4:50 The lion and leopard are more closely related to each other than to the tiger. The cheetah is equally related to the lion, the leopard and the tiger. So if you were comparing genomes you would get a closer percentage match between the lion genome and the leopard genome than either one with the tiger genome. However, the percentage match between any of the 3 genomes (lion, leopard, tiger) and the cheetah genome would be about the same. How is that possible?

Humans Vary by an Easy Ten Percent. Therefore the Start Point for Any Animal Similar to Us is Maximum Eigthy Percent Identical. Therefore Given Humans are Seventy Percent Identical to Oranges, We Both are 70% Water. The Whole Evolution Theory Hangs on TEN PERCENT. This Must be a Very Important Ten Percent of Humanity which Makes Us What We are!. FURTHER, This Ten Percent Fits Very Well with :- It's All about QUALITY NOT QUANTITY.

Everything single life form on earth and all those extinct evolved from the same slime ancestor… evolution is such an easy concept to understand…

This is one of your best videos, period. Thank you so much for making it (and all your other videos I binge regularly)!

Great Stuff! watching how I blasted all over the "place" in less than a month was shocking, I used what I talked about the other day, and although it actually took about 5 weeks for my volume to double, I just go'ogled Jan Venstaker's Shooting Ropes and her reaction has been priceless!

This is the most helpful video ever, I’m in physical ANTH with no biology knowledge and I was so lost in my text book, this made it seem simple 🙏🙏🙏 thank you sm

You are a great educator!

Nothing coming right there 🤔

A common thing I hear people struggle with is how random mutations could ever result in very specific and complex traits. I think there is too much focus on the random mutations and not enough focus on the selection of the mutations. Natural selection is not at all random. It is not blind. It is informed by countless inputs from the environment. The population having a set of mutations is put through an elaborate test, ensuring fitness across a wide array of environmental factors. Successful reproduction indicates passing the test. This is quite the opposite of random.

ok... this is not what I was researching but I'm happy I found this

0:10

How can Timmy and Wanda be more Closely Related to each other than Spencer. But Spencer is equally related to Timmy and Wanda?

It's important, but not controversial.

So are we equally as related to Bonobos as Chimpanzees?

Ive been searching for some sort of actual evidence of evolution. And this vague look they kinda look alike explanition never actually gets to real evidence. So science uses some facts to kindof show how something might be possible. What does this prove? That science really is a religion. You have to have faith the facts they show you apply to all scenarios. Thats religion!!!!!!

Another clarification is that the species ancestors can still exist alongside the species that descended from them. Example: domesticated rabbits came from wild European rabbits that still exist today while the ancestor of dogs belong to an extinct population of gray wolves

We evolved from monkeys and apes that are no present day primate but rather entirely different apes and monkeys

Hey Clint - love your channels. Would you not put "Mutation is mostly random" up on the board? I believe many people think that evolution happens in order to fill a certain niche, towards a certain fenotype, with purpose. Almost as if there were a directing agent. That is another related misconception, potentially, but not the same, This one points at creationism - so these possible misconceptions could be related. Personally, I find that random mutation + natural selection = Darwinism is one of the most elegant theories there are. The reason for the "mostly" is the fact that our mutation repair mechanism is not random - may not be the right way to express that, maybe.

Thank you Clint for all the great videos! One question really bugs me: "the trout is closer related to us than to the white shark": isn't that an oversimplification? It feels counterintuitive, and I also see a logical problem there. Maybe the trout and the shark are not the best examples, as I guess cartilagenous and bony fish are indeed quite different, but to claim that the lamprey is closer related to humans than to the hagfish seems like kind of reductio ad absurdum. I mean, look at these two jawless fish... I think to define "relatedness" in a way that is more meaningful you have to take mutation rates and ecology into account. For example leaving the water and living on land will kind of dramatically estrange your species from your close relatives that still live in the ocean, it will obviously do a great change to your species' phenotype and possibly genotype(?). But in the phylogenetic tree it makes as much a difference as the split between hagfish and lamprey. Would it not be more helpful to quantify "genetic distances" (at least in living species) or something like "the amount of morphological change" (I see the problem with subjectivity here...) in extinct species to give some meaning to the length of the branches and the distance between the nodes of the phylogenetic tree? And then draw something like concentric circles around a species to define "relatedness"? My phylogeny knowledge is nearly exclusively based on Clint's content, so maybe this is utter nonsense or impossible or an outdated debate in professional circles. But I find it interesting. For example take some very early dinosaur, I don't know, Herrerasaurus or something even older/more basal. Of course it has a more recent ancestor with modern birds than with crocodiles. Maybe it even IS the bird's ancestor... But if it lived in close temporal proximity to the split between the ancestors of birds and crocodiles and the crocodiles' line would not change that much genetically and physically over the next 200 mio years or so whereas the evolution of birds would encompass several drastic changes: would that not make the very basal dinosaur more closely related to crocodiles than to birds in a way? I know that there are no living fossils and I've read that coelacanths do not have a small mutation rate and that a similar body plan does not mean genetic similarity, convergent evolution and so on. But does on the other hand a dramatic change in appearance or behaviour not require a substantial amount of genetic change? And thus create a big distance in "relatedness" if you understand it as something like "genetic similarity"? Is the lamprey's genome really more similar to the human genome than to the hagfish's genome? I guess I need something like a Clint for genetics... 😂

I still think paraphyletic groups sometime in more useful in classification when one group inside a monophyletic group already evolve in a way that is can be no longer fit in the broad definition of that kind of animal anymore (as when we go up in clades all land vertabrates are a kind of lobe finned fishes, indeed it is useful in evolutionary history but it start to make the simple question of how we can tell what kinds of of animal are there according to simple characteristic a bit confusing, their basic function already become different). Though I agree that polyphyletic groups are not useful.

When people use the word fish, they are usually referring to a cluster of traits. Like the word "tree" which does not conform to a specific group of plants. Your attempt to force it into a geneological context made this feel more tedious and frustrating than it needed to be. If we meant something geneological, we can use a word suited for that context. I just don't see the point in trying to force "fish" into this context.

I have a question: while monophyly is best for predicting thing and understanding the evolutionary lineage, isn’t there still quite a lot of descriptive utility in paraphylytic groups? If Clade A developed a unique trait or completely lost a trait over the course of its evolutionary history, and Clade A is nested within Clade B, couldn’t it be descriptively useful to refer to the group of “Clade B minus Clade A?” For example, “Diapsids *except for the dinosaurs*”. It seems to me that these groups still serve an immense descriptive purpose, so long as there’s a contextually meaningful trait that distinguishes the smaller clade from the larger clade it sits within.

I teach comparative anatomy, and after watching your vid, I’ve had a greater appreciation for the predictive power of cladistics.

amazing video. thank you!

Hello, the Ronald Jenner's concepts of "the lineage thinking" and "the cladistic blindfold" surely deserve an attention from all public educators and teachers. These concepts are explained in the following KZbin videos and the article: Springer article: Lineage Thinking in Evolutionary Biology: How to Improve the Teaching of Tree Thinking Two KZbin videos: - Ronald Jenner: Seeing Evolution Through a Cladistic Blindfold - Telling linear stories with branching evidence: tales from the history of narrative phylogenetics

I wish I could show this video to the instructor of my biology 101 course in university, who got really offended that I was correcting her TA for using the term "hypothesis" incorrectly in a demonstration.

One thing to remember is that even if the starting population has no variation, mutations can introduce new variation into a population over time. Unfortunately, mutations are like changing a random letter in a text - most of the time they just make nonsense.

3:00 Anunaki blood from the royal bloodline from aliens made humans 5 million years ago. Look at Baghdad Iraq the ancient city of Sumeria and the Cambodian ancient sites. Or the plain of jars in laos. The giants of those days. This guy just said there are no links of humans apes or chimpanzees until 5 million years ago. Soo it's gotta be genetic interference from an intelligent extraterrestrial 👽 or extradimensional being/beings....

I wish you didn't assume the viewer has a normal karyotype.

I remember which one is which by remembering that mitosis is the only kind of cell division that happens in your toes.

One way to do the unethical studies ethically is to have the control group be the ones exposed to the harmful factor, and the experimental group are people you intervene to *protect* from that factor. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project did this, by randomly assigning orphaned toddlers living in Romania to either receive "care as usual" (which, at the start of the study, meant institutional care, which has been linked to high risks of many different psychiatric issues) or to be transferred into foster homes funded by the BEIP. This was ethical because, had they not intervened, *all* of their subjects would've stayed in institutional care, and foster care was hypothesized to be better for the children than institutional care. Their hypothesis was confirmed so strongly that the Romanian government started their own foster care program and most of the care as usual group ended up eventually being transferred out of institutional care - however, even now, the difference between kids in the foster care group and the care as usual group are obvious, because of the different ages that the two groups left institutional care. For your smoking study idea, the ways to do this would be to intervene in some way that causes people who would otherwise have been smokers to become non-smokers. For example, you could randomly assign high school students to receive either anti-smoking instruction or some kind of control instructional module, and if the anti-smoking instruction was successful at reducing how many of them became smokers, you could then compare cancer rates between students who received or didn't receive anti-smoking instruction and infer that the differences are likely due to different rates of smoking between the two groups.

One problem with placebos is if you accidentally have the placebo be similar to the experimental procedure not only in superficial ways but also in the ways relevant to causing the effect you're studying. For example, if the smoking placebo involves inhaling some other kind of burnt substance, you might find that *both* groups wind up with higher rates of cancer than non-smokers, because tobacco isn't the only substance that releases carcinogens when burnt.

Wow, not sure which is worse.. having just a mouth and no anus or the other way round. 😮 😶 Edit: Aren't there astronomy videos about "the far side of uranus"?

"That would be the Latour, then?" Crap math, crap teachers, crap school board, and crap Liberals!!!

This analysis misses the fact that many studies were done in animals that followed this exact approach of randomization and placebo group. In some studies they even used a sham smoking device as an active control. The animals were often exposed to much higher doses than human smokers. None of the studies resulted in lung cancer from smoking. In fact, some of the results showed fewer tumors in smoking animals and less cancer in smoking animals who were exposed to radiation. All the research that is claimed to demonstrate a link between smoking and cancer is epidemiology, not science.

I'm an atheist. I accept scientific truth and evidence. But, Science is NOT a religion you believe in. in Science you KNOW not believe. I believe that Science is the best way and method to explain the physical world around us.

absolutely fantastic video. i didn’t understand meiosis and the metaphases and anaphases before but i understand them so much better now thank you so much clint you are saving my biology grade

Yeah nah, doesn’t make any sense because there is no common ancestor between humans and apes or chimpanzee. There is no evidence of a common ancestor and why the theory of evolution makes no sense.

Follow the money. Curriculum writers and publishers need to be paid. The problem is taking traditional math and turning it into tips and tricks, a methodology instead of just showing your work. Now you have to be able to explain your thinking. This curriculum model has been coined: "Common Core Crap" by numerous parents.

EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race appear?" The mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children, and so was all mankind made.." Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved." The confused girl returned to her mother and said, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?" The mother answered, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.

Google it 😂 it's called the human ape 😂 human's are primates great ape's and apes and monkey's are different kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIPPnH2wlJ2Frposi=HLTAYtaHbb_Fo9qX

Super helpful! One of the best I have seen! blessings to you and your family!

This explanation about common core is about as good as common core itself!

While “anus” is the proper and polite terminology for the an excretory orifice, asshole is the subjective terminology for a particular kind of person. Although everyone has an anus, not everyone is an asshole, but there are far too many of them who are a detriment to society.

I’m 85 now, but when I was a teenager girls variously referred to me as an ape or an octopus. This was very unscientific. An octopus is an invertebrate. In that respect my mother once said that I was spineless. I must admit that, through the course of my life, women have often made a monkey out of me.

Literally my phone opened this video in my pocket by typing gibberish into youtube. I have absolutely no idea what any of this means and only found the video bc it also got pocket screenshotted somehow

Are you calling the King James Version Bible a lie? Fake? Made-up stories? Nothing in the Bible KJV makes sense if people went by this video.

Scientists said humans are mammals, and they are saying humans are primates. What's next, pigs? Lol, it all sounds like BS. Science is assumptions and best guess, theories, and hypotheses most of the time. Scientists have been wrong in the past, and scientists will probably be wrong again and again. There have been many types of humans, but humans have never been apes, Oragitanges, chimpanzees, or any primate. Humanity can't even have babies with primates or even get primates pregnant. Do you seriously think Noah and his family could have built the Ark while Noah and his family were apes or primates? Primates aren't that smart. Do you seriously think in the beginning that God created Adam and Eve as apes or primates? Oh, that's right, most scientists don't believe in God. Scientists believe in science there, for of course, maybe scientists are primates, while the rest of us are humans, lol not related to primates. Humans don't look like primates. Humans are way smarter than primates. Gullible people might fall for this, maybe.

Sadly our policy makers do not understand this

Skeletor: Remember racism never existed it's just apes that hates other apes until we meet again 🏃