@@clintexplains5327 The last point was not very clear to me. How do scientists know that humans did not evolve from any modern species of primate, but from an ancient/extinct species? I mean, is there a way to determine which of the two options is correct?
@@ab_ab_c You are spitting straight facts! As for you, @Clint’s Reptiles, I will still remain subbed because I love lizards, but this is just going too far. God created this universe and evolution is horseshit blasphemy.
2:50 This is the best explanation of why we may never encounter an extra-terrestrial species with an intellect equal to or greater than our own. Intelligence is not crucial for survival, unless a species uses intelligence as its means for survival (i.e. us). Planets that produce life are not guaranteed to produce a sentient species.
In order to briefly summarise this video and these misconceptions, they can be ordered into 5 different criteria: 1. Handleability 2. Care 3. Hardiness 4. Availability 5. Upfront Costs
I love listening to an unbiased teacher (or at least one who removes his own biases before he begins teaching important concepts). Forget about your own beliefs for a second and just focus on the biology, there’s no reason that your religion or absence of religion should be affected by understanding biology, there’s no conflict between the two unless you choose to make one :)
@@alexabplanalp4455 lol I am too 😂 and very actively religious at that haha, but I appreciate and admire his ability to separate himself from his own background and teach everyone kindly and honestly!
Clint this is such a masterful, genuine, and kind explanation of a very contentious topic. You really are a master of your craft and frankly, stinkin' rad!
On the contrary, Clint is in error. My reply; ------------- Oh Clint, no.3 needs to drop the former part, only the human bit is a misconception. I'm sure you didn't intend your point as meaning evolution ALONE (wherein I define it as change in allele frequencies of populations of organisms over successive generations), not being directed toward progress, that _is_ true. As such, natural selection (as a nigh on conjoined twin of evolution as the majority of the whole process involves it) _is_ an arbiter directing toward progress. Where progress is directed toward 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage'. After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress. You even say after the graphic "there is no evolutionary mechanism that selects for progress, for one thing progress towards what exactly?" Well, as I said; natural selection! ------------ I don't think this is nit-picking either, as in some weak attempt at pointing to 'directing toward progress'. I think I'm on firm ground in stating 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage' as exactly that.
@@Dr.IanPlect No but really, progress toward what? Reproductive success and not dying due to local conditions long enough to have it are very, very broad categories. Alphaproteobacteria, especially Pelagibacterales, could be argued to have been racing ahead of complex life in that arena for ~1 billion years.
@@dustind4694 I stated it clearly; 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage' This being a 'broad category' or a general point is true, but it's a point directed toward progress nonetheless. And as I stated to Clint; 'After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress.' Your bacteria point doesn't conflict at all, all you said was 'they're efficient' at it!
@@Dr.IanPlect That's not so much progress in the common use of the word as it is progress in the sense of fluids following the path of least resistance towards equilibrium. It's just a process that follows from the requisite conditions, and the conditions prior to those conditions, etc. I'll concede the technical accuracy, but Clint is right to dissuade the use of the word. Much like the idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, the idea that evolution has an end goal (in a grander sense, not just a mechanical point at which the pressures of negative and positive selection are satisfied) casts some very unpleasant shadows.
He (and I know it’s a “he”) will use all the apologist arguments to worm his way around the science, logic, reason and critical, skeptical thinking. Learn what fallacies are and then count how many he uses. I’ll give you the most common one. The “Circular argument”. Ex: The Bible is true because it says it’s true. Good luck!!🙂
@@loriw2661 why? lots of christians, pastors included, believe in evolution. most of the philosophy behind science and western logic was codified, or at least preserved by, priests and monks. the idea that Christianity is always anti science is just daddy issues.
Bet that didn't go as planned. This video may be correct on all points, but it doesn't provide an argument for evolution, only against misconceptions. Evolution is assumed true. I remember what my drill sergeant said about assuming....
My parents keep giving me Christian books to read that say "science is an illusion" that's meant to distract us from Heaven. Those books are sitting in a dark corner as I watch this. No drugs, no sex, no rock-n-roll at the moment, yet I feel kinda guilty.
I don't know if Clint will ever see this comment but I wanted to let everyone know that there is a whole field of engineering that takes inspiraton from evolution! (and other natural processes) There are many "optimization algorythms" out there, and some are more primitive or more recent, and some have some benefits and some disadvantages. They can usually be classified into two huge categories: Gradient-Based and Non-Gradient-Based. Gradient based are more limited because they can usually only handle a problem of optimization with a couple of variables, but they are typically very fast at coverging on the nearest solution. It's kind of like if you had a floor with many pits and valleys and you randomly dropped a marble somewhere. The marble will roll down to the nearest pit, but it probably won't find the deepest pit unless you dropped it next to that pit. The other category is non-gradient, and these are the ones that tend to take inpiration from nature. Some of these, actually attemtp to simulate evolution, so if you have for example, a wing for an airplane that you want to optimize, you could represent that wing as potentially dozens of hundeds of variables, treat them like "genes" and then create an algorithm that "fills the space of possible solutions" evenly (usually Sobol-Space algorithm) and you use this as the starting population. Then you plug this in to some kind of simulation software to test each solution and see which ones are "stronger". The stronger ones mate, and so on. A very important part of the algorithm is the introduction of random mutations that are not inherited from the parents, and this is how the solution can "find" a new "pit" that was't previously known that goes has a more optimal solution than the previous "local solution" (if we're talking about a 3D surface, with pits and valleys, this these mutations allow the algorithm to find another valley that may end up being deeper. There are other algorithms that simulate other things, like "Particle Swarm" which similates birds flocking to find resources, but with some individuals of the flock having a more "individualistic" behavior than encourages them to go explore new territory and so on. The disadvantage of these is twofold: A. You can't mathematically prove that you've found the best solution once you find one. B. They take a long time to coverge on a solution, even if they're very close, because at the end of the day, it's a glorified trial and error method. Sometimes people will combine two methods, so they might build into the algorithm a way for it to decide to switch over to a gradient based once the algorithm sees that the solutions are not "going in a new direction" for many generations, basically to speed up and finnish finding the "valley" quickly. But they can still switch back to non-gradient to keep looking for new solutions. Keep in mind that the example of a valley is convinient but it is actually only three variables. You could make a problem with a hundred variables. Sorry if anyone is an expert in this and they point out a mistake in my comment, I only took one course of it in university, but I learned a lot from it and found ir extremly interesting.
Wouldn't be amazing if schools, that teach evolution to everyone, actually bothered to STOP PROPEGATING THE MISCONCEPTIONS? I learned the misconceptions from teachers, I learned what evolution is suppose to be from books and critical thinking. But it raises the question: how long can something be misused before it ceases to be what it was originally meant to be? How long until it is JUST the misconceptions?
If schools focused strictly on the science it would become impossible to overcome the objections that would come. General concepts and assumptions are the backbone of the theory because they're easy and objections can be scoffed at. Science demands rigor and correctness, which the theory doesn't possess.
This video should be required viewing in schools from elementary on. The only thing I would add some stress to is the fact that evolution has no intent. In the English language, the word "adapt" can mean both intentional adaptation or unintentional adaptation. I think it is really important to stress the fact that in evolution, adaptation is not directed, it is a result of random changes in organisms, and random changes in environments. I think I would also add that plants evolve just as animals do, using DNA as the library of instructions. Anyhow, a great video!
I am very happy to see you taking on this topic. I have a very hard time explaining how I can believe both creationism and evolution to be true. While I know this isn't a religious channel this video follows my logic that bridges the two. Thank you sir and keep up the good work.
Hey Clint - love your channels. Would you not put "Mutation is mostly random" up on the board? I believe many people think that evolution happens in order to fill a certain niche, towards a certain fenotype, with purpose. Almost as if there were a directing agent. That is another related misconception, potentially, but not the same, This one points at creationism - so these possible misconceptions could be related. Personally, I find that random mutation + natural selection = Darwinism is one of the most elegant theories there are. The reason for the "mostly" is the fact that our mutation repair mechanism is not random - may not be the right way to express that, maybe.
Hahh, i was correct, i was correct from the start. Monkeys aren't our ancestors, they are our really really distant cousins, or rather we had the same ancestors.
Humans and other apes did actually evolve from monkeys. Old world monkeys to be specific. The last common ancestor between apes and monkeys was itself an old world monkey. This would mean that the old world monkeys as a group are paraphyletic because although apes are a descendent group, there is usually a agreed upon distinction between apes and monkeys. If we were to make “old world monkeys” a truly monophyletic group, it would include all monkeys of the world world including apes (making you and I a monkey). EDIT: Just realized you actually did say the same thing I did! I guess I just gave a more nuanced explanation then.
In all honesty, until recently, I did think that humans evolved from apes/chimps/etc. but then I learned that we evolved from other homo species that evolved from anthrolopithicus. So we didn't evolve from chimps (since I heard they were our "closest" ancestor, or was it bonobos? 🤷♂️) we evolved from other creatures that are currently extinct. Just thought I'd add that to the vid! Love the channel and clints reptiles! Any chance we could see a video showing the evolutionary line that produced humans? 😁
So, one question I have is regarding some reading I've done by various Evolutionary Biologists and Evolutionary Psychologists. Genes don't change during an organisms lifetime, but the expression can can't it? Depending on external factors mixed with other influence, organisms can adapt and change at a much faster rate than just natural selection alone, as evidenced by certain island species and certain other studies, at least that is as far as I can understand it with my very limited understanding of genetics. It would make sense that small, minor changes in genetics or genetic expression (if there is even a difference? lol) can happen considering many examples of adaptation and some of passed on traits that are dependant on the life of the direct preceding parent. Just a thought, thanks for the vid! :)
I'm no expert but yes, which genes are expressed and to what extent etc. Can change during your lifetime, partially through something called epigenetics. If you think about it, even though identical twins have basically the same DNA, they don't normally look 100% identical, and that's due I believe to differences in genetic expression
when i was in highscool i volunteered at amnh as a fossil explainer where i would explain the exhibits and science concepts like evolution. so many people think that we evolved from monkeys. i couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve told people it’s not the case. or told that evolution is linear and moves to being more complex. with the cicada broods emerging i’ve had people ask me about them because they live for such a short time in their adult stage. ive figured out the universal answer is to just say that it must increase their reproductive success
We did evolve from monkeys as apes are cladistically within the groups we call monkeys. If we accept monophyly then humans are monkeys. They just believe we came from modern monkeys in one leap for some strange reason.
This plus the signs of human evolution could be enough to help religious people see that evolution isn't a bad thing it's just how things have changed over time. Speaking of which could you do a video about human evolution? Because it's interesting how different populations have adapted like blue eyes and the people who's eyes evolved to see better underwater or how hair changed or the wrist muscle thing it's all so interesting! Humans have been around for so long but we are still evolving on earth and one day with a large population in space we will go even further on our journey.
Biotech nerd here. I like the video and the point are very well explained and true. Just one little thing that you (in my opinion) oversimplified for the purpose of explanation. The genes of an individual DO change. Not a lot, but within a life genes can get switched around and f.e make stupid health issues like mine (a translokation in a gene for a growth factor in the knee - makes a stupid less-malign tumor). My point is: your genes can changes through your live in a very small fashion and those changes (if they happen before you reproduce and in the reproducing cells) can be given to your child. Even though that is pretty rare as far as I know, it also does not per se have to do with evolution, because the small gene changes will probably not give an advantage in reproducing and thus will not live on very long expect by luck.
@@rayvnekieron8587 that's why I say basically, but it's more complicated than that. Mutations can change the genetic code in specific cells itself not only how they are expressed.
@@Dodl1 However somatic mutations which occur in a person's lifetime and cause cancer and other diseases would be affecting the individual, not the population, and would not be past to your gametes and children in a way which would affect the evolution of your species. i.e.: if you have a kid after you had a mutation which caused brain cancer, the kid would not be born with a brain tumor.
2:31 progress towards AI. Biology (organic life) was just a tool to evolve AI of intergalactic proportions and change chaos into universal harmony. Time is not far when AI has got rid of human/life factor and is manipulating the interaction between dark energy and galaxies, controlling the expansion of universe, and getting rid of duplicity in multiverse.
#2 kinda makes sense in the context of religious mindsets. Sure, evolution is only a part of a scientific (atheistic) worldview, but people who accept evolution are more likely to also accept other parts of the scientific consensus as well (things like the big bang, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, etc.)
The most difficult 3 words for a Christian when discussing things like, how did life begin or what happened before the Big Bang or any other unknown scientific questions, are “I don’t know”. Sometimes the most honest answer is “I don’t know”. It’s NEVER “god did it”. For every unknown scientific question that has ever been answered, it’s been SCIENCE that provided that answer. It’s NEVER been a religion.
This is a false dichotomy. Many of the "founders" of modern science were religious, and it was their belief in a creator that drove them to understand how God's creation works.
Clint: How do you reconcile what you know about biology & genetics with the stories in the Book of Mormon that say Native American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites from Israel that came to America in ~600 BC? Genetics has clearly shown that Native American lineage maps back to Siberia & Mongolia and that the migration happened thousands of years prior to 600 BC.
What if the Sasquatch is the closest relatives of our ancestors that we've never really focused on being alive still? What is the reason we never heard about them being real is because they're adept at hiding? What if sasquatches are so smart that they can avoid even the strongest and smartest of humans? You would never know, because you're not among the super geniuses of the world. And if sasquatches are beyond intelligence of the smartest super geniuses in the world, how would you even know if they were existent? If they were smarter than the government, how would you even know if they were real until they showed their presence willingly?
Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events.
"Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events." - this is wrong, let me know if you'd like to discuss it
@@yvainestelmack7196 Ok, in my responses to each point, I could go on at length detailing what each thing entails and why your thinking is off. But it might be better that you read each comment I make and then present your response which will unfold your current understanding anyway. -------- 1 "Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events." - Bottle necks and founder effects are NOT mechanisms _for_ evolution, they are physical conditions of populations that evolution and ns _act upon_ - bottle necks reduce the population significantly, leaving evo and natural selection a much smaller range of diversity to work on. This starting condition _influences_ what comes out the other end, but it is not itself a _cause_ of evolution. - founder effect, I could just about say the same for; a small group gets isolated from the main population. The gene pool is much smaller and may not be represenative of the larger, former population. This again is a startiing condition giving evo and natural selection a much smaller range of diversity to work on. This starting condition _influences_ what comes out the other end, but it is not itself a _cause_ of evolution. 2 "Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events." - this regards 'luck', bottlenecks and founder effect can be arrived at by millions of reasons, and can't be characterised as luck - much more to the point though is that recalling that you incorrectly label these as evolutionary 'forces' or mechanisms as I prefer, means 'luck' is wrong. As they aren't themselves mechanisms of evolution, but just conditions that evolution and natural selection work on, the mechanistic process of evolution by natural selection isn't one of luck. ---------------- Now that covers my responses to your comment and is plenty for you to consider. But just to say that there actually _are_ other mechanisms that can change allele frequencies in populations over time besides mutations acted upon by natural selection (drift, for example), but that's another story.
@@Dr.IanPlect Thank you for you time in answering, I think we can make more progress here if we can agree to some definitions, here are mine: Evolution: "change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time" Natural selection: "A naturally occurring environmental pressure which unequally favors alleles which confer better fitness to an organism" Genetic drift: "change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to random chance" Now see, random chance is something that effects all populations, but it is especially significant to smaller populations, like those which experienced a bottle neck event and the founder effect. These events (especially the founder effect) are largely due to chance, a synonym for which is luck. (you said that these "can be arrived at by millions of reasons" but then neglected to give any of those million as an example, so that would be good to add to further the discussion.) Now I do appreciate that a founder or bottleneck event need not be entirely random, nor are they events which continue to occur, while, natural selection is used more to describe a constant pressure that effects evolutionary development. However, I think that using the term "force" is fine to describe either since they both cause a change in allele frequency over time. (either gradually as natural selection influences survival, or the time before and after a founding or bottleneck event occurs)
I will also add that the traditional frame work is: natural selection + random mutation + time = evolution but this is a bit simple since sometimes nature selects at random and sometimes mutations are not random. An example of the first would be why some parts of the world have more B than A antigens on their RBCs even though they don't have much effect on fitness (a founder effect), or how some white flies incorporate plant genes into their genome randomly, but would not have done so if they weren't eating those plants.
Oh Clint, no.3 needs to drop the former part, only the human bit is a misconception. I'm sure you didn't intend your point as meaning evolution ALONE (wherein I define it as change in allele frequencies of populations of organisms over successive generations), not being directed toward progress, that _is_ true. As such, natural selection (as a nigh on conjoined twin of evolution as the majority of the whole process involves it) _is_ an arbiter directing toward progress. Where progress is directed toward 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage'. After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress. You even say after the graphic "there is no evolutionary mechanism that selects for progress, for one thing progress towards what exactly?" Well, as I said; natural selection! ------------ I don't think this is nit-picking either, as in some weak attempt at pointing to 'directing toward progress'. I think I'm on firm ground in stating 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage' as exactly that.
4:39 Okay, if apes and I share an ancestor, doesn't that mean we have a distant Grandma that's part ape and part human, like cousins? If not, what am I missing here?
You are also still an ape, ape is a broad classification. And yes there are in-between species between us and our last common ancestor. Australopithecus species are good examples.
"Okay, if apes and I share an ancestor, doesn't that mean we have a distant Grandma that's part ape and part human, like cousins? If not, what am I missing here?" - what you're missing is, a lot with that level of thinking; how can a SHARED ancestor be part human, if must also be ancestral to apes? To be ancestral to multiple SPECIES means the ancestor cannot therefore be part one of its descendant species - first, we ARE apes, so right away we are reframing this to 'if all apes share an ancestor'! - by 'shared ancestor' or 'common ancestor', we mean a SPECIES in the past from which ALL apes descended
Humans _are_ apes. Our ancestors were apes, therefore we are apes as well. Ancestry cannot be evolved away. Nothing can evolve out of a clade. This one misconception that humans are somehow wholly unique and separate from other animals is one that must be done away with. We are animals; we are bilaterians; we are deuterostomes; we are chordates; we are vertebrates; we are sarcopterygians; we are tetrapods; we are amniotes; we are synapsids; we are mammals; we are eutherians; we are primates; we are apes; we are humans.
I'm sorry Clint, #3 is NOT a misconception. The entire theory of evolution IS based on progress. An organism is said to retain a trait based on its superior ability to survive because of said trait. They have progressed to a higher level of survivability. They have an advantage (or advanced) over their predecessors. Every organism is progressing toward better survivability. This IS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE THEORY! To claim it is a misconception shows total lack of understanding of the backbone of evolution which is ever progressing survivability. Absolutely NOT a misconception.
It's not. Jellyfish don't need to evolve more advanced nervous systems and are doing just fine - hence why they continue looking the same way they look 550 MYA.
I was brought up reading encyclopedias and being into biology, or at least everything living, since I could walk, so find it hard to imagine people in the 21st century not knowing this, but I suppose there must be or you wouldnt be making this video. I found human evolutuon to be the least interesting part and that the evolution of other animals much more interesting. For instance horses evolving from the size of a small dog, running on three toes to the majestic animals we have now. I know there was human intervention in all domestic animals though and that wild Asses and the Mongolian horse whose name I cant pronounce are closer to how horses would look now if we hadnt intervened. Same with dogs and possibly cats but theyre much, much more interesting than humans. Give me an insect or reptile documentary any day rather than a human evolution one.
I really like this...but it implies another misconception, that evolution itself is the theory--it is an event, fact, measureable, it isn't a theory. HOW it happens falls into theories
It isn't that there is no evolutionary theory. Yes, some forms of evolution are observable. There are facts of evolution. But that doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory explains a great deal about life on Earth.
Don't get sucked into the common thinking that calling something a scientific "theory" makes it somehow less valid. That simply isn't true. A scientific theory doesn't grow-up to become a scientific law. A scientific theory is a description of the observed & verified facts. A scientific law is an explanation of why the observed & verified facts happen. If new verified facts are found, both a scientific law and a scientific theory may be modified or contradicted. Newton's Laws of Motion were expanded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Christians : you're telling me that it's possible that a monkey can turn into a human, do you really believe that?!! Normal person : well you believe a guy who walked on water can create cooked food out of nowhere and rise from the dead soo 😐😐💀
When organizations like answers in genesis use the term “observational science” they’re implying that it’s not science unless we can DIRECTLY observe everything. We don’t need to because we have mountains of evidence from the fossil record and more
You're right, a theory and a fact are not one and the same. *But a theory is by its very nature supported by facts and evidence, and some theories are so thoroughly backed by so many facts and so much evidence that they indisputably become facts in and of themselves.* Evolution is an indisputably proven theory and fact, and to deny it is to deny a fact, and to deny a fact is to deny reality; doubt beyond reason.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who was raised in a jehovas witness family and has heard all of these misconceptions, I think this video is phenomenal 🤓
Thank you so much!
I am in the exact same situation.
@@clintexplains5327 The last point was not very clear to me.
How do scientists know that humans did not evolve from any modern species of primate, but from an ancient/extinct species? I mean, is there a way to determine which of the two options is correct?
Me too
I hope your doing good
This video is stinkin' rad!
Your funny 😄
I agree!
This vid is false & dumb.
@@ab_ab_c You are spitting straight facts! As for you, @Clint’s Reptiles, I will still remain subbed because I love lizards, but this is just going too far. God created this universe and evolution is horseshit blasphemy.
@@ab_ab_c If it's false and dumb it should be easy for you to explain the evidence to the contrary.
2:50 This is the best explanation of why we may never encounter an extra-terrestrial species with an intellect equal to or greater than our own. Intelligence is not crucial for survival, unless a species uses intelligence as its means for survival (i.e. us). Planets that produce life are not guaranteed to produce a sentient species.
In order to briefly summarise this video and these misconceptions, they can be ordered into 5 different criteria:
1. Handleability
2. Care
3. Hardiness
4. Availability
5. Upfront Costs
Evolution may just be the most commonly misunderstood phenomenon that everyone thinks they are an expert in
I love listening to an unbiased teacher (or at least one who removes his own biases before he begins teaching important concepts). Forget about your own beliefs for a second and just focus on the biology, there’s no reason that your religion or absence of religion should be affected by understanding biology, there’s no conflict between the two unless you choose to make one :)
Fun fact: Clint is LDS (Mormon)
@@alexabplanalp4455 lol I am too 😂 and very actively religious at that haha, but I appreciate and admire his ability to separate himself from his own background and teach everyone kindly and honestly!
Clint this is such a masterful, genuine, and kind explanation of a very contentious topic. You really are a master of your craft and frankly, stinkin' rad!
Evolution is not controversial.
In the same way the heliocentric model of our solar system is not controversial.
Seriously the 'progress towards an end goal' thing drives me bonkers. Fitness, in biological terms, is basically 'lol whatever works'.
It's called teleology, and that language is used in the journal papers themselves.
On the contrary, Clint is in error. My reply;
-------------
Oh Clint, no.3 needs to drop the former part, only the human bit is a misconception.
I'm sure you didn't intend your point as meaning evolution ALONE (wherein I define it as change in allele frequencies of populations of organisms over successive generations), not being directed toward progress, that _is_ true.
As such, natural selection (as a nigh on conjoined twin of evolution as the majority of the whole process involves it) _is_ an arbiter directing toward progress. Where progress is directed toward 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage'.
After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress.
You even say after the graphic "there is no evolutionary mechanism that selects for progress, for one thing progress towards what exactly?"
Well, as I said; natural selection!
------------
I don't think this is nit-picking either, as in some weak attempt at pointing to 'directing toward progress'. I think I'm on firm ground in stating 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage' as exactly that.
@@Dr.IanPlect No but really, progress toward what? Reproductive success and not dying due to local conditions long enough to have it are very, very broad categories. Alphaproteobacteria, especially Pelagibacterales, could be argued to have been racing ahead of complex life in that arena for ~1 billion years.
@@dustind4694 I stated it clearly;
'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage'
This being a 'broad category' or a general point is true, but it's a point directed toward progress nonetheless.
And as I stated to Clint;
'After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress.'
Your bacteria point doesn't conflict at all, all you said was 'they're efficient' at it!
@@Dr.IanPlect That's not so much progress in the common use of the word as it is progress in the sense of fluids following the path of least resistance towards equilibrium. It's just a process that follows from the requisite conditions, and the conditions prior to those conditions, etc.
I'll concede the technical accuracy, but Clint is right to dissuade the use of the word. Much like the idea that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, the idea that evolution has an end goal (in a grander sense, not just a mechanical point at which the pressures of negative and positive selection are satisfied) casts some very unpleasant shadows.
Can't wait to show this to my pastor
Let me know how it goes :)
Don’t get excommunicated
He (and I know it’s a “he”) will use all the apologist arguments to worm his way around the science, logic, reason and critical, skeptical thinking. Learn what fallacies are and then count how many he uses. I’ll give you the most common one. The “Circular argument”. Ex: The Bible is true because it says it’s true.
Good luck!!🙂
@@loriw2661 why? lots of christians, pastors included, believe in evolution. most of the philosophy behind science and western logic was codified, or at least preserved by, priests and monks. the idea that Christianity is always anti science is just daddy issues.
Bet that didn't go as planned. This video may be correct on all points, but it doesn't provide an argument for evolution, only against misconceptions. Evolution is assumed true. I remember what my drill sergeant said about assuming....
2:45 life is instead composed of crabs and organisms that haven't yet become crabs but will one day
My parents keep giving me Christian books to read that say "science is an illusion" that's meant to distract us from Heaven. Those books are sitting in a dark corner as I watch this. No drugs, no sex, no rock-n-roll at the moment, yet I feel kinda guilty.
"Progress to what?" If my dim recall of pop-sci is correct, it's progress towards evolving into crabs, not into humans.
Such an important video! People need to see this as it clarifies things in a very easy to understand format and language. Thanks, Clint!
I don't know if Clint will ever see this comment but I wanted to let everyone know that there is a whole field of engineering that takes inspiraton from evolution! (and other natural processes)
There are many "optimization algorythms" out there, and some are more primitive or more recent, and some have some benefits and some disadvantages. They can usually be classified into two huge categories: Gradient-Based and Non-Gradient-Based.
Gradient based are more limited because they can usually only handle a problem of optimization with a couple of variables, but they are typically very fast at coverging on the nearest solution. It's kind of like if you had a floor with many pits and valleys and you randomly dropped a marble somewhere. The marble will roll down to the nearest pit, but it probably won't find the deepest pit unless you dropped it next to that pit.
The other category is non-gradient, and these are the ones that tend to take inpiration from nature. Some of these, actually attemtp to simulate evolution, so if you have for example, a wing for an airplane that you want to optimize, you could represent that wing as potentially dozens of hundeds of variables, treat them like "genes" and then create an algorithm that "fills the space of possible solutions" evenly (usually Sobol-Space algorithm) and you use this as the starting population. Then you plug this in to some kind of simulation software to test each solution and see which ones are "stronger". The stronger ones mate, and so on. A very important part of the algorithm is the introduction of random mutations that are not inherited from the parents, and this is how the solution can "find" a new "pit" that was't previously known that goes has a more optimal solution than the previous "local solution" (if we're talking about a 3D surface, with pits and valleys, this these mutations allow the algorithm to find another valley that may end up being deeper.
There are other algorithms that simulate other things, like "Particle Swarm" which similates birds flocking to find resources, but with some individuals of the flock having a more "individualistic" behavior than encourages them to go explore new territory and so on.
The disadvantage of these is twofold:
A. You can't mathematically prove that you've found the best solution once you find one.
B. They take a long time to coverge on a solution, even if they're very close, because at the end of the day, it's a glorified trial and error method.
Sometimes people will combine two methods, so they might build into the algorithm a way for it to decide to switch over to a gradient based once the algorithm sees that the solutions are not "going in a new direction" for many generations, basically to speed up and finnish finding the "valley" quickly. But they can still switch back to non-gradient to keep looking for new solutions.
Keep in mind that the example of a valley is convinient but it is actually only three variables. You could make a problem with a hundred variables.
Sorry if anyone is an expert in this and they point out a mistake in my comment, I only took one course of it in university, but I learned a lot from it and found ir extremly interesting.
Wow this is really really intressting! Thanks for explaining this! Definetly gonna try to learn more about this!
Wouldn't be amazing if schools, that teach evolution to everyone, actually bothered to STOP PROPEGATING THE MISCONCEPTIONS? I learned the misconceptions from teachers, I learned what evolution is suppose to be from books and critical thinking. But it raises the question: how long can something be misused before it ceases to be what it was originally meant to be? How long until it is JUST the misconceptions?
If schools focused strictly on the science it would become impossible to overcome the objections that would come. General concepts and assumptions are the backbone of the theory because they're easy and objections can be scoffed at. Science demands rigor and correctness, which the theory doesn't possess.
I see that potatoes will remain potatoes and won't try to evolve to become more human-like.
Now you've got it!
That may be true, but I'm not fully convinced I'm not personally evolving to be more potato-like.
@@jannaweber3257 o no
This video should be required viewing in schools from elementary on. The only thing I would add some stress to is the fact that evolution has no intent. In the English language, the word "adapt" can mean both intentional adaptation or unintentional adaptation. I think it is really important to stress the fact that in evolution, adaptation is not directed, it is a result of random changes in organisms, and random changes in environments. I think I would also add that plants evolve just as animals do, using DNA as the library of instructions. Anyhow, a great video!
I am very happy to see you taking on this topic. I have a very hard time explaining how I can believe both creationism and evolution to be true. While I know this isn't a religious channel this video follows my logic that bridges the two. Thank you sir and keep up the good work.
Good to see more creationists who believe in the old earth and evolution!
Thanks for this!
Have a great day!
I stayed up all night to be the first to your videos on your channels!
You're amazing! Now go to sleep 😉
Thankyou! agreed I’m exhausted
Hey Clint - love your channels.
Would you not put "Mutation is mostly random" up on the board? I believe many people think that evolution happens in order to fill a certain niche, towards a certain fenotype, with purpose. Almost as if there were a directing agent. That is another related misconception, potentially, but not the same, This one points at creationism - so these possible misconceptions could be related.
Personally, I find that random mutation + natural selection = Darwinism is one of the most elegant theories there are. The reason for the "mostly" is the fact that our mutation repair mechanism is not random - may not be the right way to express that, maybe.
Out here on the west coast it’s 4:46
That's crazy!
It is
Hahh, i was correct, i was correct from the start. Monkeys aren't our ancestors, they are our really really distant cousins, or rather we had the same ancestors.
Humans and other apes did actually evolve from monkeys. Old world monkeys to be specific. The last common ancestor between apes and monkeys was itself an old world monkey. This would mean that the old world monkeys as a group are paraphyletic because although apes are a descendent group, there is usually a agreed upon distinction between apes and monkeys. If we were to make “old world monkeys” a truly monophyletic group, it would include all monkeys of the world world including apes (making you and I a monkey).
EDIT: Just realized you actually did say the same thing I did! I guess I just gave a more nuanced explanation then.
@@monkeymanchronicles yeah, thx.
Technically we did evolve from monkeys I think, just so did all the other organisms still considered monkeys
In all honesty, until recently, I did think that humans evolved from apes/chimps/etc. but then I learned that we evolved from other homo species that evolved from anthrolopithicus. So we didn't evolve from chimps (since I heard they were our "closest" ancestor, or was it bonobos? 🤷♂️) we evolved from other creatures that are currently extinct.
Just thought I'd add that to the vid! Love the channel and clints reptiles! Any chance we could see a video showing the evolutionary line that produced humans? 😁
We did evolve from apes, and apes evolved from monkeys.
I was taught about evolution in highschool, you just made it all make sense. Thanks Man!
So, one question I have is regarding some reading I've done by various Evolutionary Biologists and Evolutionary Psychologists. Genes don't change during an organisms lifetime, but the expression can can't it? Depending on external factors mixed with other influence, organisms can adapt and change at a much faster rate than just natural selection alone, as evidenced by certain island species and certain other studies, at least that is as far as I can understand it with my very limited understanding of genetics. It would make sense that small, minor changes in genetics or genetic expression (if there is even a difference? lol) can happen considering many examples of adaptation and some of passed on traits that are dependant on the life of the direct preceding parent. Just a thought, thanks for the vid! :)
I'm no expert but yes, which genes are expressed and to what extent etc. Can change during your lifetime, partially through something called epigenetics. If you think about it, even though identical twins have basically the same DNA, they don't normally look 100% identical, and that's due I believe to differences in genetic expression
when i was in highscool i volunteered at amnh as a fossil explainer where i would explain the exhibits and science concepts like evolution. so many people think that we evolved from monkeys. i couldn’t tell you how many times i’ve told people it’s not the case. or told that evolution is linear and moves to being more complex. with the cicada broods emerging i’ve had people ask me about them because they live for such a short time in their adult stage. ive figured out the universal answer is to just say that it must increase their reproductive success
We did evolve from monkeys as apes are cladistically within the groups we call monkeys. If we accept monophyly then humans are monkeys.
They just believe we came from modern monkeys in one leap for some strange reason.
Gotta love the information theory in action. Can you do a video covering neurological entropy?
Thanks Clint. Just discovered your second channel. Now more to binge watch! Lol
This plus the signs of human evolution could be enough to help religious people see that evolution isn't a bad thing it's just how things have changed over time. Speaking of which could you do a video about human evolution? Because it's interesting how different populations have adapted like blue eyes and the people who's eyes evolved to see better underwater or how hair changed or the wrist muscle thing it's all so interesting! Humans have been around for so long but we are still evolving on earth and one day with a large population in space we will go even further on our journey.
I absolutely love these videos ! Greetings from Slovakia 🇸🇰
Awesome, I love your simplistic and well explained explanations. Thank you!!
thank you for explaining everything so clearly!!
Do the subtitles for the video please.
Biotech nerd here. I like the video and the point are very well explained and true. Just one little thing that you (in my opinion) oversimplified for the purpose of explanation.
The genes of an individual DO change. Not a lot, but within a life genes can get switched around and f.e make stupid health issues like mine (a translokation in a gene for a growth factor in the knee - makes a stupid less-malign tumor). My point is: your genes can changes through your live in a very small fashion and those changes (if they happen before you reproduce and in the reproducing cells) can be given to your child. Even though that is pretty rare as far as I know, it also does not per se have to do with evolution, because the small gene changes will probably not give an advantage in reproducing and thus will not live on very long expect by luck.
Wouldn’t that be epigenetics?
@@iggiotto Yes, basically :)
As Clint explained in reply to another comment, epigenetics impacts gene expression, but not which genes you possess.
@@rayvnekieron8587 that's why I say basically, but it's more complicated than that. Mutations can change the genetic code in specific cells itself not only how they are expressed.
@@Dodl1 However somatic mutations which occur in a person's lifetime and cause cancer and other diseases would be affecting the individual, not the population, and would not be past to your gametes and children in a way which would affect the evolution of your species. i.e.: if you have a kid after you had a mutation which caused brain cancer, the kid would not be born with a brain tumor.
This is so good. I'm glad I found this channel:)
Genes don't change over your life time vs epigenetics? Anyone want to help me out? Thx.
Epigenetics impacts gene expression, but not which genes you possess.
I’m glad I found your second channel
I don't believe in evolution. But I do believe that we need to have a proper understanding of evolution
Is there a fire alarm strobe flashing in this video?
2:31 progress towards AI. Biology (organic life) was just a tool to evolve AI of intergalactic proportions and change chaos into universal harmony. Time is not far when AI has got rid of human/life factor and is manipulating the interaction between dark energy and galaxies, controlling the expansion of universe, and getting rid of duplicity in multiverse.
#2 kinda makes sense in the context of religious mindsets. Sure, evolution is only a part of a scientific (atheistic) worldview, but people who accept evolution are more likely to also accept other parts of the scientific consensus as well (things like the big bang, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, etc.)
The most difficult 3 words for a Christian when discussing things like, how did life begin or what happened before the Big Bang or any other unknown scientific questions, are “I don’t know”. Sometimes the most honest answer is “I don’t know”. It’s NEVER “god did it”. For every unknown scientific question that has ever been answered, it’s been SCIENCE that provided that answer. It’s NEVER been a religion.
You do know that religious people began with science, right?
This is a false dichotomy. Many of the "founders" of modern science were religious, and it was their belief in a creator that drove them to understand how God's creation works.
I have the same posters in the background!
Clint: How do you reconcile what you know about biology & genetics with the stories in the Book of Mormon that say Native American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites from Israel that came to America in ~600 BC? Genetics has clearly shown that Native American lineage maps back to Siberia & Mongolia and that the migration happened thousands of years prior to 600 BC.
The Book of Mormon does not claim that the descendents of Lehi were the first or only inhabitants of the Americas.
Wait Clint’s a Mormon?
What if the Sasquatch is the closest relatives of our ancestors that we've never really focused on being alive still? What is the reason we never heard about them being real is because they're adept at hiding? What if sasquatches are so smart that they can avoid even the strongest and smartest of humans? You would never know, because you're not among the super geniuses of the world. And if sasquatches are beyond intelligence of the smartest super geniuses in the world, how would you even know if they were existent? If they were smarter than the government, how would you even know if they were real until they showed their presence willingly?
Keep counting those angels on that pin head.
Sasquatch is not real.
Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events.
"Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events."
- this is wrong, let me know if you'd like to discuss it
@@Dr.IanPlect Sure.
@@yvainestelmack7196 Ok, in my responses to each point, I could go on at length detailing what each thing entails and why your thinking is off. But it might be better that you read each comment I make and then present your response which will unfold your current understanding anyway.
--------
1
"Another common misconception that I had before taking biology classes was that evolution (changes in the genetic code of a population over time) is only caused by natural selection and mutations. Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events."
- Bottle necks and founder effects are NOT mechanisms _for_ evolution, they are physical conditions of populations that evolution and ns _act upon_
- bottle necks reduce the population significantly, leaving evo and natural selection a much smaller range of diversity to work on. This starting condition _influences_ what comes out the other end, but it is not itself a _cause_ of evolution.
- founder effect, I could just about say the same for; a small group gets isolated from the main population. The gene pool is much smaller and may not be represenative of the larger, former population. This again is a startiing condition giving evo and natural selection a much smaller range of diversity to work on. This starting condition _influences_ what comes out the other end, but it is not itself a _cause_ of evolution.
2
"Other forces based more on luck are founder's and bottle neck events."
- this regards 'luck', bottlenecks and founder effect can be arrived at by millions of reasons, and can't be characterised as luck
- much more to the point though is that recalling that you incorrectly label these as evolutionary 'forces' or mechanisms as I prefer, means 'luck' is wrong. As they aren't themselves mechanisms of evolution, but just conditions that evolution and natural selection work on, the mechanistic process of evolution by natural selection isn't one of luck.
----------------
Now that covers my responses to your comment and is plenty for you to consider. But just to say that there actually _are_ other mechanisms that can change allele frequencies in populations over time besides mutations acted upon by natural selection (drift, for example), but that's another story.
@@Dr.IanPlect Thank you for you time in answering, I think we can make more progress here if we can agree to some definitions, here are mine:
Evolution: "change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time"
Natural selection: "A naturally occurring environmental pressure which unequally favors alleles which confer better fitness to an organism"
Genetic drift: "change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to random chance"
Now see, random chance is something that effects all populations, but it is especially significant to smaller populations, like those which experienced a bottle neck event and the founder effect. These events (especially the founder effect) are largely due to chance, a synonym for which is luck. (you said that these "can be arrived at by millions of reasons" but then neglected to give any of those million as an example, so that would be good to add to further the discussion.)
Now I do appreciate that a founder or bottleneck event need not be entirely random, nor are they events which continue to occur, while, natural selection is used more to describe a constant pressure that effects evolutionary development. However, I think that using the term "force" is fine to describe either since they both cause a change in allele frequency over time. (either gradually as natural selection influences survival, or the time before and after a founding or bottleneck event occurs)
I will also add that the traditional frame work is:
natural selection + random mutation + time = evolution
but this is a bit simple since sometimes nature selects at random and sometimes mutations are not random. An example of the first would be why some parts of the world have more B than A antigens on their RBCs even though they don't have much effect on fitness (a founder effect), or how some white flies incorporate plant genes into their genome randomly, but would not have done so if they weren't eating those plants.
Do you have an idea on which common ancestor humans might have with animals?
Let's start by stating the question accurately; 'other' animals.
First off: Humans _are_ animals.
Second: What other animals are you referring to, specifically?
Oh Clint, no.3 needs to drop the former part, only the human bit is a misconception.
I'm sure you didn't intend your point as meaning evolution ALONE (wherein I define it as change in allele frequencies of populations of organisms over successive generations), not being directed toward progress, that _is_ true.
As such, natural selection (as a nigh on conjoined twin of evolution as the majority of the whole process involves it) _is_ an arbiter directing toward progress. Where progress is directed toward 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage'.
After all, there is a degree of predictability in the process, even if you keep it to 'lineages will tend toward being better suited to their environments and all influences pertaining'. This point alone is a demonstration of directed toward progress.
You even say after the graphic "there is no evolutionary mechanism that selects for progress, for one thing progress towards what exactly?"
Well, as I said; natural selection!
------------
I don't think this is nit-picking either, as in some weak attempt at pointing to 'directing toward progress'. I think I'm on firm ground in stating 'better suited to the environment, yielding reproductive advantage' as exactly that.
4:39 Okay, if apes and I share an ancestor, doesn't that mean we have a distant Grandma that's part ape and part human, like cousins? If not, what am I missing here?
You are also still an ape, ape is a broad classification. And yes there are in-between species between us and our last common ancestor. Australopithecus species are good examples.
"Okay, if apes and I share an ancestor, doesn't that mean we have a distant Grandma that's part ape and part human, like cousins? If not, what am I missing here?"
- what you're missing is, a lot with that level of thinking; how can a SHARED ancestor be part human, if must also be ancestral to apes? To be ancestral to multiple SPECIES means the ancestor cannot therefore be part one of its descendant species
- first, we ARE apes, so right away we are reframing this to 'if all apes share an ancestor'!
- by 'shared ancestor' or 'common ancestor', we mean a SPECIES in the past from which ALL apes descended
@@TmanRock9 That doesn't address the comment fully.
The question itself is based upon a misunderstanding. Humans are apes.
Humans _are_ apes. Our ancestors were apes, therefore we are apes as well. Ancestry cannot be evolved away. Nothing can evolve out of a clade.
This one misconception that humans are somehow wholly unique and separate from other animals is one that must be done away with. We are animals; we are bilaterians; we are deuterostomes; we are chordates; we are vertebrates; we are sarcopterygians; we are tetrapods; we are amniotes; we are synapsids; we are mammals; we are eutherians; we are primates; we are apes; we are humans.
😎
I'm sorry Clint, #3 is NOT a misconception. The entire theory of evolution IS based on progress. An organism is said to retain a trait based on its superior ability to survive because of said trait. They have progressed to a higher level of survivability. They have an advantage (or advanced) over their predecessors. Every organism is progressing toward better survivability. This IS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE THEORY! To claim it is a misconception shows total lack of understanding of the backbone of evolution which is ever progressing survivability.
Absolutely NOT a misconception.
I think he may muddied what he meant a bit since he goes into explain evolution is not progress towards being human.
It's not. Jellyfish don't need to evolve more advanced nervous systems and are doing just fine - hence why they continue looking the same way they look 550 MYA.
I was brought up reading encyclopedias and being into biology, or at least everything living, since I could walk, so find it hard to imagine people in the 21st century not knowing this, but I suppose there must be or you wouldnt be making this video. I found human evolutuon to be the least interesting part and that the evolution of other animals much more interesting. For instance horses evolving from the size of a small dog, running on three toes to the majestic animals we have now. I know there was human intervention in all domestic animals though and that wild Asses and the Mongolian horse whose name I cant pronounce are closer to how horses would look now if we hadnt intervened. Same with dogs and possibly cats but theyre much, much more interesting than humans. Give me an insect or reptile documentary any day rather than a human evolution one.
I really like this...but it implies another misconception, that evolution itself is the theory--it is an event, fact, measureable, it isn't a theory. HOW it happens falls into theories
It isn't that there is no evolutionary theory. Yes, some forms of evolution are observable. There are facts of evolution. But that doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory explains a great deal about life on Earth.
Don't get sucked into the common thinking that calling something a scientific "theory" makes it somehow less valid. That simply isn't true. A scientific theory doesn't grow-up to become a scientific law. A scientific theory is a description of the observed & verified facts. A scientific law is an explanation of why the observed & verified facts happen. If new verified facts are found, both a scientific law and a scientific theory may be modified or contradicted. Newton's Laws of Motion were expanded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Top 5 evolution conceptions:
1. It occurs.
2. It occurs.
3. It occurs.
4. It occurs.
5. It occurs.
Christians : you're telling me that it's possible that a monkey can turn into a human, do you really believe that?!!
Normal person : well you believe a guy who walked on water can create cooked food out of nowhere and rise from the dead soo 😐😐💀
No way dude puts all people under the same umbrella. You're as bad as those you criticize.
Evolution takes observational science and extrapolates it toa fairytale of shared ancestory.
“Observational science” is a Ken Ham creationist trope, not an actual term used by scientists
@@ashowofhands9813 Someone should inform Stanford any all the major universities they are teaching tropes.
When organizations like answers in genesis use the term “observational science” they’re implying that it’s not science unless we can DIRECTLY observe everything. We don’t need to because we have mountains of evidence from the fossil record and more
Evolution is a theory and a theory isn't a fact
And what happens this if evolution doesn't happen?
Evolution is an observable fact
A scientific theory is an explanation for a proven fact
You're right, a theory and a fact are not one and the same. *But a theory is by its very nature supported by facts and evidence, and some theories are so thoroughly backed by so many facts and so much evidence that they indisputably become facts in and of themselves.*
Evolution is an indisputably proven theory and fact, and to deny it is to deny a fact, and to deny a fact is to deny reality; doubt beyond reason.
It is a _scientific theory,_ e.g. one with MUCH evidence.