Evolution in the Galapagos
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- A classic example of evolution on Daphne Major Island in the Galapagos. Natural selection works on beak size variation of Darwin's Finches.
3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy (Video for dkenszii)
• 3 - The Origin of Life...
Thumbs up if you are watching it after you watch it in class or you have to watch it for a certain assignment
what is this picture quality xD
So this is what happened to Hawkeye after he left Korea
Who’s here because of quarantine biology class?
Y'all needa just chill and do your Biology Homework.
Let me guess your watching this in school like me
You bet
How’d u know💀
Is that the doctor from M.A.S.H?
CryoliteGamingYT Yes.
totally
Wait, you actually did your homework before the day it was due? What madness is this? Lol
These are genes already in the gene pool expressing themselves at different frequencies depending on the pressures exerted on them by the environment. Let me know how flapping your arms goes.
had to watch this for biology class...
Check out the study on lizards that were brought to an isolated island.
Over 2 decades, a very short time, they have many changes.
A NEW food source, combined with others, doesn't seem to change much in an animal. (Like humans.) Very little. But when the NEW food source becomes their main diet, or only diet. It seems evolution is put into high gear.
Part 1: Diet (Just referring to diet. There are many mechanisms of evolution. This may be the most influential. And the most CONCERNING when it comes to GMO's..... *We should shut them down, at the very least demand labels, until the results are conclusive.*)
My idea: (I wish I was a biologist to prove it. :-) (I'm sure someone is working on it. I can't be the only one that has thought about it. This will change the view of evolution. No longer can the naysayers say it is purely "chance/accident" but it really is based on information. No longer will it be as stupid of an idea as they think.)
(For those that are biologists. This could be easily tested with cloning of simple organisms with using as little DNA as possible. {Just the shell of it's existence.} Then test their evolutionary changes, over time, with those that have the full code. If the results are conclusive. Then we know what we are dealing with. The results could work 2 different ways. The old history code may slow down or even speed up the process. Maybe more mutations would occur in the clone since it doesn't have the history . Where the noncloned may have more adaptive successful changes to it's overall environment. We won't know until we test it. But I think it could be easily done using this technique. But I'm no biologist. Now to the ideas.)
Rather than thinking Evolution is always random and always a new change. There could already be traits developed and waiting within our DNA. Imagine if we literally have a database of history . It's just a matter of turning some traits off and turning other traits on depending on the stress . (Maybe not all animals, in every new environment, has recent code[history] readily available to distinguish new products of diet. Where another animals' evolutionary machine/mechanism does recognize the product and the process is sped up considerably. It knows exactly what to do to accomodate the new main diet.)
Maybe the saying, "We are what we eat!" Is more true than we ever imagined! (Let me explain further so you can understand my theory.)
Consider this. They say 98.5% of our DNA is considered junk. That may be the MOST important in terms of successful Evolution. (It may just be that 1.5% is all it takes to define us as a human.{The shell of our existence.} The rest may be adaptive history of every mechanism of Evolution. Diet/Coloration/etc...)
We share about 50% of our DNA with a banana. Does this make us more a Banana than human? (Of course not. But what it does imply cannot be overlooked. This may be the answer......)
Maybe ALL this means is that a banana was our main diet for a very long time. Ancient apelike ancestor. (Remember much of a banana's DNA will also be shared in other food sources that we ate. Even banana's have common ancestors. This may be why Banana's and Bread are such a great thing to eat when our stomachs are upset. Our bodies are refined machines to cope with them since it was a grand diet for us for such a long period of time.)
Imagine if our bodies, some organs, are actually capable of absorbing DNA and deciphering it. It actually becomes like a part of us while our bodies cope and adapt to it. (Either it's the first time it's been introduced to it. Or it may even recognize it and distinguish from an earlier version and it uses those techniques to determine what changes would be best to accomodate the new food.)
Then all of this information is being sent to our reproductive organs. (Constantly. Always changing. Which is why we do see such a grand variety in species even from common parents [Non wild animals- Humans, cats, dogs, etc.]. Remember this is just one aspect [Food/Diet]. Much more to come.)
The Naysayer:
Carmine (The person that is against evolution brings up a good point. "No Elements evolve greater mass over time, they only decay.")
Well maybe this is true in everything nonliving, BUT LIFE is the exception!!!
Life may actually be absorbing, learning from, and deciphering this new information. No longer is their decay but a constant stream of new information, variation, adaptation, and growth. Maybe there is an instrument/organ that can actually DETERMINE the very structure of the DNA we absorb.
It makes sense. Humans eat everything now. We can eat everything under the sun from any place in the world.(Unless poisonous of course. But you know what I mean.) Evolution is at a crawl with us in terms of diet. It's very confused in terms of diet. (Probably why so many suffer with stomach problems, IBS, acid reflux, etc...)
Now, don't think I think this is the ONLY form of which evolution is a process. It is just ONE of many, powerful mechanisms.
(Diet could possibly be the number one defining evolutionary factor for the majority of creatures. All other mechanisms differing variably as life evolved from their common ancestor. Depending on what they needed to survive.)
Part 2: (Coloration of seeing animals.)
Our brains may be deciphering our surroundings too ever since the beginning of the "Eye". Without us even knowing about it. It's just a process of evolution that developed and those that have carried this new capability would have had a greater chance of survival over MANY others. The majority of animals may have this going on within themselves. After a few generations the effects start to show. (Like the mice that eventually changed color to it's surroundings.)
(Chameleons have taken it a step further and evolved to change color almost immediately. Probably their greatest evolutionary achievement after speciation from their common ancestor.)
One may say.... OK that makes sense. But why Zebra coloring?
Very simple to answer this actually. Even if we look back to fish. Many fish have coloration to confuse predators. Where most predators have coloration to avoid being detected. (Diet may even be a factor here.)
No one says evolution is perfect. There is still a level of trial and error. But there may be less trial and error than we ever imagined.
*jwoya:*
"There are definitely more forms of evolution known today than just Darwinian competition; take for instance symbiogenesis, or receiving DNA from a virus that gets in the sperm/egg cells, or atavisms that have always been in the species' DNA but have remained switched off but get switched on by mutation (teeth in chicken, for instance). As for creatures inheriting DNA from their food, your idea sounds a little like the endogenous retroviruses that infect sperm and egg. I am not a biologist, but I don't see why it would not be at least possible.
As for evolution being random: it is really not. For instance, a land animal doesn't suddenly sprout flippers by a lucky mistake. When a branch of a species encounters a new environment, the equilibrium between members of that line is lost, and they begin a rapid process of evolution due to heated competition, where every little advantage or disadvantage counts. What is random is the directions of long-term gradual genetic drift, and many of the environmental changes that produce high-speed evolution ("punctuated equilibria"), but the way the creatures adapt to their new environment is not. For instance if humans started living in water, without the advantage of technology, we would see the webbing between our fingers and toes grow to make flippers, and we would see our ability to hold our breath improve, and our muscle groups would change. This is almost common sense, and it is far from random.
I guess I should have said there are alternative forms of evolution besides simplistic mutation; there is still Darwinian competition going on in these cases though." - jwoya
*Mrmdrscream:*
Maybe not entirely inheriting DNA through their food. But more or less a history of common bio markers and maybe even some history of what mutations/adaptations worked best with those bio markers.
Something for the species to fall back on. So a species that has spent more time moving environments and evolving would have a greater ability of changing under ANY circumstances.
Where as a species that spent pretty much it's whole life in one environment. (Or even like humans that have regulated their environments, houses, caves, mastery of fire, etc...) They would have a more difficult time in different environments (If they were forced back into the wild). But if they obviously came back to a familiar, or very familiar environment/diet source. They could adapt very quickly and successfully to some degree. (Like those lizards did.)
Now also consider the possibility that one of the main things that separates us (Fish, Amphibian, etc...) is the USE of this information. (The storage, processing, and application may have evolved in our biological computers.)
So maybe Scientists have done this on simple organisms and the results were inconclusive to other organisms like fish, amphibian, reptile, mammals, etc.... (Maybe even further down the line like primates, etc. To forget that this process could also evolve would be denying the evolutionary process altogether.)
Also, if this is history. It could be used to suppress change, in some organisms, as much as it is designed to help progress change. Example: (One Biological Computer may see many bio markers for Banana/vegetation. Even if our diet becomes meat for an extended amount of time. It tells us to not do much about it yet until it reaches some critical point(stress). And then evolution kicks into high gear or maybe not. It gradually changes away from that food source knowing/hoping to return to it. It could be just as suppressive as it is progressive (balance) and different between different types of organisms. Pretty fascinating!!)
This may even be the importance of "Stress". When our biological computer recognizes we are under stress for an extended period of time. It may determine, from recent bio markers/environmental changes, what is the cause, what is important, and what information does it have to tackle the problem.
Our senses may also be giving more information to the biological computer than we ever knew possible. (Like I mentioned with coloration.)
It must be very confused in terms of humans. Where our stress comes from emotional/psychological more than anything else. (We may be physically tired. But we use tools to do everything. Our senses may not be telling the computer that we need much change in this regard. We just need a new tool or way to figure it out... more analytical brain growth!)
Best way to do these studies is without humans. (There are just too many variables that are being suppressed in humans because of our analytical/social advances.)
I also wanted to point out to the illiterate of Science. (I made a mistake when I said "Theory". I mean my "Idea". Don't mistake my "Theory" with a scientifically accepted "Theory", like Gravity.) *I fixed this.*
*I'm not against the idea of GMO's. I'm against it without the proper research.*
*If something get's taken from say a fish that we eat maybe 15 times a year. (Like Salmon.) A bio marker may exist that helps something in Corn (For example.)*
*Corn is something that is extremely extensive in our diet. A rare bio marker that we rarely came across will become 75-90% of our diet. That's huge. And not knowing exactly how this affects us. It's not worth doing until it's been well tested and how it could affect all biological systems.*
*This, in my mind, is LOGICAL Conservatism.*
*Let the Scientists understand Evolution better before making such leaps of faith.*
*Not to be rude. But the people defending them are mostly conservatives that love the idea of Intelligent Design. But don't even believe in Evolution. That's beyond scary! Playing GOD is OK? That's just hypocrisy in it's finest. I don't even know where to begin with that. Don't FUCKING BLAME SCIENCE If something goes wrong!*
*Science TESTS!*
*They may be relatively safe. But let's be sure!*
*LOGICAL CONSERVATISM!*
Tne lizards are still lizards. The viruses are still viruses. They show evolution is NOT happening. Or if that is not true, what are they evolving into that are not lizards and viruses?
Those who support evolutionism and/or atheism too often try to paint a stereotype of creationists as being low I.Q. science illiterates. Such people are smugly sure that THEY ain't religious. (Like me in the past when I called myself an atheist.) But they are. Profoundly so. Why? Because they have great...faith...in what is never seen and is even what is impossible. Yet they flatter themselves that they are way smart, and all about science, while feeling sure that creationists have nothing but an Imaginary Friend.
.
Let's look at just a few of the imaginary friends and myths from evolutionism and atheism.
.
First there is the belief in the imaginary time fairy friend. Evolutionists promote the idea that life can come from inorganic matter. (And don't say they do not. It's easily found all over Google and on YT. Who came up with the mythical primal pond theory? Creationists?) When it is pointed out that life only comes from life and life of the same kind they respond "Well, with enough tiiiiime, anything can happen. We have...faith...therefore, that things happened differently in the conveniently unverifiable past."
.
They have faith, too, in their imaginary crystal ball friend that sees into that unverifiable past. For ex. they will pick up a fossil from a rock and tell you what happened to its invisible and evidenceless descendants for over 100 million Darwin years. They also talk about "missing" links, more of their imaginary friends. Don't bother to ask how you tell missing links from never existed links. They have...faith...that they are just "missing."
.
Next we see the imaginary Geologic Column friend that "supports" evolution. The real evidence shows the fossils are jumbled. There really are no such things as Jurassic, Triassic etc. periods. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chili. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops, as with the world's highest, the Himalayans.
.
Take a look. www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&FORM=IGRE . Those are the fossils of extinct, ocean bottom dwelling, trilobites. They, and other marine fossils found with them, are often in stunningly well preserved, and beautifully detailed, condition. We are told "plate tectonics" moved those deep sea creatures, for a millions of years trek, all over the world, in unbroken, vast sheets of concrete in the billions onto the world's mountain heights in such great shape. That's fine.... If you don't believe in erosion and admit you believe in miracles!
.
"Cambrian" fossils, like those trilobites, are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places on the planet, high and far, inland. Now why do we see evidence of sea life all over the planet at every level? And, how did all that sea water get everywhere? 90% of fossils on land are marine, too. Hmmmm....
.
Next, there is the imaginary family changing fairy friend. Put a species of any genus of fish, bird, lizard, tree, bacteria, whatever, under your Darwinian pillow. Voila! Over an evolutionary "night" it will change into the next step up in the Animal or Plant Kingdom, i.e. a different family. However, in the real world of trillions of life forms, and throughout recorded history, eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, tulips stay tulips, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, chimps stay chimps, fish stay fish, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change.
.
We never, ever, see any evidence of a life form transitioning from one family to another. Since all the evidence shows that never happens all around us with life forms, you just have to have... faith ... that it somehow happened differently in the unverifiable realm of the ancient and conveniently invisible past. With no evidence of any family transitioning to be another kind of family, there is no evidence for evolution. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any order, class, phylum or Kingdom.) It's just that simple.
.
Then there is the supremely imaginary god-friend of nothingness. Richard Dawkins and others tell us that everything came from nothing. This defies unniversal experience and common sense, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics and physics. But their imaginary friend, the nothingness god, sells big time to those who want to believe they can be their own, puny, little gods.
.
Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying. . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts .
.
Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple. That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ .
.
See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: .ruclips.net/video/6qp3oNIRb90/видео.html .
.
Thomas Kindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation where in the first 10 min. you hear quotes from well known evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." ruclips.net/video/I1yto0-z2bQ/видео.html .
.
Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp, and the DNA ones, are full of scientific fact presented in an often humorous way. ruclips.net/video/mjQtqg3yyjk/видео.htmlruclips.net/video/9ZHrcy8l9cU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/QyRiqOFiOH8/видео.html .
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. ruclips.net/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/видео.html
.
.Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: ruclips.net/video/tX9eDTNfQHY/видео.html Part 1 And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant. Since last century, various secular scientists have been saying it seems to be slowing down. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel.
.
Answersingenesis.org covers just about everything . You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales and imaginary friends?
Which island was Adam & Eve's island? Are their any apple trees?
Fairytale Island
Fantasy Island, just look for Tattoo.
That's what i was thinking but I'm going to guess Eden island ;)
Yep, pretty much. There's no other rational explanation. Fully developed animals do not get formed from dust, or out of the ribs of other animals.
You either believe that complex things formed from simpler things gradually, or you believe that complex things came from nowhere instantaneously.
Alan Alda is god.
No, you don't get it. First, individuals cannot evolve because our genes cannot change. Only populations can change. Secondly, a tan is an acquired characteristic. In the same way that a tattoo is not passed on to offspring neither are tans.
So it(finch) will evolve into another Genus Species the fastest... ?
You think so?
does anyone know the name of the orchestra in the background?
I am unclear on two points. First, which single celled organism are you referring to? Secondly, what point are you asking me to clarify? If you are talking about the origins of life or the first organisms thereafter, the video I posted does not address them. I will add a link in the video description that covers these topics.
aceserve Do you know how to reply?
evolution is awesome!!!!!!!
I have to watch this for my home
this helps me a lot
First off faith is belief without evidence. Thus you are correct you don't have to put your faith in the theory since there is plenty of evidence to support it. Secondly evolution by natural selection isn't one man's theory as Alfred Russel Wallace played a hand in its development as well. And to address your main point, did you even watch the video? Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles (different versions of genes).
What kinds of limited resources created a struggle between the birds on the island?
How were the birds isolated resulting in speciation?
Taylor Marie the couple that was staying on the island saw a big beaked foreigner finch from another island come to this one and mate with the small beaked birds. so the trait passed down to its ancestors
Taylor Marie the limited resource is food so the birds had to adapt in a certain way to get more food, the Galapagos turtles adapted to have longer necks to eat flowers on cacti eventually they ran out of food and the adaption became useless so the turtles became endangered
to what, exactly?
so basically nothing changes? this year we have 3 small beaks and 2 big beaks ... next year we have 3 big beaks and 2 small beaks.... 2 million years later the same thing happens? besides, if evolution is gradual change over time... 1st it should take time and not change in month depending on the weather. 2nd it wont...or shouldn't go back to what it was and then again back to what it was... what would be the point? surviving of course but i mean the point to prove evolution.
it demonstrates that the frequency of alleles are changing.
+aceserve thank you.
The common misconception with evolution is that people seem to think that an organism will be constantly changing/improving when in actuality, that's incorrect. The idea stems off from that as long as you have the "basic" needs for survival then you're fine for the most part.
IIC7 well the issue with that is, why evolve at all? When we were plants it was easier for us to get nutrition from soil/water and energy from the sun. Now we hunt and cook. When we were asexual bacteria we could multiple without the need of a mate.
Could you explain your point cuz to me it doesn't explain why evolve at all...
Evolution varies on the circumstances of the environment and other factors, it could be both random and directed (arguably). One aspect of evolution is what's known as Natural Selection, which is basically a process where traits that increases your chances of surviving and reproducing have a higher chance of being passed down. Then there's mutations and sexual reproduction to produce new features and the such.
Also, evolution doesn't necessarily mean the better. In some ways, evolution is like a trading system where one organism can specialize and excel in one aspect but may do horribly within another scenario. Evolution and Natural Selection aren't sentient beings in the sense that it does not think or have any intentions of the sort so what we want or what we need is irrelevant to the evolutionary process.
In a sense, we evolve to "ideally" increase our chances of survival and reproduction. We are the way we are because of circumstance and because whatever we had worked for years.
This is such stupid reasoning!!! They teach in school that evolution took millions of years. But here on Galapagos it takes just a few years and it goes back and forth. All this is is 2 different types of birds when in under certain conditions one flourishes better compared to the other. Which will change again depending on the situation. It's not one bird evolving to another bird!!! All it is, is simple adaptation. Years later, the finches with smaller beaks once again dominated the population. *Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a professor of anthropology conclude: "that while adaptation may help a species survive under changing circumstances, “it is not creating anything new.”* This is BAD SCIENCE!!!
Change through natural selection is a fact, and is observable through life that reproduces often. Bacteria is a good example of this (how they rapidly are able to evolve resistance to certain antibiotics). Artificial selection is another (think about how we are evolving dogs into different breeds). You are right, the time it takes for natural selection to change one species to an entirely new species can take many millions of years, however we are not talking about change from one species to another here. What we are talking about how beak size can change rapidly depending on the environment. It's really not that hard to understand. Keep in mind that natural selection doesn't have a goal, it's not steered in a specific direction. The mutations are random, and nature simply sets the playing field where the mutations that offer the best adaptations to the current environment will have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing.
+Tom Coates ... Well said ... Do you notice how they use the word "adaptation", to support evolution, which is an entirely different process? It is an example of bait and switch.
They get away with it because people do not realize they're using the same word that means two entirely different things. There referring to adaptation but want you to believe they proved evolution. Adaptation and Evolution are not the same things! This is talking with a forked tongue!
Gee, and I wonder why there are so many different dog breed?Perhaps due to man influence on them ... isn't that by design!
I don't criticize good science ... only bad science. And I'm not talking about Darwin ... I never even said his name.
Tom Coates I don't even know where to start with this ludicrous post of yours. First of all you go about saying that astronomy, geology and evolution is not science. I am not sure if you are a Troll or not, but I'll give you the benefit og the doubt. Science is the process of study and observation of our natural world. A scientific theory gives an explanation of an observation, and enables scientists to create predictions that can be tested. Geology, astronomy and evolution all fall into these categories. Geological processes are well defined and understood, and enables us to come with predictions like avalanches, earth slides, mining operations, and even to some degree volcano eruptions and earthquakes. Astronomy is certainly science as well. Although we cannot reproduce the birth of a star or the big bang, we can observe, test and predict its consequences. The big bang is a theory that explains the observations of our universe expanding. We have quite a bit of evidence to support this explanation, but it certainly needs more study. For some reason I get the impression that what you are really trying to say is that unless something can be observed when it happens, it's not science. Obviously this is false. Although we cannot observe a murder of someone, we can still gather evidence to prosecute.
You go on to say that evolution is the idea of one creature evolving into another creature. This is completely wrong, and I have no idea where you got this definition from. Evolution simply explains how gradual heritable changes will change one generation from the previous one. Give it enough time, and isolate parts of the gene pool from another, eventually the two groups will be unable to interbreed, causing them to be two distinct species. They might look more or less the same, you might call it by the same name, but genetically they are separate species.
Mudisuda Raman when two individuals of a species get together and make a baby. The baby is a combination of the genes of the parents and random mutations. These mutations are completely random. Now lets look at this example. Lets say two apes get together and make three offspring. These offspring are a combination of the parents genes along side random mutations. Offspring number one has a mutation which allows it to have slightly stronger leg muscles, offspring number two has a slightly higher intelligence and offspring number three doesn't have any advantage. Now lets say all three apes are being chased by a lion or a cheetah. Offspring number one outruns the lion or the cheetah. Offspring number two outsmarts the lion or a cheetah. And offspring number three gets eaten by the lion or the cheetah. Offspring 1 & 2 pass on there genes to the next generation and the process is repeated meanwhile offspring number three doesn't because he got eaten. This is evolution by natural selection.