Antibiotic Resistance & Bacterial Evolution: What’s the Real Story? (Long Story Short, Ep. 3)

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

Thanks everyone for coming to view the video premiere. Glad so many people liked the video. We will have more coverage of this video and future LSS videos at EvolutionNews.org.

[@solemnexistence]

Thank you for doing this series, and everything else you do too!

[@nathan2friendly887]

Hi, please do a video on peacock eyespots and so called "sexual selection". Thanx Great video by the way!

[@PeterKayCom]

I'm a long time follower and subscriber. These LSS videos are absolutely fabulous. This production team should be well funded to produce many more.

[@KT-ht2xj]

Yeah ,I love this series and the "Scientific uprising " series.

[@jon__doe]

You should cross post on rumble.

[@DolioFoilio]

Unbelievable, honestly these are so good... Filled with knowledge& lovable jokes. Do more!

[@ndsuusa9787]

Antibiotics resistant are breaking already pre existing genes. No new genes evolved. Its gave the mutant an advantage in certain environment. There is no single example of mutation create new function genes

[@lpjah8951]

Exactly! Thanks ❤️☺️

[@فلان-ن2ر]

Bacterial gene expression switch from one pattern to another according to the enviromental conditions, they do so by using different types of sigma factors, each factor control a specific set of functional genes by binding to a specific promotor sequence and directs its transcription, for example, sigma factor 70 is in control during the logarithmic phase of growth, but when the nutrients are depleted or the cell exposed to damaging agent, the cell switch from sig70to sigma 38 which leads to alteration of the cellular metabolism and translation toward the stationary phase, where the cells are insensitive to most antibiotics, this state is known as persistence, this programmed reaction of bacterial genome is an example how bacteria own a predetermined genetic algorithm to adapt to an changing enviroment.

[@finlayturnquist534]

My guy, please enlighten me on this topic. I am 99% complete with a new theory that explains observed “evolution” which actually includes God in the mix and crushes natural selection into the ground. If you could let me know about these cellular algorithms, it would be a HUGE piece of evidence for this new theory. I’m not kidding, this new theory I’ve come up with can very easily convince most evolutionary scientists if I explain it to them in layman’s terms with an open mind.

[@joelebert9767]

@@finlayturnquist534 How is this going?

[@waxpriuem17]

@@finlayturnquist534 Enlighten me.

[@pamelalane3001]

😊

[@kathleennorton2228]

​@finlayturnquist534 Hello!!!

[@JohnDoe-yl7jv]

Who's here after Professor Stick video ?

[@rodrigodias4134]

Me I wanted to see this comedy show🤣🤣

[@bikesrcool_1958]

Professor stick being trans if I remember is the cherry on top.

[@theoverthinker1978]

​@@bikesrcool_1958that explains a lot 🤔

[@kaufmanat1]

So when you make the environment easier to live in, the organisms de-evolve? Yea makes sense to me. Just look at people in society...

[@igotstaknow]

I am a former atheist. Massive creation and massive design information for consciousness are proof of God - far more than not. Everyone who harmed me in the past were atheists. Evil is an effect of distance away from God and the absence of repentance.

[@campalovesjesus5705]

Amen. Just accept JESUS as LORD and savior. HE loves you so much.

[@BabyBugBug]

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, I absolutely could not stop myself from questioning evolutionary theory as it was sold to me in high school and college. I kept asking questions, never got answers that showed a clear and defined mechanism of action, just assumptions and imagination disguised as science. If there is one thing I appreciate the Discovery Institute for is throwing this nonsense into question and putting pressure on what is considered blasphemy to question.

[@michaelwill7811]

"Wow, you are so rich! What's your secret to becoming a millionaire?" "It's easy: First start with a billion dollars and then light a bunch of it on fire!" An interesting analogy, very clever... definitely got a chuckle out of that.

[@kathleennorton2228]

Finally, someone addresses this topic. Please, bring on a lots more on this subject. Also, please include viruses. Thank you.

[@gingerpickett6958]

Selling the wheels off your car makes it a worse car, but it allows you to buy stuff to make it a better house. The bacteria were adapting to their new environment. That’s kinda the point

[@ambrosianapier7545]

The problem is they keep losing parts, they aren’t actually gaining any. The car is rusting out.

[@Pyr0Ben]

What's more is that in just about every case I've seen (not all), it's an artificially created environment

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

I recently watched a presentation by an evolutionist where he basically said from the time the bacteria's form was established it hasn't changed in its billion year history. I don't think he grasped what he said.

[@andrewwells6323]

Yeah but why would you expect the form of a bacteria to change?

[@j.t.dennis4900]

@@andrewwells6323 His point is that it was an EVOLUTIONIST who said that 😆

[@AardvarkHill]

@@andrewwells6323 Why wouldn't you? Evolution is built upon the idea that all things evolve and change and get more complex over time, why would we expect bateria to not be subject to the same universal law of more and better via mutation and natural selection as every other form of life? You would think they would at least evolve to have grabbers, or baleen like nutrient grabbers. something. It's almost like they have been "immune" to evolution for over a billion years. Yet everything else has been improved by it?

[@theTavis01]

I don't think you grasp evolution...

[@thegreatbehoover788]

They never do! They BELIEVE!!!!

[@smallpebblesbigripples8636]

Thanks Discovery Science! This video was quite entertaining and informative.

[@JillGraham-v9e]

Perfect for my 10th grade biology class! They should actually pay attention and learn something!

[@sergiomoreno8775]

It's very nice that your open to all evidence based information, and you're even caring enough to share it with the young ones. Thank you for that!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@sergiomoreno8775 This entire video is utter nonsense.

[@rickkiper8837]

Brilliant, entertaining, and absolutely true. It's a miracle KZbin hasn't banned it yet.

[@KappaHunter]

Please make more of these! Very informative and quality videos :)

[@markomus1]

The irony of calling this, "Long Story Short, Ep. 3," is not lost on me. :)

[@numericalcode]

Microevolution is necessary to keep species from going extinct.

[@WaelHamadeh]

The "hold your horses" bit on its own deserves a big like :)

[@nsptech9773]

So, nobody gonna talk about how fun this animation is? ?

[@EvaLasta]

I was laughing so much haha its great

[@maliksergiu]

Briliant way to explain to my kids!

[@allisonscanlan4144]

Bacteria already can have resistance (ice age) because food contains natural antibacterials that the bacteria must survive against

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Not likely at the low concentrations that show up in nature. Dosages of antibiotics are very high in vivo.

[@richardfynn4711]

You guys are doing great work exposing the myth and fables of evolution theory, keep it up! "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers (school teachers, university professors); and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Timothy 4: 3-4)

[@poliincredible770]

Every shred of evidence used to support Darwinism requires the presumption of evolution.

[@kalobrogers235]

This channel should have 1M+ Subs. Long story short, bacteria always STAY bacteria, no matter the number of detrimental mutations or beneficial mutations that they acquire.

[@hulkernaut]

No one is saying bacteria become something else…

[@BabyBugBug]

@@hulkernautYes, they do. Oh my god.

[@kathleennorton2228]

​@@hulkernaut What? That's the basis of the ToE.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@kathleennorton2228 No, that's not what evolution means...

[@seriizenka4849]

Nicely done Discovery!

[@JonathanJilliana]

This is gold.... deserves billions of views

[@daveradford1960]

I loved 'beyond a shadow of a doubt '

[@gingerpickett6958]

Antibiotics were originally discovered in a type of mold. Even before humans began using them, this could have been a kind of selection for antibiotic resistance. But of course selection doesn’t produce resistance; resistance comes about as a result of mutations and other random changes in genetics.

[@jimhughes1070]

Absolutely brilliant young man

[@alterbart7916]

So those bacteria had resistance to all of the modern antibiotics and to those that will be invented in the future? The original article says there was a resistance only to a couple, probably caused by heavy metails. So where did the rest of resistance in the modern bacteria come from? And tell me why in earlier times penicillin could kill complete population of bacteria? If some had a resistance trait, they should have survived and be good sanitarians- transfer then to the neighbors. Also, mutations is not limited to losing traits...

[@billholbert2393]

Would you guys please consider doing a "Long Story Short" video regarding how / if .... DNA can or is dated to eons of time. I always hear how Mito-Eve has been dated to 50,000 years or more and I just don't know how they come up with such non-sense. Thanks for your consideration guys ... LOVE YOUR WORK

[@warrenrae32]

Their dating is due to the rate of mutations within the mitochondrial DNA which allows them to use such mutations as a molecular clock. There is wide convergence among geneticists regarding the dating of mitochondrial eve which has caused the estimated dates to vary wisely over recent decades. If they use the observed current mutation rate today to set the molecular clock, mitochondrial eve is much closer in history than the usual given dates. Ann Gibbons in an article entitled ‘Calibrating the mitochondrial Clock’ admited that if we use the observed rates of mutation to calibrate the molecular clock then it would place mitochondrial eve 6,000 years ago (which supports the Biblical timeframe). Because the above calibration doesn’t fit with evolutionary timeframes many scientists conclude that the rate of mutations was slower in the past. In order to make the slower mutation rate they combine the mutation rates in chimp DNA (our ‘supposed’ ancestor)with the observed rate in humans to produce a new mutation rate to calibrate the clock. This ‘allows’ for the 50,000 year dating of mitochondrial eve all of which is based on evolutionary assumptions rather than what we empirically observe today.

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

​​@@warrenrae32 The problem is that they use the fictional phylogenetic rates rather than the empirical pedigree rates.

[@kathleennorton2228]

​@@warrenrae32Thanks!

[@kathleennorton2228]

P​lease explain your terms for those who don't know what they mean. Thank you!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@warrenrae32 You are clearly ignorant about how molecular clock dating works.

[@lahouaridc]

so... spices changing to be more efficient in its environment is not an evolution?? what is? and spices then gaining new trait that lack of was one of defining differences of that spices is also not an evolution? right...

[@solideogloria5553]

you guys are genius!!! !!!!! haven't laugh this goood for a while. thank you!!!

[@kyleebrahim8061]

Such videos should have a subsection in the comments titled, "Do you disagree with the information provided?" and those who thumbs down can post reasons with evidence there.

[@AardvarkHill]

Love these so much. Thanks guys and keep 'em coming!

[@ophajoyer4503]

Atheist: X-men will be real Me: I got cancer after being exposed with hazardous chemical....

[@charliegranberry2594]

Yes, X-men is the fairy tale they want to be real, and it would be if their theory was true, but it is not.

[@jesussaves7938]

-This was so interesting, I stopped eating my Chicken-Dip! I found the same thing, that some people would say the E Coli. evolved to metabolize Citrate. But after reading the Wikipedia article, I found that wasn't the case at all; the genes regulating aerobic and anaerobic metabolism of Citrate were goofed. -And thanks for calling out that some people are purposely using this to mislead! P.S.: the cartoons were SO CUTE and had me "LOL-ing"!

[@JR-nh7fc]

so this video is trying to convince you that the process where mutations increase the fitness of the organism to the point that they get fixed in the population has nothing to do with evolution? Or when gene duplication creates novelty, as it was observed in Lenski's long term evolution experiments, it's not evolution?

[@julianf.c.7438]

I think the point about antibiotic resistance and fitness around 4:44 misses the point. What if the default condition had antibiotics, and you took an antibiotic-resistant bacteria and grew it without antibiotics, and then tossed it back in the nutrient broth containing the antiobiotics? Would we then declare that evolution "broke" the bacteria that traded antibiotic resistance for more efficient growth? Evolution isn't on a path to create the ultimate superorganism, it adapts organisms to the present conditions, and most adaptations come with tradeoffs. It's not a bug of evolution, it's an innate feature. Much of the point of Lenski's studies was that you can grow E. coli under relatively stress-free conditions and they'll still develop new traits; of course you aren't going to see massive changes to the bacteria when they're grown in shaking containers with nutrients galore - there isn't all that much to adapt to. What's cool about citrate is that it arose even when the selective pressures weren't all that powerful, showing that evolution responds even to relatively minor selective stimuli. Also, the "bait and switch" claim around 10:23 ignores a pretty substantial body of research, and seems to presuppose that antibiotic resistance/ Lenski's E.coli are the primary evidence that scientists have for evolution at every step on that line. If fungi can repurpose melanin to use radioactive waste as a food source (Dadachova, E. & Casadevall, A. (2008). Ionizing Radiation: How Fungi Cope, Adapt, and Exploit with the Help of Melanin. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 11(6): 525-31. doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2008.09.013), or a bacteria can mutate a pre-existing enzyme to digest one of the most degradation-resistant plastics (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000634951830208X), why shouldn't we expect similar variability to be present in, say, HOX genes, which we know are responsible for regulating body plans and organ formation? I get that this video is meant to be an excerpt of a larger debate, but if it's going to accuse proponents of scientific inquiry of overextrapolating the results of one experiment (without providing the context of many other scientific findings that led to the likes of Dawkins and Nye to believe in evolution), shouldn't we be similarly critical of LSS for effectively claiming that because Lenski's experiments don't provide proof for the origins of the cosmos, we have to reject evolution?

[@jessebryant9233]

Thanks for sharing your... faith and equivocating on the term 'evolution'. What exactly do you mean when you use that term? As for "new traits"... What do you mean by that? How and when did 'citrate' arise/evolve? How do you know how things were... back then? Are we talking "science" here? Do you have a time machine? And did you say "re-purpose" and "pre-existing"? So there wasn't actually anything 'novel' arising within the bacteria themselves? You're talking about variation within, not fundamental change into? (Only one type is ever observed in whole or part.) Does "regulating body plans" = creates body-plans from scratch... accidentally? And finally, I'm sorry, no mention of any "proof for the origins of the cosmos" (which naturalism cannot provide) was ever mentioned. (Did I miss something?) I applaud you for attempting to think critically, but fear that you may simply be looking for a means of maintaining your literally (not meaning to sound snarky) blind, deaf, and dumb - as well as mindless, faith. You can deny what we actualy observe in real time by appealing to eons of unobservable time, but that's not science, that's just story telling. And breaking ≠ fixing. Nor does losing = gaining. As for what Dawkins and Nye found so compelling and led to their conversion, well, a few such examples would be?

[@antoniocarlosandrada6657]

I think in the central point of the argument expressed in the video, the logic is very simple: The type of evolution that was observed even after so many thousands of generations was just the degradation of some pre-existing genes or the horizontal transmission of others also pre-existing. And as it was very well put, you "can call it evolution", but "this type of phenomena" as a natural process does not explain the pretentious claims about macroevolution, or even more about the novelty in microevolution. What these experiments show is that the great story of the emergence of the diversity of life on earth by Darwinian principles remains a beautiful fairy tale.

[@julianf.c.7438]

@@jessebryant9233 I was hoping I'd get a bite - I appreciate the critique! Let's start with the semantics... By “evolution” I mean changes in organism morphology and behavior rooted in lasting changes to genetic and epigenetic markers that improve fitness. In aggregate, enough of these changes produce sufficiently different morphologies and behaviors to classify the resulting organism as taxonomically distinct from the parent strain. By “new traits”, I was in this instance referring to the tendency of Lenski’s E.coli to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen (the aforementioned “citrate”, which I’m guessing you and most readers were able to figure out was shorthand for “oxygenic citrate metabolism”). Oxygenic citrate metabolism was possible due to a duplication of the citT citrate metabolism gene, and the placement of the copy under the regulation of a different promoter that turns the gene on under oxygenic conditions. In this instance, the genetic machinery was already present, and through a simple duplication/ rearrangement event, we see new behavior that increases the fitness of the bacteria under the experimental growth conditions, and this in only ~22 years under pretty minimal selective pressure. On the topic of semantics, I think we’re talking past each other here in terms of “breaking” and “fixing” genes or bacteria as a whole. There isn’t anything being “broken” or “fixed” - you’re just seeing reallocation of the bacteria’s resources based on its conditions. If you drop a polar bear in a panda bear’s climate, it’s thick fat and dense fur aren’t going to serve it well at all, but that doesn’t mean the evolution of those traits broke the bear, it’s an adaptation to the climes that polar bears live in. What we see in real time is the reorganization of bacterial gene regulatory networks and the modification of existing enzymes to serve novel functions or to be active under novel conditions - this is basically showing that even with a weak selective pressure, you can see genetic changes in response to it, or selection of a particular subpopulation so that the ratio of phenotypes present changes dramatically. Natural selective pressures change prevalent phenotypes in short order. In the LSS video, the extension of that is breeding/ cultivation, where we can impose stringent artificial selective pressures and achieve some pretty significant phenotypic changes in a matter of years - not entirely new body plans, but still major physiological alterations. Then there’s the new organs/ body plans… well, I mentioned HOX genes before… these literally regulate body plans, and by tampering with them, you get brand new ones (elifesciences.org/articles/01939). You change the duration these are active by shifting around the regulatory networks controlling them, you get new body plans (and for organs, the eye - whether you classify that as a simple cluster of light-sensitive neurons, a “pinhole eye” of a nautilus, our own eye, among others, shows just how far you can get by taking a relatively simple bundle of cells and gradually shifting their orientation relative to one another and/ or adding fairly basic additional components to it; functional intermediates galore!). Universal common ancestry is predicated on a number of different factors, including similarities in physiology, genetic similarity, fossil record, etc., but at this point we’re getting so far afield that you’d need a whole course to cover it adequately (or a 1000+ page book - see Dawkins’s The Ancestor’s Tale). And then there’s abiogenesis, which is still in its infancy as a field of study, but the preliminary research is freely available online if you want to read what’s there. My comment about the beginnings of the cosmos was a bit of creative hyperbole. I can say in full honesty that I can’t tell you precisely when citrate metabolism evolved - it’s actually an open question in biology - but it’s an offshoot of the Krebs cycle, which is a series of chemical reactions that likely occurred without life, albeit in a far less efficient and less complex form without the gradual addition of enzyme catalysts (Keller, M., Kampjut, D., Harrison, S. et al. Sulfate radicals enable a non-enzymatic Krebs cycle precursor. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0083 (2017). doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0083). Now bear in mind, the reaction here still works without enzymes; it’s just that if you throw a protein in the mix, it gets more efficient; when you vary the sequence of the added enzymes, you’re not playing with whether the reaction occurs or not, you’re tinkering with the efficiency of the reaction. Above and beyond that, I’m just going to leave it at this: your questions are valid, and I am pretty confident that no matter what I type here, you’re going to have more. And that’s a really good thing, frankly - you should be asking questions like that. But instead of having me do all the legwork for you, you should really be trying to answer them for yourself - you’re clearly a pretty smart guy, I would bet you that you’re more than capable of grasping a scientific paper. There isn’t space in the comments section for a full biology lecture and I don’t really have the time to type it all out (and yes, that sounds like a copout, I know), so I’m trusting you to look at what the field as a whole has to say and encouraging you to engage with it directly, instead of just fighting me. When I debate this material, I can say I’ve read Behe and Meyer’s publications, I’ve gone through the Discovery Institute’s list of published scientific papers, and I follow their media on sites like this - I can engage with them on their terms and on the merits of their theories. Right now, you’re asking me for textbook definitions of evolution that are perfectly consistent with those used by the broader scientific community - you’re free to disagree with the validity of the definition, but you need to actually understand the context for it if you want to do anything other than just own randos on the internet. You’re asking me for Dawkins’s and Nye’s list of corroborating publications, when Dawkins has published over 10 books on different aspects of evolutionary theory - most of them available at your public library - and they all contain rigorous citations in each chapter you could easily look up yourself (if you want my recommendation, you really can’t go wrong with The Ancestor’s Tale, but the Selfish Gene is a bit more concise). You’re an intelligent person, so I’m going to encourage you to do just that. I’ve included a list of mainstream publications on evolutionary biology below, along with the main search engine for browsing primary research: - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ - a general search engine for science publications - www.nature.com/natecolevol/ - journals.plos.org/plosone/browse/evolutionary_biology - journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/ - www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home

[@julianf.c.7438]

@@antoniocarlosandrada6657 I don't entirely disagree with the fact that Lenski's experiments aren't demonstrating macroevolution in real time, but to be honest, most of the people claiming it is are doing evolution a disservice, because they're skipping an entire body of additional research meant to fill in the gaps between this and macroevolution. I'll direct you to my reply to Jesse Bryant above - if you actually want to explore that additional research, the resources are out there, and there's way too many for me to summarize here. I took the time to read the Discovery Institute's materials, I really hope you'll take the time offer mainstream science the same courtesy.

[@pamelalane3001]

​@@julianf.c.7438😊

[@cousinbryan3007]

I love this series. It is awesome!

[@ozredneck22]

Great video guys, a lot to unpack there but you nailed it.

[@StephenKingston]

the animation is top-notch!

[@chrisduwe]

Keep em coming!!! So glad ur making this kind of video now. Well done!

[@cnortham7109]

As someone who has higher degrees in biology and used to be a YEC, I would say that antibiotic resistance is not the slam dunk for evolution that some would like it to be. It is a great example of change in allele frequency, but it doesn't really sink modern YEC which accepts microevolution, as opposed to early creationists who believed in fixity of species. Antibiotic resistance also doesn't really demonstrate increasing complexity, although this isn't especially surprising as mutations that break things are much more common than mutations that increase complexity. With that being said, I somewhat disagree with the portrayal of the Lenski long term evolution experiment. The ability to digest citrate aerobically (as opposed to anaerobically) was not the result of the breaking of a switch (the biological analog here being a promoter). It was the result of the duplication of a citrate transporter gene which placed it under the control of a promoter sequence that allowed the duplicate to be expressed under aerobic conditions. At the very least this demonstrates that evolution can create two copies of a gene that differ in gene expression which is likely an important factor in macroevolution. The evolution of nylon-degrading bacteria is also relevant here, as it clearly demonstrates that evolution can result in duplication of an original gene followed by specialization of that gene for a new purpose that the old gene was able to perform only weakly.

[@Viatoreptil]

This video seems like an example of equivocation. I'm left wondering what 'Darwinian evolution' is. Is this the theory predating modern synthesis, because I don't recall needing to use Darwin's name in an adjective from when describing evolution. Can the definition of Darwinian evolution be described in the context of this video? What is Darwinian creative power? Lots to unpack here. But I'll just add some insight to one of the examples here: it is not surprising that antibiotic resistance predates modern antibiotics because the chemicals used in modern antibiotics are naturally produced by other organisms like fungi that compete with bacteria. Many antibiotics are not based off completely novel chemicals but preexisting chemicals produced by other organisms. Bacteria have been evolving alongside antibiotics for as long as antibiotic-producing organisms (like fungi) have been around. Can a story about modern antibiotics and evolution really be told without its origin? Anyone reading this, just look up the history of penicillin. This video has awesome graphics, which may influence the likelihood of one being convinced by the presented explanations, but it seems that if each example here was given just slightly more time, the points here would end up being contradicted.

[@clydeberry2815]

You say 'bacteria have been evolving'. Into what have they been evolving? Fish? Puppies? Chickens?

[@Viatoreptil]

@@clydeberry2815 Yeah, I should practice what I preach and define the terms I'm using, too, haha. I'm using the basic definition of evolution, sometimes called microevolution, which is "changes in allele frequency of a population over time." This is how evolution happens without the appearance of a novel species (speciation) or the appearance of whole groups of new organisms (macroevolution). In this situation, the ancient bacteria population likely had a variety of alleles (gene variations) that didn't include alleles coding for antibiotic resistance. These alleles may have shown up on occasion due to mutation (spontaneous appearance of a new allele due to DNA-copying errors). Still, they may have been around in low frequencies if it didn't provide a survival advantage and didn't decrease their survival, either. The likely scenario was that ancient fungi started producing antibiotics (which for them would've appeared as a mutation) to kill off or compete with bacteria for resources. Any individual bacteria that might've had the mutation for antibiotic resistance survived the exposure and were the only ones left to reproduce. Future generations of bacteria are more likely to acquire this antibiotic-resistant allele. So point 1) The allele frequency of bacterial populations change, which means evolution (microevolution) happens. Point 2) This is how it's possible bacteria that predate modern antibiotics can have antibiotic-resistant alleles.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Edward Ramirez-Wright , you wrote, "What is Darwinian creative power?" Besides imagination, there is none. ============================ Edward Ramirez-Wright , you wrote, "Bacteria have been evolving alongside antibiotics for as long as antibiotic-producing organisms (like fungi) have been around. " There is no evidence that bacteria has ever evolved. There is evidence they can devolve, but not evolve. Dan

[@rejectevolution152]

Thats a hypothesis...

[@lukakaps9548]

@@BibleResearchTools you Wrote, there is no evidence bacteria can evolve. They can devolve. ============================= Like the creator of this Video you seem to think Evolution is only Evolution when the organism gets more complex. In the Richard Lenski example, the E. coli adapted to lose their "tail", because they didn't need it in that Environment. That is exactly what you would expect in Darwinian Evolution. Because they are now better adapted to their Environment.

[@addersrinseandclean]

Really enjoy the videos, keep them coming.

[@gingerpickett6958]

If there’s a hard limit, where is it? I don’t see it anywhere. Could you point out the exact point where further change in a certain direction is no longer possible?

[@killerbee6484]

Just read edge of evoultion

[@incelemeTRe]

Thank you. Waiting for more videos.

[@sakalava47]

My 14yo daughter loves these. We watch them together.

[@gabagaba6207]

you really do shed light on bullshit athiest science but will you tackle the quantum fluctuation causing the big bang thing

[@snteevveetns]

Well said! Especially the part about the poorly defined terms they use!

[@TMack-xk1lw]

These are highly educational, and entertaining!

[@MLeoM]

I think their point is to say- doesn't matter if it is an actual disadvantage but it serves as benefit. So then they go on to say it has gained a new ability, or evolved to have a new functionality. What is your response if they say even their disability due to environment change is also a small portion of evolution. For example, losing their ability to move when they were moved around in lab test containers? What if they say, their survival in the long term isn't as important as they might get more adapted soon to adjust to the environment for their survival. While they lost their ability to move and it is a disadvantage but it is an advantage in this condition they were observed in. So, what would be your response if someone says, adapting to current environment IS adaptation and a step towards their next evolved version. Would very much like to see a response to these, and I am sure you might have answered these in this video but I might have missed. But absolutely loved the video!

[@spaceman884]

These animated videos are great! Entertaining and informative, thank you

[@renwilw1454]

3:28 What is meant by "Bacteria with extra useless genes tend to be "less fit" than vanilla bugs"? That doesn't make sense to me, do you have some scientific works you could point me to that demonstrate this "less fitness"?

[@junacebedo888]

It is there. HGT was mentioned

[@robstadler927]

For example, in Richard Lenski's experimental evolution study on E. coli, after about 2000 generations, all flasks of E.coli had lost their operon (set of genes) necessary to metabolize ribose. Because there was no ribose for them to metabolize in this environment, the ribose operon had no value. By removing this operon, the E. coli became 2% faster at reproducing. Over time, the faster reproducing E. coli grew to dominate the population. That is what "more fit" means - any E. coli that still had the ribose operon were "less fit" . Note that "less fit" always has to be interpreted in light of the current environment. If these E. coli were placed in a different environment where ribose was the main source of food, the bacteria without the ribose operon would become "less fit".

[@Beonrightside]

Wow !! That was a good one !! Very nice explanation . I always had this doubt in mind.

[@nathan2friendly887]

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God"

[@lpjah8951]

Thank you!

[@theTavis01]

That's not justification for lying about evolution. I've got one word for you - *_DINOSAURS!_*

[@MrSuperman957]

@@theTavis01 So?

[@nolanburton7985]

So good. SO GOOD. Nicely, nicely done.

[@AbdurahiimRoberts]

Brilliant!

[@NetlistPCB]

It's adaptation, not evolution.

[@vyceanderson5924]

@TheJabberwocky28 No, they're not. It's a bait-and-switch tactic, but the ideas the term "evolution" and "adaptation" suggest in the modern mind are different, because when people say "evolution" the idea associated with that is an organism getting new genetic traits, whereas "adaptation" is a clarification that an organism turns on traits that it already has to better its survival. Trying to make the words mean the same thing just breeds confusion, because in that case, creationists become evolutionists because they believe in natural adaptation/selection, but not in Darwinian evolution theory that suggests simple organisms acquired new, more complex traits because of their environment.

[@AnnoyingMoose]

"Aristotle MUST have been delicious!" Hannibal Lecter has entered the chat!

[@KenJackson_US]

Why do so many people have such absolute unquestioning faith in microbe-to-man evolution?

[@solemnexistence]

I would say, it's the academic majority view, taught at public schools, and ingeniously 'supported' by a panoply of 'evidence' And underlying it all is a deep desire to disbelieve the Bible, "... Did God _really_ say...?"🤔

[@spacedave2000]

Two reasons. First GOD was removed in school system. Secondly people needed to replace Him in any way they could...and have devote faith in it....

[@settledown444]

Because of the overwhelming quantity and quality of positive scientific evidence for evolution.

[@theTavis01]

Because the fossil record exists... duh. And what's wrong with faith??? And why do you think "microbe-to-man" is somehow different from man being formed from dust???

[@danieljohnston3708]

They are brainwashed from an early age through education and media, and they willingly accept because it appeals to the evil hearts of men, not wanting to be accountable to a Holy God for their sin and rebellion.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Keep up the good work guys

[@smileysgarden]

Just curious but i look up definition of genetic mutation and it says any chages in dna are known as a mutation. So when things are turned "on and off" is that considered a change in dna so then just fall under this broad term? When you gave example of gene transfer is that also under the broad term as it is a change in dna? I am trying to understand what is or isn't considered a mutation. I appreciate the videos and use the information often but wasn't aware that the word mutation covered so many different things 🤔

[@farididdinrahimov1050]

Well, mutation is mutation, it means change. But claimed mechanism of darwinian evolution is natural selection and RANDOM mutations specifically.

[@ifollowtheantichristandthe9218]

Where is eposode 1?

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

Episode 1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opyUmHehZtx6nrM Playlist for first 3 episodes and responses: kzbin.info/aero/PLR8eQzfCOiS0AfFPsMAUYr_VVkpU13uv9

[@cosmosreality222]

Evolution is a fact

[@sliglusamelius8578]

If you define it narrowly enough, it’s a fact that everybody in this discussion agree with. If you define it as the entire related phylogenetic tree of life, then you are arguing an entirely different idea. So, what definition are you promoting here? Because if you narrow it to “the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time”, then everyone agrees. If you narrow it to sub speciation, or even speciation (there are 20 or more definitions of species), then most “anti evolutionists” also agree. What we don’t agree about is that all flora and fauna evolved from primordial bacteria or archaea.

[@johnglad5]

​@@sliglusamelius8578And a year later and cosmoreality says nothing. Blessings and health

[@johncena12366]

Microevolution is

[@nolanburton7985]

I have a bridge for sale.

[@BeniaminZaboj]

Great series, it will be wounderfoull if you create more.

[@revelationtrain7518]

Awesome , plus these animations could be a great idea to educate our kids against the lies of darwinian evolution

[@terriekraybill9724]

This is all excellent, but I'd personally switch around numbers 3 and 4 on the chart @10:25. IMO.

[@ЗаурГучетль-г3ч]

Fantastic video!

[@l-cornelius-dol]

Excellent.

[@serpentinereceptor]

isnt introduction of synthetic chemicals eg antibiotics artificial selection? therefore abr is not darwinism isnt it?

[@s.unosson]

And Lenski's bacteria are still what they were in the begining of the experiments: bacteria.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

He is making hay about nothing. Can’t stand these guys making wild claims.

[@ajmittendorf]

The very subtle Joe Biden/Ice Cream reference was ... how should I say this ... (Ah! I know!) BRILLIANT!!!!!

[@paulroy1903]

Lol love the humour of the vid keep it up guys

[@alfonstabz9741]

how about the mega plate petri dish experiment of kishony lab as proof of evolution. ?

[@AA-5690]

Then how do zoonotic viruses jump to humans? I mean don't they attain this ability by mutation?

[@1australianbeacon]

Whats happened to the flu season is Australia, THEY say anti bacterial gel stops viruses? And masks too. I thought these thing are so tiny that you have to wear a pressurized suit like in the lab..

[@intedominesperavi6036]

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I'll give it a try: First off: Viruses≠Bacteria. Some, not all antibacterial gels help against viruses, because they destroy the capsid of the virus, therefore making it impossible for the virus to infect new cells. You are right, masks don't protect you from viruses, but they certainly protect others from the virus you might have. Why is that? Firstly, masks significantly change the airflow, so that the air you are breathing out stays near you face. So if you sneeze you don't move air for 20m but rather 20cm before you face. Secondly, many viruses are spread through tiny drops of saliva and/or water that get ejected through sneezing, talking, singing etc. These tiny droplets are big enough for your mask to get filtered (That's why the mask gets wet after a while). And since the viruses don't float around on their own, but in these tiny water droplets, masks are quite effective in keeping others save from an infection you might have. God bless

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@@intedominesperavi6036 No. Masks are proven to DECREASE the O N E THING your body needs to fight disease...plenty of oxygen! I went ti get tested for covid with the obligatory mask. The fnp looked frantically at me and said your blood oxygen levels are far too low. I pulled down the mask...and...VOILA!!!! I then asked her the level and she said PERFECT. Then I asked her sincerely if wearing a mask is really a good thing given the HORRIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS....she said ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I have gotten sick more times this year than ever...only one thing changed. Most of my working day is behind a mask. I haven't gotten sick in years... before this. THINK!!!!

[@alexturlais8558]

That's because scientists have to be 100% safe, whilst its good enough for ordinary people to be mostly safe.

[@NJ-ju8fr]

Thrilled to have found you. Great work!

[@HugoNewman]

The inevitable question: how do you reconcile this analysis with what appears to be happening with the SARS-CoV-2 variants? They appear to be steadily evolving towards greater infectiousness - surely an adaptive advantage! The Neo-Darwinian is bound to point to this as a real-time vindication of the creative power of random mutation plus natural selection? A video/lecture on this would be very welcome and no doubt illuminating.

[@sdrchannel576]

Graphene oxide.

[@zoehoward4308]

so true. We have the technology to code different strands as they evolve. We can pinpoint the mutations. Some of the mutations are very obviously resulting in evolution and higher fitness.

[@TheSebastianML]

great videos with new paradigms!

[@eduardofreitas1224]

I like this video. There are subtitles in Italian. I have a plan to save videos like this one in Portuguese. I already started it. We must share this knowledge.

[@mattk6719]

What I learned: Short people don't like to share.

[@wulphstein]

Atheism is dead.

[@Beonrightside]

Looking forward for it

[@archstanton5053]

Great way to make a point. Excellent animation. I LOVE those bacteria!

[@abraao2213]

Very goood!

[@roaxeskhadil]

This is misrepresentation heaped on misrepresentation and full of logical errors. Yes, a resistance to antibiotics *may* make an individuum less fit, if it lives in an environment where no antibiotics are present. But that's saying "without selective pressure there is no selective pressure". Duh, nobody says otherwise. A spacesuit will definitely hamper the ability to win of a person running a marathon. But an astronaut wearing one definitely has the edge over somebody not doing so. That same error / strawman is repeated over and over and over and over ... And then the "ability to digest citrate" example ... the bacteria lost the ability to turn off an ability they already had (which is already more than a bit wrong: an ability that is permanently turned off is not an ability. You have the "turned off" ability to create Vitamin C on your own, but still, scurvy is a thing ...) which is the exact reason why the "what bacteria get in genetic material via plasmid exchange is normally just baggage" is wrong: a gene that is not expressed requires negligible resources - only during reproduction - and thus can persistz for a long time.

[@antoniocarlosandrada6657]

I think you are confused about the central point of the argument expressed in the video, the logic is very clear: The type of evolution that was observed even after so many thousands of generations was just the degradation of some pre-existing genes or the horizontal transmission of others also pre-existing. And as it was very well put, you "can call it evolution", but "this type of phenomena" as a natural process does not explain the pretentious claims about macroevolution, or even more about the novelty in microevolution. What these experiments show is that the great story of the emergence of the diversity of life on earth by Darwinian principles remains a beautiful fairy tale.

[@mamunurrashidkhan5376]

What about the fruit fly experiment? I heard some people argue that new species was created and named synthetica which undisputedly proved macroevolution through natural selection and random mutations.

[@thalastianjorus]

Depends on the Fruit Fly experiment that you are talking about. Fruit Flies are used in a great deal of genomic and evolutionary studies due to their rapid generational speed. That said - I have never heard of, nor could I even find, an experiment, or study, that claimed to produce a new species of fruit fly. _(I did, however, find quite a number of news articles that have claimed that a study has managed to do so. Despite the fact that the studies themselves never make the claim.)_ The only large scale studies I can find are concerning microbiome chages in fruit fly diets activating/deactivating different genes in the flies (no changes, merely using existing genes), or the longest running Fruit Fly experiment that has run for decades now... That has shown absolutely no changes in their genetics that have proven beneficial, nor have any of these mutations continued into subsequent generations. In fact all studies involving either fruit flies, or bacteria wherein genetic change is forced via stimuli - eventually the creatures simply die off. They can only handle so much genetic change. They do not become new species. They simply die. You see - no one disputes that genetics change over time. What is disputed is that one species simply turns into another species. You do not have to take my word for it - even prestigious, tenured professors and researchers say the same thing. Well... the honest ones: _(Anyone who claims, much like many of the news articles concerning studies that I found attempt to, that something has been "indisputably proven" is not practicing science.)_ University of Bristol Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology Alan Linton - _"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."_

[@johnglad5]

All that DNA was synthesized in a lab by machines. No mutations, no natural selection. Peace

[@postmodpen1169]

What about "de novo" genes? There are genes that are literally built from scratch.

[@CJFCarlsson]

it is not dealt with here and not something reported from the long running experiments as far as this layman knows. I looked up "de novo genes" quickly to find that it is legitimate term. Maybe an attempt to explain "orphan genes" and a save for theory they like?

[@BibleResearchTools]

Postmodpen , you wrote, "What about "de novo" genes? There are genes that are literally built from scratch." They simply appear, suddenly and by no known mechanism. Dan

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@BibleResearchTools Could be lateral gene transfer.

[@amongussus4]

Omicron, delta and other variants of covid are extremely sucessful

[@mitchellkrouth5083]

Thank you

[@bumonthecorner13]

A car evolving to have no wheels is because the environment became conclusive for the no wheel car to survive. But the second you take the no wheel car to an environment where it needs Wheels again it will evolve to have them again but at the cost of many of its population dying off.

[@Кальмарот424]

У этого видео есть очень большая проблема. Вы сами назвали, что гены могут изменяться, ломаться. Но это так же и значит, что изменение генов может образовывать новые гены, а значити органы.

[@PixelsofLight]

This is excellent!

[@mouvementebr3575]

What about the fact we see very clever physiological evolutions from brown bear to polar bear? Notable examples include the ability to swim sixty miles or more at a time in freezing waters, fur that blends with the snow, and to stay warm in the arctic environment, an elongated neck that makes it easier to keep their heads above water while swimming, and oversized and heavy-matted webbed feet that act as paddles when swimming. It has also evolved small papillae and vacuole-like suction cups on the soles to make them less likely to slip on the ice, alongside smaller ears for a reduction of heat loss, eyelids that act like sunglasses, accommodations for their all-meat diet, a large stomach capacity to enable opportunistic feeding, and the ability to fast for up to nine months while recycling their urea. Also to be fair maybe it's not chance and natural selection as it may have been thevresult of a kind of artificial intelligence program in the DNA if it was designed by and an advanced alirn civilization, but it's also not all about breaking things that works as you can see in my example

[@clydeberry2815]

From brown bear to polar bear. Therin lies the crux...not from brown bear to vulture. Or from brown bear to caterpillar. If you happen to be caucasian, spend enough time in the sun and you'll also go from white human to brown human. But you dont go from white human to brown bear

[@ednorman1810]

It has been clearly shown that polar bears "evolved" from brown bears by losing or damaging genetic material: the ability to make brown pigment (hence white fur), and some damage to fat metabolism enzymes (hence ability to eat and store more fat without getting sick). Behe deals with this example in his book "Darwin Devolves". Check it out.

[@xlntnrg]

Intelligent adaptation is an obvious feature of intelligent design. Check out Bruce Lipton, pioneer in stem cell research, his experiments explains it all.

[@mouvementebr3575]

@@ednorman1810 ok fair enough I already read it but I don't get how the polar bear would get vacuum suction cups on the sole to avoid sliping on the ice by losing dna information, it looks like a new feature. I'm not a proponent of darwinism but I don't understand this either

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@mouvementebr3575 We have real world examples of evolution by natural selection of advanced mammals like wolves to dogs and dog subspecies. That shows that a lot of variation is possible. But the limits are there. Cats are similar in that regard. I guess you could argue that given more time something really different will result. But drosophila has shown that’s unlikely. And they are much less complex than advanced mammals. We have seen a billion generations and every possible mutation and rearranging of genes and yet, nothing new and improved. It is all very confusing….

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Thanks

[@RedefineLiving]

This was really good, thank you.

[@zoehoward4308]

This video is riddled with inaccuracy, and its logic is incredibly faulty. First, fitness is relative to environment. An antibiotic resistant germ has greater fitness in a drugged environment, and less fitness in a drug-free environment. Wild-type versions of the germ have less fitness in a drugged environment, and more fitness in a drug-free environment. It is a tradeoff. In the cirtus eating bacteria example, nothing "broke." There was a random mutation that resulted in a change of the bacteria's abilities. By saying it "broke," you are literally using equivocation. Anyway, thus, the germ evolved. Perhaps not for the better, but it still did. Darwinianism also does not demand new traits. It is changes in a species or a population over time. The same proteins that were originally there are modified. Nothing is just created out of the blue. And another thing, you say that evolution has so many definitions. It does not. It has one definition, with many mechanisms. You mentioned genetic drift and artificial selection, and descent with modification -- those are mechanisms. Not definitions. Your cow analogy is also jank. That is talking about a trait gained over a lifetime which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I could go on and on. Evolution is definitely a theory and not fact, but this video is utter crap.

[@Fanboy1222]

Cope

[@patatotomato1907]

It would be cool if the Suboor Ahmed had a video with you guys