if the theory of evolution as warrior defied all than distributed maybe not
altered well in some cases
shouldn't from
licensure
you may smile at this hahhaha catfish
of she's as you're being serious
well then let's try to clear up what the theory of evolution is
and whether it really does predict that new species will spring out of a jar of
peanut butter
the one thing we all know about the theory of evolution is that it was
proposed by charles darwin about a hundred and fifty years ago
not quite
the idea that organisms of both was floating around for two thousand years
before darwin
and was revived a bit before his time by john baptiste le marque
but it didn't gain much ground because there was no obvious mechanism by which
one type of animal could change into another
mark suggested that maybe animals change because they
felt the need to change
it didn't sound very scientific
and with no evidence to support it the idea didn't go very far
what darwin did was to show a plausible mechanism by which these changes could
happen
and let's not forget poor old alfred wallis who came up with the same idea
and published it jointly
the paper they road was this
darwin had come up with what he called the principle of natural selection
these days we tend to call this the theory of evolution as a kind of
shorthand
but that's confusing
because we also use the term theory of evolution
to describe the fact that organisms evolve i want to leave the physical
evidence and the proof of evolution for the next video
in this video i just want to look at the mechanism to see whether sitting in our
own shares are not doing a bit of research
we can predict evolution in animals purely on the basis of what we know
but animals replicate themselves and that the replication isn't perfect
there's always variation
just taking these two known facts and nothing else
what do we expect might happen if we keep copying a hypothetical animal
generation after generation in a changing environment
let's say the hypothetical sleeps in a tropical climate
grazing happily on crossed paths
we know from our two principles that not every hypothetical since the same this
one has been born with a slightly longer mc
this one has slightly longer legs
the third has slightly longer close
and the fourth as a slightly area body
overtime herds of hypothetical spread across the continent
but the climate changes in the continent dries up
only scrubbing bushes and hardy cuba's can survive
the hypotheticals with the slightly longer net can obviously get two more
leads the next neighbors
inevitably colour and longer necktie pacifica
better fed and fitter
and therefore reproducible
a few generations later the drought has caused overall numbers to dwindle but
there are more long neck down a mls but natural selection doesn't suddenly stop
just because i have region etc length is increased
the longest of long necks now has an advantage over ordinary long necks
and so the process continues
bud so easy to understand you have to wonder why it's so misunderstood i'm
sure he's going to see if it does not agree on a believe an adolescent alright
for the sake of republican candidates and peanut butter man
i'll break this process and the steps
and we'll see where the problem lies
surely no argument there
by which i mean children alike their parents and inherit their traits
for example if it gets colder animals with harrier bodies will have a slightly
better chance of survival pretty obvious
like genes for harry buddies
genes that duncan for these advantages tend not to get passed on because the
animals that carry them how to lower chance of survival
after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection
some creation is preaches and now in bracing them
well they have to
as more more animal species turned up in the fossil record
noah's ark was in danger of sinking under the weight
so creationist preaches now propose that noah fill the ark with different kinds
of animals
and that these later evolved in branched out into the huge variety we see today
but while real evolution takes millions of years
creationist evolution squeezes all these changes
into a couple of thousand
did you take a look at this great video on super revolution
but they accept natural selection with one important caveat
now that's an interesting conclusion
what physical evidence to they have to back it up
allotted
in view of actual evidence creationist support their contention with one single
argument
that evolution into a new species has never been observed
in mammals that's hardly surprising
it just wouldn't notice
after all the lonely took sixty years to turn this
into this
but i doubt the george bush noticed any day-to-day changes when you looked in
the mirror
if every scientific phenomenon had to be directly observe them we could wave
goodbye to concepts like the flow of electricity
all the splitting of atoms
or the movement of the solar system around our galaxy
none of these can be directly seen their inferred from other observations
i'll leave the evidence s pc asian for the next video
and look at this through the example of our hypotheticals
we've seen how it can grow taller overtime in order to survive a change of
climate
but there may be other ways of surviving
this hypotheticals for example
may not be able to compete well for leaves but because of it's longer closet
candied more easily for cuba's
so it would have a better chance of survival
and its genes will be passed on
the question is not whether the hypothetical sweet range of the time
but what could possibly stop these changes from happening
each generational change maybe tiny
but millions of years of accumulated change in a changing environment leads
to two completely different animals
the question is whether their d_n_a_ would by then be so different that they
could no longer breed
in the next video will see if there's any physical evidence to give us the
answer
anti abolitionist have other objections which come up time and again
well if you're imagining something like this
then obviously you kant
but using our theory of natural selection and breaking it down into
revolutionary steps
it's easy to understand
simple organisms would have a sensory systems like the amoeba which consents
heat cold and chemicals
this could then evolve into a sensory system with a central processor
just like any insects
individuals with better organize centralized nervous systems
would be able to do more things
and pass on this improve trade
the central processor would get bigger and better
again in stages i won't spend time explaining the evolution of the i hear
because there are a number of good videos on youtube to do that job
including this one
no evolution requires variation if information is a fancy way of saying
bigger is harrier bodies and longer next
then fine
we know that happens
we can see it
if information means miraculously adding completely new paltz
and then of course that doesn't happen
and we know why
in the next video i'll show the evidence that animals adapting assisting
morphology for new tasks
trying to characterize evolution as an accident doesn't change what it is
all the evidence for it
and clearly there's nothing random about natural selection itself
because gene survive only if their best suited to survive
mutations adjust the inevitable result of d_n_a_ that didn't make a perfect
copy
and they're very common
the result is variations not some science fiction army of mutant ninja
turtles
in fact there's new evidence that mutations don't play such an important
role in natural selection
and this might be a good time to look at what we've learned since dorling
at the time darwin and wallace publish their paper on natural selection
louis pasteur was developing his pathogenic theory of med san
the idea that germs cause disease
but it would be laughable to presume that biologist haven't learned anything
new about pathogens since eighteen sixty
of course are knowledge has advanced so why would on the ledge of evolution be
any different
biologist now know that mutations may not be the big engine of change
d_n_a_ can be changed by proteins which turned jeans on and off
a process known as sister regulation
at the genetics is a huge field
but it drastically changes darwin's premise that jeans adjust passively
sitting there being manipulated by environmental changes around them
putting this very simply biologists have discovered the d_n_a_ cannons aj array
traits that are being naturally selected
instead of being the slow and steady change that darwin envisage
evolution seems to happen in fits and starts
it's as if natural selection is occasionally turbocharged
sis regulation and at the genetics might explain why this happens
these and many other discoveries turned overturn the nineteenth century idea of
natural selection anymore than modern microbiology overturns the discoveries
of louis pastor
but they do show that darwin's ideas were crude and incomplete
there's a lot more to the mechanism that drives evolution
yet to be uncovered
okay so we deduced from the comfort of our on chairs that evolution or to
happen
at least i hope so
now it's time to do the research and see if these ideas a supported by physical
evidence
maybe in the next video