Most people don’t fully understand evolution. Sponsored by Hostinger – visit https://ve42.co/hostingern8n and use the code VERITASIUM to get an extra discount on top of the sale prices.
If you’re looking for a molecular modelling kit, try Snatoms, a kit I invented where the atoms snap together magnetically – https://ve42.co/SnatomsV
Sign up for the Veritasium newsletter for weekly science updates – https://ve42.co/Newsletter
We have a tabletop game launching! Pledge your support now – https://ve42.co/KickStarterD
▀▀▀
0:00 Why does poop smell bad?
2:51 The Beginning Life
7:15 What is gene mutation?
8:01 Simulating Evolution
13:25 How natural selection works
16:39 What do we pass on?
19:40 Kin Selection
22:04 The Selfish Gene
25:35 It’s all a simulation
▀▀▀
A big thanks to Dr. Jack Szostak at the University of Chicago, Dr. John Sutherland at Cambridge University, Dr. Joanna Masel at the University of Arizona & Dr. Gerald Joyce at the Salk Institute for their expertise and help with the video.
And a huge thank you to Joe Hanson from @besmart for his help!
Check out @PrimerBlobs here!
Check out Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene here – https://ve42.co/SGRD
▀▀▀
References: https://ve42.co/SelfishGeneRefs
Images & Video:
Emperor Penguins Chicks via National Geographic – https://ve42.co/NatGeoPenguin
Child in bed – https://ve42.co/FeverChild
Photo of G.C. Williams – https://ve42.co/GCWilliams
Photo of J. M. Smith – https://ve42.co/JMSmith
Photo of Bob Trivers – https://ve42.co/RTrivers
▀▀▀
Special thanks to our Patreon supporters:
Adam Foreman, Albert Wenger, Alex Porter, Alexander Tamas, Anton Ragin, Anupam Banerjee, armedtoe, Bertrand Serlet, Blake Byers, Bruce, Dave Kircher, David Johnston, David Tseng, Evgeny Skvortsov, Garrett Mueller, Gnare, gpoly, Ibby Hadeed, Jeromy Johnson, Jon Jamison, Juan Benet, KeyWestr, Kyi, Lee Redden, Marinus Kuivenhoven, Matthias Wrobel, Meekay, meg noah, Michael Bush, Michael Krugman, Orlando Bassotto, Paul Peijzel, Richard Sundvall, Robert Oliveira, Sam Lutfi, Tj Steyn, Ubiquity Ventures, wolfee
▀▀▀
Writers: Gregor Čavlović, Casper Mebius, Daniel Leonard & Derek Muller
Producer & Director: Gregor Čavlović
Editor: Peter Nelson
Camera Operator: Andrew Abballe
Animators: Fabio Albertelli, Andrew Neet, Emma Wright & Peter Nelson
Illustrator: Jakub Misiek
Simulations: Callum Cuttle
Researchers: Aakash Singh Bagga & Callum Cuttle
Thumbnail Designers: Abdallah Rabah, Ren Hurley & Ben Powell
Production Team: Josh Pitt, Matthew Cavanagh, Anna Milkovic & Zoe Heron
Executive Producers: Derek Muller & Casper Mebius
Additional video/photos supplied by Getty Images, Storyblocks
Music from Epidemic Sound
The initial odds are very, very high. That's why it never satisfied me. Mathematically, the universe isn't old enough for this to happen.
😪
It's just another form of entropy reduction.
Could this explain why it seems racism is inherent in humans? Sort of like an abstraction of genetic competition.
For me this entire approach is absurd and so is Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. I wonder how many professional biologists still believes this nonsense. What we know is that Genes are primeraly resposible to provide the infrastructure that alow the cells to grow, specify and duplicate. The rest is primarily the responsibility of cells, the organs and the entire organism. That's why changes to the genom very rarely contribute to improved organism survival and most mutations either kill the organism or do nothing at all. Biology are many orders of magnitude more complex and wonderful than the credit Veritasum gives it.
lmao hes not even happy in videos anymore after private eq***
My current way of viewing evolution is "whatever exists, exists and if something has a higher chane of existing, it might exist longer". It accounts for random chance and doesn't even discriminate between organic and inorganic. I feel that this video was a good reminder that the purpose of science isn't to just create vague philosophical views of the world, but to actually answer questions like "why do we see so much animal diversity?"
I think what confuses evolution sceptics most is the humanising language used to describe it. Your genes don't "care" about survival. Evolution isn't a "battle" that intentionally "selects" for reproduction. It's as simple as, if the mistake in your genetic code happens to effect the efficiency of your reproduction compared to others, that mistake will probably survive the next few generations at least.
Thats cool and all, but now explain how the initial what you call "Spawn rate" occurred.
“The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like “All tables are tables” is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that “Natural selection …turns out …to be a tautology”. (6) However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an “enormous power …of explanation”. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as “almost tautological”, (7) and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. *My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme*. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.
I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
What is important is to realize the explanatory task of natural selection; and especially to realize what can be explained without the theory of natural selection.
We may start from the remark that, for sufficiently small and reproductively isolated populations, the Mendelian theory of genes and the theory of mutation and recombination together suffice to predict, without natural selection, what has been called “genetic drift”. If you isolate a small number of individuals from the main population and prevent them from interbreeding with the main population, then, after a time, the distribution of genes in the gene pool of the new population will differ somewhat from that of the original population. This will happen even if selection pressures are completely absent.
–
(6) C. H. Waddington, “Evolutionary Adaptation”, in S. Tax (ed.) Evolution After Darwin: volume I –
The Evolution of Life, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1960, pp. 381-402; see p. 385.
(7) Objective Knowledge, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, p. 241.”
___________
Quoted from:
Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind by Karl POPPER December 1978 Dialectica vol. 32, issue 3-4, pp. 339-355