Phenomenal Stated Clearly video! I just learned that mutation hot spots/cold spots exist, and the use of physical models for demonstration was very intuitive and mind blowing!
One of the most fascinating mutation mechanisms skeptics of evolution should consider is the process of copying and specializing entire genetic sequences. For example, when it comes to developing sensitivity to green light in addition to another wavelength we already perceive, evolution doesn’t need to start from scratch. A random duplication of the existing gene, followed by the independent evolution of both the original and the copy, can easily lead to a new, improved color sensitivity with an additional color. This "copy and specialize" process is an incredibly powerful tool in evolution, allowing complex adaptations to arise in just a few steps-what might otherwise seem almost impossibly unlikely.
@@koppite9600 No, that's what natural selection is. Genes are just instructions for making cells, and get passed on. If there's a mutation that gives a beneficial edge, then that organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, and that mutation spreads. Rarely would any one mutation be enough to give a huge edge to any specific animal, so realistically a mutation just needs to not be very harmful, and then a bunch of smaller mutations can build up and accumulate to something that IS a huge advantage over time and many generations. This video showed the example of a slightly green bug evolving into a leaf over many, MANY generations, making tiny incremental steps towards being a leaf-bug by virtue of just getting eaten less.
@@koppite9600It "knows" because of the nature of the molecules that make it up. (And by extension the atoms that make up those molecules) Fundamentally those molecules stick to other molecules of the same type. Similar to how a magnet will stick to another with one or more of the compatible poles facing each other. In fact, on the atomic level, they're held together by electro magnetism.
One of my skepticism about evolution goes back to the beginning. For sure current forces don’t have to start from scratch, but way back at some point they did. Now, I say skepticism because that’s just it, I’m skeptical. I think evolution is entirely possible, but I’m just skeptical of a lot of the theories based on the current evidence we have, and a lot of times I’m put off by the dogmatic adherence to one theory or another I run into a lot when evolution comes up in conversation.
@@koppite9600 If cells evolved any way of marking important genes as priority targets for repair or duplication that could be advantageous. Since cells routinely mark genes for promotion and supression useful genes are already easy targets. Any method of prioritizing gene preservation would improve fitness of lineages where the important genes are favoritely repaired, or copied. Priortizing the wrong genes would be disadventageous, so prioritization would tend to drift towards positive prioritization. That is how the "knowing" could evolve.
This was a really good explanation of mutation bias! I’ve heard about this a bunch and knew the basic idea that it’s random but uneven distribution - however I had no idea about how different parts of the genome could be differently prone to mutation. Loved the demonstration you did
"Mutation is stochastic" is probably a more accurate statement than calling it truly random sensu stricto. It follows some general (though highly complex) patterns overall, but individual mutation events in individual gametes or somatic cells can't be predicted with high certainty.
It makes sense that the dna itself would select toward having certain critical parts be more protected against mutation while other parts be open to mutations.
This is seriously one of the best videos i’ve seen from this channel. the physical magnetic model simulating cruciforms is really helpful, along with the animations. Thanks a ton for educating us on the awesomeness of evolution!
Your videos are truly outstanding, and this is just another top notch contribution. I really appreciate how much effort you put into each one of these. And I always learn new things in each of your videos. Please keep up the fantastic work!
You have a very effective teaching style. It made me realise my mental model of mutations was simply "radiation", I never imagined that the cell machinery itself could cause them. And thank you for the dice explanation for biased randomness, I expect to make a lot of use of that when explaining things myself.
This is a great video. I thought this was going to be about selection bias. We don't observe a lot of mutation to HOX genes (because mutation to those genes terminate the embryo). This was so much more interesting!
Wonderful video. 2:50 "Random does not mean however that all mutation types are equally likely." As noted at 9:33 mathematicians have a notion of a _uniform_ distribution where all possible values are equally likely to occur. A given random distribution may or may not be uniform: it's a different concept. Back in the olden days English used to have things called _adverbs_ and we might say, with more clarity, that heritable mutation occurs _randomly_ without committing to any specific claim about the distribution of the changes except that the organism did nothing to alter that distribution.
I would still consider having hotspots and coldspots random. In fact, almost all of my simulations behave this way, with the ability to change mutation rates for different parts of the genome independently. What a truly non-random mutation would be is a bias not in which genes mutate but in how they mutate. We can see an extremely clear example of this in CRISPR-like mechanisms where a specific sequence is fairly reliably deleted or replaced with no damage to anything else. An extremely directional mutation that is so wildly nonrandom we don't even talk about it being biased because it almost never gets it wrong. This however is employed conservatively, to remove known problem sequences often introduced by another kind of non-random mutation, that induced by a DNA virus.
One of my favorite misunderstanding of randomness is creationists who say certain DNA sequences are so unlikely as to be be impossible / God did it. They often rely on the false premise that you have to generate the entire sequence all at once rather rather than the actual process of small changes being built up over time.
Another misunderstanding of most creationists is that they confuse the term randomness very often with "lack of meaning/sense of life" feelings in many cases as they approach the topic not with reason. An example I like to give is where you explain that the interlocking of complexity of water droplets to hundreds of snowcrystals follows specific nucleation mechanism for certain crystallization - it does not randomly snow at a hot summer day without even a cloud in the sky. Deniers of science of crystallization (or gain of complexity in nature) either demand snowpixies for snow to exist or they complain about when we talk about that we observe some snowflakes to immediately cease to exist again when they hit a hot tin roof or fall into a chimney to evaporate how "meaningless" or "void of sense" it would feel. They can't then debate even the stochastics behind. Like they do not want to face for emotional reasons why humans are just 1 mammal species among others. This means that some day humanity most likely shares the same fate like 99% of species of the past incl. many mammal species before (like the wolly mammoth) and just ceases to exist. So without a further plan or goal of an assumed planer "behind the curtain". Which causes there the major anxieties.
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt We have several research bases how DNA mechanism came to be with RNA reductasis like Uracil to thymine (5 methyl uracil). Deities are envisioned as thoughtorgan & especially thoughtprocesslacking thinkers. Like some people envision squared circles, as well. Since when are men-made guesses about vaporous minds without bodies (and specific organs) specifically male in their gender btw.? So a "he" did not tell anything to anyone. We have menmade texts, which are claiming to speak in the authority of the concept of at least 1 god (1 thoughtorganlacking thinker) mostly due to false advertisement for those texts. In reality the menmade texts even have the audacityto claim the numbers of those asserted vaporous noncorperal entities, beside their gender and whatnot.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s I used to work with a vintage Burroughs machine that had to be programmed with the same kind of punch tape for every different task. Depending on the task this could take quite a while. Luckily they didn’t randomly mutate, but they could tear.
Finally one of my favourite channel posted a video. I downloaded your videos in the past and showed them to some students and core creationists. And it was positive for them to take science in a better position than before.
If you think that paper tape was used only in the Soviet Union to store programs and data, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Good old American paper tape had exactly the same problems. Well, until American plastic tape came along. Poor old 0x7f always got the bends. You've never programmed until you used an American Flexowriter with a CDC 910.
Hmmm. Not an expert, but I think I read a while back that the mutation cold spots have been selected for, such that they tend to protect the more fundamental cell/organism functionality. So I think in terms of deleterious mutations, mutation bias actually does influence the danger posed by mutation to the fitness of an organism.
Mostly.. see my video on the Arabidopsis paper. I do think Monroe is correct to say that this catch phrase is misleading. Over time, it seems that natural selection can put essential genes in cold spots. ruclips.net/video/9OZ3JKtOU1k/видео.html
The breaking strength of a uniform wire, fibre or tape is proportional to its length, as well as it's fundamental tensile strength. The computer tape, in the example, has the predicted breaking position, based intuitively on the highest concentration of holes, further away from the right, and the stretching force is biased by the dominant hand. The breaking point is, thereby, shifted away from the dominant side and towards the shorter distance from the "fixed point", the left hand. Had the weak spot been centrally placed the tape would likely have split exactly on one of the two sets of maximum perforation. Nevertheless, a good physical allegory.
This video blew my mind. It never occurred to me that DNA could “accidentally” stick to itself. I am very interested in that magnetic DNA model. I bet my kids would love it.
@@StatedClearly a "neat toy / demonstration that is time consuming to manually create" seems like the perfect thing to try and 3d print. I am sure at least several viewers would appreciate a printable 3d model on thingverse!
Yes, this is exactly why we made this video! I wrote Tiffany trying to get her view on how big a deal mutation bias really is (vs the hype), since she's one of the leading experts on it. She had the same frustration with the media hype that I had. So much so that she funded the animation!
Does mutation bias include 'non-viable' mutations? I assume many mutations will result in a fertilized egg that dies early in it's developmental process. These mutations occurred, but are not likely to be observed in any study.
Mutation bias doesn't stop non-viable mutations from happening. Mutation bias isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. That said, some researchers are claiming (and this is still being debated) that natural selection can exploit biases. They say selection favors the protection of essential genes over non-essential regions of DNA, which reduces birth defects: ruclips.net/video/9OZ3JKtOU1k/видео.html These studies are done on sperm, eggs, pollen, and seeds instead of offspring. This lets them catch fatal mutations in their data before natural selection can purge them. Some purging still happens, though, in the early stages of gamete production.
@@StatedClearly Interesting. That implies that natural selection has insulated mission critical portions of DNA from excessive mutation, either by burying them inside the DNA ball, or by using sequences more resilient to breaking. It makes sense that this research would use gametes so that non-viable mutations would be included. Thanks for the response.
Just started watching. In the world of artificial evolution, crossover is the most important factor. A system with only mutation isnt any better than hill climbing.
Thanks for the informative video. The title is, I believe, a bit unfortunate, as it could be click bait for people who don't believe in evolution (or that the world is round, etc.)
@@bobaldo2339 You could explain this as being similar to flowing water. As water tends to flow downhill due to gravity, mutations tend to "flow" towards specific kinds. Hope this helps.
I've not heard of a hotspot in teeth genes, but selection is super strong for teeth in mammals, since they're so essential in survival. We'd expect teeth to change with selection pressures pretty fast.
@@StatedClearly a fun example of that is Wisdom Teeth in humans. We've changed culturally MUCH faster than evolution typically works, so we don't NEED wisdom teeth anymore. Our bodies don't know that yet, and we don't really select for "non-impacting wisdom teeth" reproductively lol
The three greatest scientific theories so far, passing *_all experimental tests_* with flying colors, are evolution, special/general relativity, and quantum mechanics; we venture beyond them at our own peril. 💕☮🌎🌌
As a brazilian Portuguese speaker, the translation isnt very good it feels very unnatural in the way it speaks also does have that AI generated inflection that feels really weird on the ears
I wish you had also made a point of how natural selection can explain why complex features such as legs, or mouths, or brains, or eyes, etc should arise, while mutation bias does not point in any direction *relevant to producing new complex features*. If you had natural selection but no mutation bias, then you would still get complex life forms. If you had mutation bias but no natural selection, then you would just stay with the self-replicating molecules you started with, at best. So mutation bias completely fails as an explanation mechanism for the evolution of complex life.
1:10 yay Bath Uni! I honestly had no idea Bath university owned the Milner centre for evolution. That’s awesome since it’s my backup university of choice Not to be confused with the Milner centre of creation, a private evangelical institution in the United States dedicated to spreading misinformation about science and medicine and promoting conservative Christian beliefs.
The term "bias" is poorly chosen for this effect, since it implies in the minds of most people a conscious design. Something like "probability distribution" is more apt. There is nothing in physics which isn't governed by probabilities, yet only things which are deliberately designed have what most people understand as the primary meaning of "bias."
And we are supposed to believe that the “mutation bias “ which is non random mutations, luckily was directed out of the essential genes ? And to lesser extent out of the less important genes?, and to an ever lesser extent out of the non genic regions?, Evolutionists get crazier the more i look at them, and no the papers were not talking about “some” mutations, the paper was talking about all of them!, germline mutations which are the important ones for this case, We do not want to know if there is a physical mechanism of protecting genes, the fact that it is protected in a very wise manner is a beautiful sign of God, You cannot know if mutations are random, because randomness if not a thing you can detect, So you say they are random because they do not help the creature, Which is an argument from ignorance since you only do not know how they benefit the Creature, Basically all mutations other than those who are harmful are not random, The 80% less mutations in essential genes will inshallah make the chance of all of the harmful ones getting fixed a 100% add to that redundant genes and evolution is just impossible 🙅, The mutations that give bacteria antibiotics properties happen independently multiple times, The supposed mutations that happene for cit+ adaptation happen again in another study in 12-100 generations, The nylon waste + adaptation supposed mutations happened in another study within 20h of reaction time only!, A 2023 study revealed that the germline mutations of human are not random. It is surprising that you deal with science like that, Is it proven mutations are not random, Thinking that beneficial mutations are random is absurd, Because all of them happen multiple independent times under pressure in record time, usually sane people when they see a thing happening twice in the same conditions they rightfully conclude it is not random, (Check out my community posts for more!)
@@StatedClearlyi have seen many of your videos, To be frank with you i do not think i need anyone to explain to me papers that i can read myself inshallah, However a thing to note is that your honesty is destroyed for me, I have seen you push inaccuracies many times, Examples being 1-the supposed vestiges in whales Which and for 130 years have been proven to be vital for whale and dolphin mating, as shown by many studies again some of them date back to 130 years ago, 2- when you treated homologous and orthologous genes, which are concepts that relied heavily upon evolution, as evidence for evolution in the case of ERVs, Those genes identified to be in the same loci were genes that would not be associated with each other if not under the assumption that evolution is a fact, Also nevertheless of what those genes demonstrated, The same study you cited , said , That some of those ERVs Existing in humans or rhesus Were missing in some intermediate species, essentially disproving that they had evolved from each from the first place, This also proves the possibility that Highly similar ERVs can exist in Great numbers in Creatures that cannot have “evolved” from each other , , In light of these facts and many more honestly i do not think i need any information that you can provide me, i and Thanks to God am very informed when it comes to these topics,
@ Worry not , i am not the victim here inshallah, I am not the one clearly misusing and misinterpreting science, i am also clearly not the one claiming that the impossible happens, Let me just try to show you how absurd your beliefs are quite frankly, Based on experimental evidence done by the likes of axe douglas and many other scientists, The chance of a functioning protein forming randomly is 10^24 for the lowest end and 10^128 for the higher end, If i plug these numbers into a calculator And calculate the chances of making a cell randomly that consists of the least possible number of genes which is 500 (this is also based on experimental evidence) I will get crazy numbers like this, (1 in 10^41000-360000) Yeah this is what you believe happened, We just got lucky huh?, The number of all particles that exist is 10^80, However do not worry Instead of taking average proteins, Let us take the simplest protein possible with just 2 amino acids (this is just to prove a point no life could emerge from this) Do the calculations, 20^n , n=2 20^1000, The chances still are amazingly low, This will never happen, Dna is a language and when you try to claim that an email can be written just randomly you will get absurd numbers like the ones above, If i told you all of my comments were actually just my cat randomly stepping on my keyboard would you believe me?? . And let me ask you something you could not scientifically confirm your claims , (see my community posts i dealt with basically all of the evidence you have for evolution), Instead of that you reach for meaningless ad hominem, The fact that God exists is not unclear, You tried to explain living beings without him, look at you have come up with (1 in 10^50000) You cannot explain anything without God, For you to even begin from abiogenesis you claim that the necessary physics and chemistry which all of them have signs of God in them whether it be fine tuning or else, you claim that they can just “happen” and go on from there, it is like saying a car was made randomly, then assuming that the factory that makes its parts and the machines that make it are just there and ready to Go, The fact is that the Big Bang can be traced back to nothing, Meaning ( new matter was Created ) Nobody can Create new matter but God and new matter was Created because we literally came from nothing. ( See my community posts)
@@macmac1022 you're seeing things as black and white when its just not. This video is explaining the idea that mutations on a wide scale are not ENTIRELY random. There's still randomness at play, and mutations on an individual level are not able to be predicted. It also says nothing about a god. Which god are you referring to and why does a god need to exist in this instance?
@@rayman11 So you dont answer my question, so sick of you politicians in the world cant be direct and answer simple questions. Did I say the video talks about god, yes or no? Did I say the video is saying this video counters the argument mutations are not random and are gods plan, yes or no? If someone makes a video and it just happens to point out problems with some other idea but that was never the purpose of the video to point out problems with the other idea, does that mean it does not point out the problems with the other idea, yes or no? The god of the people who say mutations are not random, god is controlling them. This is often the abrahamic god as many of those people are christians and muslims. You will have to ask them to why a god needs to existence in this instance but the most common response will probably be because he is the one controlling it and without his control it would not happen. Without god, life would not exist, without god the universe would not exist. This is not what I think, I am not a theist, I just debate them all the time and hear the argument mutations are not random, god is controlling them. Like it or not, I am going to use this video against those arguments because I THINK this is a great video to go against that narrative. Now, can you answer my yes or no questions or you going to continue to avoid them like a dishonest politician and argument with me about what I mean about what I said?
In case you can't understand! Mutations aren't purely random, some mutations occur more often in specific ways or locations, discreetly shaping evolution alongside natural selection. Natural selection is the predatory like the Lizard that's been eating the bad mutations earlier.
@@ImAmiruswell, the word bias is a poor choice of word when it comes to explaining how that it isn't completley random which may cause misunderstandings
the Big Bang is the best explanation for how we see the universe around us. We have no idea HOW or WHY it may have happened, and there almost certainly will never be any evidence for that. Many theists are willing to accept that a divine creator would actually WANT us to try and understand the majesty of their creation, using the brains that they carefully helped evolve in us.
Evolution doesn't attempt to! Many evolutionists are also divine creationists, and often believe that the physics and functions of the universe, including evolution, are the method by which divinity exerts itself. Hope this helps.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Yeah, that's about as much sense as evolution makes but If they thought for a second they could BS the general public with aerodynamics, I'm sure they would try.
Phenomenal Stated Clearly video! I just learned that mutation hot spots/cold spots exist, and the use of physical models for demonstration was very intuitive and mind blowing!
Oh wow! It's a great honor to see our tech in your video! Thank you and all the best!
Thank you! I was just about to send you an email to let you know the video is up!
We'll write you tomorrow. We see some interesting ideas on collaboration in the scope of genetics and so.
I love that frog eating those leaf bugs animation, such a good short visual example of predator selection
*Chameleon:* "Good sir! I am no frog! I am an amniote, same as you!"
@@matterhorn731
Oh, it was a chameleon! lol. I was so focused on the bugs I thought it was a frog!
@@calebr7199
Depends on the vision on the predator. Camouflage may work on us but not on other eyes
One of the most fascinating mutation mechanisms skeptics of evolution should consider is the process of copying and specializing entire genetic sequences. For example, when it comes to developing sensitivity to green light in addition to another wavelength we already perceive, evolution doesn’t need to start from scratch. A random duplication of the existing gene, followed by the independent evolution of both the original and the copy, can easily lead to a new, improved color sensitivity with an additional color. This "copy and specialize" process is an incredibly powerful tool in evolution, allowing complex adaptations to arise in just a few steps-what might otherwise seem almost impossibly unlikely.
How does it know to keep it that way? Is it intelligent?
@@koppite9600 No, that's what natural selection is. Genes are just instructions for making cells, and get passed on. If there's a mutation that gives a beneficial edge, then that organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, and that mutation spreads.
Rarely would any one mutation be enough to give a huge edge to any specific animal, so realistically a mutation just needs to not be very harmful, and then a bunch of smaller mutations can build up and accumulate to something that IS a huge advantage over time and many generations.
This video showed the example of a slightly green bug evolving into a leaf over many, MANY generations, making tiny incremental steps towards being a leaf-bug by virtue of just getting eaten less.
@@koppite9600It "knows" because of the nature of the molecules that make it up. (And by extension the atoms that make up those molecules)
Fundamentally those molecules stick to other molecules of the same type. Similar to how a magnet will stick to another with one or more of the compatible poles facing each other.
In fact, on the atomic level, they're held together by electro magnetism.
One of my skepticism about evolution goes back to the beginning. For sure current forces don’t have to start from scratch, but way back at some point they did. Now, I say skepticism because that’s just it, I’m skeptical. I think evolution is entirely possible, but I’m just skeptical of a lot of the theories based on the current evidence we have, and a lot of times I’m put off by the dogmatic adherence to one theory or another I run into a lot when evolution comes up in conversation.
@@koppite9600 If cells evolved any way of marking important genes as priority targets for repair or duplication that could be advantageous. Since cells routinely mark genes for promotion and supression useful genes are already easy targets.
Any method of prioritizing gene preservation would improve fitness of lineages where the important genes are favoritely repaired, or copied. Priortizing the wrong genes would be disadventageous, so prioritization would tend to drift towards positive prioritization.
That is how the "knowing" could evolve.
This was a really good explanation of mutation bias! I’ve heard about this a bunch and knew the basic idea that it’s random but uneven distribution - however I had no idea about how different parts of the genome could be differently prone to mutation. Loved the demonstration you did
@1:38 " but it can't be swapped out, with say, an elephant or a tesseract." - Citation needed.
You CAN substitute any specific base pair with an elephant.... once.
No Citation Needed when it’s been “Stated Clearly”!
Timelord DNA be like:
An excellent, informed summary of a complex topic carefully communicated. Thank you!
"Mutation is stochastic" is probably a more accurate statement than calling it truly random sensu stricto. It follows some general (though highly complex) patterns overall, but individual mutation events in individual gametes or somatic cells can't be predicted with high certainty.
It makes sense that the dna itself would select toward having certain critical parts be more protected against mutation while other parts be open to mutations.
This is seriously one of the best videos i’ve seen from this channel. the physical magnetic model simulating cruciforms is really helpful, along with the animations. Thanks a ton for educating us on the awesomeness of evolution!
Ive waited a year for this!!!! I've never unsubbed - just waited for something other than a short. 🎉🎉🎉
Your videos are truly outstanding, and this is just another top notch contribution. I really appreciate how much effort you put into each one of these. And I always learn new things in each of your videos.
Please keep up the fantastic work!
You have a very effective teaching style.
It made me realise my mental model of mutations was simply "radiation", I never imagined that the cell machinery itself could cause them.
And thank you for the dice explanation for biased randomness, I expect to make a lot of use of that when explaining things myself.
This is a great video. I thought this was going to be about selection bias. We don't observe a lot of mutation to HOX genes (because mutation to those genes terminate the embryo).
This was so much more interesting!
Babe wake up, new Stated Clearly video dropped
Wonderful video. 2:50 "Random does not mean however that all mutation types are equally likely." As noted at 9:33 mathematicians have a notion of a _uniform_ distribution where all possible values are equally likely to occur. A given random distribution may or may not be uniform: it's a different concept. Back in the olden days English used to have things called _adverbs_ and we might say, with more clarity, that heritable mutation occurs _randomly_ without committing to any specific claim about the distribution of the changes except that the organism did nothing to alter that distribution.
Great video!
What do you use to create these?
I want to create science videos too like yours in different language.
I would still consider having hotspots and coldspots random. In fact, almost all of my simulations behave this way, with the ability to change mutation rates for different parts of the genome independently.
What a truly non-random mutation would be is a bias not in which genes mutate but in how they mutate. We can see an extremely clear example of this in CRISPR-like mechanisms where a specific sequence is fairly reliably deleted or replaced with no damage to anything else. An extremely directional mutation that is so wildly nonrandom we don't even talk about it being biased because it almost never gets it wrong. This however is employed conservatively, to remove known problem sequences often introduced by another kind of non-random mutation, that induced by a DNA virus.
One of my favorite misunderstanding of randomness is creationists who say certain DNA sequences are so unlikely as to be be impossible / God did it. They often rely on the false premise that you have to generate the entire sequence all at once rather rather than the actual process of small changes being built up over time.
Another misunderstanding of most creationists is that they confuse the term randomness very often with "lack of meaning/sense of life" feelings in many cases as they approach the topic not with reason. An example I like to give is where you explain that the interlocking of complexity of water droplets to hundreds of snowcrystals follows specific nucleation mechanism for certain crystallization - it does not randomly snow at a hot summer day without even a cloud in the sky. Deniers of science of crystallization (or gain of complexity in nature) either demand snowpixies for snow to exist or they complain about when we talk about that we observe some snowflakes to immediately cease to exist again when they hit a hot tin roof or fall into a chimney to evaporate how "meaningless" or "void of sense" it would feel. They can't then debate even the stochastics behind. Like they do not want to face for emotional reasons why humans are just 1 mammal species among others. This means that some day humanity most likely shares the same fate like 99% of species of the past incl. many mammal species before (like the wolly mammoth) and just ceases to exist. So without a further plan or goal of an assumed planer "behind the curtain". Which causes there the major anxieties.
Which you still don't have evidence of it's beginning, while God exists and he told us how to live
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt We have several research bases how DNA mechanism came to be with RNA reductasis like Uracil to thymine (5 methyl uracil). Deities are envisioned as thoughtorgan & especially thoughtprocesslacking thinkers. Like some people envision squared circles, as well. Since when are men-made guesses about vaporous minds without bodies (and specific organs) specifically male in their gender btw.?
So a "he" did not tell anything to anyone. We have menmade texts, which are claiming to speak in the authority of the concept of at least 1 god (1 thoughtorganlacking thinker) mostly due to false advertisement for those texts.
In reality the menmade texts even have the audacityto claim the numbers of those asserted vaporous noncorperal entities, beside their gender and whatnot.
All mutations are random but some mutations are more random than others
During the late 1970s and early 1980s I used to work with a vintage Burroughs machine that had to be programmed with the same kind of punch tape for every different task. Depending on the task this could take quite a while. Luckily they didn’t randomly mutate, but they could tear.
Finally one of my favourite channel posted a video. I downloaded your videos in the past and showed them to some students and core creationists. And it was positive for them to take science in a better position than before.
Nicely done. Very minor nit: at 11:40 the cytosine structure is missing a hydrogen, and the uracil has an extra bond between the carbon and nitrogen.
Ha, you're right! We need you on the review team.
FYI, I added a correction in the video description crediting you. Thanks!
Excellent explanation! Great graphics. Good ( not boring ) narration! Liked and subbed!
Brilliantly made video, keep on the good work
Thanks for making this video. It is very informative and I learned something today.
Ah finally a Ctated cleaarly video after so long💙
This was incredibly well explained!
If you think that paper tape was used only in the Soviet Union to store programs and data, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Good old American paper tape had exactly the same problems. Well, until American plastic tape came along. Poor old 0x7f always got the bends.
You've never programmed until you used an American Flexowriter with a CDC 910.
Is this the same person narrating as the old evolution videos?
They're still random with respect to fitness effects
Hmmm. Not an expert, but I think I read a while back that the mutation cold spots have been selected for, such that they tend to protect the more fundamental cell/organism functionality. So I think in terms of deleterious mutations, mutation bias actually does influence the danger posed by mutation to the fitness of an organism.
Mostly.. see my video on the Arabidopsis paper. I do think Monroe is correct to say that this catch phrase is misleading. Over time, it seems that natural selection can put essential genes in cold spots. ruclips.net/video/9OZ3JKtOU1k/видео.html
The breaking strength of a uniform wire, fibre or tape is proportional to its length, as well as it's fundamental tensile strength. The computer tape, in the example, has the predicted breaking position, based intuitively on the highest concentration of holes, further away from the right, and the stretching force is biased by the dominant hand. The breaking point is, thereby, shifted away from the dominant side and towards the shorter distance from the "fixed point", the left hand. Had the weak spot been centrally placed the tape would likely have split exactly on one of the two sets of maximum perforation. Nevertheless, a good physical allegory.
I don't think this could be explained any better to the average person. That includes me.
This video blew my mind. It never occurred to me that DNA could “accidentally” stick to itself. I am very interested in that magnetic DNA model. I bet my kids would love it.
I made it in my basement. I'll have to find a company that wants to mass-produce them.
@ until then I might have to break out the hot glue. Sounds like a fun project.
@@StatedClearly a "neat toy / demonstration that is time consuming to manually create" seems like the perfect thing to try and 3d print. I am sure at least several viewers would appreciate a printable 3d model on thingverse!
Hey Jon, where can I find the magnetic model of DNA that you briefly showed in this video? Thanks!
I made it, so there's only one.
I'll make a video showing how to make them. It's a bit more time consuming than I'd like.
Excellent and timely video! Mutation bias ~is~ such an important component of evolution, but boy is it easy to sensationalize into obscurity.
Yes, this is exactly why we made this video! I wrote Tiffany trying to get her view on how big a deal mutation bias really is (vs the hype), since she's one of the leading experts on it. She had the same frustration with the media hype that I had. So much so that she funded the animation!
Does mutation bias include 'non-viable' mutations? I assume many mutations will result in a fertilized egg that dies early in it's developmental process. These mutations occurred, but are not likely to be observed in any study.
Mutation bias doesn't stop non-viable mutations from happening. Mutation bias isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. That said, some researchers are claiming (and this is still being debated) that natural selection can exploit biases. They say selection favors the protection of essential genes over non-essential regions of DNA, which reduces birth defects: ruclips.net/video/9OZ3JKtOU1k/видео.html
These studies are done on sperm, eggs, pollen, and seeds instead of offspring. This lets them catch fatal mutations in their data before natural selection can purge them. Some purging still happens, though, in the early stages of gamete production.
@@StatedClearly Interesting. That implies that natural selection has insulated mission critical portions of DNA from excessive mutation, either by burying them inside the DNA ball, or by using sequences more resilient to breaking. It makes sense that this research would use gametes so that non-viable mutations would be included. Thanks for the response.
Just started watching. In the world of artificial evolution, crossover is the most important factor. A system with only mutation isnt any better than hill climbing.
We are back!
Thanks for the informative video. The title is, I believe, a bit unfortunate, as it could be click bait for people who don't believe in evolution (or that the world is round, etc.)
You can't please everyone
@@bobaldo2339 You could explain this as being similar to flowing water. As water tends to flow downhill due to gravity, mutations tend to "flow" towards specific kinds.
Hope this helps.
As a person with no biology background. I love watching your videos.
I’ve heard teeth can evolve faster than other physical attributes. Is this an example of what you’re talking about?
What are teeth in the first place?😂
I've not heard of a hotspot in teeth genes, but selection is super strong for teeth in mammals, since they're so essential in survival. We'd expect teeth to change with selection pressures pretty fast.
@@StatedClearly a fun example of that is Wisdom Teeth in humans. We've changed culturally MUCH faster than evolution typically works, so we don't NEED wisdom teeth anymore.
Our bodies don't know that yet, and we don't really select for "non-impacting wisdom teeth" reproductively lol
@@StatedClearly
That tooth is part of how it was created.
did you do something with your voice here It almost sounds sped up because your voice is higher and a bit synthetic sounding
Excellent!
I want a tutorial or materials list of your model!!!!
The three greatest scientific theories so far, passing *_all experimental tests_* with flying colors, are evolution, special/general relativity, and quantum mechanics; we venture beyond them at our own peril. 💕☮🌎🌌
As a brazilian Portuguese speaker, the translation isnt very good it feels very unnatural in the way it speaks also does have that AI generated inflection that feels really weird on the ears
This comment was supposed to go on the short, for some reason it got sent to the video
@@Snewbewthanks for the feedback. I guess it has a way to go, but better than nothing for now
some parts of the genome are more/less likely to mutate? underwhelming
Cool 😍😍😍
Called it
Babe wakeup. Finally, stated clearly uploaded his new video.
🫶🏼
I wish you had also made a point of how natural selection can explain why complex features such as legs, or mouths, or brains, or eyes, etc should arise, while mutation bias does not point in any direction *relevant to producing new complex features*. If you had natural selection but no mutation bias, then you would still get complex life forms. If you had mutation bias but no natural selection, then you would just stay with the self-replicating molecules you started with, at best. So mutation bias completely fails as an explanation mechanism for the evolution of complex life.
+1
1:10 yay Bath Uni! I honestly had no idea Bath university owned the Milner centre for evolution. That’s awesome since it’s my backup university of choice
Not to be confused with the Milner centre of creation, a private evangelical institution in the United States dedicated to spreading misinformation about science and medicine and promoting conservative Christian beliefs.
The term "bias" is poorly chosen for this effect, since it implies in the minds of most people a conscious design. Something like "probability distribution" is more apt. There is nothing in physics which isn't governed by probabilities, yet only things which are deliberately designed have what most people understand as the primary meaning of "bias."
Please don't use AI to create translations. At least German is unbearable to listen to.
God bless you!
.◦° =D °◦н̲h̲нн̲h̲нн̲h н̲h̲нн̲h̲нн̲h◦° =D °◦.
And we are supposed to believe that the “mutation bias “ which is non random mutations, luckily was directed out of the essential genes ? And to lesser extent out of the less important genes?, and to an ever lesser extent out of the non genic regions?,
Evolutionists get crazier the more i look at them, and no the papers were not talking about “some” mutations, the paper was talking about all of them!, germline mutations which are the important ones for this case,
We do not want to know if there is a physical mechanism of protecting genes, the fact that it is protected in a very wise manner is a beautiful sign of God,
You cannot know if mutations are random, because randomness if not a thing you can detect,
So you say they are random because they do not help the creature,
Which is an argument from ignorance since you only do not know how they benefit the Creature,
Basically all mutations other than those who are harmful are not random,
The 80% less mutations in essential genes will inshallah make the chance of all of the harmful ones getting fixed a 100% add to that redundant genes and evolution is just impossible 🙅,
The mutations that give bacteria antibiotics properties happen independently multiple times,
The supposed mutations that happene for cit+ adaptation happen again in another study in 12-100 generations,
The nylon waste + adaptation supposed mutations happened in another study within 20h of reaction time only!,
A 2023 study revealed that the germline mutations of human are not random.
It is surprising that you deal with science like that,
Is it proven mutations are not random,
Thinking that beneficial mutations are random is absurd,
Because all of them happen multiple independent times under pressure in record time, usually sane people when they see a thing happening twice in the same conditions they rightfully conclude it is not random,
(Check out my community posts for more!)
Apparently you didn't watch the videos about those papers. Linked in the video description.
@@StatedClearlyi have seen many of your videos,
To be frank with you i do not think i need anyone to explain to me papers that i can read myself inshallah,
However a thing to note is that your honesty is destroyed for me,
I have seen you push inaccuracies many times,
Examples being
1-the supposed vestiges in whales
Which and for 130 years have been proven to be vital for whale and dolphin mating, as shown by many studies again some of them date back to 130 years ago,
2- when you treated homologous and orthologous genes, which are concepts that relied heavily upon evolution, as evidence for evolution in the case of ERVs,
Those genes identified to be in the same loci were genes that would not be associated with each other if not under the assumption that evolution is a fact,
Also nevertheless of what those genes demonstrated,
The same study you cited , said ,
That some of those ERVs
Existing in humans or rhesus
Were missing in some intermediate species, essentially disproving that they had evolved from each from the first place,
This also proves the possibility that Highly similar ERVs can exist in Great numbers in Creatures that cannot have “evolved” from each other ,
,
In light of these facts and many more honestly i do not think i need any information that you can provide me, i and Thanks to God am very informed when it comes to these topics,
@HumbleServantoftheone1 you fell victim to religous delustions, congrats
@
Worry not , i am not the victim here inshallah,
I am not the one clearly misusing and misinterpreting science, i am also clearly not the one claiming that the impossible happens,
Let me just try to show you how absurd your beliefs are quite frankly,
Based on experimental evidence done by the likes of axe douglas and many other scientists,
The chance of a functioning protein forming randomly is 10^24 for the lowest end and 10^128 for the higher end,
If i plug these numbers into a calculator
And calculate the chances of making a cell randomly that consists of the least possible number of genes which is 500 (this is also based on experimental evidence)
I will get crazy numbers like this,
(1 in 10^41000-360000)
Yeah this is what you believe happened,
We just got lucky huh?,
The number of all particles that exist is 10^80,
However do not worry
Instead of taking average proteins,
Let us take the simplest protein possible with just 2 amino acids (this is just to prove a point no life could emerge from this)
Do the calculations,
20^n , n=2
20^1000,
The chances still are amazingly low,
This will never happen,
Dna is a language and when you try to claim that an email can be written just randomly you will get absurd numbers like the ones above,
If i told you all of my comments were actually just my cat randomly stepping on my keyboard would you believe me?? .
And let me ask you something you could not scientifically confirm your claims , (see my community posts i dealt with basically all of the evidence you have for evolution),
Instead of that you reach for meaningless ad hominem,
The fact that God exists is not unclear,
You tried to explain living beings without him, look at you have come up with (1 in 10^50000)
You cannot explain anything without God,
For you to even begin from abiogenesis you claim that the necessary physics and chemistry which all of them have signs of God in them whether it be fine tuning or else, you claim that they can just “happen” and go on from there, it is like saying a car was made randomly, then assuming that the factory that makes its parts and the machines that make it are just there and ready to Go,
The fact is that the Big Bang can be traced back to nothing,
Meaning ( new matter was Created )
Nobody can Create new matter but God and new matter was Created because we literally came from nothing.
( See my community posts)
@@alipetuniashow i do not see any counter arguments being made.
Great video to go against the narrative that mutations are not random, therefore god is controlling them.
God could've created via evolution.
Non directed evolution makes zero sense.
that's not what the video is saying my guy
@@rayman11 Does this video go against the narrative that mutations are not random, god is controlling them, yes or no?
@@macmac1022 you're seeing things as black and white when its just not.
This video is explaining the idea that mutations on a wide scale are not ENTIRELY random. There's still randomness at play, and mutations on an individual level are not able to be predicted.
It also says nothing about a god. Which god are you referring to and why does a god need to exist in this instance?
@@rayman11 So you dont answer my question, so sick of you politicians in the world cant be direct and answer simple questions. Did I say the video talks about god, yes or no? Did I say the video is saying this video counters the argument mutations are not random and are gods plan, yes or no? If someone makes a video and it just happens to point out problems with some other idea but that was never the purpose of the video to point out problems with the other idea, does that mean it does not point out the problems with the other idea, yes or no?
The god of the people who say mutations are not random, god is controlling them. This is often the abrahamic god as many of those people are christians and muslims. You will have to ask them to why a god needs to existence in this instance but the most common response will probably be because he is the one controlling it and without his control it would not happen. Without god, life would not exist, without god the universe would not exist. This is not what I think, I am not a theist, I just debate them all the time and hear the argument mutations are not random, god is controlling them. Like it or not, I am going to use this video against those arguments because I THINK this is a great video to go against that narrative.
Now, can you answer my yes or no questions or you going to continue to avoid them like a dishonest politician and argument with me about what I mean about what I said?
lol. So you just dont know what random means.
Go ahead, explain it to me better than him.
In case you can't understand! Mutations aren't purely random, some mutations occur more often in specific ways or locations, discreetly shaping evolution alongside natural selection. Natural selection is the predatory like the Lizard that's been eating the bad mutations earlier.
@@NigelChrisnelleMatthewMBailon 90% chance is still random
@@ImAmirusThen you just proved it is not purely random which is his point. Mutations are not completely random.
@@ImAmiruswell, the word bias is a poor choice of word when it comes to explaining how that it isn't completley random which may cause misunderstandings
Nature the "journal"? It's a clickbait word game. Also probably trying to be woke.
Yes and the Big Bang theory.. which is silly to believe in.. so many holes 😂 yet so many atheists cite these two theories as truth and fact. 😂
Did you watch the entire video or did you just look at the title and come and comment my guy
List the "holes"... we are all dying to know!
what holes
Yes, my child. Just worship me instead. For I am God.
the Big Bang is the best explanation for how we see the universe around us.
We have no idea HOW or WHY it may have happened, and there almost certainly will never be any evidence for that.
Many theists are willing to accept that a divine creator would actually WANT us to try and understand the majesty of their creation, using the brains that they carefully helped evolve in us.
Nice theory too bad evolution can't explain the existence of life.
Evolution doesn't attempt to! Many evolutionists are also divine creationists, and often believe that the physics and functions of the universe, including evolution, are the method by which divinity exerts itself. Hope this helps.
Too bad aerodynamics can't explain the existence of aluminum and kerosene.
neither can gravity, i guess that means gravity isnt real
@@hammalammadingdong6244 Yeah, that's about as much sense as evolution makes but If they thought for a second they could BS the general public with aerodynamics, I'm sure they would try.
@@chickenlittle8158 Oh, I think atheists are always trying to push the evolution nonsense as Abiogenesis, most of them just don't get it.