the phrase “forbidden phenotypes” is just so funny to me
it is! it is like forbidden pleasures but in a deliciously quirky because naughty-intelligent way!
Sounds like a prog rock band
Most of this vid is fake Christ is the answer, if there was evaluation how come there are still monkeys
@@yoboijerry5519 If Americans descended from British colonists, how come there are still British people?
Sounds like the overpowered skins all of the anime cast is aiming for.
Alternate title: Why there are no real-life pokemon.
WHERE'S MY POKEMON, EVOLUTION???
Would you rather be a Pokémon master or the King/Queen of the Earth
@@abugonapugonamugonarug1653 Pojemon master so I could become king of the earth... because I'd be the only one alive.
they exist, they are called animals. But we're just missing the pokeballs.
@@isaz2425 You know, we can just tame animals so the need for Pokeballs is unexistant, although the risk is considerably higher.
@@mr.penguin8301 true, but it's much less cool without the pokeballs.
Don’t tell Joe about “Blaze and the Monster Machines” where they stick wheels on every animal haha
Oh god the big foot one
-Toxic Religious People left the Chat...
Wait if everything is a car, where do the two kids come from?
@@tinyboi_ the almighty GM
You know, while we cant grow wings, I would settle for a cheap and effective jetpack
This is the first time I’m learning about the fitness landscape. It blew my mind, man.
Actually there is a small error in this script. You can move horizontally on the fitness landscape. Which means having a mutation that doesn't impair your survival/reproduction. And sometimes there's jumps, mytochondria being an example, horizontal gene transfer an other.
Since humans have mainly flattened their own fitness landscape, there's lot of place for horizontal movement that would allow wings to develop, in theory. In practice i don't expect our species to ever naturally develop wings, and i doubt there'll be a lot of natural in us given enough time.
Plus, hands are pretty ... handy 😣
Yes, horizontal movement on a landscape is possible and does happen, but is far more the exception than the rule, so I left it out to avoid confusion. But thanks for this comment!
@@besmart It is my opinion that you should have included this part. Your explanation of the fitness landscape made it sound as if species become stuck as they are with no place to go in evolution. While I know this is not the case, and I hope others do too, I feel this could confuse so many people.
He repeats several times "or at least not harmful", so I think people get it: greater or equal.
@@besmart Humans are the exception with a past of natural selection and a future of genetic engineering artificial selection. It was confusing to hear you keep using humans as the example that could 'never' evolve traits or parts possible in other animals.
@@Thunderous115 I think one of the overlooked aspects is that the fitness landscape can change. An organism that is well-adapted to survive in its environment would see little selective pressure so evolution would be unlikely. But a new predator, change in climate, or disease outbreak changes the landscape and certain traits would be favored, triggering faster evolution
This is where genetic engineering comes in handy.
Remember kids : the answer to "is this ethical" is always "yes"
_A mad scientist somewhere engineers flying arachnids_
I know you're thinking about flying spiders.
How about flying ticks...
@@spiderpickle3255 *NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO*
*N O*
And what with the name ? Is it a pickle full of spider or some pickle rick deal?
@@sapateirovalentin348 It's completely unrelated to Rick and Morty.
It's about a nickname a close friend gave me related to my appreciation for good pickles.
I solved ethics myself other day.
Everything I do is ethical and right, because I defined it as so, so it is.
There's no possible action that I do that's not right and ethical. Even if it is illegal and could land me in jail, its still right, by the rule code I created.
It was an action that I did, so it was right.
No energy weapon evolution like lasers.
Electric Eels: Am I joke to you?
That's electricity my guy, that's quite normal in the animal kingdom
@@Tophat-Turtle Woosh.
As a german I can only say your forgiven because you create those amazing videos.
And as an English speaker I forgive that incorrect "your" because you're German. 😉
As a german I wanna add it was ok german pronunciation aside from cringy stereotype screaming
The last two 'sau schlecht'(very bad) sounded more like 'Sau schleckt' (Sow is licking) 😂 but we still could understand it👍🏼
@@ballsrgrossnugly As a german I would like to know when to use your
@@russelhundchen8000 your = dein, you're = du bist
I love any time I can bring up the the square cube law as an explanation for why something can't work. It's so elegant and easily understood (as long as you aren't crap at explaining things), but it seems to be so seldom known to most non-scientific/engineering people, so in my experience you can generally WATCH the understanding dawn on someone's face and know that you helped someone to, at least in one small instance, alter how they perceive the world.
2x size = 4 x mass? I forget.
@@TheLiamis Effectively, but be careful about a few details. First, be sure to distinguish what you mean by "size", since size is kind of a vague term, it's more correct to say 2x _surface area_ (SA) = 4x _volume_ (V) (I get subbing in mass for volume, there isn't really a problem with that, since they are generally in a 1:1 direct proportion if you don't get into extreme circumstances like, say, the cores of planets or stars). But it also doesn't highlight the crux of the matter that volume increases faster than surface area. So to demonstrate numerically, while 2x SA = 4x V, _3_ x SA = _9_ x V, _4_ x SA = _16_ x V, 5x SA = 25 V, etc. One side gets much bigger much more quickly than the other as the "size" increases.
The main point of the square/cube law is that the volume (mass) increases at a much faster rate than the surface area, because many structural properties and strengths of materials (like, say, bone) are dependent largely on surface areas (total or cross sectional). Since the mass of a bone increases faster than any cross sectional area, eventually the mass will be more than the bone can actually support for a given size. For things like cells, materials have to pass in and waste out of the surface of the cell, but only so much can pass through for a given surface area, but the larger the volume, the more processes (generally, not always) take place, so the more materials required and the more waste produced. Eventually, as the overall size of the cell increases, the surface area of the cell can't move material across itself quickly enough to either bring in enough raw material or get out enough waste for a given cells volume. There are biological workarounds/hacks that have been found in organisms here and there, sure, but for the vast majority of cells, dem's the breaks.
I just love how beautifully simple yet mind bogglingly complex life and evolution and genetics can be, both at the same time. Such simple base concepts. You can't evolve lower fitness. You have to go straight up. All iterations must provide a benefit. Yet those concepts build and build into incredibly complex lifeforms. It's so magical to me
I 100% agree! It's so mind-boggling.
I will say that technically you can evolve lower. It's not something that commonly lasts longer than 1 or 2 generations.
Each step in evolution is just a genetic mutation. Sometimes an organism with a mutation doesn't survive to adulthood. But some mutations will just be a mildly annoying trait. If the trait doesn't repel mates or cause sterility, the trait could be passed down. We think of it as only up, and it often is. But there are some cases of slight disadvantages.
And with all of the technology that we have and are still creating, the chances of being able to live & reproduce even with a genetic mutation continue to increase.
Tbh, I'm expecting humans to start having some notable changes in the next 300-ish years. Not a species-wide adaptation, but there could be some dramatic regional differences. Not wings probably, but who knows what kind of odd traits might develop over the next handful of generations.
Something I find amazing is how we evolved into multicellular organisms in the first place. I saw a video on strange things in the sea and one of them was a long, rope-like "creature" that was actually a colony of creatures, each one differentiating into a different function or into groups of like functions. My thought is that such a colony is a look at the dawn of a new species in the process of becoming, as well as a view of how we became more than unicellular animals.
Mmkm.b😊00😊😊pp
What do you mean, you can't evolve lower fitness ?
Not everything has to provide a benefit it just needs to give the organism a chance at reproduction most mutations are actually completely neutral.
Evolve small light to see the path better, then stronger light to scare off predators, then the lase to kill the predators. So there's absolutely the gradual way to develop this trait.
1:49 I like the idea of a young Joe having nightmares wherein he sleep-talks and says “No wheelies! Biology doesn’t allow for members of the animal kingdom to have wheels. It’s scientifically impossible! Ah!”
Bacteria rotate their flagella.
Lol I dont have to "unroll" my arm I can keep swinging it in one direction
The fitness landscape is very interesting, and the best way to explain why something is impossible in evolution, but I think the fitness landscape is in a constant change, and this can allow evolution adaptations what we believed impossible.
A random mutation in series of random mutations to allow what we believe impossible (human wings) should still somehow prevail across millions of generations in populations. It doesn't matter how landscape changes, evolution across generations has sensible limits.
@@MartinzW no it’s more like the fitness landscape is arbitrarily complex. For every hill there is an infinite hierarchy of valleys in which that hill is the highest.
Likewise in the opposing format…and so in this sense you can say that so long as we can not compute the landscape, then we would just see what we could compute just a change in that landscape.
As cool as this video is, it’s far too pragmatic about evolution. I would not take these “x is impossible” as truth statements at all.
Right. The landscape can even be nearly flat sometimes. I guarantee that Featherhands is getting laid if he can somehow learn to play base guitar with those things.
Damn this video turned out to be a thousand times more interesting than I thought it would be, and I already thought it would be quite interesting to start with! Thank you sir for this amazing content, and thank you for making it understandable for a person who only did biology for a few years in middle school!
I feel like this is different for us because we get to decide to a large extent which traits get passed on due to most people being able to reproduce regardless of potential harmful traits. Hell we literally did it with dogs, food, bacteria, etc.
"Return to Oz" was one of several books by Frank Baum. I had two of them, as a kid. I've forgotten the name of the other one, but it had a frog person who came down from a table mountain, heart shaped people, spinning mountains and a creature called a Woozy.
LSD ?
@@teslaromans1023 Possibly, but people have suggested that I have a crazy imagination, and I've never touched the stuff.
On the other hand, I've read many books and listened to many songs written by people who either might have been, or definitely were, influenced by mind altering drugs.
"Evolution works like trying to make improvements to an engine while the car is in the middle of a race"
LMAO dude
So Mad Max: Fury Road is an allegorical scientific documentary?
@@marciaguy10899 well, yes, but actually, no
Things with electric reception in Aquatic animals sometimes turn into electric defenses seeing electricity is an improvement so maybe we will evolve electric powers.
The most incredible and most mysterious thing evolution has created is consciousness.
"You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads. Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done. Can you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly throw me a bone here." -Dr. Evil
Haha I really need to watch that movie...haven't watched it in like a decade....i can't believe it's been longer than that since it came out...