Good lecture, but it needs more beavers

@YonezH

Жыл бұрын

Frank Drebin agrees

@jespervalgreen6461

Жыл бұрын

You can never have enough beavers

@Ancipital_

Жыл бұрын

Eww. This isn't the '60s

@stupidas9466

Жыл бұрын

My wife has one, and i kinda wish she had more.

@thepricillove5244

Жыл бұрын

Ehh I'm a weasel man myself

Please rethink and change titles! "What won't tell you about " is a depreciation of science and teaching / lecturing!

@Jesper-bl2ns

2 күн бұрын

Also creationists often make videos with titles like that. I was seconds away from marking the channel as unreliable.

This is the best explanation I've heard, yet. So basically, Eukaryotes are known to hoard materials and parts for later use. Sounds like my parents.

@fukpoeslaw3613

Жыл бұрын

If both your parents are Eukaryotes, chances are that you're eukaryotic!

@goofyahhh254

2 ай бұрын

😂

Excellent lecture! I only disliked his equivocation of "complex" with "complicated"... I understand they are synonymous in ordinary language, but they couldn't be more different in scientific parlance.

first off - love the Sub-Pop sticker affixed to the laptop......as much as i was able to grasp - which was definitely more than i expected - i found this talk absolutely fascinating. thank you for sharing Mr. Pettitt...

Seriously though, labeling a blue line, a green line, an orange line, a red line, and a purple line as "the red variant" is not an optimal data presentation strategy. Especially right after showing a graph of the "red variant" represented by a red line.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

Lol that was a bit of an oversight but still understandable enough with the commentary

@kamikace7531

Жыл бұрын

That was a confusing moment

@smileyfdave

Жыл бұрын

Yep. Completely lost me.

@rasmusn.e.m1064

Жыл бұрын

I was so glad that this is a youtube video so I could pause and rewind until I got it xD

@DeneF

Жыл бұрын

Welcome to the confusing world of the colourblind, it ain't easy. Lol. Apart from that. Did you enjoy the talk?

When clicking on this I guessed it was going to focus on mutation rate/ population size stabilization and was very happy to find out it was on introns and translation. He presented the information very well, hope to see more like this, Cheers.

@thankmelater1254

Жыл бұрын

Can you tell me, please, what is the minimum number of individuals that must be present in order for the group to be considered a population?

@aaronbedell3753

Жыл бұрын

@@thankmelater1254 Have never considered the difference in number, but I suppose it is two. My understanding of a population is a discrete gene pool; as such, it would only require isolation from others of the species, and the ability to interbreed. Minimum viable population is based a number of variables both internal and external. Hope that helps, but really I’d ask the channel directly, I kinda assume you meant to. Cheers.

@thankmelater1254

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronbedell3753 Thank you. When a whole science refuses to answer the most basic of questions it sucks. Try to get a climate science priest to answer how much weather data it takes to make climate data. All they do is excoriate those who talk about the weather right after they talked about the weather.

@thankmelater1254

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronbedell3753"it would only require isolation from others of the species, and the ability to interbreed." "Species" needs definition in that case. Also "Interbreed"... necessarily must have fertile offspring?

@aaronbedell3753

Жыл бұрын

@@thankmelater1254 I guess "species" would be individuals which could interbreed and therefore effect the gene pool, and "interbreed" would be, yes, creating fertile offspring. But this definition doesn't make the assumption that the population is healthy or will even survive, only that the gene pool made up via the individuals can be measured and has a defined boundry. Makes it useful for trying to collect data on the effects of other variables on that gene pool. Again, I understand it as a discrete geel pool, not a collection of individuals. kinda like I don't see individual ants as individuals, but rather parts or a single hive. And not all ants everywhere just this group of ants, all those individuals rise and fall togeather as one thing. I know using an animal as a metaphor here is kinda silly, but as I understand it (especially for a genetics perspective) it's a discrete gene pool. Hope my thoughts helpful. Cheers

I'm begging you, RI...I'm down on my knees here. Please please please get someone who knows how to do audio so we can get talks that aren't saturated with mouth noises. I can't watch more than about a minute of these before I'm grossed out to the point where I have to turn it off.

@panderichthys_rhombolepis

6 ай бұрын

I totally agree. The speaking has a INCREDIBLY DRY MOUTH, and the mouth sounds drive you batty. You should listen to the RI lecture by Nick Lane. It was impossible to listen to him.

@deadringer-cultofdeathratt8813

Ай бұрын

Mouth sounds are the bane of my existence. It’s a shame that this comment didn’t get popular.

I really enjoy listening to someone with amazing insight, explain something extremely complex in a clean, simple way that I can actually understand.

@caseypalmateer4515

Жыл бұрын

I disagree. But I guess it is just ok...

@ablebaker8664

Жыл бұрын

@@caseypalmateer4515 You disagree that I enjoy listening to someone with amazing insight... 🤣

@alexandroskalogridis8693

Жыл бұрын

@@caseypalmateer4515 I agree with your disagreement. We have seen better…

Brilliant! Love learning the history of introns and complexity and evolution, drift, selection.

@JohnVKaravitis

Жыл бұрын

What exactly did you love about it?

I’m really impressed by the amount of views this video has. If at least 20 % of the people who clicked on it viewed at least half of it without being biologists, I can now say I have faith in humanity. Me, being a theoretical biologist, struggled sometimes to understand the intricacies of this talk, but it was definitely worth it.

@DanDeebster

Жыл бұрын

I'm a software engineer and was keeping up and enjoying until somewhere after 14:46. The _What is genetic drift_ section alone was worth the click and answered the title's question.

@Tinker1950

Жыл бұрын

'theoretical biologist' and didn't already know this stuff - pffft

@savage22bolt32

Жыл бұрын

Dave, how do you know that 20%+ watched >1/2, & that they're not biologists?

@skylark8828

Жыл бұрын

@@savage22bolt32 Because YT has all your stats and info 😂

@Erin-000

Жыл бұрын

I know nothing of biology, I'm uneducated and I believe I may have got something, learned something from watching this. I could be wrong, It definitely makes me yearn for formal education. I suppose I'm grateful I have the internet at least.

Thanks a lot. This was highly informative and there were quite a lot of surprises.

Thank You! This was really interesting. But I think some small changes to some "slides" would have done a world of good. Without the laser pointer some things got kind of lost. I think.

Thank you! It was amazing 🤗

...and so they make a "choice". Despite just correcting himself on using that terminology. I know we're all conditioned to speak in this way but it makes it difficult for those who regularly follow the science to separate processes from agency when we use words like choice and want, etc. To describe things that aren't capable of making choices or having desires.

It’s content like this that keeps me subscribed to the RI channel. Thank you. Far better than some of the earlier “buy my book” talks

@SuperHyperExtra

Жыл бұрын

You mean «Why Dogs Live in a Multiverse?» I agree with you.

@savage22bolt32

Жыл бұрын

People have to make a living.

@KribensaUK

Жыл бұрын

@@savage22bolt32 yes, but there’s ending a talk with “I’ve only touched on the subject here, if you want to in-depth I do so in my book that is described in the comments” and having a copy on the table and constantly showing it like some sort of infomercial.

@savage22bolt32

Жыл бұрын

@@KribensaUK yes, I semi-agree with you. I'm almost on a guilt trip for not buying some of the stuff that great creators are selling. But I know I can't support everyone. And it's not as intrusive as all the GD commercials YT foists on us.

@nHans

Жыл бұрын

​@@KribensaUK I'm sorry you feel that way about authors who talk about their books. I, of course, feel differently: I actually like it if the speaker has published a book about the subject. - It always adds to your credibility when you have a published book. Particularly for a scientist, publishing a popular-science book (not just technical papers) shows that they're a science *communicator* as well. - If the talk interests you and you want to delve deeper, the book becomes a great starting point. (Otherwise I don't even watch the full lecture-I have other things to do.) Indeed, I have read many books only because I watched the corresponding talk first and got hooked. Remember, it's not required that you buy the book-that's completely optional. I mean, sure-most of the time you eat the free samples at the supermarket without thinking twice. But once in a while, you do like that chicken in teriyaki sauce. And you say to yourself, yeah, I could eat more of that. It's nice to have that option available. If you have Amazon Prime, then-in most cases-you don't even have to pay extra-you can read the ebook for free.

"Evolution is nothing if not making the best of a bad job" - Amen to that!

@lilblackduc7312

Жыл бұрын

The most positive proof of the 'Theory of Evolution' known is the fact that Primates (monkeys, apes, baboons, etc.) evolved from Liberal Democrats. 🇺🇸 😎👍☕

@fannyalbi9040

Жыл бұрын

all r bad apple but pick the least bad

please more technical talks like this 😇

Thank I learned a lot and this was to great help.

Note: The yellow arrows near the blue gear DO NOT demonstrate what is stated. They both point in the same rotary direction. A better diagram would have ONE arrow per gear, at first a bidirectional arrow, then a unidirectional arrow.

@SolaceEasy

Жыл бұрын

I have been teaching and presenting information in many different formats and settings for many years. I love science and science presentation. My major was in education, with a science focus.

That was very interesting. Thanks.

Excelente Dr Pettitt, excellent lesson. Truly good! I am at the "ending line" of your research (the mind brain selection and drift) and philosophy. Thanks. (Btw your English is very peculiar. I believe your idiomatic origin is peculiar maybe not native British?). Brasil

@Auriflamme

Жыл бұрын

He uses a few americanisms here and there, but his English is very much British. His accent is a bit difficult to place, the way he pronounces a few words (such as 'father') sounds vaguely north of England, but his general pronounciation is more southern. He may have grown up with a northern or midlands accent which he modified through education - which is pretty common in Britain.

@AbnerChamate

Жыл бұрын

No American pronounce IMPORTANT and ECONOMICAL this way,, open vowels.

I found the key word to be "substrate": neutral genetic drift generates a background of biochemical complexity that natural selection might use to solve a problem somewhere down the road. But doesn't this resemble the basic relationship selection has with the environment in general? Can't this "substrate" be seen as just another feature of the world that selection adapts to and seizes opportunity from? A feature of the genome's environment that just happens to reside within the cell?

"All eukaryotic ... most eukaryotes... start their translation wiith AUG." As you suspected, that's now known not to be the case: "... it was long thought that eukaryotic translation almost always initiates at an AUG start codon, recent advancements in ribosome footprint mapping have revealed that non-AUG start codons are used at an astonishing frequency." See Kearse and Wilusz, "Non-AUG translation: a new start for protein synthesis in eukaryotes", 2017 doi: 10.1101/gad.305250.117

So interesting! Wow. Though lots of complex words and explanations I still got the gist of this lecture and it is mindblowing how nature works so hard to survive and evolve.

@shrimpkins

Жыл бұрын

And because of the gender pay gap, Mother Nature has to work through her lunch break to support her kids!

@thedarkmoon2341

Жыл бұрын

"mindblowing how nature works so hard to survive and evolve." Nature=God.

@Jeremy9697

Жыл бұрын

@@thedarkmoon2341 even if a deity started everything. They are not physically present now and nature has taken action

@Amethyst_Friend

Жыл бұрын

@@thedarkmoon2341 Actually nature = nature

@G_Demolished

Жыл бұрын

@@thedarkmoon2341 Tests in religious schools must be easy to ace. Every answer = God did it.

My ears pricked up when he mentioned leishmania. I've had Leishmaniasis and the current treatment is brutal and can be fatal if the patient cannot tolerate the drug.. If this research identifies an Achilles heel that can produce an alternative treatment it would be a boon to the millions of people (largely in developing countries) that have exposure to this disease.

Wouldn't the introns affect the likelihood of exons being separated by crossover?

Interesting topic, especially for a math guy like me who was never as interested in studying biology. It's really great to have information presented by an expert :)

@0ned

Жыл бұрын

Biologists could likely use your help. Biomathematics began with statistics in the 1700s but has come long ways in the 20th Century. Theory of games of strategy is one imperative for making predictions of aggregate behavior but I've been curious about knot theory in orgonometry. I prefer orgonometry, because like trigonometry, it dispenses with theory and relies purely on measure. How many dimensions does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three that we perceive and countless others for theoreticians to milk our tuition money⸮ Ask a sailor: it's two dimensions, a dimension of insertion and a dimension of yaw!

@LL-wc4wn

Жыл бұрын

Biology bores me to tears.. another math guy here

@0ned

Жыл бұрын

@@LL-wc4wn statistics (again, an earliest historical record of biomathematics) is held among the most boring realm of maths. Ironically, it's also held among the most useful maths for liars, and case in point, maybe the maths of predators and parasites, the most deceptive of life forms⸮

@0ned

Жыл бұрын

Non zero sum games of strategy are downright useful for people who want to succeed in life, score with a mate, earn an honest living, reduce system noise.

@astick5249

Жыл бұрын

@@LL-wc4wn I am the reverse

He doesn't address creationism directly, but parts of this talk explain how evolution produces "irreducibly complex" systems, something which creationists argue is impossible. The end result in his example is a system where you can't remove any of the parts without the system breaking, and yet it was possible for evolution to build the parts of that system and then tie them together step-by-step.

@fukpoeslaw3613

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but why, some of these IDers think, God would tinker about with evolution for so long? (I'm not sure if my grammar was right.... )

Graphs were not clarifying to me. I can see the wilder swings for a small population, which would be expected. But why something died out or didn't, and whether it was blue, or green or whatever, and why, no, totally opaque. The rest was interesting. Unsure I got it all but maybe another viewing would help.

@InvaderMik

Жыл бұрын

During that part of the talk he was discussing random chance over time. There’s no “why” to be had, which is why he ran the simulation many times and showed several of the measured outcomes.

That's my lecturer from University of Aberdeen!

Does anyone have a good resource for a more in-depth explanation of the trans-splicing concept? Also, did he not say that animals both did and did not use trans-splicing?

@thenasadude6878

Жыл бұрын

It looks like many do, but a lot of them (us included) do not. Considering how many animal species there are, this is not surprising. It must also mean that animals are one of those 14 groups that came up with trans splicing themseves, otherwise all animals would have the capability

@gandydancer9710

Жыл бұрын

@@thenasadude6878 There's something wrong with your post. If "animals are one of those 14 groups that came up with trans splicing themse[l]ves, otherwise all animals would have the capabilit" then we would have [at least, have had] it, since we are animals.

@thenasadude6878

Жыл бұрын

@@gandydancer9710 if all animals had trans ability, then it would mean animals inherited the trait from a common ancestor. Since a sizeable portion of animals don't have the trait, they've either lost it (because it never became necessary, which is unlikely - it would mean no damage ever to the introns) or the common ancestor lacked the capability. If the ancestor lacked the trait, then some animal must have at some point "invented" it

@josefkay5013

Жыл бұрын

He used the word "animal" in two different contexts: C. elegans is a member of Kingdom Animalia, so obviously there is at least one "animal" that uses trans-splicing; later, when he was talking about targeting trans-splicing as treatment against things like schistosomiasis, he casually referred to "animals" being unaffected by counter trans-splicing agents--I suspect he meant creatures such as cats and dogs and livestock, which don't trans-splice.

So it's all "lost in transcription". Nicely delivered. Interesting to see chance and opportunism and natural selection all being part of the mix that creates the biology we see around us.

Population Genetics = Genetics + Statistics! Each science is quite complex and when both of them are fused together make "Population Genetics" extremely complex!

@ 17:00 I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here but I don't think Eukaryotes are single celled organisms at all, they contain many organelles inside their cytoplasm from what I have read. Or does he mean that eukaryotes are single cells which is pretty obvious really.

Jonathan does more to PROVE evolution than anyone I've seen before. Thanks.

@wilhelmtaylor9863

Жыл бұрын

@@gregoryt8792 → The probability of your being correct is 10^-100 (inverse of a googel). You don't have a clue.

A recessive mutation like blue eyes would remain hidden for many generations before the first blue eyed person was born. An interesting dynamic

@petergleeson295

Жыл бұрын

@@davepowell7168 I also have the blue eye mutation. Does it produce any advantage that would account for its popularity?

@davepowell7168

Жыл бұрын

@@petergleeson295 Well there's the Nordic master race possibility and the probability that some women just love blue eyes? No vision advantage from iris color l know of yet

@xianseah4847

Жыл бұрын

All albino have blue eyes, it is a deletion of pigmentation genes. The blue colour is just an effect of light instead of blue pigments.

@davepowell7168

Жыл бұрын

The leucistic humans walk amongst us but are penalised for being truthful , Julian Assange is imprisoned as if he had been a traitor to an armed force which he was not part of. The guy was a journalist, that's all

@terranovarubacha5473

Жыл бұрын

@@davepowell7168 probably some men too

I'd like to hear more evidence that the variation advantage of introns wasn't present from pretty early on. Seems like it's just an assumption that "then" they were unilaterally harmful.

@hugoblack4133

Жыл бұрын

So many assumptions here…

@lucvangestel2123

Жыл бұрын

great subject but I did not hear the why or how of the drifting started between the 10 and 10.000, 😢 only a lot of assumptions, would like to understand that better before I can go on to the rest of assuming after, to get the rest followed and understood all with in my brain, and space time

@josefkay5013

Жыл бұрын

Why did they exist at all?

Funny guy. In a very small circle. Loved it!

That was fascinating.

Really enjoyed the lecture and learnt something new!

@donaldmcronald8989

Жыл бұрын

Learned* 👍

@davepowell7168

Жыл бұрын

@@donaldmcronald8989 No, we are international and its just preference. However l learned you don't have autocorrect and are pedantic.. Just jesting, stay fit sharpwit

@paulcooper1223

Жыл бұрын

@@donaldmcronald8989 Learnt: past simple and past participle of learn Check before you correct someone...

I clicked on this thinking it was another KZread creationist telling us "how the Theory Of Evolution is wrong" by misunderstanding it or misrepresenting it. Instead I got a very edifying lecture that gave me a lot of details I didn't know. That's all I need after a day of programming to make the day worthwhile.

@szymonbaranowski8184

Жыл бұрын

What did you learn from it really?

@jonasfermefors

Жыл бұрын

@@szymonbaranowski8184 Several things including how population size affects evolution.

@kinetic7609

Жыл бұрын

Eh, does it need to be explicitly said? The fact that we have literal code embedded within us should be enough to tell you...

@jonasfermefors

Жыл бұрын

@@kinetic7609 It shouldn't need to be but I like answering science deniers so I get a lot of their videos popping up in my feed. This was much more pleasant.

This is confirming my armchair hypothesis - why do we so few transition fossils - because in a time of transition, populations had to be small, to fix changes, and therefore the probability to fossilize must have been small... In big populations, you see just slow and small changes... fascinating.

I absolutely love your shirt. Sorry I love your discussion as well. I live in the county where Wilkesboro Elementary is located.

@genertashiro2164

Жыл бұрын

I too grew up there. I don't recall Jonathan in any class of mine! Must be a story that goes with that tee....

I love this guy, he even says kephalopod (the right pronunciation) 👍🏽

Could someone please please break the 5-6 main points of this lecture down, for someone who doesn't have a deep background in molecular biology?

@TomiTapio

Жыл бұрын

Main point: zero cost neutral genetic drift happens. Later, something may break, or become advantageous, and then the neutral protein/system gets "locked in the population". Also, at low population sizes, chance may cause a slightly hurtful mutation to become fixed in the population,because "eh, good enough".

@greggeisenberg9196

Жыл бұрын

@@TomiTapio What is the significance of something neutral getting fixed in the population? Thanks!

@slthbob

Жыл бұрын

@@greggeisenberg9196 It justifies genetic drift as the default setting. A big data nugget for diversity and isolation induced speciation.

@nmarbletoe8210

Жыл бұрын

@@greggeisenberg9196 Neutral mutations becoming fixed in different populations can help trace the ancestry of the populations.

Fascinating enough to listen to all the way through and yet too complicated for this Eukaryotic mind.. Perhaps enough to note another’s comment that ponders whether this is similar to the way data transfer and compression works on computers. I’ll go with that.

at this point ive learned so much from the royal institute! Love spreading free information!

I'm a computational physicist who works in genomics and I believe this theory is wildly incorrect. I think there is a very clear, testable and evolutionarily sound reason for the existence of introns in our genomes, further that the larger and more complex an organisms genome is, the more "spacers" it needs to self-organize in a way that supports computation. In order for cells to compute reliably the chromatin in our differentiated cells needs to be highly structured to be systematically accessible to computation. We know that the way that large bodies of chromatin self-organize is to form helix's of helix's wrapped around 4 types of constant diameter structures called histones. According to information theory, we can't predict how or when a given piece of code will complete a useful calculation. Another way of stating this is that we can't predict how long a program will need to be to solve a given problem without writing the code. Gene's come in arbitrary lengths that need to be fully accessible for transcription. They must be organized by being wrapped around constant diameter structures, which are all in turn tightly coiled up inside the cell. In order for our epigenetic machinery to systematically access complete (arbitrary length) genomes wrapped around constant diameter histones, we need spacers. Our man-made programs are full of spacer data which is usually just zero bits for similar reasons. In a biological system, these spacers would probably need to have more specific hydrophilic or hydrophobic properties represented by longer runs of certain nucleotides in order to provide "handles" for epigenetic machinery to systematically unwind the coiled up chromatin, identify the relevant coding sequences and ignore the spacer data. What's strange to me about modern biology is that you don't hear this said clearly anywhere and yet the field of information theory tells us that in order for DNA to compute, there MUST be some amount of spacer data to facilitate decoding. Some or all of what we call Introns MUST be spacers. Over the years I read and heard many of these really extreme and highly implausible explanations for what has been called "junk DNA". If you're going to wind a 3 mile long strand of DNA around a nucleus that fits inside a single cell and need to access a gene in the middle of it, you need enormously complex machinery and padding to untangle that gene and expose it in a systematic way. In this video, the "expert" is portraying genetic drift as a cause of junk DNA, and presumably various genetic infirmities. The idea of "genetic drift" has a very close analog in modern AI learning systems. In order to train a neural network to "think", it needs a certain amount of noise to enable it to learn efficiently. If we don't add noise to a neural network, it will tend to overfit the sample of data it is trained to. The same is probably true of evolution. If you want evolution to "LEARN" the optimal genetic solution to maximize the survival of a population you DON'T want it to overfit one new genetic trait. Like neural network training, you want each new (locally beneficial) mutation to be tested in the context of an entire population of different environmental and genetic circumstances to select the overall NETWORK of genes that collectively maximize for survival. This is how modern neural networks have achieved such incredible advances in learning speed. In the context of this video, it means that evolution works best and as intended in large populations. If the population set is low.... then survival is an emergency and spreading a new incrementally beneficial new mutation rapidly may be essential to avoiding extinction. All of this would be an explanation for how evolution is incredibly efficient and intelligent about how it innovates rather than a rationale for why it must be sloppy and broken. This kind of analysis smacks of anthropomorphic bias. If a scientist encounters inexplicable natural phenomena, it's the phenomenon that must be stupid, not the scientist who can't figure it out.

@josemariatrueba4568

Жыл бұрын

Starting from the end, there is not a single proof that supports DNA changes are natural nor random. They could be much easier artificially made, which would explain things like changes at embrionary stages much easier.

@mathiasrennochaves3533

Жыл бұрын

While I think you have a point, your theory is more complex in the sense that the genetic drift is always the h0 hipotesis while the natural selection hipotesis requires to be proven.

@slurperslurpslurp2670

Жыл бұрын

Great perspective thanks

@thankmelater1254

Жыл бұрын

What is the minimum number of individuals needed for a group for it to be called a population? One?

@EvangeliseGood

10 күн бұрын

@@josemariatrueba4568I am not a scientist, but I know that reproduction is not random- I think the application of ‘machine’ rationale is flawed. I am trying to learn about these things as it seems our world and our lives are being shaped based on assumptions that reduce life to random.

There are some older videos showing this working in computer models. It's amazing what can suddenly change when a new mutation joins forces with an old mutation. Suddenly, a new variant is dominant and rules the world.

13:00 - coś czego w sumie mozan by sie domyślec w podstawóce. :) 31:00 - to jest piekne w nauce; ta niepewność ;) 43:10 - objawy dysleksji ?

@szymonbaranowski8184

Жыл бұрын

😂😂

This is a harder lecture to follow than some RI lectures I've viewed. I did get a bit lost I confess. I have a medical degree (from over 50 years ago), and I'm not a complete science dummy but I think Jonathan Pettit tried to cover too ground much here. Darwin did indeed have a problem, his theory of evolution was developed without the knowledge of Mendel's experiments, that showed the independent and random inheritance of genetic characters, and gave the mechanism by which organisms could maintain genetic differences and change over all future generations (which is the puzzle that Darwin wasn't able to solve). Fast forwarding to the subject of this lecture, so much more more detailed and fascinating knowledge, but the basic principle remains the same. Still, thanks for the effort Jonathan, hopefully others found the lecture more illuminating than I did.

Disappointing lack of beavers.

Darwin died 140 years ego. It's like saying What Newton won't tell you about gravity. PS: I found the talk really interesting and informative. PSS: you shouldn't take me serious. I'm not a scientist. I work in IT.

@jjackomin

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, you have a problem with this nonsense too. We didn't know anything about DNA until long after Darwin was dead. This guy is a clown.

@NiphanosTheLost

Жыл бұрын

A more apt title may be "What Darwin's model doesn't cover"

@tonyhussey3610

Жыл бұрын

Yeah..you probably best turn the Darwin book off and On again.. new chapters will be updated then...

@nmarbletoe8210

Жыл бұрын

@D R Lamarck was a little bit right. Epigenetics does not quite work the way he imagined... a Giraffe child having a longer neck because momma Giraffe had to pick tall fruit.

@crinolynneendymion8755

Жыл бұрын

@@jjackomin Are you an expert on circus performers? Wow, didn't know you get a degree in that! Did a google search, nothing came up? Please tell us where you go to get it.

It began with the premise that non-genetic mutation is only occurs where it doesnt cause 'unstuck' mutation but isn't that a itself a function genetic inheritance and natural selection? Or what have I missed?

13:15 I know this as "It's not the Better, which is the fiercest enemy of Good, it's Good Enough."

@briarboy11

Жыл бұрын

The perfect is the enemy of the good. The good enough keeps species alive.

While undoubtedly a good teacher, I get the feeling there wasn't a lot of time spent adapting the material for the situation of under an hour general information. One of the least appealing presentations I've seen here.

@js2010ish

Жыл бұрын

Yes, cheers to the students who said this was boring and badly taught. I concur.

@andrew348

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like you are looking for pop-science.

I find myself in the position of Dr. Pettitt's imagined student, rolling my eyes at his obscuration of the obvious. Yes, if the numbers are small the Laws of Large Numbers won't apply, and chance can swamp natural selection... but regarding this as some alternate method of evolution seems like a category error. And saying that it's a matter of population size is obtunded. It's not the size of the overall population that matters to calculate the chance of a trait's extinction, but the absolute number of individuals who possess it. Then he wanders off into material that doesn't seem to be on point, whatever that point was.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

It's not necessarily true that the absolute number of individuals is most important. Being a smaller percentage means that group will have less access to resources

@gandydancer9710

Жыл бұрын

@@olbluelips There is no general reason that I can see why a Darwinian-fitter subset should have less-than-average access to resources, and nothing in Pettitt's account suggested that, that I can recall.

@K1lostream

Жыл бұрын

You were nicer than I would be - I managed fifteen minutes and lost the will to live.

@MyMy-tv7fd

Жыл бұрын

yes, rather like the Darwin original, 'On the Origin of Species', which waffles for 450 pages and does not explain the origin of even a single species, not one

@chinobambino5252

Жыл бұрын

Full disclosure, i have not watched this video yet so don’t have much context. But as someone who has studied population genetics, I can say that it is true that population size directly influences the probability that an allele will become “fixed” in a population (either completely lost or completely ubiquitous). The phenomena where chance events overpower natural selection is called genetic drift, and some say is actually the dominant mode of evolution. Genetic drift becomes more probable with lower population sizes, and selection is much stronger in large population sizes, because selection coefficients are often extremely small and so therefore the population needs to be large for them to have an effect. This is all well established and really more rooted in statistics than biology. I really enjoyed population genetics in undergrad because it almost entirely abstracts away all of the biology, and allows the calculation of things like fixation probability and directions of evolution solely based on allele frequency and selection coefficients.

Very enlightening lecture. Evolution at the fundamental cell level. My admiration for evolutionary theory and Darwin, , who developed it when genes were not heard off.

@hosoiarchives4858

5 ай бұрын

There is no evolution

So what is the green line? Where does it come from?

@xianseah4847

Жыл бұрын

Possibly jumping genes.

I came for the population genetics, stayed for the memes. 😀

This was a great talk. What it led me to think is that if we do discover life elsewhere in the Universe, there is a fairly decent possibility of it having things about it vastly different from what we've come to expect of life here on Earth.

@supertubemind

Жыл бұрын

It's fairly guaranteed that life elsewhere in the Universe won't resemble anything we are familiar with on Earth. And they will be carnivorous with a taste for human flesh! 😜

@longcastle4863

Жыл бұрын

@@supertubemind But having a taste for human flesh would resemble not a few creatures on planet Earth, including, in rare cases, some with human flesh themselves ; _o_

Great content as always say 🌍💖

He suggested that changes in organisms move from simpler to more complex. Does it ever move from more complex to simpler?

@machintelligence

Жыл бұрын

All of the time. Many parasites are simplified versions of more complex animals. They may have complex life cycles, though.

@brucelivingston2582

Жыл бұрын

Isn’t it called devolution? For kicks, read Vonnegut’s “Galapagos,” where humans just go dumb with a vestigial brain.

Clickbait title implying this has something to do with the Darwin's field of research. Darwin was a naturalist, not a biochemist. You know what else Darwin won't tell you about - blockchain technology. So what? Not his field.

I wonder how many folks in the audience 'get' the "this is fine" meme at 23:00 :)

@AdityaMehendale

Жыл бұрын

More at 25:14 - wonderful :D

14:50 Top: DNA Middle: Caveman Bottom: Elvish

Nick Lane makes us see the evolution of the Earth with fresh eyes.

Can't help but feel this is exactly how data transfer and compression works in a computer system.

@fungi42021

Жыл бұрын

it is

@lettersnames6922

Жыл бұрын

Really? Can you explain the computer version to me? I couldn’t understand the biological one…

In an abundant environment nature has an opportunity to do many experiments. In an environment of scarcity nature relies on the most reliable methods of perpetuating a species. Aside: In humans abundance brings selfishness. Scarcity brings cooperation. Transitioning from scarcity to abundance brings joy. Transitioning from abundance to scarcity brings strife.

@annelbeab8124

Жыл бұрын

Your equation is based on what? Too many situations where scarcity sparks egotism to an extent we find harrowing. The fear of scarcity remains in times of abundance and could trigger egotism as a preventive measure. Not that I approve of it.

@ArtII2Long

Жыл бұрын

@@annelbeab8124 there is a big difference between perceived scarcity and very real scarcity where shelter, food and water availability is uncertain.

@DistinctiveBlend

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtII2Long I think you have that backwards as when water and food are scarce people are going to want the last drops for themselves, not others.

H.Dunsworth's quote, at 13 in, is roughly what I often ascribe to Wikipedia. Both with love, and not.

Is it fair to say that population genetics determines the choices that natural selection has to choose from?

Jonathan: "Evolution is not going to the trouble of building ..." What does that mean? It was not Darwin as far as I know, who believed that evolution can perceive troubles. Evolution has no direction, no intention, does not avoid trouble or all these sorts of things. Evolution is the result of surviving specimens over a long period of time.

@deathbykindnes

Жыл бұрын

It's just a more digestible way of saying "Evolutionary pressures will favor mutations with fewer superfluous features, and the result will be niche optimization".. So, evolution will not abide superflous eyes or complexity of eyes based on the niche. "The survival of that which does not suck too badly." --Holly Dunsworth

@simonlee3133

Жыл бұрын

Evolution results in 90% of species becoming extinct.

@Cor97

Жыл бұрын

@@deathbykindnes you use words like complexity and superflous. Is an elephant more complex than a bacterium? If so, why do we have elephants if bacteria are sufficient? If not so, what does complexity then mean?

@LuigiSimoncini

Жыл бұрын

that, and all the use of "invented"... nobody invented noting here

@deathbykindnes

Жыл бұрын

An elephant and a bacterium are as complex as they need to be in order to be fit enough to continue performing in their niche...

I am unsure of the infestation argument: "more infestation less survivability", because having more mitochondria made those ancient eucaryotes much more energy productive. In fact, aerobic respiration gives 18 times more energy than anaerobic respiration. Mitochondria could use oxygen, meanwhile, the host cell only had anaerobic respiration at its disposal. Perhaps the chaos of a larger infestation was more than compensated by energy production?

@jilskehupkes7729

2 ай бұрын

I think he meant the amount of infestation of the introns, not of the amount of mitochondria.

17:55 the funnest of the fun facts.

I would've expected a more professional, non-sensationalistic post title than this.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

It's not *that* sensationalist imho. Darwin was just early, so there're plenty of things he couldn't tell you about evolution. He was obviously right about natural selection, but we're many years ahead in research

@KaiHenningsen

Жыл бұрын

@@olbluelips Yes, but if you look at the actual talk, Darwin is barely mentioned at all.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

@@KaiHenningsen lol that's a fair point honestly. But I think the "Darwin" part of the presentation was when we were under the simpler assumption that Selection's influence on determining genetics was about the same regardless of the population size. Seeing the disadvantageous trait totally outcompete the advantageous trait due to random factors at population 100 was interesting. Not because it's super surprising that unlikely things happen randomly, but because it affects the way you look at traits in populations. If some trait arose when the population was relatively small, selection might not explain its presence as well as you thought!

@InvaderMik

Жыл бұрын

@@KaiHenningsen on the other hand, if it’s a talk about things Darwin didn’t know, then Darwin’s relevance to the discussion would be very small! 😊

That was bloody interesting. But the audience seems to have had a sense of humour bred out of them.

@Autists-Guide

Жыл бұрын

Were there jokes?

@MarkDibley

Жыл бұрын

@@Autists-Guide only if you were clever enough to get them ;-P

@Autists-Guide

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkDibley Too distracted by the "so"s and "m'kay"s.

@jared_bowden

Жыл бұрын

The audio for many recorded talks like this is either just the lapel-mic or the lapel + ambient mics but with the ambients cranked way low in the mix. This is because audiences are surprisingly loud. A result of this, though, is that audience laughter is basically impossible to hear (and always leads to KZread comments mentioning the 'unlively' audience). I think this is what the RI is doing - If you listen to the QA sections, they pass a microphone around, and you can't hear the person talking until right when they bring the mic up to their face.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

@@Autists-Guide imagine not automatically ignoring these

Genetic drift is a concept we use when we can't actually track the directionality of selection ('random') so we call it drift. It's just selection.

Thank you for your video.

There are so many unknowns that all our current theories are almost certainly wrong. It's like physics in 400 BC.

@KaiHenningsen

Жыл бұрын

More realistically like physics around maybe 1800, I'd say.

@tesmith47

Жыл бұрын

Possibly wrong, but incomplete

@steven11101010

Жыл бұрын

The old axiom - the more you know about a subject, the more you realize how much you don't know.

Clickbait title. You lost a view for this. Next time you'll lose a subscriber.

@olbluelips

Жыл бұрын

You boosted engagement by leaving a comment. Too bad!

@k1ry4n

Жыл бұрын

@@olbluelips I like the channel. I just hate clickbaits. The only thing I can do is let them know.

@godfreypigott

Жыл бұрын

@@k1ry4n Good to see you focussing on what is important like a real science enthusiast.

@k1ry4n

Жыл бұрын

@@godfreypigott Being a little more than a "science enthusiast" I like scientific rigor. The fact that this is "science communication" channel aimed at the general public doesn't excuse the authors when they use this kind of cheap tricks.

@godfreypigott

Жыл бұрын

@@k1ry4n If that is your idea of rigour then you are probably a denier of climate change and covid.

Evolution is a lovely description.. to understand the process one would have to properly understand virus for a start, which is an extremely daunting proposition....

This seems very related to the law of large numbers.

Darwin is dead … Darwin can’t tell you anything.

@chrishoover4888

Жыл бұрын

but for language and literacy

@Bomtombadi1

Жыл бұрын

@@chrishoover4888 which is still a crock, because anti-evolution nitwits still think evolution is verbatim what Darwin originally wrote about.

Some people must now think their "imaginary friend" made things so unnecessarily complicated.

@SuperHyperExtra

Жыл бұрын

Yes, he/she/them was/were _very_ sloppy...

The title attracted me, then the decision or perceived need to explain what complicated means, quickly turned me off. Perhaps I'll watch another time when I'm feeling more forgiving.

Saltationism held that new species arise as a result of large mutations. It was seen as a much faster alternative to the Darwinian concept of a gradual process of small random variations being acted on by natural selection.

You should speak more carefully and outline the conditions of your simulations more completely. I found this to be a bad enough fault that before 10 minutes I had had it and quit watching. I have taken population genetics and enjoyed it very much. Your lecture I did not enjoy at all.

How about a button-down shirt, a jacket, maybe...God forbid...a tie? So disrespectful to such an institution!

How does genetic drift and population genetics apply to self reproducing organisms?

Are introns those parts others call "junk DNA"?

Darwin won't tell me a lot about evolution. He's dead, and knew nothing about genetics or cell biology.

@gandydancer9710

Жыл бұрын

Too bad that my downvote isn't visible.

@nHans

Жыл бұрын

Ah, a literalist. Uses English like a computer programming language-assumes that what is said is what is meant. Isn't aware-or tends to forget-that human language is a social construct, and that figurative usage is the more common form in human-to-human communication. As Darwin would say, this organism hasn't evolved higher language faculties.

I loved him in Elephant Man

I wish the lecturer had chosen a less 'click-baity' title for the talk, which on first impressions almost sounds like the title of a talk a creationist might give, attempting to discredit Darwin, and thereby the science of evolution itself. Obviously, this is not a creationist lecture, but the title could have been chosen to be just as attention-grabbing, but with a more constructive-sounding phrasing. Perhaps something like, "What more we've learned since Darwin," or something to that effect. Anyway, I do appreciate the lecture itself and also the specific topic being emphasized. Just the title bugs me a bit. 😅

@davidwatson2399

Жыл бұрын

This is RI not AIG. That should have been a huge hint.

Contemporary biologists accept that mutation and selection both play roles in evolution; the mainstream view is that while mutation supplies material for selection in the form of variation, all non-random outcomes are caused by natural selection.[77] Masatoshi Nei argues instead that the production of more efficient genotypes by mutation is fundamental for evolution, and that evolution is often mutation-limited.[78] The endosymbiotic theory implies rare but major events of saltational evolution by symbiogenesis.[79] Carl Woese and colleagues suggested that the absence of RNA signature continuum between domains of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya shows that these major lineages materialized via large saltations in cellular organization.[80] Saltation at a variety of scales is agreed to be possible by mechanisms including polyploidy, which certainly can create new species of plant,[81][82] gene duplication, lateral gene transfer,[83] and transposable elements (jumping genes).[84]

@praveenmallar

2 ай бұрын

Drift is random changes. It's not adaptive evolution. Natural selection fights maladaptive changes.

Watched all of it 48:08

Missed this - too early at UCSB. You didn't give a date of knowledge incorporation - was this 1984? 1994? etc.? Really want to know more - will look it up - I am not a literal sponge. Another thing - let's talk about Dawkins's original Meme's .. K? Here goes: Can we assume or interpret the mess we have in the human dialog system as a stepped-system of meta-genetic incorporation in a parallel model? Where there is perhaps the recognition - acceptance - incorporation into something like the public/meta-societal genome in these areas: 1) Social Science 2) Law 3) Policy 4) Entertainment .. and one could add a few others - and not necessarily in any order? I would show up during open hours or happy hour but I am lucky to just renew my driver's license at the moment and I am hiding out in a still barely tolerable bit of California.

Excellent talk

The neutral theory of molecular evolution, proposed by Motoo Kimura in 1968, holds that at the molecular level most evolutionary changes and most of the variation within and between species is not caused by natural selection but by genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral. A neutral mutation is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. The neutral theory allows for the possibility that most mutations are deleterious, but holds that because these are rapidly purged by natural selection, they do not make significant contributions to variation within and between species at the molecular level. Mutations that are not deleterious are assumed to be mostly neutral rather than beneficial.

@chickenfist1554

Жыл бұрын

Neutral mutations might not affect an organism in it's lifetime but it could affect the population later on, especially if the environment changes. What is neutral now might not be neutral in the future. It could be beneficial

If there is a creationist watching this, I would be curious to read your take on this lecture. To be sure, I'm not trying to set you up to poke fun at you or to humour you. I'm genuinely curious what you think.

@An_Idiot_in_the_Wild

Жыл бұрын

Creationists do not actually think. They just "believe".