the giraffe's face when she said "reproduction" lol

@dees4408

7 жыл бұрын

Quinton Ayers giraffe knows what's up ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

@SteveChuckNorris1

7 жыл бұрын

Zack Fury yeah, the sky

@Fardeen.

7 жыл бұрын

ikr

@boylogan1011

7 жыл бұрын

Steve Norris not the trees

@Brother-Martell

6 жыл бұрын

lol

75% of the comments are about how humans didn't evolve from apes and 15% is other science things 10% is just giraffe

@productivepriyanshu2441

3 жыл бұрын

😆

@rancidrancidrancid

3 жыл бұрын

mmm giraffe

@chocainewithouth4497

3 жыл бұрын

Nah, its the other way around

@HeyNonyNonymous

3 жыл бұрын

9 out of 10 of those girraffe percent are neck.

@Akimoto4u

3 жыл бұрын

Humans evolved from apes? Wow. We are apes , you overgrown chimpanzees.

Why did you end with the monkey to human picture?!?! That perpetuates the biggest misconception about evolution!!

@msjkramey

6 жыл бұрын

It also starts with an angler fish, which we didn't evolve from either. It's just being playful and reusing drawings they already had

@aulex6545

6 жыл бұрын

he meant ape because of the huge misconception that we have, that we evolved from apes, when really we just share a common ancestor

@yongrolfn

6 жыл бұрын

a prokaryote microorganism

@not_that_anna

6 жыл бұрын

oh yeah, i feel the same :(

@xoqvuz

6 жыл бұрын

Taxonomy & Evolution being integrated seems to be relatively new; hence the unnecessary distinction of humans not being readily called apes, monkeys, primates nor animals. Same for the unnecessary distinction of apes not being called monkeys. Monkeys are non-hominoid simians, which means "monkey" is relegated to a unscientific term, despite apes being readily colloquially called monkeys due to obvious similarities. So although simian is the scientific term, humans are still essentially monkeys. It's not the same as the term "fish" which has specific colloquial connotations, which means it would be weird to also call terrestrial vertebrates "fish" despite being descendants of fish. Birds now being recognized as dinosaurs, & by extension reptiles isn't as big as a jump as "fish". I speculate this previous unnecessary distinction between Taxonomy & Evolution in naming conventions, etc goes back to Linnaeus & Darwin living in subsequent centuries. Anyway, the interconnection of Taxonomy & Evolution should become more streamlined, even in colloquial use.

Scroll down for the standard KZread experience

@clankcc7410

3 жыл бұрын

🤣

@walnutcorp.5827

3 жыл бұрын

lol

I loved the smile on the giraffes face when reproduction ws mentioned

@Jade-mm1wl

8 жыл бұрын

(r ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)r

@billyralston5291

6 жыл бұрын

2:00

@rey4874

4 жыл бұрын

Lenny

@nileshnandanwar04

4 жыл бұрын

🤪🤪🤪

@vargvikernes4859

3 жыл бұрын

;)

"survival of the fittest" was never supposed to be about fitness like bigger muscle or something like that, but about fitting to the sorrounding area. darwin knew that.

@excellero9766

8 жыл бұрын

+omer shaik anyone who would think a little bit about the life and how it goes would realize that you idot darwin is not a genuise he is an idot just like you but a little brighter me myself realized that before knowing all of this by thinking

@omershaik6374

8 жыл бұрын

Qusay saleem learn to spell

@stephenwaldron4213

8 жыл бұрын

In evolution, when we use the word "fitness" we actually mean "the capability of a creature to pass on its genes". In simulation, we use a "fitness function" which is simply a criteria that determines which genes are passed on. A creature more capable of meeting this criterion is considered more fit. From what is stated in the video, we can say that the fitness function for creatures on earth is generally reproduction. A creature or species capable of producing more offspring is more fit. That alone doesn't completely sum it up, especially when we talk about k vs r species. But that's the basic idea.

@stephenwaldron4213

8 жыл бұрын

AnRTPgA omer shaik​ Qusay saleem​ tbh, if you guys are gonna discuss the topic, do so and don't ponder on grammatical mistakes; there are so many reasons for people's misspellings etc. besides retardation. Just using people's errors in discussion just makes it so boring and blehh. I need discussion :'(

@omershaik6374

8 жыл бұрын

Stephen Waldron really stephen, you are right, and looking back this comment was wrong. but i don't want to try and explain the entire theory of evolution for someone who probably doesn't want to hear it anyway. i have better things to do with my life. that said, Qusay saleem , if you really want a discussion, great. i'd be happy to start a debate. i, like stephen, like a good debate. but if you want to attack me, then you're a waste of my time.

One way to understand Evolution is to first understand “Artificial Selection”. Wolves and Dogs are descended from common ancestors (which looked more like modern wolfs than dogs). Over many generations, Humans selected the “favourable” traits (e.g., long shiny fur, or stocky legs etc) to produce the many different types / breeds of modern dogs that we have today. The keyword here is “over many generations”. There are modern dogs that, of course, are still very much wolve-like in appearance (e.g., Huskies, German Shepherd etc). Some dog breeds are much less wolf-like in appearance (Chihuahua, Shih Tzu etc) as they have been artificially selected for their small size and “cute” traits. So why is it known as artificial selection? This is because the Human (the dog breeders) are the ones determining which individual dogs they would prefer to produce offsprings, thereby continuing the genes they would like to retain. Prior to this, it is also important to understand the idea of Variation. This means that in a litter of puppies, not every puppy is physically identical (even though they may look identical to the untrained eyes). Some puppies have slightly longer legs, some shorter legs. Very small differences, but, yes, the differences are there. It is due to this physical variations that the breeders (humans) select which dogs possess the traits he wants, thus the term “Artificial Selection”. This Selection process is repeated over many generations and the result is the modern dog breeds we have today. Once we understood Artificial Selection, it will be easy to understand Natural Selection. In Natural Selection, Mother Nature (instead of Human) is the factor deciding which traits survive through the generations. How? One example is Food Source. Many species of birds have developed the ability to swim to obtain their food (Adaptability). One pre-requisite of aquatic birds is having water-proof feathers. In this case, this is the “Favourable Trait”. One group of birds may live nearer to the seasides and Individual birds with more waterproof feathers is seen by Mother Nature as a “favourable trait”. And so individual birds with this trait has a much higher chance of survival and passing on this gene to the next generations. This is Adaptation. It has to be highlighted that Adaptation takes place over many generations. Physical Adaptations (e.g., change in body shapes) DO NOT take place in just one generation. In other words, an individual animal will not change physically to obtain that trait in its lifetime, unless it’s metamorphosis which is a totally different thing. We also observed this in rabbits in deserts and rabbits in cold countries. The long ears in rabbits act as effective heat radiators. So the rabbits living in deserts adapted to the environment (over many generations) by developing very long and erect ears. But rabbits living in cold countries tends to have shorter ears (some even have lop ears). All animals (and yes, that includes humans) are still in the midst of evolution. Evolution is a very slow on-going process. It will never be “complete”, as change is the only constant. We can see this fact more prominently in the seals / walruses. Their ancestors are land animals, but their body shapes are evidence that they are in the midst of “transition” from land animals to aquatic animals, as their main source of food is in the sea. Of course, we cannot see an appreciable change in their appearances in our lifetime, as the change is happening too slowly over many generations. So presently, we can only imagine the current physical appearances of seals/walruses as being “frozen-in-time”, as with the rest of the millions of species of animals currently living on this planet Earth. And do appreciate their beauty in their current physical form (and the diversity of the Tree of Life), as they will never be the same again one million years from now.

@Mattomo

4 жыл бұрын

Star Dust thank you

@puma9328

4 жыл бұрын

How long did that take u

@r.dwight3744

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you stardust for enlightening me 😊

@keepsmiling9882

4 жыл бұрын

It took me month to reas all

@lly_09

4 жыл бұрын

I..... stopped halfway..

We were taught "Survival of the best fitted" not "Survival of the fittest" - this minor difference helps to clear up any confusion around the word fittest 👍

The hard part to explain to people is typically that mutations occur randomly and not intentionally. I'm glad this video addressed this first as it's likely the biggest misconception out there. It's hard for some people to wrap their brain around the idea that species don't adapt as they need to and that the adaptations occur accidentally and randomly. Some people just don't want to accept that, but they'll come around.

@hanibek4448

8 жыл бұрын

+Chad Norton Totally agree, but the thing I didn't really understand is why do want to reproduce ? what's the point of it?

@raptor182cmn

8 жыл бұрын

Mother nature has planted desire for sexual reproduction in every living creature, without it the species dies off quickly.

@hanibek4448

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you for replying. I still have a couple of questions thou: Why do we want our species to survive? I mean, I'm a different person than my father or mother. Why did they want to have kids? while other people only wanted to have sex without having children. Also how is homosexuality explainable ? I would really like to know.

@raptor182cmn

8 жыл бұрын

I can only answer these questions from my own perspective, I don't (and cannot) speak for everyone on a subject this broad. I'll do my best. 1. Why do we want our species to survive? The survival instinct is built into every creature on the planet that reproduces. When something goes wrong and a species loses it's survival instinct it quickly ceases to exist, lost to the passing of time. Human reproduction historically has happened in many ways for many reasons. Whether it was something horrible like rape, or something wonderful like falling in love. Many if not most humans experience a desire to pass on their DNA by having children. For many humans there wasn't a great deal of thought behind reproduction; it can be as simple as your partner looking extremely appealing one day and "oops" she's pregnant. In other cases it's a very carefully thought-out process of wanting to have children and a family. If you go back 70 years and more there was often a push to have children for working and farming purposes. A couple might have 10 or more children that grew up to work on a family farm or business. Modern technology and farming techniques have made this mostly unnecessary, especially in 1st world countries. 2. How is homosexuality explainable? This is a very difficult question to answer, but first let me explain that I personally have many homosexual family and friends and support and care for them dearly. With that being said, how is homosexuality explainable? There are many theories on the origin of homosexuality. It has been a part of the human experience as long as there have been humans. Some civilizations accepted and or encouraged homosexuality while others shunned and even terminated individuals expressing homosexual tendencies. To this day there has been no final and complete answer to the question. Some people believe that homosexuality is determined in a persons genetics before they are born while others believe it to be a choice made somewhere in the person's psyche, conscious or subconscious mind. While homosexuality itself does not allow for biological reproduction that does not preclude homosexuals from taking part in human reproduction and raising of children. In recent years with the advances made in technology homosexuals have participated in reproduction through artificial insemination. However it is thought that homesexuals may have participated in reproduction through the rearing of children by-way of adoption and surrogacy as long as humans have reproduced. In answering both of these two questions its important to note that reproduction is a secondary concern. Whether we are talking about the commonly accepted practice of man/woman reproduction or of homesxual couples seeking to participate, its more often than not a secondary concern or consequence of the more important factor of coupling in general. Humans are social animals and need each other for survival. Only after two or more humans join together in some form of pair-bonding does the factor of reproduction occur at all. I personally like to believe that love plays the major role. In asking why your mother and father wanted to have kids I would like to assume it was because they loved each other and wanted a part of themselves to live on after their own demise. When we have biological children we are passing on parts of ourselves as well as DNA given to us from our very earliest human ancestors. Part of those ancestors will live on in every new child born from their lineage. Of course throughout history there have been exceptions: products of rape, products of arranged marriage, products of group or state-sponsored birthing programs. I can't speak for every human ever born. For the vast majority of humans I believe it begins with deep affection and/or love of a partner. Whether heterosexual or homosexual a bonded pair in love want to see their partners happy for as long as possible and often this manifests itself in the form of children and family. This is the best I can come up with on so broad a question. I hope you found the answers you were looking for somewhere in there.

@hanibek4448

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot..... I didn't expect that you'll answer me this much. There are still some mysterious things thou hahahahaha. But in general you have given me a great perspective about evolution & life. And again thanks a lot for spending so much time answering my comment. It was really kind of you.

That is the CUTEST photoreceptor cell i've ever seen

@edenicisotope534

8 жыл бұрын

ikr

@zettovii1367

6 жыл бұрын

Looks like a blue sweet potato.

@allaboutmyhair3390

4 жыл бұрын

:3 I agree

Where my google classroom people's haha😂😂

@none2832

4 жыл бұрын

Lol right here

@lornac.6460

3 жыл бұрын

here but schoology 🙌

What people are forgetting is that EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. What mutations appear are random, but what organisms survive are not.

Came here for the comments, was not dissapointed.

@zakopako82

8 жыл бұрын

+DracoonianDevil lol, me too.

@dillonwilliams1408

8 жыл бұрын

Same here😂

@forgedude

8 жыл бұрын

+DracoonianDevil You took the word right out of my brain.

@onethingaboutthecomments.121

8 жыл бұрын

Lol same

@T0mat0_S0up

6 жыл бұрын

DracoonianDevil well it's the internet

Survival of the good anough

@larsdenheijer1

7 жыл бұрын

Wow bijna de zelfde naam

@lazerusvdh1192

7 жыл бұрын

ja klopt XD

@ah9996

7 жыл бұрын

Lars van der Heijden

@alphaengineering1278

7 жыл бұрын

Lars van der Heijden I may say: the adaptable enough

@lazerusvdh1192

7 жыл бұрын

Alpha, that's also a good word for it

There seems to be a LOT of disagreement in the comment section. Let's breakdown each argument one by one. • If we evolved from Apes, then why do monkeys still exist today in their unsophisticated state? Ans - We did not evolve from modern monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor that gave rise to early hominids as well as other early species of apes. Other ape species are like our cousins, crudely speaking. Was your grandfather exactly the same as you or your cousin? No, right? But you both are his progeny nevertheless and share the same roots. Hence, humans belong to the order Primata, just like other apes. Please read up on branching descent for further information. • Only micro evolution is possible and macro evolution is a sham. Ans - You're absolutely right. There's simply no way a fish can wake up as a reptile one day. However NOBODY is saying that something that's a fish on monday will be a lizard by thursday. Imagine that one day due to a particularly bad UV ray exposure, the piece of DNA that codes for the proteins in the fins gets mutated. A different protein is formed in the fin, thus altering the fish's phenotype. Over a long, long time (millions of years), these teeny tiny changes accumulate and a stable phenotype of limb like fins may be formed. Therefore people who use this argument forget that evolution doesn't happen overnight - it takes a millennia of variations to change an organism as drastically as a fish to an amphibian or reptile. "Macro evolution" is the sum of millions of years of "Micro evolution". • Organisms are too complex to be created randomly and there must be an intelligent designer. Ans- I shall not argue with the existence of an intelligent creator, as it is a personal choice to believe in a higher power. To be sure, there MAY be an intelligent creator that has been present for all of Earth's 4.5 billion years of history, pulling the strings of evolution. However, what they did is exactly what scientists are trying to describe. Why is it so hard to accept that God may have allowed evolution to happen under his command? Why do you put words in God's mouth, or pretend to know their intentions? On the atheist side of the story, complex organisms didn't just appear out of nowhere. It took a good chunk of Earth's history for the first single celled organisms to make the jump to multicellular life, and simple cell aggregations to tissues, tissues to organs and organs to organ systems. I repeat, evolution never happened overnight. It took a billion years for single celled organisms to start making aggregates. Complexity can, in fact arise from simple structures as has been demonstrated in lab experiment where single celled organisms work together as a unit. I recommend you to check them out. Thank you for your patience, if you made it this far. As I'm agnostic, I have clearly not taken any sides and represented my own understanding of the matter. If you disagree, a civil discussion in the sub comment section is welcome. Thank you!

@Dr.Ian-Plect

2 ай бұрын

You shouldn't state that evolution doesn't happen overnight, i.e. short time scales. Because it DOES.

@aryanaggarwal2425

2 ай бұрын

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Yeah, you're right! When I was writing the comment I was thinking of evolution at grand scales of time. I remember watching a video on how lizards with flatter webbed feet got selected in a windy environment in a matter of months. Evolution definitely happens on short time scales, but these new phenotypes are not enough to classify them as new species. Thanks for the correction :)

@Dr.Ian-Plect

2 ай бұрын

@@aryanaggarwal2425 Indeed, take care.

@daftwulli6145

2 ай бұрын

@@aryanaggarwal2425 We have literally observed the evolution of new species, which is macroevolution

3:46 this guy is my spirit animal

@bigwill683

2 жыл бұрын

I’m sure he is Philadelphia Collins.

Humans didn't come from gorillas though (at the end). We evolved from extinct, non-gorilla ape-like creatures.

@MadKiyos

8 жыл бұрын

+Cody Blane It's just a cartoon reusing assets.

@englishconquistador3053

6 жыл бұрын

Now isn't it odd that we've never found one of those missing links?

@1h3art_mys3lf-

6 жыл бұрын

English Conquistador we have look at other moninid species

@englishconquistador3053

6 жыл бұрын

Imposter Nye like?

@orvalinaaugusta2903

6 жыл бұрын

yes, we have actually.

Perpetuating the "step-by-step" "progression" idea is kind of problematic. Species change and diverge, they don't progress in unity. That seemingly small error can be turned into ammo for creationists.

@noahkaczor

9 жыл бұрын

I agree. When things are oversimplified it's easy to get the impression that species split in one generation and then don't change again until the next clean split. It's way more fluid than that.

@overcookedwater1947

6 жыл бұрын

Nick S says the one who believes on a flying bearded man in the sky

my RE assignment requires me to talk about George lamatire (however you spell it) and Darwin and Dawkins and this really helped my understanding 😄 thank goodness for Ted Ed

Im glad you guys improved your videos so much over the years; not that this is a "bad" video, but the difference between this video and a recent one is very notorious.

@joylolly4458

Жыл бұрын

I know it’s been 3 years, but if you see this, I was wondering if you could plz explain which 'more recent' video you’re referring to, I’m interested in watching it!

@Cemhta

Жыл бұрын

@@joylolly4458 oh well, i don't remember the specific video I was talking about, but you can see the difference between this video format (the voice actor, the presentation, how the information is presented, etc) and a more recent one, for example the mosquito one that they uploaded last week just to give an example.

@smedusri5138

4 ай бұрын

Evolution is a goal a dream a faith that dont need evidence anymore evolutuion represent to people the only alternative to religion who provide an explanation of life origine

Regarding evolution as an adaptation, there actually is a new field of science that may support that. It's called epi-genetics, and in a nutshell it suggests that the manner in how you live your life can affect your future offspring. Example, if you don't have a genetic predisposition for obesity, however you become obese for most of your life, your kids will have a greater likelihood of being obese too. And that is completely independent on how you raise them. Their genetic makeup is physically altered because of your lifestyle. Regarding evolution as survival of the fittest, the video is correct. The term "fittest" is relative. When I was in college, I always wondered why didn't all animals adapt high intelligence like humans. Wouldn't it be advantageous if all animals on the planet were smart? The answer is no, and for two reasons. One, having a big brain consumes a lot of calories. That is a big commitment for an animal to have a big brain. The human brain consumes 20% of the caloric intake. Reason two, many animals survive just fine being stupid. Sharks, horseshoe crabs, alligators and mosquitoes have stayed almost the same for millions of years without the need to evolve.

@lordilluminati5836

8 жыл бұрын

+George Kyriakou not to mention bacteria are still around.

@oskarhenriksen

8 жыл бұрын

+George Kyriakou Reason three for the intelligence thing: Evolution has to work with what it's got at any given time. It might take many changes for a given organism to develop higher intelligence, and the initial steps might not be (all that) advantageous, I suppose. Or even all that possible. What would it take for an ant, which has no real brain, to increase its intelligence? Probably a whole lot. Besides, it's probably doing fine with a completely different kind of intelligence than what we can imagine As for epi-genetics: Check out the recent research on rats (or was it mice) indicating that fear of certain things gained during a lifetime actually can be inherited

@markstuber4731

8 жыл бұрын

+George Kyriakou That reinforces my suspcision that there is a hell of a lot we don't know about genetics. That's one reason I am skeptical of the quick lableing of "junk DNA."

@MrDexter337

8 жыл бұрын

Mark Stuber I agree. It costs energy to make and sequence DNA. Wouldn't we think natural selection would weed that out? ...unless the energy cost was negligible. It would be interesting to see a video that would list the relative percent energy consumption of each cellular function, and how much energy is consumed during replication of a DNA strand per unit length.

@lordilluminati5836

8 жыл бұрын

George Kyriakou it's a single molecule, the cost must be neliglible on macroorganisms's reproductive cells. microorganisms have shorter dna, so they may as well evolve though mutacion.

Evolutionary theory explained in simple terms. This can be considered as basic intro part for the Evolutionary Theory and Misconceptions.

@srimansrini

10 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing my post.

@carlos05231981

5 жыл бұрын

Except, this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

@georgeslb5673

3 жыл бұрын

@Open School The Evolution is a fact, Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (teacher of Lamarck) wrotes about this in 1750's, the idea of Darwin was the Natural Selection.

Whenever I'm in need of a good laugh, I go to youtube, search a video about evolution and go to the latest comments to read all the creationists' nonsense.

@christopherparks2987

3 жыл бұрын

my family are the creationists...it just makes me sad and annoyed

@late8641

3 жыл бұрын

@@christopherparks2987 My condolences. I'm sure they're very kind and loving people, but it's a tragedy that people can be persuaded by such nonsense.

@lancevanceGTA

3 жыл бұрын

@@christopherparks2987 mine too, muslims...

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

@@late8641 Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

@@lancevanceGTA I'm muslim too❤ but I don't know why you're upset.. If you feel that Islam isn't right, and want to understand about it, then I have some sources that may help - if you want -: 1. (Dr. eyad qunaibi global channel) channel, it has two playlists that may help, one is about evolution theory and its name is (the journey of certainty), the second is about some Islamic specific teachings, its name is (women in depth) 2. (Sabighat) book, that book simplified some of Islamic evidences 3. The third is: website that you can have online privacy chat, the site's name is: ( alnaba . ws )

It's sad to see that many people refuse to believe in evolution or has the wrong perception about it.

@Yourmommashouz

2 жыл бұрын

The main reason is cause from their very childhood they are being taught that god created the earth and everything on it A prime example being the commenter down below

@lakishalaster5584

2 жыл бұрын

Evolution is a myth girl wtf everything they said i mean scientists said about evolution is wrong omg 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@numbercode2486

2 жыл бұрын

@@lakishalaster5584, I wonder how we got multiple breeds of dogs... Can anyone tell me?

@earthernut4073

2 жыл бұрын

It's okay if they don't believe in the theory of evolution. For all we know, there was a time when we believed atom is the smallest unit of matter, but here we are now with electrons and neutron and protons. It because someone refused to believe atom being tiniest unit. Same goes for the evolution. Who knows one of those critics will invent another better theory to explain origin of life. :))

@heavyhitter9186

2 жыл бұрын

They can't observe the most obvious truth of life that we are actually evolved apes. Ego and religious indoctrination are to blame for such a sad state of evolved apes thinking they dropped from the sky.

You forgot to mention the biggest and most important misconception: micro evolution vs macro evolution

@tamaralazar69

8 жыл бұрын

These are artificial, arbitrary terms that don't add anything to the original concept and as such they're not particularly helpful, as you might have noticed yourself ; )

@vlisto3712

8 жыл бұрын

+GrayHat4Life If someone says micro evolution is true,but macroevolution is false,they said something along the lines of this... 1+1 = 2 ,but 1+1+1+1+1+1 ≠ 6

@martisendrell9305

8 жыл бұрын

One will jump species etc. the other says evolution will only stay between a species. two sides to a coin or two theories to how evolution works. Micro says evolution will only go so far, while macro say evolution can keep going.

@zemorph42

8 жыл бұрын

+Martis Endrell Only to creationists. Micro-evolution refers to minor changes within species, and Macro-evolution refers to speciation events. In other words, Macro-evolution consists of lots of accumulated micro-evolutionary changes.

@martisendrell9305

8 жыл бұрын

zemorph42 Well, just did a quick google search and that comment you made takes the cake of stupid.

Bravo! An excellent overview of very commonly-held misconceptions with well-presented responses to them.

I love how ted ed always makes you feel good in the end... I love the music, it's really unique

Apparently 0:42 "now discredited" was up-do-date as of 2013 (the year this video is published) only, because since then there have been tons of studies, researches and experiments on **genetic marker**, which, in a nutshell, is a mechanism for organism to pass "adaptation" (in contrast to random mutation) to their offspring

Another BIG myth people have about evolution: humans evolved from apes. We didn't. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. So if anyone asks you "if evolution is true, why are apes still around," please correct them.

@TimLavey88

10 жыл бұрын

The myth is actually that we didn't evolve from apes. Not only did we come from apes, but we are also apes. That common ancestor you mention was an ape. We never stopped being that, just as little as we stopped being mammals or animals.

@TimLavey88

10 жыл бұрын

Dan Cameron Nah. We're totally apes, man. That creation myth with us being breathed life into as dolls made of dirt isn't a bit silly, don't you think?

@sevenkings9166

5 жыл бұрын

None Asdfghj if we have 95% DNA of apes, it doen’st mean we are from apes

@noneasdfghj9953

5 жыл бұрын

@@sevenkings9166 that always matter in field of evolution and truth of life. It's all about different adaptation and heredity You can't prove that fake and that always matter's I suggest you to make a Logical speech about that topic and present in front of scientists to prove its fake and you will definitely get your answer .

@noneasdfghj9953

5 жыл бұрын

@@sevenkings9166 there are fossils of our ancestors and carbondating methods to determine the age of our race

This was a bit vague...

@bishal1125

4 жыл бұрын

That's because it is.

@SidneyIam

3 жыл бұрын

not ppl still replying to a 4 year old comment, fellas i have no memory of this

@zack-ronald259

3 жыл бұрын

@@SidneyIam how are you

@SidneyIam

3 жыл бұрын

@@zack-ronald259 don't really know, how are you

@zack-ronald259

3 жыл бұрын

@@SidneyIam nice but 2020 is getting kinda bad

4:00 Actually, this animation suggests that evolution is a linear process, and that is another common misconception regarding evolution.

I once watched it,but i was just left condused. Now after reading my lesson of "Genetics and Heredity" in my High School .It felt easy to understand

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

@Zubu Melepat Well, claims are replied with claims: No he didn't. what about 8-14 videos from this playlist: kzread.info/head/PLN2jADncOIAL6oxJm5MreX63b0k5yZpwl

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

@Zubu Melepat The playlist I put its link lastly is condensed and is from some perspectives, not all of them, if you'd like there is another video from him talks about some other perspective that shows the lack for that nonsense (i.e. Evolution theory)

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

Do you have a scientific comment on the videos 8-14 from the playlist I put its link? I'd like to know

@dear_imran

2 жыл бұрын

India?

"Random" this word is used a lot in these theories.

@hagalathekido

7 жыл бұрын

yes radiation makes unpredictable mutations thats why its random, without radiation, no evolution is what we currently belive.

@DrPonner

7 жыл бұрын

Well, we can't say it's completely organized and determined.

@Theo4871

7 жыл бұрын

It's probably possible to predict all the process that makes this things happen, but it's so complex that it's better to just say it is random.

@dreslab2022

7 жыл бұрын

Uh... radiation doesn't affect evolution my friend.

@DrPonner

7 жыл бұрын

David Smith Yes it does... **God the scientific illiteracy is just too painful**

Why the emphasis on mutation only as a source of variation? The idea that "random mutations" (i.e. copy mistakes) are the only source of change is an easy idea to get hung up on if you're skeptical or biased. Whereas on the other hand, it's very intuitive to recognize that, at least in sexual reproduction, recombination is going to happen in *every* new organism, and so there's an obvious ground of diversity for new fitness to emerge from. And while single genes can make all the difference in terms of fitness, plenty of "fit" traits are only fit when 2 or more genes are expressed simultaneously. If I were talking to a creationist I'd just point out that there's obviously going to be variation up the wazoo even if you have perfect copies of the genes being mixed (it would be a stronger claim to say it strictly depends on copies getting botched).

@SecondA7XHeartbeat

10 жыл бұрын

It's important to realize the distinction between mutations and recombination. Genetic mutations _alter_ _the_ _sequence_ _of_ _genes_ in the genome, whereas recombination simply _reconstructs_ _the_ _genome_ from already pre-existing genes. Mutations are the source for genetic variance in which speciation mechanisms can act upon. Recombination, by itself, within a population is not a source for variation that can result in speciation.

@Ar-ck7fr

10 жыл бұрын

J. Miller Well, I wouldn't be so sure about this apparent distinction. Technically, recombination can be a vastly more powerful generator of genetic variance compared to mutation (even as observed in viruses). One should keep in mind that most mutations are thought to come about through straightforward errors in enzymatic activity of just a bunch of few highly conserved DNA-processing enzymes that (by definition) are not built to 'purpose-fail' very often (quite the contrary), WHEREAS recombination (by means of a multi-gene control system) can be finely tuned-up for the sole purpose of generating genetic variance. And it can be cranked up real high. In fact, the vertebrate immune system is virtually built around that source of variance rather than mutations (though mutations also play a role there). Nowadays, when certain peculiarities of evolution are increasingly being ascribed to epigenetic processes as well as such recombination-based processes as horizontal gene transfer for example, one can't be too careful when trying to quantify which diversity-generating mechanism contributed more genetic variance during the whole run of evolution on Earth. And I mean true genetic variation (that may well result in speciation), not just genome-shuffling diversity.

I honestly can't think of a better channel to subscribe to. Thank you so much TedEd

@danminer5343

Жыл бұрын

Why are you trying to avoid the reality of God who created everything? Nothing could create itself.

@marcusaureliusiv8527

Жыл бұрын

@@danminer5343 if you knew evolution in detail, you would know that scientists do not say that everything was created on its own out of nothing, it is a very long process with atoms, cells and evolution. You may say "but the universe is so perfect, there must be someone behind it" or idk, but the univers is mathematical even without a god.

@danminer5343

Жыл бұрын

​@@marcusaureliusiv8527 l- Thanks for asking for evidence for everything being created. You said if I knew evolution in detail, but nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call "Evolution". I've asked hundreds of evolutionists to explain something in detail about the story of "Evolution" but the common response is that they refuse to believe in a Creator. I've read hundreds of books and papers on this, but never has any evolutionist given any detail on how evolution could be possible or give any evidence showing that it has every occurred. With zero evidence and zero science supporting that story, why should I try to believe it? The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator, and there is only evidence of the history has recorded. The word "Evolution" is a word to represent the word "nothing" and believe that everything slowly formed into existing living beings by nothing, even though none of anything could live until after it contained all parts and systems, both male and female in final complete form, being dead all of the time it was supposedly 'evolving'. I cannot accept such total nonsense.

@marcusaureliusiv8527

Жыл бұрын

​@@danminer5343 I like how you seem opened to dialogue etc, but first of all i know that many evolutionists hate god without any reaons, and i know it can be hard to speak this topic with them. I myself do not agree with every single details about evolution because in fact we do not have all the proofs. But i saw this argument many times, and i do not think that "The fact that everything exists and is very extremely complex proves that everything is the result of a Creator" is an acceptable proof. The thing is, to me, beliving in wether it is evolution or creation is not "reasonable". The same way you say "nobody on earth has known anything in detail about what they call Evolution", no creationist can proove the biblical events like the arch of noah, Adam living 930 years and then all his sons living for hundreds of years too, all these stories are as much inbelievable than evolution, the only thing that makes you believe in one is faith. You believe in creation because you believe in God, and god is supposed to have inspired the bible, so i have nothing against you believing in this i actually was a christian myself a couples years ago, i will only ask you one thing ; this video was educational, it was meant for people to learn what is the theory or evolution, it never said that religion was false or anything. May god or Allah or YHWH bless you.

@danminer5343

Жыл бұрын

@@marcusaureliusiv8527 But the story of evolution just does not make any sense. It is impossible for any molecules to ever come together to form the special long complex molecules required for life. If the impossible happened and one did form after millions of years, then, within a few days it would decay back again to simple molecules. Mutations can occur only after a life from has been created and already contains all of the required parts and systems for it to live. No evolutionist has ever found a way that mutations could build a new part or system because to build a new part or system would require up to millions of new base pairs already in a coded sequence before a new part or system could be built and the parents would have had to have been able to live without it. Natural selection can only eliminate and can only select what already exists. Common ancestry is impossible because no intermediate between different kinds/baramins would have to contain incomplete microsystems that could not function. The history of the global flood on Noah's day is a proven scientific fact. The origin of all of the geological features of the earth cannot be logically explained without the global flood which formed them. Evolutionists cannot explain their origin but only either ignore it or tell crazy ridiculous strawman arguments that are false. Over a hundred cultures around the world has the history of the global flood in their history, including the Chinese that recorded it over 4,l000 years ago in their original language on bone fragments that exist today. The Chinese worshiped the God of the Bible for ca. 2,000 years, His name in their language being Shang Di. I watched that short video and it said NOTHING AT ALL about how any new part or system could originate or how any evolutionary change could be possible. All it said is "evolution did it". Also it lied when it indicated that most scientists believe in it, when in reality it is the scientists who are forming the creation science organizations world wide due to the science they discovered. Never has anybody in the world found a scientific reason to believe in the quackery of evolutionism. It is total nonsense. ] I challenge someone or anyone to try to find a scientific reason to believe such nonsense. I've asked this for decades but evolutionists will never talk about the details in science, but only ignore them.

Evolution is such a fascinating topic, it’s cool thinking that all backboned animals came from a fish the size of a thumb a long time ago

@walnutcorp.5827

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, even if you don’t believe it you have to admit it’s a cool theory

@walnutcorp.5827

3 жыл бұрын

@بن محمد what is?

@walnutcorp.5827

3 жыл бұрын

@بن محمد rip

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

@Key3de

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not cool. It’s nonsensical.

May you guys make an episode on how to improve empathy?

Ehhhhhh the first point is right but there is also 'epigenetics' to be considered. It's a newer subject of study so i can see why it wasn't mentioned but apparently there can be some (small) adaptation of genetics over a persons lifetime that may affect the genetics of their offspring. (To be fair, this is more about the degree to which certain genes are *activated* rather than actually mutating and changing)

Wow it's amazingly explained. Cleared many misconceptions.

진화에 대한 오해를 알아봄으로서 진화가 정말 무었인지 배우게되는 유익하고 재미있는 시간이 되었습니다. 진화에 대한 이해를 돋구는 시간이 되었습니다. 감사합니다.

You know what's interesting is that nowadays with research into epigenetics, Lamarke's theory isn't as completely wrong as scientists thought. Lifestyle choices and experiences can actually results in epigenetic regulation that is passed down to the next generation, and therefore actions become heritable.

Thank goodness you've made this video; I've been trying to explanation how evolution works to my parents who had most of the misconception on the theory of evolution. Thank You.

@danminer5343

Жыл бұрын

Don't tell your parents lies. The story of evolution is believed and promoted as a replacement for God creating everything and wants people to believe that everything created itself. Scientific facts now prove that every different kind of life has a different unique set of proteins and genes that it would be impossible for one kind to ever change into a different kind, since mutations can only destroy information and could never create new instructions. (each kind has its own unique anatomy, such as the 'dog kind', the 'cat kind' or 'man kind. Each kind had to have originated from the top down with a complete DNA and could never live unless it's DNA was complete.

@DisKeda

11 ай бұрын

Sorry. The main misconception is that evolution works. Real world science knows nothing of it. It's just a failed theory that was never proven and what's most important, was never able to predict anything. Real science that works, makes predictions.

Other people think that the real life evolution is same as the evolution in Pokémon.

@crampus8205

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah Pokemon's is more like metamorphosis really.

Question.... (serious) Around 1:20-1:27 the speaker said that not through adaptation but through genetics (random mutations) giraffes come to have elongated necks. The speaker gave the example where a giraffe who spent a great deal of time stretching his neck to reach the tall tress would not have future offsprings with elongated necks for that reason... is it just assumed that mutations came to slowly produce giraffes with long necks because I assume that some giraffes with short necks or most giraffes with short necks were dying and the genes “responded in this manner”. If so why would they know to respond or are they constantly because it is random producing a variant of giraffes with different traits till eventually the long necked giraffes were the only ones left alive , there by supporting natural selection ? The video did not explain that well.

@renge9909

6 жыл бұрын

Here's my explanation. The mutation would be random... taking place at a time when there was no real selective pressure on either the short necked or long necked giraffes. Neither neck type proved detrimental in and of itself at the time. We humans are born with abnormalities ourselves that persist through the ages.... an extra toe, an extra finger, and less visible irregularities like having all your organs be on the reverse side of your body (situs inversus). These aren't actively harmful traits. Some of us are taller than others, paler or darker than others in our immediate families. There are variations. I suppose the necks were variants of this sort, that weren't really good or bad at first. Only over time, as the environment changed. The long necked variants might have had more success, and their numbers increased, as more food was available at higher heights and less at lower heights. The survivors went on to breed, and their offspring were more likely to have the same long neck genetics. That's what it essentially boils down to. Is the variation, the mutation, actively harmful to your chances of reproduction? No? Then it's passed on. Now, something might occur in the future where having such a trait becomes slowly more critical to survival, and thus the numbers begin to shift.

But they ain't say that evolution is branched rather than having a single linear sequence.That was the best part !

This should be required viewing for all science skeptics.

@aarOuOn

6 жыл бұрын

Eeeeh, there are better easier to understand explanations for evolution. I think this video would mostly just confuse a creationist.

@mintyfish5664

5 жыл бұрын

@@aarOuOn but evolution is adapting..... wtf?

@ucb.aapmotman

4 жыл бұрын

PaperFrogg all i see anyway is people finding ways to explain unobservable ‘facts’, you know it’s not surprising seeing humanity deny the design in everything (from plants to the ground we walk on) when you listen to what the bible says about humanity :)

@ujjalshill6442

2 жыл бұрын

creationists are idiots they dont have the capacity to understand complex things

@sharpballer7751

2 жыл бұрын

@@ujjalshill6442 Not all creationists are idiots. My dad is a Nephrologist and he is really smart. He believes in evolution but he is also Catholic

I have something to say for the first one. Yes animals don't change genes during their lifetime. But genetic mutations combined with "survival of the good enought" ultimatly make organisms more adapted to their enviroment

Most of what is said to be misconceptions are not, you just interpreted them incorrectly. This boils down to semantics but I think it helps me understand why other people can't believe a simple demonstrable fact.

Funny how they finished a video about misconceptions of evolution with the monkey to human progression that isn't even correct. The scientist that drew it himself didn't even believe it was accurate, he draw as a sort "what if" thing.

Dear TED-Ed, in light of new research on the epigenetics, I believe this video should be updated. Biology is an ever-changing topic and old beliefs are crushed and theories are proven to be true or false all the time. Everyone, especially scientists, should keep an open mind on myths or misconceptions. Thank you.

@PeejyM

6 жыл бұрын

Yes I thought the same

@kem7261

5 жыл бұрын

Male angler fish do not have anglers nor bioluminesen

@carlos05231981

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, because this video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

@balintvass4771

5 жыл бұрын

And I might have found a contradiction as well: if we didn't have much calories for ages, then should we attribute or current craving of calories to some random mutations in the past rather than the fact that a long time ago we didn't get the desired quantity of it?

@jackdaniels9179

4 жыл бұрын

Their minds are always open...but they are not going to entertain an idea which is not supported by evidence.

Sorry to say that this is the first topic discussed on TED that confuses me so deeply. I have to choose to replay it more times.

I love the animations. The little photo cell made me giggle

If all you have to eat is good healthy food, you'll start to grow accustomed to it and actually like it. I can't candy as much now, it makes me feel sick. I love a good hearty well cooked meal. If you learn how to prepare food right, it becomes enticing to eat healthily.

@shenyiyang6507

8 жыл бұрын

I know how you feel; I feel sick if I eat too much meat with no vegetables or rice to balance the protein out.

@gemstonegynoid7475

8 жыл бұрын

in my household for a while we bought soda a lot. it became something we craved. currently we dont buy soda at all anymore, and now we dont as much want to get soda now.

I still have a hard time understanding how a small change gives any advantage to the organism, if evolution is incremental. For example, a tiny wing is useless. I think these small changes, while not contributing to the survival are still passed along because they are not harmful either.

@matteomastrodomenico1231

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, bird wings evolved because they helped the small dinosaurs that developed them to be aerodynamic. Basically, it's all about repourposing

@eddyeldridge7427

2 жыл бұрын

True, neutral mutations are usually carried on. Natural selection only weeds out harmful mutations.

@terra_727

2 жыл бұрын

You would have to understand the evolutionary history of certain traits in order to understand how they evolved. Evolution is not as simple as tiny wing becomes big wing. Theropods already had arms and many of the more derived species already had feathers, which first developed for insulation. With smaller species, it helped their ability to glide and traits were selectively chosen to help its ability to glide and then powered flight. This is highly simplified, but it gets my point across.

After watching this video the third time i realized I'm more confused than i was before watching it

@justthinking650

3 жыл бұрын

same

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

What software did you used on this video?

The last step, the evolved man, is portrayed carrying bags, like he is just coming from shopping... haha.

@ujjalshill6442

2 жыл бұрын

there is no last slep in evolution humans are still evolving

And let the shit storm begin!

@Chibi-Fisch

10 жыл бұрын

wow lol

Luck plays a huge role. No amount of being fit will help if you get whacked by a meteor.

This is brilliant. I've never seen it explained so well in such succinct way.

@dvoiceotruth

2 жыл бұрын

thank you Julie.

@danminer5343

Жыл бұрын

This video explained nothing and was completely against science. Why are you so much against accepting the reality of our God who created us

@marcusaureliusiv8527

Жыл бұрын

@@danminer5343 I see many comments like yours, but can you explain why creation is real ? like, give me proofs, not only from the bible like "it is written" etc., give me proofs

4:00 scene might make some people think that we come from gorillas or chimpanzees. That's also a misconception, we come from a commun ancestor, we don't come from chimps themselves. Really liked the video, have a great day, fellow eukaryote

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/g3mdsZecZNO5iJM.html - I’d love to know your thoughts on this

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” -Charles Darwin

I think that there are some misconceptions here too. One organism don't have a gene with a treat, but a range of genetic posibilities, that expresses one way or another depending on the enviromental conditions it has to face. 😊👍

Actually you can have environmental factors as well as genetic factors. If I was brought up eating hardly anything and was malnourished I would be different to someone who wasn't. But it is true that my kids wouldn't have these problems unless I did the same thing to them

Another problem with this video is that people do crave nutrition. Cravings are specific to foods that contain nutrients that we are needing. And that's why nutrient dense foods taste so good (herbs, meats, etc). Science, if you want to blame something for obesity, has allowed us to manipulate our food supply to remove the nutrients and artificially increase taste with just fat and sugar calories.

@kooferkoo4969

7 жыл бұрын

Meats are carb rich foods, nutrient dense foods are like broccoli and salad, which are generally craved and liked less than most carb rich foods like bread and meat. There is no problem here.

@JakeLovesSteak

7 жыл бұрын

koofer koo Do you even know what a "carb" is?

@kooferkoo4969

7 жыл бұрын

Wutsizface I do, I just find it funny that people say stuff in the comments without backing it up, and dont know what they are talking about, so you can do the same thing to shut them up.

@JakeLovesSteak

7 жыл бұрын

koofer koo Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. You said, "Meats are carb rich foods." That is false. Most types of meat don't usually have a significant amount of carbohydrates (or "carbs"). Meat is mostly protein and fat. Maybe you meant to say that meat can have a lot of calories, which is true, depending on the amount of protein and fat in it. Also, depending on the type and quality of the meat, it can be quite nutrient-dense. It may not have the same types of nutrients as certain types of vegetables, but it can contain a wide variety of vitamins and minerals. The OP's comment is quite accurate.

@kooferkoo4969

7 жыл бұрын

Alright getting the generic reply out of the way, looking back at the video and reading the comment so I can dignify you with a real response carbs was a typo in my comment. I am not ashamed to admit that, but the original comment I was responding to still does not address the fact that in context the video makes perfect sense, the word craving at the time was used to refer to the quite indisputable fact that humans prefer foods with lots of calories. Im not exactly a nutritionists, but I like to think I have a basic understanding of the content at hand.

Thank you for doing this, TedEd. There are too many people out there unwittingly or deliberately spreading misconceptions about evolution.

Sorting comment section to newest first was the biggest mistake, it's still early morning and i have already loss half of my brain cells "I don't see my dog evolving" "Why don't gravity evolve??" "Don't teach me science you satan!!!"

@Lexi2019AURORA

Жыл бұрын

Ikr 🤣

@zgamez129

Жыл бұрын

You forgot the "if evolution was still real, and humans evolved from monkeys, how are monkeys still here? darwin is satan's child." evolution deniers are so thick-headed lmao 🤣🤣🤣

@Bajannubian095

Жыл бұрын

Macro Evolution is a myth and will remain a theory

@ripinkhanna6075

Жыл бұрын

Haha, finding these deniers of evolution was the reason I clicked "Newest First"!

@ripinkhanna6075

Жыл бұрын

@@Bajannubian095 No, macro evolution has also been justified and proven.

Evolution means when organisms either needed to adapt it's own environment further or live to adapt another

So let me get this straight... So let's say there's this giraffe and it has a kid. That kid has an unusually long neck. Because of this, it's more likely to have kids of its own. It's likely those kids will have long necks too, and they pass on their long necks to their kids in a process as infinitum until a freaking mas extinction happens and the bugs are all like, "This is fine." Boom. Cockroaches everywhere.

@CJ-hd2rc

7 жыл бұрын

RotatingDisc - bugs?

@loricalass4068

7 жыл бұрын

Whether their necks get shorter or longer, so what? They will everyone of them stay giraffes. Give me some data showing that giraffes are evolving into non giraffes. Some dogs are tall, some short. Some have longer necks, or legs, or backs of whatever. So what? They are still all everyone of them dawgs. You might want to look at some of my other posts under this vid to get a good look at what's outside the box.

@rotatingdisc-479

7 жыл бұрын

ye

@carlos05231981

5 жыл бұрын

@@loricalass4068 ** Right... and that's a great point. This video is not based in fact. It is NOT fact that novelty in organisms arises from "mutations" in the genome. If you look at the animation, it shows giraffes with twisted necks. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a twisted neck, or a zig zagged neck, or any of the other ones that this video displayed? No, you haven't and I'm sure if you look at the literature from professional giraffe researchers, you wouldn't find a documented case of either example. That is what's called a slight of hand tactic to obscure the true fallacy of the claim. Mutations as innovation has been proven WRONG by scientific experimentation. Ironically that's evolution's own misconception taught as fact. Videos, like this one, slip in the conjecture that novelty comes from mutations. There is no concrete proof that mutations created an elephant from bacteria. What empirical scientific evidence has proven that mutations are a viable mechanism to turn a house fly into a bat? None.. so how is this video informative if what's claimed has been refuted by scientific experiments.. i.e. house fly mutation experiments.. and protein mutation experiments? None of them have produced viable mutants on their way to becoming something greater. they've only produced dead, sick or regular individuals relegated to their own species.

@loricalass4068

5 жыл бұрын

@@carlos05231981 Yep.

very helpfull and easy to understand. Many thanks

This all what I’ve learnt in my 10th biology lesson..Still everything was new to me ....xD

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

Do you know (the journey of certainty) playlist? In that playlist, he did criticize that "theory"

my teacher at school taught us lamarck's theory of adaptation as if it were darwin's... I didnt know why she was wrong, but the theory didnt make sense to me and we fought because it sounded illogical.... now I finally understand that I was right, thanks for the video

"most people find evolutions controversial".. *Americans. can't think of a single representative or educator in my country who denies it

@DanielThomasArgueta

7 жыл бұрын

Which country are you referring to?

@michelleoconnell886

7 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Argueta Ireland.(Republic)

@michelleoconnell886

7 жыл бұрын

what? how does not having public representatives and politicians that deny evolution make me or my country racist or islamaphobic? Stop perpetuating the stereotype of the idiot American.

@michelleoconnell886

7 жыл бұрын

teabing Name one. Name a democratic developed country that has schools and elected representatives who are young Earth creationists? A developed country that voted Atheists one of the least trusty groups. In a WIN/Gallup Poll of "How important is religion to you?" America was the highest ranking English speaking country and higher than all EU countries and any EU country even slightly close had extremely low numbers, almost insignificant, of people who also polled they didn't believe in evolution or thought Atheists were one of the most distrustful groups. America has SEVEN States where a legal citizen may not hold public office without a belief in God. Show me another country that does that. Ireland came second to the US as a developed country where people think religion is important (still less than HALF vs the MAJORITY in US) and their president is a secular humanist who makes no reference to God in his Holiday Address and very publicly supports gay marriage (legal in Ireland) the teaching of creationism in schools (illegal in schools) and has publicly denounced the countries only, ONLY, member of parliment who denies climate change. So as batshit crazy religious developed countries go, US is WAY up there

@michelleoconnell886

7 жыл бұрын

teabing Also the US ranks 6th in the world for creationist beliefs. But the only country where it is openly taught in schools amd debated by politicians despite a supreme court ruling teaching it in schools was unconstitutional

Gracias por la traducción.

the only reason i will remember this is 20 years is because of the giraffes face

@3:53 it contradict itself mentioning that, anyways I believe it's the mixture of all these things instead of just one.

Ironically, your video ends with yet another misconception that YOU are now perpetuating; the idea that evolution is a single line of change leading up from lower lifeforms to man as the endpoint.

@theMosen

10 жыл бұрын

Strange, the video I watched ended talking about evolution "creating all of the diversity we see in the natural world". No talk of "single line", no talk of "man as the endpoint".

@ISKLEMMI

10 жыл бұрын

She explicitly denied that point in the video.

@DeathLordFhyeg

10 жыл бұрын

***** A robo quacko-human!

@theMosen

10 жыл бұрын

***** Why do you think that I think that humans are the endpoint of evolution? I never said anything of the sort. That said, it's an interesting question whether a species can reach certain social circumstances that prevent further natural evolution, and whether we have reached that point.

@benbailey7046

10 жыл бұрын

The misconception is the cartooned straight line of evolution from bacteria to mankind, as if bacteria all changed into fish and fish all changed into monkeys and monkeys all changed into humans. Your graphic also shows humans as the end of that "line" of evolution. Bacteria are as "evolved" as we are.

This is one of the best explanations of evolution I have ever heard. Well done.

There is a video game i play called natrual selection 2 that tought me about how any animals can learn and adapt to avoid predators

The issue I find with all of the theories surrounding "the creation" are mostly very focused. Evolution tells how organims showed up the Big bang talks about how the universe came to be but. Where did all of these particles and atoms and even smaller than atoms come from. I never hear anyone try to explain that.

@englishconquistador3053

6 жыл бұрын

Wrong. The reason nobody explains it is because the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics - "matter cannot be created or destroyed." Of course, evolutionists say that the Big Bang came before thermodynamics... hehe how convenient! Nature does not create matter. Evolution needs matter. Thus evolution cannot happen.

@psalm1tree466

5 жыл бұрын

The Big Bang is a theory. It certainly does not have universal consensus amongst secular scientists. In this vid you see a man who used to be an engineer for the space program. He accepted that the Big Bang was a fact until a colleague asked him a rhetorical question about it, namely "You believe in physics, don't you?" Then the obvious was seen. The Big Bang defies physics. This vid is about cosmology, but quite a bit more than that, and explains how so much that is called science, in the realm of origins, is really pseudo science used to promote a certain world view. Take a walk on the wild side. Look outside your box. See if you can use observable scientific data to refute what he says. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gJ13x8Vxg8yqpaw.html

yay, no misconceptions! This was informative.

Anyone else going through the comments looking for the extreme unintelligent people from the USA?

@sublix4861

Жыл бұрын

Usa culturally is third world compared to europe

@FartyBalls42069

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, and it makes me very sad. I don't know why I bothered to look at the comments. Everyone's so unaware and closeminded.

@Encorous

Жыл бұрын

This is every comment section on every video that proposes anything past 6000 years or mutations being anything but detrimental. It's the same song and dance at this point so why. Do. I. Keep. Scrolling???

this video reminds of the dinosaur animation scene in Jurassic Park where they are explaining the origins of Dinosaurs.

Why is there no sources under the video or something

we humans actually DO evolve from apes, but NOT apes like chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans, if you think humans evolve from present day apes then you're absolutely wrong, instead we evolve from extinct prehistoric apes that we can't see anymore, like australopithecines, which biologically are still the member of the ape group. The present day apes comes from a separate lineage and have their own ancestors that is not directly linked to human's ancestors, but if we trace back to the root, all apes comes from the same common ancestors which over the time start diverging into different and separate species

@mohamedsr5817

3 жыл бұрын

Al what you have said right now is an assumption.I don’t understand how you can say as if it is a fact.

@brq267

3 жыл бұрын

@@mohamedsr5817 what i'm saying is that apes aren't just chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans, and we don't evolve from those apes. there's more of them, they're just already extinct, one of those extinct apes are australopithecines, which we do evolve from

Fitness in the context of evolution refers to “reproductive fitness” NOT “how well suited they are to their environment.”

@chertfoot1500

2 жыл бұрын

and it is really about the fitness of alleles, not individual monkeys or lizards

@richardblazer8070

2 жыл бұрын

That's technically true, fitness is determined by how many offspring you have, which correlates to being well adapted to an environment.

@sh0001

2 жыл бұрын

@@richardblazer8070 True. But we know that mere survival doesn’t add to one’s fitness. Plus, organisms also confront a tradeoff between survival and reproduction. Therefore, I was a bit skeptical about the words used in the video. Thanks for the response!

Why do you watch this video if you don’t believe it evolution and are not open minded about it just to write a hate comment

@eddyeldridge7427

3 жыл бұрын

Because the god that supposedly fills their lives has left them that empty. Almost like said god doesn't exist.

The biggest misconception I see is people saying we didn't evolve from apes, that we just have a common ancestor with them. I know when they say apes they mean chimps, but it is still a misconception. We did evolve from apes, and we are still apes, that is because of the law of monophyly, which states that you will always be in the same clade as your ancestors.

@brandinlea7137

4 жыл бұрын

Our closest ape ancestor are Bonobos, actually.

Ted-Ed is one of the best channels on KZread!

@sreejas3503

3 жыл бұрын

Ofc

4:04 , that giraffe is going to freeze!

@honkeymcgee3934

10 жыл бұрын

as well as the elephant,but elephants are not that important.

@rehamshafik8110

5 жыл бұрын

oh my gosh, dont just think about that, think about the broad picture😒

This simple cartoon is helpful but it fails to emphasize that there is so much we do not understand about evolution (yet). Evolution is a complex theory which is ‘true’ on a macro level but still has many aspects which are not understood. That is why it is a general theory.

1:50 The thing about survival of the fittest is actually true because if the tall trees died, then the giraffes with the short necks would be fitter. Fitness is the ability to cope with the demands of the environment

This could have talked about one of the most prominent misconceptions about evolution, 'Ladder-Rung' evolution vs the 'evolutionary bush'. This is a good and simple explanation which detracts from common beliefs about meaningful progression, but I doubt as many people would believe in this scientifically accurate idea of evolution. Being that most people have some form of religious belief, most people entertain that evolutionary progress came about by external means. Outside of the religious, some (or arguably most) phenomenon are hard to attribute to a purposeless factor. Biologists and educators often say, when addressing the public, things like 'walking sticks :wanted: [or :needed:] to look like sticks, so over time they started to look like them, and that's just how it mysteriously works'. Lamarkism is almost religious in its own way, because it references the deity of the individual to become whatever it wants, so it easily fits with similar ideas among the general religious. Reproduction doesn't necessarily entail 'advanced progression', as some organisms are perfectly capable of reproducing exponentially at a very 'low order' of existence. Giving the example of a perceived need to reproduce (which organisms should not have) as the key factor in evolution is not suitable. Reproduction is how traits are passed, but it in itself is not why an organism might 'advance' to a 'higher order' lifeform. But without those Lamarkist ideas, I can't really say I feel comfortable in reasoning how different species came to be. The idea that very static species could come to exist from minute changes to genetic code seems ridiculous, and fossil record shows that change within species happens much more quickly than being the result of minute progression. I can't imagine how so many common people think they can fully understand evolution just off of what they heard from their high school science teacher. Its one of the most puzzling and complex scientific theories, greater in scope and contemplation than any quantum mechanical theory, which the same people would say 'makes their wittle brain hurt'.

@guessme2258

6 жыл бұрын

What's your intake on evolution of humans through apes? Do you believe this?

@bobwilson679

6 жыл бұрын

TL;DR. Although I did read the last paragraph. I guess evolution is more complicated than I thought.

Indeed Evolution is the "survival of the fittest", A missunderstanding can occure but the term is 100% correct

@censored4680

5 жыл бұрын

isn't it more like Survival of the good Enough

4:03 picture of earth is inaccurate, it still has ice caps

@fa3il_5air72

3 жыл бұрын

It was from 7 years? (I dunno)

I feel like I don't get anything and doesn't clear my misconception at all

@preethao.c2262

3 жыл бұрын

Search AronRa

I guess that means the Dawarinism Awards are pointless now lol. Great video, really enjoyed it.

Thank you for add an English subtitle.

The most recent research suggests that random mutation as a mechanism of evolution is not enough to explain the complex function of genetics, epigenetics and other regulatory mechanisms that control gene expression. Dr. Denis Noble has argued that from research in epigenetics, acquired characteristics can be inherited and in contrast to the modern synthesis, genetic change is "far from random" and not always gradual. Random mutations is the corner stone of modern synthesis hypothesis. the Modern Synthesis represents a particular way to understand evolution. It primarily focuses on genes: new variation arises through random genetic mutation inheritance occurs through DNA natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation The new hypothesis: Extended evolutionary synthesis The extended evolutionary synthesis consists of a set of theoretical concepts more comprehensive than the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942. The extended evolutionary synthesis was called for in the 1950s by C. H. Waddington, argued for on the basis of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1980s, and was reconceptualized in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller. The extended evolutionary synthesis revisits the relative importance of different factors at play, examining several assumptions of the earlier synthesis, and augmenting it with additional causative factors. It includes multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, and several concepts from evo-devo.

You had me shocked at first when you said it is wrong to say organisms adapt to their environment, you meant individual ones don´t on a smaller timescale.