Debunking Antibiotic Resistance & Bacterial Evolution

Bacterial evolution and antibiotic resistance is one of the all time greatest hits regarding evidence for Evolution. It’s true that antibiotics do stop working sometimes, AND antibiotic resistance is a form of evolution. But is this a demonstration of the creative power of Darwinian evolution, or is there something else going on?
Ecocyc, E. coli citrate related genes: ecocyc.org/ECOLI/NEW-IMAGE?ty...
Richard Lenski on his lab work: • Richard Lenski - Evolu...
AP News article: apnews.com/article/cdadad7ccc...
If you have any feedback or criticism, let us know and we’ll try to address it (please be civil): [e-mail]

[@CloroxBleach-hv4ns]

Make a video response to professor stick.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks didn't see that one. Professor Stick is pretty fair in his analysis but he really didn't disagree with much at all. Mostly small quibbles about terminology and he added some technical detail. He doesn't actually address or answer the arguments raised until the very end and even then only briefly. Here's everything he mentioned: 1. He compliments the animation. thanks! 2. He quibbles about the term "evolutionary arms race". That's fine, the exact term doesn't matter other darwinists use it, whatever. 3. "We're going to come to a place where these superbugs are incredibly difficult to defeat." Maybe, but I doubt it. Abusing antibiotics is a very real problem and people will die because of these resistant superbugs, but as I said in the video remove the antibiotics and they tend to be outcompeted by the normal bugs and all returns to normal. 4. He quibbles with how I describe the methods of antibiotic resistance. Ok, the technical terms are shown and medicines listed. A lot of these kind of response videos just amount to small nit-picks and little substance. 5. He begs the question as to whether pre-existing antibiotic resistance was developed via evolution. But other than that he seems to agree with that point. 6. He seems to agree about HGT. (his quibble about new mutations is addressed later in the video) 7. He agrees that genetic load is a problem for bacteria 8. He finally disagrees that mutations are largely degradative. He concedes that loss of function mutations are more common, but says gain of function mutations exist. I agree that's true. GoF mutations do exist, but they don't tend to be responsible for antibiotic resistance, that's brought about by the 2 mechanisms discussed in the video loss of function mutations and HGT. Gain of function mutations are exceedingly rare and limited in scope (see the work on p. falciparum and malaria data). He gives the example of an alteration to a drug target, notice he says "without *significantly* altering its function" that word "significantly" is doing some heavy lifting, if a mutation alters a drug target, whatever extent it would grant the ability to resist an antibiotic, it would likely also reduce the bug's ability to function in that area. 9. I didn't say mutations only take away things. That's a straw man. They're just far more common and any significant adaptation would require coordinated mutations leaving it well out of the reach of the darwinian mechanism.

[@CloroxBleach-hv4ns]

@@LongStoryShortVideos ok

[@CloroxBleach-hv4ns]

@@LongStoryShortVideos Are you planning on a making any new videos in general?

[@commonsense0692]

@@LongStoryShortVideos you’re delusional he disagrees with ur whole religious creationism Bull, although ur videos are amazing what is ur end game? That they teach creationism is schools? That we retreat back to the dark ages? That science should no longer pull human race into the future? Shame ur animation talents could have been used for good science not evil religion

[@apologiaromana4123]

@@commonsense0692 Really? Is that the best you could do?

[@toddeckel9658]

Stating that the bacteria got rid of their flagella is misleading. It makes it sound like the bacteria made a conscience decision to dispose of their flagella instead of losing the flagella from a mutation that became dominant due to the unusual circumstances. I love your videos. Thanks for all of the work put into them.

[@Pyr0Ben]

Either way, no new information was gained.

[@matthewedwards8576]

I did some googling and google scholaring and found two example of novel genes and functioning evolving that didn't already exist in the organism. I'll give the titles cus youtube tends to delete comments with external links. "De Novo Gene Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Codfishes Revealed by Whole Genome Sequence Data" This second one is a thesis and I can only find the abstract but what's important is this line here "We also observed biphasic relationships in which small changes in the activities of low-performance enzymes had large effects on fitness, until a threshold, above which large changes in enzyme performance had little effect on fitness." So the newly evolved function did affect fitness, up to a point, but then the less fit ones were out competed and the new ones were fitter with the new function. "Functional and structural innovations in the real-time evolution of new genes, Life will find a way: Structural and evolutionary insights into FusB and HisA"

[@cloroxbleach3809]

You need to make more videos.

[@oof-bd1qh]

They need a basic education

[@mcmanustony]

He needs to get a remedial education.

[@donaldhitman6724]

Due to all the short jokes I'm offended for a friend🤣 But really I loved the limbo bar crack as my go to with tall guys dunking or reaching the top shelf was always "ya well I bet I can beat you at limbo anytime ya want to try"

[@dwpix]

So, do you ignore the fossil record? Or if you don’t- how do you explain it?

[@ihavenoideaonanything]

he says that jumps in the fossil record (like the cambrian explosion) disproves evolution and that evolution has no way to explain it--his words not mine

[@dwpix]

Got it. Thanks.

[@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado]

Most Underrated Chanel

[@mihailmilev9909]

Why do these people keep mentioning Darwin like knew anything about or proposed any of these things that have to do with modern evolutionary theory today lol?

[@zuzabarbuscakova2924]

because they want to prove evolution is a scam and they dont care how. People will buy anything :) even stupid shit :)

[@unonnuimuorica]

I am really enjoying watching the videos on your channel. The presentation is superb and the explanations are impressive. I hope to see new videos in the near future. We need a voice like yours in science and research.

[@ayamayamblackwhite3190]

Stupid fallacious thinking & religious APOLOGETICS designed to fool the gullible

[@walkergarya]

You like being lied to. Sad.

[@zuzabarbuscakova2924]

Except this is not science or research.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

If pre-existing antibiotic resistance genes aren't the product of mutation and they make their carriers less fit, they would not persist in the population. So pick which way you want to be wrong. Also, not all observed novel protective mutations are loss of function mutations. So you're wrong about both things.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, antibiotic resistance is sometimes due to mutations, you're right about that, I said as much in the video. However, these tend to be degradative mutations, see the Harvard Mega Plate experiment as a great example. Extra unused genetic load, especially on an organism as small as bacteria, is indeed a drag on fitness. I never claimed that all beneficial mutations are loss of function, would you like to discuss any particular mutation?

[@Crispr_CAS9]

​@@LongStoryShortVideos You state in your video (@1:48) that 'there are 'essentially only one or two ways' for antibiotic resistance to occur in bacterial populations. The first being (@1:53) that 'it's always been there' and the second being (@4:00) that they develop de novo mutations in non-resistant populations. My comment had two parts, the first targeted to the first option, the second to the second. Your reply apparently treats both parts of my comment as responding to the second option only. Consider your first option: It is evident that you accept some of the 'pre-existing' variants found in bacterial populations to represent gain-of-function differences in comparison to the non-resistant type from your analogy to the foot race (@3:30). You claim that these are uncommon because the costs associated with carrying unnecessary genes is functionally detrimental in bacteria, which is reasonably true. However, this is actually a defeater of your position. If you claim that the mutations have 'always been there', then these gain-of-function variants can't result in any deleterious effect in normal bacterial populations because selection is so efficient in bacteria. So it is impossible for it to be true that these variants are detrimental AND have always been there in the absence of de novo mutations. That is, the only way that every population of bacteria can be expected to carry a particular class of gain-of-function variant of the sort in your footrace analogy is if such variants occur constantly in all populations regardless of the presence or absence of antibiotics. So while the *capacity* to survive antibiotics has always been there, this capacity would be represented by a novel de novo occurrence in each population. You did strongly imply that all beneficial mutations are loss-of-function. I'm unsure how else to interpret your analogy @4:50, and indeed this implication is *required* for your ultimate conclusion (@11:24). To say that evolution can't work because it is variants are 'mostly' deleterious is patently absurd, you only need a tiny fraction to be beneficial for it to work. Since you evidently agree that such a fraction exists, however tiny it might be, the conclusion must be that mutations can produce gain-of-function variants which can be selected for.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for clarifying. It isn't impossible that pre-existing resistance can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the environment, this is what we in fact find in nature. Low levels of resistant populations relative to non-resistant populations. That is, until antibiotics are introduced, then the resistant populations take over as most dominant. If resistance were a cost free benefit for bacteria we should expect them to outcompete across every environment. I think we agree there, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point though? I think your more important point is about what proportion of mutations are adaptive due to loss of function or gain of function (ie: breaking things or inventing new things). Your reasoning here is incorrect because gain of function mutations tend to require multiple simultaneous changes to work (and as a result far more time), whereas loss of function mutations are stumbled across much more quickly. Look into Behe's work on the malaria data for more details (Darwin Devolves and the Edge of Evolution). To badly paraphrase him: the quick fix that breaks a gene will be selected for first, by the time a more complex and beneficial mutation could come on the scene it isn't needed any longer because the selective pressure was already alleviated. This mechanism ironically makes organisms more tightly suited to whatever their current environment is and less able to adapt in the future. See "Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage of Adaptive Loss-of-Function mutations"

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@LongStoryShortVideos "It isn't impossible that pre-existing resistance can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the environment" It is impossible that both versions would have survived that many generations in population sizes that large in the absence of continuous production by de novo mutation. "Low levels of resistant populations relative to non-resistant populations." In the absence of an antibiotic, the genes in question are either deleterious, beneficial, or neutral. Given the amount of time in question, if they aren't being continuously produced by de novo mutation, a single allele would have reached fixation in all three cases. Thus, this statement alone necessitates the continuous de novo generation of gain-of-function mutations. "That is, until antibiotics are introduced, then the resistant populations take over as most dominant." Which requires them to already be there, which is only possible with continuous de novo production in the absence of the antibiotic because otherwise on allele would have already gone to fixation. "If resistance were a cost free benefit for bacteria we should expect them to outcompete across every environment." Yes, most selectively advantageous allele in a population will go to fixation. Which is why both alleles wouldn't be maintained in the population without continuous de novo production. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but hopefully the point is getting through. "Your reasoning here is incorrect because gain of function mutations tend to require multiple simultaneous changes to work" This is a claim you've made, that doesn't appear to be supported by current data. Alteration of regulation can occur with a single mutation, and in fact every random stretch of DNA of reasonable length will contain dozens of sequences one mutation away from a consensus binding motif. Thus, single base mutations can, and do, alter genetic regulation in a variety of ways able to canalize expression patterns. These are necessarily gain-of-function mutations. "Look into Behe's work on the malaria data for more details" I'm already familiar, and Behe's work on malaria is off by 4-6 orders of magnitude. He is also wrong about the nature of the mutation in question.

[@nesslig2025]

@@Crispr_CAS9 *Your reasoning here is incorrect because gain of function mutations tend to require multiple simultaneous changes to work" This is a claim you've made, that doesn't appear to be supported by current data. "Look into Behe's work on the malaria data for more details" I'm already familiar, and Behe's work on malaria is off by 4-6 orders of magnitude. He is also wrong about the nature of the mutation in question.* We did (on Jackson's channel) a response video on exactly these points. Behe's assertion that "they had to occur at the same time" is not supported by the data. These mutations can occur one after another, and some single mutations even increased resistance without the need of being combined with a second mutation. It seems LSS is just very reluctant to listen from criticism and actually learn from them. I am also writing a response to this video here on the League of Reason forum. Should be finished soon.

[@wolfpackastrobiology3690]

@ 2:00 The first antibiotic discovered was penicillin (isolated from the penicillium fungus) and many antibiotics developed since then use similar principles to act as antibiotics. Since bacteria had been exposed to penicillium before, it's pretty reasonable to expect that some would be resistant penicillin and subsequently developed antibiotics. @5:30 It's called a trade-off and when an organism that once lived in a given environment adapts to live in another, it won't be as fit for it's original environment as it once was. If a land animal starts to live in the water, it will develop a shape more suited to locomotion in the water which will at the same time make it cumbersome on land. Similarly, if bacteria adapt to live in an environment with antibiotics present, they won't be as competitive in an environment without them. Fitness is all relative to the environmental circumstances. @8:30 All enzymes and metabolic systems came from pre-existing ones that were co-opted. The originally respiratory system in prokaryotes was a combination of the central energy metabolism of methanogens and a means by which sulfite in the environment could be detoxified. See "An intertwined evolutionary history of methanogenic archaea and sulfate reduction".

[@Pyr0Ben]

- This point doesn't offer any counterevidence. You suggest that because older bacteria had encountered penecillium (which very well may be true), they evolved resistance to it. However, this notion assumes evolution took place. You have no feasible way of explaining how this resistance (or bacteria, or fungus for that matter) could've mutated from scratch. As shown, it is way easier to break than to create. - This point has a lot of logical leaps I'm not comfortable with. Sure, I agree that mutations do have trade-offs between benefits and deficits. I would suggest it works backwards to the way you're suggesting. Don't let me put words in your mouth, but you seem to suggest that mutations are primarily constructive (land dwellers evolving the necessary functions for aquatic life) but losing their landlubbering capabilities as a negative consequence. I would argue the opposite: just about every mutation we've ever seen is destructive, reducing function and information. OCCASIONALLY, these mutations accidentally have (very situationally) beneficial side effects. I think the video does a good job of backing this up with evidence. You may define fitness as ambiguously as you want to make anything seem like evidence for evolution, but it doesn't overturn the observational evidence. I also want to point out that your land-to-sea example assumes evolution took place to begin with. I'm starting to see a pattern here. - A quick scan of the abstract and introduction of the article you cited shows that they too assume evolution occured. It suggests that methanogenic "homologs of sulfate activation and reduction enzymes. This suggested a shared evolutionary history for methanogenesis". LSS did a series of videos on why homology is a bad argument for evolution. The article stipulates the evolution of certain archae 3.5 MYA practically as fact. I would like to give your article a more in-depth reading, but I'm just asking you to see my point about assuming your conclusion. As often as the creationists are accused of this, I don't see the same criticism imposed on evolutionary scientists.

[@wolfpackastrobiology3690]

@@Pyr0Ben Actually scrambled sequences have been documented to give rise to novel functions. See "Experimental rugged fitness landscape in protein sequence space"

[@louayGamer]

You again fall into the same stupid explanation. Antibiotic bacteria was already there and they were found due to the fact only they can survive there.

[@matthewsinger]

None of your explanations of the "problems" with these experiments / observations disprove evolution. In fact, you just further support the claims FOR evolution. Fitness is not a static trait. An organism that grows well or reproduces better in one environment may do so poorly in another. The two explanations for antibiotic resistance are both explained under evolutionary theory. Yes, resistance can occur in nature, but may do so at low frequencies. But in the presence of antibiotics, selection makes the resistance trait the more fit trait *in that specific environment.* And yes, taking a single bacterial cell and allowing it to reproduce may result in a mutation that confers resistance, and yes, that mutation may cause a reduction in fitness in the absence of antibiotics, but in the presence of antibiotics, it will be the more fit cell type. Bacteria growing in a citrate-rich medium that can't turn off their citrate metabolic pathway become more fit *in that environment.* By the way, the inability to turn off the citrate metabolism is the result of a mutation. There is a lot that you get wrong about evolution in your attempt to disprove it. I get what you're trying to do here, but you're failing hard.

[@alfonstabz9741]

8:08 it's their all along. you obviously don't want to accept the math of evolution it can't be done in a life span of the universe..

[@TheNotSoFakeNews]

@@alfonstabz9741 how do you think it got there in the first place? It evolved, he went on to explain exactly why this process evolved before antibiotics in his next sentence. This does not disprove evolution, it actually proves it. Also I'm gonna need to see a source for your claim that evalution can't happen in 4 billion years (I'm being generous and giving you the lower number - earth's age, not 13.5 billion years - the age of the universe)

[@alfonstabz9741]

@@TheNotSoFakeNews will show us the step by step process on how such evolution happen not the speculation of natural selection the detail instruction that we can demonstrate in the laboratory? do you want me to refute evolution speculation even if no one can demonstrate how it happens?

[@alfonstabz9741]

@@TheNotSoFakeNews if you think what evolutionist happen really did happen then what are you waiting for? wheres the demo ?

[@TheNotSoFakeNews]

@@alfonstabz9741 evolution has been demonstrated, observed, and been occuring for millions of years. If you can't see it, you have your head buried in the sand. I can't help you. We see it on the lab, we see it with herbicide resistance in agriculture, insecticide resistance, antibiotic resistance (which the video fails to discredit) we have actually observed speciation take place in the wild. You can't see what you don't want to see, and I can't make you.

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

Will you make rebuttal video of professor stick?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

I replied to it in the pinned comment already, I may make a response video it'd be pretty quick since there wasn't much substance to his objections.

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

@@LongStoryShortVideos sure thing but hashtag him if you do make one.

[@genkaitaichido3890]

Do you have Discord? I know some people who would really like your efforts in researching certain things on the topic of Darwinism.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Nope, but feel free to email me with any questions, it's at the end of the video.

[@genkaitaichido3890]

@@LongStoryShortVideos You really should get Discord. It'll help you reach out to these fellow ID advocates and clarify things for lay people a lot easier. Mt friend told me to tell you that he sent the email. His name is Jason Skywalker and the subject of the email is "Hello, these are questions from a fellow skeptic of Darwanism" reply when you can. Also, a link to his server in case you wanna join Discord, and maybe speak to him more. discord.gg/DaZK2dFzT7

[@marty4760]

No one studies "darwinism". They just study evolution which is a observed fact

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

@@genkaitaichido3890 Sorry, don't think I ever got the email

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@marty4760 yeah, and actual evolution is far from what pseudoscientists like Dawkins and Nye pretend it is. Thanks for agreeing with us.

[@mash.851]

love the humour in your videos

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

Please when we will get to see next video?

[@jamesmooney8933]

Actually the USA uses 120v & 220v. Most applicable use 120v, like light bulbs, TV, radio, and small appliances. 220v is used for electric ranges, electric dryers, electric heaters & electric furnace/air-conditioning.

[@estebanmiguel6019]

No, the US uses 120/240 volt residential electrical systems.

[@jamesmooney8933]

Actually the voltage varies,

[@estebanmiguel6019]

@@jamesmooney8933 Actually if you look at a standard 7630 kv / 240 volt pad mount or pole mount distribution transformer, it has 240/120 volt secondary stamped on the data plate. I promise you, I am a lineman.

[@KhalilKhan-kg9ox]

When will be next video released and what will be topic this time?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

I'm in the final stages of production for the next video, hang tight!

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@LongStoryShortVideos I'm sad that we haven't heard from you in such a long time. God bless you brother. 🙏

[@msvh-l9616]

Hi! I have a question: Is the genetic code universal or not? Craig venter think there isn't while Richard Dawkings think there is. I'm sure you have seen that video on youtube when Craig Venter denies the universal genetic code concept. Why does he think the genetic code is not universal? If it isn't then how many different genetic codes are there and how does it pose a problem for the theory of evolution? P.S: I like your long story short videos, keep it up :)

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

It is not. According to the NCBI there are currently dozens of distinct variations to the genetic code. The data is publicly available so there isn't really any debate about that, though there may be ignorance about it. Given that the universality of the genetic code was one of the main predictions of Evolution I'd say this poses a pretty serious challenge to Evolution, there are a lot of papers about it if you'd like to read up on it more. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

[@msvh-l9616]

​@@LongStoryShortVideos Thank you for your response. I tried looking for an explanation, in the website you linked, for why does it pose a serious problem to the theory of evolution but I couldn't find it. Can you tell me why does it pose a serious challenge to Neo-Darwinism?

[@marty4760]

@@msvh-l9616 no one studies that. They only study evolution which is a observed

[@marty4760]

@@msvh-l9616 fact

[@terrypussypower]

@@LongStoryShortVideos The only challenges in evolution are in the details. The FACT of evolution is irrefutably established.

[@rayoflight62]

Much of the genetic code is standing there unused and unexpressed. It doesn't codify for any protein, and the mRNA clearly skips it when copying data for cell reproduction or repair. Feeling is, that code is there waiting for some sort of trigger, which would allow for it to express in some way or form. We know the genes that control enzymes, or other metabolic aspects, but how genes control the number of fingers, or a specific mental ability, etc. We can't understand how the genetic code controls macro functions. I suspect we have a long way to go, and much of it is on the mathematical side and not on the biological aspects of genetic expression...

[@matthewsinger]

a lot of the non-coding DNA has regulatory function and determines how much the coding regions get transcribed.

[@alfonstabz9741]

more videos man.!

[@vastlor9986]

No more videos ?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

New one just went up! Sorry for the delay, they take a while to research and animate :)

[@marcusdavey9747]

2:25 “Pre-existing resistance” has no selective advantage until the antibiotics are a factor in the bacteria’s environment. The increased relative fitness of the resistant strain, and its reproductive success, leading to higher numbers in the population and increasing impact on disease, is thus an example of evolution. Also, organisms have indeed lost their teeth, eyes, etc., when those losses became advantages.

[@johnglad5]

Those so called advantages become certain death when the organism returns to its normal environment. Also, you can't keep losing stuff and follow up the tree of life. There is no process observed or hypothetical that can do this.

[@marcusdavey9747]

You’re being too absolute. Evolution is a matter of degree, marginal advantage. Novel mutations that become lethal when an environment “changes back” are very unlikely to survive even with the slight selective advantage of the resistance. Alteration of surface proteins may be just enough to evade the antibiotic somewhat, and not interfere with the metabolism of the cell. That p’s enough to allow that strain to benefit so all others cease to exist in short order. However…

[@marcusdavey9747]

…species indeed do become extinct if they adapt to some environment that changes enough.

[@johnglad5]

@@marcusdavey9747 Adaptation is natural selection which is heredity. This observed process cannot add a leg or change a gill to a lung. How do you get a multicelled organism from a single cell, you can't.

[@marcusdavey9747]

That last is trivially easy! Single cells divide, leaving more than one,. A multicellular organism is just several cells that happen to reproduce as a unit. Communal, unicellular organisms, of which there are many in many varieties, are the halfway situation.

[@TrevoltIV]

You should talk about ERVs

[@repairstudio4940]

Love to watch a debate with @King Crocoduck are you game? 😏

[@slavicstriz8715]

Thanks love the videos

[@jackdaw6359]

Good video

[@shahanaakter7700]

I wanna know what's their favourite kinda ice cream...

[@hassanel-helaly1179]

u great man , I like u and I hope u will get the success that u Deserve

[@dfragman1672]

Thank you, keep doing this!

[@mash.851]

good work

[@somniad]

Edit: Thought I was being too harsh and went to the part which was the red flag that set me off, the bit about naturalism. Your source for that bit is literally "Theistic Evolution." "Demarcation criteria cannot justify methodological naturalism itself"? Are you kidding me? Of course they can't, and they don't need to. There is one simple core belief of science: that evidence lies at the root of truth. To deny methodological naturalism is to deny that the reason things happen is because of the things that happened before; it's to deny causality and to deny the validity of all empirical findings, and to deny the salient fact that the world can be made sensible. I kept thinking, "What's your angle? Your reasoning seems motivated." And I kept reigning myself in, thinking maybe there's just some incredibly niche nerdy stuff that you're annoyed about and you're just negligent of what it means to have an audience. But you're well aware. Your aim is to construct gaps just large enough. Original comment, which I find much less important now but will be kept: Part of the core of your argument here, at least as it pertains to the evidence, seems to almost be that if a beneficial mutation takes place which increases fitness in a given context, but it breaks something, then it basically doesn't count. But that's just silly, right? "Maybe you call that evolution, but-" And then you just breeze right past the possibility that yes, that is evolution. Completely dismissive, as if trying to dismiss evolution itself. I've seen two of your videos now, and they both take the same form: "Here's a thing, here's a thing that might be stupid that people say about the thing" and then you just plop the viewer out on the other side with... what? No answers, nothing more than their preconceived notions. If your goal isn't to make creationists out of your viewers, you're doing a poor job. The purely critical lens you take to these topics is concerning to me. I was excited about your channel when I found it. I love me some good theoretical controversy. Just, do please take the responsibility of having a platform seriously, and be willing to take five seconds out of the beginning to say, "We know how fast these changes have happened because of the fossil record, but our understanding of the mechanisms is dauntingly poor."

[@weaselworm8681]

Is this tongue in cheek like the flat earth videos? I’m guessing the flat earth vids are why this one popped up in my feed? It was well produced

[@weaselworm8681]

Oh. I see it’s just an ad. Never mind.

[@mouhaahaahaa]

about the E.coli - some evolusionists say this proves "irreducably complexity" because several traits evolved at once... I agree with you but I am not sure how to look at it. would love some help. thanks for the video.

[@jordanmacleod3688]

If that voice was deeper and more menacing it would’ve been better

[@55north17]

Can't fully make up my mind one way or the other. Perhaps I was put off by the jokey presentation that trivialised serious argument.

[@shaunlarcombe3189]

Yes it will end at 12:37

[@memeboi6017]

Problem, losing the Flagella makes perfect sense, evolution is blind, It doesn't have to make more competitive forms, just successful ones. In the big swing of things losing the flagella is a definite negative for these bacteria, but in their specific environment the energy saved is a definite advantage.

[@Don_Von]

No doubt that is an advantage considering the circumstances, but in the end, nothing new was made.

[@TmanRock9]

@@Don_Von nor does it need to be, the example is to show evolutionary mechanisms work.

[@johnglad5]

Losing the flagella kills the bacteria because it starves to death.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

​@@TmanRock9 They only demonstrated the genome losing information. Where is the evidence the genome can accumulate new information?

[@TmanRock9]

@@andrewdouglas1963 the peppered moth genetic studies are a good example. the mutation causing a pigmentation change in the peppered moth which led to increased chances of survival was an insertion which added thousands of based pairs to the genome. another example is the BOVB gene found in cows which has duplicated several times making up roughly 20-25 percent of the entire genome of cows. mutations that cause deletions are but one example of mutation. there are insertions, point, and duplication mutations all of which add to the genome.

[@andoapata2216]

Nice

[@EngSamieh]

Awesome

[@owenmiller4929]

Your assuming that genetic mutation only destroys already existing genes to get different functions out of them, which is usually the case but it’s not impossible for genetic mutations to create new genes that can create an immunity. Secondly already existing genes can be attributed to the fact most antibiotics we use are derived from nature like penicillin which is found in fungi so it would not be impossible for these bacteria to have already contacted penicillin and have the genes passed down in the next generation. Thirdly you say that the spoon fed bacteria didn’t evolve in a Darwinian way or natural selection but they did the environment Which they had evolved to succeed in made them more fit for survival in that environment, why have flagellum when the nutrients come to you it saves you energy thus making you more fit. It is evolution just for its specific ecological niche

[@piiumlkj6497]

the amount of research you've had to do to produce this is astounding , this is a crazy underrated video and channel , keep going !

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks!

[@akirataimatsu8741]

Great content, superb presentation.. I think your rebuttal videos are a lot more productive and educational than discussions with critics (like Jackson). They seem to don't want to settle for a common ground from where we can start to build ideas. Thank you for your outstanding effort, bringing these discussions to a greater public.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks for the encouragement!

[@azzamfayig]

I am waiting for your next video

[@mihailmilev9909]

Again, selling your wheels at a stoplight IS making a better car. It's adapting to your environment and becoming more efficient. Edit: if they grew more arms and more organs, you can phrase this video saying they grew a bunch of useless organs that take up energy, again spinning it to make it look like they didn't evolve. There is always going to be a tradeoff. Evolution is making that tradeoff as is best for your environment, which is exactly what happened.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

If you need the wheels back again to become more efficient in a different environment, how do you get them?

[@TmanRock9]

@@andrewdouglas1963 through mutations and natural selection, the same way you lost them.

[@andrewdouglas1963]

@@TmanRock9 I see the issue is way over your level of education. Mutation and natural selection has never been shown to add a new function that didn't already exist in the genome. It's just wishful thinking.

[@TmanRock9]

@@andrewdouglas1963 I see you like to drag your knuckles around. Natural selection has been shown to add a function to the genome, however all of the genome is made of the same 4 base pairs so of course it’s going to use what’s already there that what a mutation is. The insertion mutation in peppered moths which changed its pigmentation added a new function did it not? This example alone proves you wrong, a mutation occurred and added a new function. How about jaw shape and size in Italian wall lizards to eat different food? How about human pigmentation? How about bigger spleens in human populations? How about behavior in fruit flys? How about the structure of viruses making it easier to infect like with covid? Do you have any other objection to the fact that is evolution? Perhaps one that contains some thought and perhaps knowledge of the subject? Or are you just going to regurgitate long debunked creationist talking points? To deny evolution is just wishful thinking, I suspect so you don’t have to abandon your religious beliefs.

[@MLeoM]

You can make more new videos, absolutely love watching them, I know and I understand how you can feel hurt being honest and trying to help others, all while alone without much support. I felt the hurt of you almost every few seconds when I started to watch any of the responses of your critiques. I feel you brother, stay well and love and peace.

[@bastiaanschouwink3562]

love all your other videos but i dont see how this proves anything. Its pretty clear the bacteria adapted so I would maintain that evolution did really happen. The fact that we havent seen any de novo mutations, only mutations breaking what was already there, doesnt prove that darwinism is wrong, but while writing this comment, I do understand what you mean. Still, I think you might be very quick to point out that darwinian evolution didnt happen, seeing that the organisms did adapt themselves better to their environment.

[@andoapata2216]

Angry short evolutionists noises ...

[@levibates4197]

Absolutely love your videos! I think the millionaire joke/ comparison at the end is a perfect analogy too, although I think it would be stronger if you said ‘Start with a $1,000,000,000, and throw $999,000,000 away. In my opinion, I think it would better highlight information loss as being key for the desired result. Don’t think I’m in any way criticizing, your videos are well articulated, sources are cited, and the animation is very fun. I couldn’t hope to compete. Please make many more, it is much needed!

[@thalastianjorus]

- Uses science to question other science. - Gets shrieked at as a science denier. - ??

[@ezbody]

Is the Trumerican religious narcissism an adaptation or a sign of devolution?

[@Matthew515tweet]

Recommended this channel to a couple of my colleagues (Science teachers) today. Keep up the excellent work!

[@StephandJoshMartin]

Yes… yes they are.

[@estebanmiguel6019]

Great content. My journey to begin questioning evolutionary orthodoxy began with Michael Dentons book “Evolution:A Theory In Crisis”, and then progressed to Michael Behe, and Stephen Meyer. Materialists cling to their presuppositions at all costs, even to the point of borderline religious fanaticism. Great job pointing out the irreconcilable shortcomings of a hopefully soon to be dead philosophy. People can draw their own conclusions as to the origin of complex genetic information, hopefully these videos will get people to actually start thinking critically.

[@greenergrass4060]

Ah, so Mutations are indeed always bad. Does this imply there are other alternatives to Darwinian evolution though?

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Not always, just almost always ;)

[@marty4760]

Evolution is a observed fact. Time to get over it

[@juilianbautista4067]

Evolution is a fairy tale. Time to move on and get over the fact that you're wrong. Sorry.

[@marty4760]

@@juilianbautista4067 to bad evolution is a observed fact. Time to get over it

[@apologiaromana4123]

You honestly think that single sentence does away with years of research that opposes evolution?

[@anasmohamed6013]

show me one physical evidence of macro evolution or show me the common ancestor between human and ape

[@marty4760]

@@anasmohamed6013 dna

[@32bitbaptist54]

Wow, good video! That was pretty impressive quality.

[@sarahliu2184]

90

[@shaunlarcombe3189]

13:00

[@paylmoffat3409]

Our bodies are full of GOOD bacteria as well, so why doesn’t antibiotics kill them as well.

[@jeannathan584]

They do. This is precisely how bacteria like Clostridium difficile are able to take over the gut and cause deadly infections. C.dif is always there, but when antibiotics like vancomycin wipe out the competitive gastrointestinal biome, it can proliferate unchecked with ruthless morbidity and mortality.

[@clovebeans713]

I took a course of antibiotics and it messed up the bowels, caused problems with GIT and at the toilet, I had to take two vails of probiotic and everything was fine a day later. They even sell probiotic milk 'Yakult' brand on the market, surprised you haven't heard of this.

[@zup9144]

Love your work! Educational and entertaining, great Job!

[@oof-bd1qh]

It’s called misinformation

[@pigzcanfly444]

Great job on this one. 👏 I read the papers on this study a long time ago because of a PhD biologist that claimed it was evidence for macro evolution. Guess what? It wasn't.

[@marty4760]

Evolution is a observed fact

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@marty4760 which evolution? Because technically, you getting your arm cut off is evolution.

[@marty4760]

@@juilianbautista4067 I see you failed science class

[@seal9390]

@@marty4760 You did not awnser his qeastion.

[@marty4760]

@@juilianbautista4067 technically it's not. Being born without arms and generation after generation also being born without arms but can adapt to the environment to survive would be evolution. Please read a actual science text

[@thomaswang2223]

This entire video can be summarized as “specialization evolution isn’t evolution.” Fitness is based on environment, and so is evolution. Therefore, most evolution is trying to increase fitness in *this* environment. Evolution’s not gonna be like “what if things suddenly go back to the way they were before?” That’s still evolution

[@milesgantcher344]

You’re telling me that over thirty years all these bacteria did was adapt their metabolism and physiology to suit their environment? That must mean over 1,000,000,000 years evolution couldn’t have generated new organisms. You are a scientific genius.

[@nesslig2025]

Just in case my comment with the link got marked as spam, I addressed this video on the league of reason forum: *A long story of nonsense: antibiotics, the Lenski experiment and more*

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Thanks Nesslig, I hadn't seen your other comment. I found the write up. Thanks for the time you put into responding, I know it’s quite the effort to do something like that. Overall, I’m not particularly moved by your arguments, it seems they miss the mark. Your straw man claims fall flat because I’m quoting evolutionists and arguing against what they claim. Just because I’m not addressing your particular view doesn’t make it a straw man. If Dawkins and other popularizers were more honest with what they mean by “evolution before our very eyes” people would be far less impressed by their arguments. Bacteria don’t do anything to prove the claims made by some in your camp. Now your other points toward the end of your write up like the antifreeze fish are a different topic, beyond the scope of what was discussed in the video.

[@nesslig2025]

​@@LongStoryShortVideos *"Overall, I’m not particularly moved by your arguments, it seems they miss the mark. Your straw man claims fall flat because I’m quoting evolutionists and arguing against what they claim."* I don't think you understand what a straw man means. It means someone is misrepresenting your arguments. Exactly where have I done so? Simply citing the fact that you "quote evolutionists" doesn't show that I misrepresented any of your arguments. Also, I did not see any quote from the "evolutionists". I did see that you cited some work of Dawkins and Bill Nye....as in....a chapter from each of their books. That's not exactly a quote. What lines am I supposed to look at here that you are referencing? *"Just because I’m not addressing your particular view doesn’t make it a straw man."* Right, the fact that you are misrepresenting evolution as a whole is what makes it a straw man. That's why I spend most of the time correcting you by explaining what evolution ACTUALLY entails. *"If Dawkins and other popularizers were more honest with what they mean by “evolution before our very eyes” people would be far less impressed by their arguments."* This is the point I have directly addressed in section [2.1] and in particular [2.4]. To me it is often very clear what the "evolutionists" mean when they say evolution. When IDcreationists say "evolution" it can anything from big bang to abiogenesis to dogs giving birth to cats. In fact, YOU have equated "evolution" with methodological naturalism, and that with philosophical naturalism. The likely the reason why you think we aren't honest with what they mean by "evolution" is because you are very confused about this topic, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. *Bacteria don’t do anything to prove the claims made by some in your camp.* The claims? What claims exactly? By some? Who? Don't weasel, be specific. I have made it clear that I do not agree with all "evolutionists" everywhere ever, including Dawkins. If you showed that person X used antibiotic resistance to argue for common ancestry, then I would agree that this person made a bad argument. But that clearly not the only point you want to make here. You claim that antibiotic resistance is at best a "trivial" example of evolution. It isn't, as I have explained repeatedly. Antibiotic resistance poses a significant problem, and understanding how this problem arises (which is due to evolution) is important. Wouldn't you agree [not a rhetorical question]? *Now your other points toward the end of your write up like the antifreeze fish are a different topic, beyond the scope of what was discussed in the video.* At the end you were talking about "new information" and I explained that many mutations of antibiotic resistance were in fact gain of function mutations. These were MORE examples of evolution that cannot be described as "loss of information". Although, as I have pointed out, what is exactly meant by "new information" is ambiguous. If you want to further argue the specifics, you can readily join the League of Reason forum whenever you want. It is a better format to discuss this.

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

Nesslig, I'm answering arguments that are being made by popular and authoritative in the field (that of arms races, the things we see in lab environments are the same as what produced everything else we see, this is evidence of large scale evolution, equivocation etc.). These are arguments actually made, maybe you don't make them, but I wan't attempting to answer you. This is no straw man. Antibiotic resistance can be a significant problem in the medical field, but it is no evidence of the kind it is purported to be.

[@nesslig2025]

@@LongStoryShortVideos *I'm answering arguments that are being made by popular and authoritative in the field (that of arms races, the things we see in lab environments are the same as what produced everything else we see, this is evidence of large scale evolution, equivocation etc.). These are arguments actually made, maybe you don't make them, but I wan't attempting to answer you. This is no straw man. Antibiotic resistance can be a significant problem in the medical field, but it is no evidence of the kind it is purported to be.* 1st: The kind of things for which it is purported to be evidence of that I have seen are the ones that I laid out in my response...e.g. it's relevancy in medicine. So far, you haven't given even an example of where anyone (let alone Dawkins or Bill Nye) have made the argument of "Antibiotic resistance ergo common descent" or something similar. Again, citing chapters isn't exactly providing a quote. I could read the whole chapters I try to guess which lines you are referring to, but that would likely cause to me to misrepresent you and then you complaining about it. So be specific with your complaint. 2nd: It is a straw man if you present a bad argument from one person (while they are popular, Dawkins nor Bill Nye are not exactly authoritative, at least not anymore regarding Dawkins) as if it represented the whole field. If you argument is that some evolution proponents have made some bad arguments, then of course there are. I know of actual scientists who made some pretty bizarre claims like octopus eggs are from space, or caterpillars are hybrids between velvet worms and insects, or the humans are pig-chimp hybrids. Of course these are not representatives of the consensus. But showing that some evolutionary scientists make bad arguments, and explaining that this doesn't represent the field, is clearly not the point you are trying to convey here. You're argued that resistance is at best a trivial example of evolution, and that the s-called evolutionists (in general) are using it to equivocate with other things like common descent. 3rd: In addition to this, you have made claims that were either irrelevant or clearly wrong. Like, you pointing out that sometimes resistance was already present before? So what? We don't expect the mutations to only occur right after bacteria encounter the antibiotics. Or that trade-offs is somehow an argument against evolution. Or that the trade-offs observed in resistance is equivalent to someone who is quadriplegic, blind, and toothless...completely missing the point that, despite the trade-off, there is still a NET benefit which is why antibiotic resistance continue to persist, unlike blind, toothless quadriplegic people. You also claimed that resistance doesn't evolve via new mutations that add information, but just breaking things or sharing pieces of already existing DNA via HGT. This will eventually lead to a dead end where no more genes can be "thrown overboard". No, we have observed proteins gained a new function(s) by mutations that are involved in bacteria resistance, and more. Or when you misrepresented the Cit+ mutations seen in the Lenski experiment as "breaking the switch", but at the same time you put a small text of "a duplication override" on the screen, which is a type of doublespeak that didn't sit well with me. Of course, the switch wasn't broken, there was instead a novel regulatory module of which you made no mention of...oh I wonder why. And lastly, when you (hypocritically) equivocated evolution, with philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. [also seen you other comment] Again...we can all discuss this better on the league of reason forum, rather than the YT comment section. The offer is still open.

[@thegoblin957]

@@LongStoryShortVideos This is so bad has to be expected by a creationist shill. your claim at 10.03 fails hard body plan evolution is something with known plausible mechanisms ask Andreas wagner and Gurt mueller. But I will be kind to you and give you some open access papers biology.ucsd.edu/about/news/article_020602.html www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614227/ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219305342 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002772 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188509/ But go ahead follow your prophet meyers.

[@shaunlarcombe3189]

-1:00

[@wam067]

Fantastic video. Well explained and funny too. Thanks for making this.

[@germanshepherd2701]

I like your videos, regardless of you personal beliefs you make sure to stick to the actual topic and focus on criticizing popular scientific thought. Criticism, skepticism, etc. are all important in science. There are no mentions made to religion in the previous video I saw, and so far none in this one though I’m still watching. Just because you people see a video criticizing current paradigms doesn’t mean it’s somehow an argument for creationism. Science is based upon asking questions. Y’all would do well to keep that in mind and never be afraid to question authority and ideas. Never be afraid to be wrong. We get nowhere by sitting silently and merely accepting everything we hear uncritically. So, even if this KZbinr is a proponent of intelligent design, that does not affect the substance of the video. Question: are you a proponent of ID? Many of the comments and your replies seems to point that way but I’d like to be sure. If so, a second question. Will you ever try to make any videos actually making arguments in favor of ID? It’s clear you’ve got a good mind when it comes to criticizing ideas and not being afraid to do so, so I’d be interested to see you actually make the positive argument and see what happens. I understand attempting to make such an argument might end up in needing to account for other ideas but you could keep it concise with a stated presupposition of an intelligent creator at the beginning of the video. I’ve yet to see any truly convincing arguments for ID, and have never seen any evidence for it. So, I’d be interested in that. Even if maybe you make a second channel for the more philosophical discussions. Thanks for your time and have a great day 😊

[@littlejohn123]

Yay

[@BreadofLifeChannel]

Amazing explanation! Thank you for taking the time to make this!

[@ikemiracle4841]

You're a legend man, your explanations are easy to understand, and on top of all this you don't sneak God in you let your viewers decide on that. Thanks you so much

[@LongStoryShortVideos]

You're the legend. 💪

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@LongStoryShortVideos 😖😊

[@FisherOfMenParakletos]

Clearly there's an ability for a species to adapt to it's environment, if allowed by it's genes. Bacteria, selective breeding, and the human "races" are all examples of this, but that doesn't give an explanation for how it could generate new genetic code.

[@lenroystewart2904]

😂

[@trypt0faani161]

this is litetrally evolution that you are describing.

[@adrianthom2073]

Your ignorance of science is not evidence against it.

[@andreaslind6338]

That's the thing though, he is not ignorant of science (he knows a lot of biology) ....he is just also a firm Christian and good at arguing. This is a study in how someone can be wrong but still persuasive.

[@MajesticXrank]

lol

[@shaunmeyer8822]

?

[@limonene8435]

Its all about 👖

[@benjaminmanzo3388]

I´ve realized that you have many haters for the dislikes and they really attack without arguments and in a fanatical way they are not able to accept a criticism and then they treat us as religious bigots, who really is the bigoted one?

[@martam4142]

Naturalists are faith based pantheists.

[@ezbody]

Be very very careful, there may be a fanatical post-modern university professor under your bed that Jordan Peterson warned you about. LOL

[@mihailmilev9909]

I feel like the second method was misrepresented and illogically explained here.

[@mihailmilev9909]

Not stupid fundamentalists (at least not most I think), but rather these youtubers are psuedo-intellectuals. Trying to make everyone feel like they are just as rational as the scientists and everyone else, intentionally trying to distance themselves from the stereotype ur reffering to, but still leaving out the details of these theories that actually prove them true or reasonably so.

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@ezbody lol

[@thegoblin957]

9.23 this has been explained in detial via theoretical and observational work. Its really a google search a way from you. I swear Creationists are the worse

[@Sure0Foot]

Why don't you have a Nobel prize?

[@jnx4803]

Because evolution is a proven fact, and he's misunderstanding what evolution supposed to be, so he draws wrong conclusions from the evidence.

[@andoapata2216]

ah, the same people who gave bomber Obama the PEACE PRIZE ?

[@jamesreilly7684]

I truly love the work you do... well researched and mostly well thought out... this video is actually the weakest of your arguments because the apparent effect of the 'evolutionary switch' is true... nit picking side effects merely weakens your overall excellence. There is one concern however that you should be mindful of.... Arguments for a creator or designer are inherently arguments for exogenous factors (such as the God of fairy tail literature) being more important than disciplined, scientific analysis. Even if the religious are correct in that we are living in a simulation (or there is a god take you pick) their collective reference to ancient texts continues to be really damaging to humanity. Delusional or cynical religious people (not even zealots) will cherry pick your arguments and use them to dig in their heels in the face of other rational arguments.

[@les2997]

Bugs stay bugs. There is no evolution.

[@marty4760]

Evolution is a observed fact

[@les2997]

@@marty4760 Why the human DNA is irreversibly degenerating?

[@marty4760]

@@les2997 prove it

[@les2997]

@@marty4760 If I were an evolutionist, my faith in evolution would be badly shaken by the fact that the human genome is irreversibly degenerating. This fact is confirmed by multiple materialist evolutionists (e.g. Alexey Kondrashov). This means that Natural Selection is not able to weed out bad mutations let alone design or evolve anything. “Chaos is common, but order is rare, and chances of a typo improving Hamlet are slim” --- Alexey Kondrashov "Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans" (geneticist and author)

[@marty4760]

@@les2997 cool story bro. But evolution is a observed fact and doesnt need faith. Btw there are good mutations too

[@LeLa_Lu]

Many cringe

[@svenerikmoeller8809]

Everything evolves except feminism, they are heading back to the starting point!

[@donmckechnie9858]

This video IS WRONG.

[@FurlogTheGiant]

LOLOLOLOL BULLSHIT!

[@Johny_Truant]

This dude keeps talking about "Darwinian evolution" for some reason. The only people I ever hear say that are creationists and intelligent design proponents (basically creationists in lab coats). Darwin is not the end-all be-all of evolution. He is one of many people in the past who contributed. It's not "Darwinian evolution" it's just evolution. Is this some sort of creationist or intelligent design channel. Older creationism? If not then I don't know what this dude is trying to accomplish...

[@thegoblin957]

10.36 nobody fucking does its this just piece of a massive tapestry you commit equvaction in this video by suggesting this is the only type of evoultion

[@martam4142]

No, he doesn't suggest taht this is the only type of evolution.

[@commonsense0692]

Great video but….What’s ur claim? God 😂 magic man made something from nothing? No evidence of Jesus or bible or even god

[@martam4142]

No evidence that "matter" is all that exists. And strong evidence to the contrary.

[@commonsense0692]

@@martam4142 😂 send me evidence that Matter doesn’t exist 😂😂 so Einstein wrong? CERN? Are u ok? How’s does this prove YOUR god, Jesus or any mythical/ magical stories in bible?

[@garybobst9107]

Let me guess,God is constantly re-working bacteria and other microbes.Plato's continuous 'special creation' theory applies. Hail allmighty Zeus!!

[@oddjobbob8742]

Evolution simply means change. Get over it already.

[@killerbee6484]

No it means formation of new proteins and new organs and we don't see that