'Living Fossils' Aren't Really a Thing

[@bm8350]

He was so offended by Hank saying "living fossil" that he had to make a whole video about it to correct him.

[@british-sama7007]

Who is Hank?

[@jaceross7648]

Bruno Henrique Sequinel hank green another of the presenters on the channel he is the best one honestly

[@revinaque1342]

@@jaceross7648 Kallie is my favorite 😊

[@OtepRalloma]

Which video did he call them that

[@jacksont9455]

I’m glad that everyone who watches this channel also watches sci-show

[@johnweigel9761]

I always took a "living fossil" to be a species that was discovered in fossil form before it was discovered as still alive in the modern world. The coelacanth was the most famous example of such a "living fossil."

[@sydhenderson6753]

I'd call it a Lazarus taxon as well, since it was thought to be extinct and wasn't. Horseshoe crabs and Lingula and crocodylians I don't think ever were thought to be extinct, so they're living fossils without being Lazarus taxa.

[@thomasmalacky7864]

Well Biblical creationism is true

[@jcortese3300]

"Living fossil" == Sometimes Mother Nature just gets it right early on.

[@YarbroK]

Janis Cortese that is a great way to put it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[@hydrobell]

Janis Cortese Python!

[@abelcheng2073]

The only thing nature needs is to run maitanence every now and again.

[@critterfreek83]

Like mantis shrimp. Now there's a group of arthropods that Nature and evolution truly outdid themselves with. I mean, raptorial claws that can smash the shells of crabs or clams like they were just graham crackers, a capacity to learn and remember concepts and experiences, AND color filters in their eyes that they can switch between like the Predator in the slaughterhouse scene in Predator 2 to see in pretty much any part of the light spectrum that they choose? I think this design needs no more improvements folks. Anything else would just be OP territory.

[@FlyingDwarfman]

Perhaps more like nothing outside (like an asteroid, super volcano eruption, continental collision, or rapidly expanding, receding glaciers) has come in and messed everything up for them... yet.

[@whitneyempey4429]

I'd love to see a video on the eras, epochs, and periods because I don't know anything about them at all... or actually what the difference is between an era and a period...

[@eons]

Thanks, Whitney. Keep an eye on Eons, because there's an episode about this coming soon!

[@whitneyempey4429]

PBS Eons thanks so much!

[@fusionfall34]

I believe there needs to be an episode explaining how these "hoofed mammals" evolved into todays whales.

[@marccolten9801]

Just add water.

[@ecrivonlunyx]

There is! kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYC2g36qicRsrNk

[@ZBisson]

@@marccolten9801 that would make a hippo

[@JubioHDX]

@@ZBisson hippos are the closest living relatives to whales... so... yea. just add some more water to a hippo, they dont have enough to live in just yet

[@brianstark3932]

Eons always has the perfect blend of humour and scientific info!!

[@ADHDSquirrel-]

Not this time.

[@irishmigit]

After seeing Hank Green in a turtle costume give a lecture on science, him saying I'm a living Fossil makes me laugh so much thinking back to the costume

[@disgruntledwookie369]

"A lecture on science" is not a thing. What subject? That's like saying "I watched a movie about people doing things"

[@mbrannon]

I've been subscribed since day one after seeing this channel on PBS's Spacetime. I love this channel and the subject matter but I feel like the format would really benefit from a slightly longer duration. Obviously the episodes don't need to be full length thirty minute features but at the current 5-6 minute average time, it is just enough time to get interesting and whet your appetite before it ends frustratingly short. I think the channel would really be perfect at the 10 minute mark and the level of detail that implies. I know it's still a fairly new channel and this isn't related to this specific video but I just wanted to leave feedback. Hopefully this is something that changes over time. Cheers. I love what you guys are doing and look forward to it every week.

[@eons]

We have a bunch of longer-form episodes coming your way in the next couple of months! (BdeP)

[@mbrannon]

That's great to hear. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am looking forward to what you guys have planned!

[@SM-nz9ff]

I agree they should be longer...I tend to not watch too many channels that have short videos....especially when a decent % of the video in each short video is the intro and explaining the outline of the topic and the topic only gets like 2-3 actual minutes of presentation....then you redo this for all of the short videos and you get very little actual content.

[@Zootycoonman223]

Same thing wrong with asking: are humans STILL evolving? Of course yes. Metapopulation genetics fluctuate with each subsequent generation, oscillating around the average genetic change per generation. Metagenerations eventually have overarching ‘themes’ that result in genetic drift from the original generation - eventually oscillating into speciation. Humans and all life will forever evolve so long as they exist.

[@deluxeassortment]

Zootycoonman223 Michio Kaku disagrees with you. It's hard to evolve when we keep our genetic profiles so diverse.

[@Zootycoonman223]

Michio Kaku is arguing incorrectly if that is his stance. Gene flow may be staving off isolation of human population genetics and via retrogression future generations may have more uniform genetics than currently exists, but that too is a form of evolution. Edit: Evolution is not equivalent to speciation.

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

Im also a humanist but I dont think we're above the animals, we could very well branch off into different species over millions of years, just like animals, or we could go extinct and another animal on this planet could come up and become intelligent with a little better survival advantage then we had. For example I can think of radiation being a problem, but cockroaches seems to be immune from what i remmeber they could survive a nuclear fallout? Well if we did set off nukes and die out the cockroaches could possibly survive and then evovolve over millions of years into intelligent life that can fly through space without fear of radiation. In that way we could be a step in life's goal to spread across the universe, if thats just life only thoughtless goal, but as a humanist i think humanity is also evolving also- the spirit, which is at an infancy stage right now as a friend of mine put it. Eventually that evelution wouldnt lead to any interstellar travel but more inter dimensional travel id imagine. Shedding the phsyical reality, like a pure ball of enlightened energy. But even then one guy said at that said, he still rather get with a slim ball of pure enlightened energy then a fat one.

[@OldieBugger]

Unfortunately, reading news it looks like humans are evolving towards stupidity. I think someone made a movie that was based on this kind of notion.

[@JimCullen]

It seems _obvious_ to me that, regardless of what other effects might go on, humans _are_ largely staving off evolution by natural selection. People with severe mental or physical disabilities, let alone really minor maladaptations, are able to live long and happy lives, including reproducing, thanks to modern medicine and modern civilised society. We're able to essentially ignore the effects of extreme conditions thanks to modern technology. *Of course* natural selection is going to take a back seat to that, because we're no longer suffering from the effects of natural external selection pressure.

[@TheSaneHatter]

My understanding, from an early age, was that "living fossil" was a colloquial term to describe an animal thought to have gone extinct long ago (i.e. before humans), but then found alive. Pretty specific, and not really worth debunking.

[@alexanderf8451]

No, those are called "lazarus taxa" and they do happen from time to time.

[@FlyingDwarfman]

What +Alexander F. said. As described early in the video, "living fossils" is much more widely accepted to refer to creatures with little apparent (phenotypic) changes over millions of years.

[@doigt6590]

I never, but absolutely never heard the definition for living fossil used in this video. Sure go on, argue against a meaning which is nonexistent in everyday life over here, idc. I was seriously disappointed. A living fossil is used to mean an animal which was thought to be extinct, not an animal which hasn't undergone any evolution. Perhaps the "lazarus taxa" is the correct technical jargon, but living fossil is the colloquial term.

[@josephnebeker7976]

Language evolves

[@SunnyApples]

So in Game Theory, there is this concept of "Nash equilibrium" where every player in the game has nothing to gain by changing their strategy. I would expect living things in a environment that doesn't change much to fall into this Nash equilibrium, and stick to their survival strategy for a long time.

[@glaceonpokemon4712]

How?

[@NeufeldIan]

An alternate way of looking at it is the "Red Queen's Race" coined from an Alice in Wonderland quote: in a race, you run as fast as you can to stay where you are. It isn't that living things are unable to find better strategies, but rather they are constantly being pressured to be as efficient as possible - as are their predators and prey. Until something allows for a major change to the equation (climate change, invasive species, major disease outbreak, some critical genetic mutation, etc) they remain locked in an eternal race against each other with no one side getting ahead.

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

Pretty much - just that that one player has a solid enough strategy that stays effective in every iteration of the game while the others have to adapt to balancing changes.

[@SunnyApples]

But let me ask this then. If there is one species in this Nash equilibrium, or Evolutionarily Stable Strategy, than I would expect whole Eco system around it to also be in the equilibrium. Things that species eats, and things that eat it. So if Coelacanth has not changed it's survival strategy, than every living thing that lives around it should also be in Nash equilibrium - stick to it's survival strategy just as long as Coelacanth has. Is that correct?

[@ProfessorPolitics]

One problem with your conception is that there are very rarely singular Nash equilibria in most games. Several can exist all at once and just about any decision can be stable over time with the right reinforcement. A slightly better concept (especially for non-cooperative games where Nash equilibriums may not even exist!) may be mixed-strategy equilibria which exist as a set of probabilities that a decision would be made. Even then, however, it's probably not going to accurately capture the kind of equilibria found in nature, a dynamic as opposed to a static system. My maths knowledge runs out when considering dynamic systems, but, conceptually, I believe the ceolocanth offers a great example. The fish that exist today are (largely) wildly different than they were millions of years ago but the ones that exist today fill the same ecological niche. Additionally, the ceolocanth's position in the food web may change as other species came and went but it staved off extinction by population-level adaptions that aren't necessarily physical such as changing behavioral tendencies or by experiencing population ebbs and flows. In short, it hasn't experienced a fixed set of options and maintained an equilibrium. Rather, the dynamism of the system has allowed for new creatures to fill old roles and, perhaps, even allow things like the ceolocanth to change its role as well.

[@xaosbob]

I would love to see these develop into a longer format, say 12-15 minutes, so you can go a bit more in-depth with your topics. Citing studies on-screen (and in the description, when that would work) would be a good addition.

[@eons]

Thanks for the feedback! (BdeP)

[@RubbrChickn]

Yeah, like I'd like to know what effect the change to the tuatara's mitochondrial dna had on the lizard itself. Is it more disease resistant? probably more resistant to contemporary diseases at least

[@ashishshenoy3778]

​@@RubbrChickn i read that tuatara are uniquely adapted to colder weather so maybe the changes in their mitochondrial dna have allowed them to be efficient with their energy or heat retention during cold weather. Just my guess though

[@camgood2437]

I thought everyone knew that "living fossils" was just a colorful term. The creatures obviously do exist today, and they aren't made of rock, so..? There are people who thought that the term had scientific significance?

[@KhanMann66]

Sadly yes.

[@KuK137]

Sadly fundies nitpick at everything to ""prove"" evolution doesn't exist and such broad, imprecise terms allow them seemingly easy ""wins"" in their fallacy laden, completely wrong rants (see for example banana one or 747 one)...

[@MrYondaime1995]

So you never met a creationist.. My mom is a science teacher and a creationist.. "living fossils" is just one of the terms in her creationist pocket

[@pshuckle7488]

Science teacher, and a creationist? How? It's like hiring a person who doesn't believe in fire to be a fire fighter.

[@MrYondaime1995]

yep, but she teaches in a Seventh-day adventist's school so they're ok with it. Funny that my brother is also has a bachelor's degree in biology and as much as he knows the evidence for evolution i guess he tries his best to clinge onto the few "blind spots" of evolution to justify his creationism. It's just plain dishonest.

[@drsharkboy6568]

Talk about the evolution of whales.

[@vampyricon7026]

We want cute hooved whales!

[@eons]

Stay tuned, then, because we're working on something! (BdeP)

[@mhilmyfauzi4523]

PBS Eons yay

[@truthteller50]

Yes, that completely made up "just so" story that has absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever.

[@justine7126]

+Eric Johnson ... what ?

[@austynstorm9071]

Can you guys do a Video about why early life split into plants and animals and what was there evolutionary purposes for splitting

[@jaschabull2365]

Sounds like a cool idea! And maybe bring up fungi too!

[@justine7126]

PBS Eons keeps proving they are one of the best channel (y)

[@AxiomApe]

I love this channel. Thanks for all the awesomeness

[@romanosaraviadis]

Great points, passionate analysis, liked it a lot.. ; )

[@knightlygaming8892]

Interesting video that made me think about the little changes that aren't usually discussed when referring to these "living fossils". With that said I would love to see an episode talking about the armored fish (such as dunkleosteus) and why they grew their armor as well as why they went extinct.

[@rolfs2165]

So far, I had heard the term "living fossil" only in relation to coelacanths and the like - animals that were thought to have been extinct for millennia until someone suddenly finds a living specimen.

[@modolief]

Great presentation, thanks!

[@sueanoimm]

May I request a full video about ancient crocodilian's diverse body plan? I learned briefly about crocs with armadillo-like armor, crocs with long legs and are chasing predators instead of ambush, crocs with duck-bill like mouth, crocs with 4 huge fang-like teeth, and many more. It would be a great future content for a series like Eons.

[@veearce3384]

Love those two brothers :) but all of you are great, even steve

[@danstewart9362]

We have echidnas (montremes, egg laying mammals) come into our yard, and platypus (the one other monotreme) in nearby waterways. They are wonderful animals that fit into their environment very well. In fact, in Tasmania, both species of monotreme are furrier to account for the colder weather, and the platypus are larger.

[@denderrant]

Great video from an awesome series! I hope you'll consider a follow-up to this one someday that explores related concepts like Lazarus taxa and ghost lineages - which accounts for a lot of the surprise and excitement that surrounds things like coelacanths and tuataras.

[@davidletasi3322]

There are millions of living fossils here in Florida retirement. I happen to be one of them!

[@onardico]

best chanel from YT

[@PaleGhost69]

Living fossils aren't a thing? Tell that to my mother

[@lockjaw7437]

PaleGhost69 good one

[@lockjaw7437]

Toast K seems like some people can’t take a joke

[@lockjaw7437]

Toast K presides I thought it was funny

[@lalamanaka7639]

Lock Jaw its kinda rude though 😅

[@StephenMortimer]

Out if ya can't take a joke

[@kipofthemany2213]

I appreciate the vlog brothers clips.

[@akpsyche1299]

I love the Vlogbrothers reference.

[@phoule76]

I'd love to see more about how land mammals went to the sea, or vice versa, and the various stages they went through. Whales, hippos, dolphins...

[@thebiscuits5065]

Stupid science always trying to ruin John Green's metaphors

[@zan3958]

He’s an author, John should have better metaphors

[@BodhiPolitic]

Hey there! I would love to see a segment about healed bone-trauma, diseases and parasites in Tyrannosaurs (and other dinosaurs). The 'Trix' Tyrannosaur specimen for example shows a lot of interesting abnormalities. Many others do to and there seems to be strong evidence that these carnivores suffered from "Trichomonas-like" parasites, like some modern birds. Fascinating!

[@KavinKumarNR]

Best channel in youtube!!

[@lispy5174]

I'd really enjoy a video on the way Spinosaurus is portrayed through the years. It's so fascinating, and I'm not very sure if the quadruped theory is true because of someone discovering that the legs and hip bones were discovered to be 25 percent shorter than Ibrahim's hypothesis.

[@dp3999]

Please do a video on the evolutionary radiation of early archosaurs and their kin during the Triassic! Thanks! :)

[@KetieSaner]

Wonderful vlogbrother references!

[@epauletshark3793]

Living fossils are in the Night at the Museum movies.

[@GaryStark]

ok, I understand that animals never stop evolving, but still not clear why the term "living fossil" is so bad. What term would you suggest instead to describe animals that had very similar ancestors in the geologic past?

[@akinmytua4680]

Gary Stark how about that?

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

How about "animal"?

[@GaryStark]

That's not useful. Clearly we don't see horses in the Jurassic record, but crocodiles (while not exact) clearly do have equivalent looking ancestors. Why completely ignore that distinction?

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

On the other hand, how is it useful to distinguish that at all?

[@MrYondaime1995]

I suggest a term that is related to the body plan. Like crocodiliforms with a consistent body plan (i'm not really creative). Because, like he explained in the video, the only thing that really remains is it's body plan. Also the term "living fossil" has gotten a bad connotation from creationists, who love to mention it like it is a trump card that shows that nothing evolves. So it became kind of a creationist term.

[@kayanawehde4616]

I always thought that living fossil meant that they just been around for a long time not anything else so I'm glad this video came up I learned a lot from it

[@LilliBellentor]

When I was a kid I used to think "living fossil" means a species that still has living members, but only so few its doomed to extinction. As in "they might as well only be fossils, cause they're not gonna be around much longer".

[@jkdittmer]

You Eons guys should talk about prehistoric armoured fish. Those guys were AWESOME!!!

[@NoOne-vt8jz]

great video

[@atopend8ust595]

Yeeeeessss! finally someone finally said this!

[@kekero540]

Also one thing to note is that organisms immune systems are almost always changing due to the fact you cannot create a “perfect” immune system and that you will always be in an arms race with parasites

[@thatdiloboi718]

Another video, more stuff I learn. YES!!!!!!

[@murrilund778]

I thought that "living fossil" was a term used for an animal that was discovered in the fossil record before a living specimen was discovered.

[@deanseawa]

How can any animal be considered living fossil based on fossils less than 200,000 years old? I thought the term referred to those that haven't changed in millions of years.

[@critterfreek83]

You're right, and he was spectacularly wrong. In terms of physical appearance, if a certain group of animals or plants has displayed little or no change for a noticeable amount of time in the fossil record-at least tens of millions of years-then it can be called a living fossil in that sense. Pelicans are an example of one of these groups, which have looked and behaved essentially the same for about 45 million years. Wolves? Their general body plan has existed for about 1.5 million, if you're the generous type. Yeah.

[@bugjams]

Evolution never stops... It just is more apparent at times.

[@Pongant]

Interesting take on the topic. This feeds right into species crypticity and genetic drift.

[@insectilluminatigetshrekt5574]

Do the evolution of arachnids

[@invisiblejaguar1]

I love this channel, perfect for a paleo nerd like me.

[@eons]

Like all of us! (BdeP)

[@alexandralee303]

TUA THE TUATARA IS MY SPIRIT ANIMAL 🦎

[@barbaranoneya2896]

You're my favorite 😊 I Love You Guys On Eons

[@Vicioussama]

You know who's a living fossil? Pat Robertson.

[@magnuspeacock5857]

Can we really say he is _living?_

[@calummcrae7735]

Gonna be honest, first eons video that I didn't enjoy. Sure, crocodilians diversified a lot tens of millions of years ago, but the morphology of the crocodile/caiman/alligator lineage has remained fairly similar for tens of millions of years and calling them a "living fossil" is just trying to highlight that point. Same goes for ginko, nautilus, coelacanth, tuatara and pretty much all typical 'living fossils'. The thing that separates them from other examples you guys mentioned, like humans, jaguars, etc, is sheer time scale. Also, while that genetics paper about the tuatara is interesting, all you guys are arguing against is the term "living fossil", not the term "living genetic-fossil". I don't think the prior need imply the latter. I usually like this channel, but this video just seems to swing too closely to the buzzfeed/cracked style of clickbait journalism and less towards trying to objectively report on cool discoveries and the like.

[@jamestang1227]

look it creates the misconception that some creatures haven't evolved, horseshoe crabs and coelacanths have definitely evolved since the Mesozoic

[@alexanderf8451]

The problem is that "living fossil" implies that there are no differences but we don't know that. All we know is that the large scale morphology was pretty similar. That shouldn't lead us to immediately assume that their molecular biology or behavior must have been similar as well.

[@animalia5554]

Alexander F I kind of assumed that there would HAVE to be at least SOME differences over MILLIONS of FREAKING YEARS. It seemed obvious to me. I think this whole problem could have been solved simply by giving this video a different name, basically instead of calling it “living fossils don’t exist” it SHOULD have been called, “the term living fossils is a misnomer” it communicates the same point, but without ruffling feathers unnecessarily. That being said hindsight is 20/20 and I think we can all agree that they didn’t mean to ruffle feathers.

[@roro-mm7cc]

its just someone being nitpicky and silly no one actually literally means the term completely literally in a scientific sense when using it. Its just a colourful term that is useful when describing animals that have changed little in a huge amount of evolutionary time.

[@JBonzo12]

Great job, Blake! Way to show that that fossils can hang with the kids. (I'm older than Hank). ;P

[@michaellyden2580]

0:24 While that's not technically wrong, you are kind of giving up he wrong idea. Saying that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs by showing a Tyrannosaurus Rex and an Ostrich is giving the impression that the Ostrich evolved directly from T-Rex, which is not true. You got to be careful with that.

[@seaofseeof]

Yeah, geolotically speaking, they're closer to each other than T.rex was to Diplodocus. And both being Coelurosaurs, they shared a comparatively recent common ancestor, too. It's way more accurate to show both creatures as distant cousins who shared an ancestor, whose descendants specialized differently.

[@LumieX]

Considering that an ostrich can only come from another ostrich it wouldn't matter what he showed really since anything would be equally absurd and untrue.

[@ghostiegoober108]

Getting a look at Spinosaurus would be nice.

[@pippaari7663]

Every time I see Hank, i get super happy ♡

[@CandySouvannarangsy3187]

Tuatara being the last of Rynchocephalians... like us being the last of humans DX (I'm sorry I'm really bummed about that...how cool would it be meeting someone like "I'm half Neanderthal and quarter Denisovian ")

[@alexbgoode4045]

So the term living fossil means a living thing that looks like a fossil. What else would it mean? Time traveling crocodiles? That would be awesome though :)

[@ScionStorm1]

Alex bGoode The term Living Fossil means something that's rate of evolutionary change has been much slower than most others. Darwin's hypothesized due to the stability of their environment not pressuring them to adapt in more significant ways.

[@jaschabull2365]

Now I want to see a reboot of Back to the Future, starring Croc Brown.

[@Ezullof]

As I said above, ScionStorm is wrong. The problem is that "that looks like a fossil" is very subjective and doesn't take into account things that aren't immediatly visible (behavioural, molecular etc changes) and gives too much importance to morphological changes. In reality, all organisms experience evolution at the rate of their generations. The pressure of the environment is just one factor among many others that make evolution happen.

[@justine7126]

+Napishtim ScionStorm's point still stand. You cannot deny that some species evolves more rapidly than others, and in more "extreme" ways. I have no problem with the term living fossil, and I have no problem with people not liking the term as well. I personally don't mind it. It's just a commonly accepted phrase to talk about certain species.

[@paxkoller8647]

I’ve only heard “living fossil” used to describe a species that is the only extant member of it’s group, so this was very interesting

[@darkartscommissions9828]

The late cretaceouse also had weird crocodileans (I really enjoy this series and it makes my Mondays a little better :)

[@phxbillcee]

So, when my younger relatives call me a "living fossil" I can tell them it's not a thing??!!??

[@binky2819]

Can you please make a video about tetrapods? Specifically about their origins. How Sarcopterygians became more and more adapted to living in shallower waters, growing longer and sturdier fins and ultimately becoming the four-limbed, air-breathing animals that rule the lands.

[@ornamentim]

This is Gr8!!!

[@rjv]

Can you do one on how crocubot evolved from its ancestors and went on to make Facebook?

[@socomfan4]

Pangea and how it's seperation affected the subsequent evolution of a completly new shore species

[@karenboy1005]

An episode about the spinosaurus would be intersting.

[@jacobgillispie1175]

Stabliomorph is the proper term because there has been change in the organisms just not much.

[@critterfreek83]

Exactly. It should also be pointed out that while he's certainly not wrong that the term "living fossil" is used carelessly or inappropriately by many people, it's a simple fact that there are species and lineages out there-like heelwalkers, tree ferns, pelicans-that have had pretty much the same recognizable appearance for a very long time in the fossil record, on the order of tens of millions of years or more. These lineages also usually have only a few or just one remaining species, like with the vampire squid.

[@ciscovolkswagen8853]

If you keep saying he talks really fast. It's not that you're just slow and not really interested. I have no problem keeping up with this gorgeous man!

[@chingizzhylkybayev8575]

1:33 - you realize that "living fossils" applies to those who didn't change for hundreds of millions of years, right? Last Ice Age was not even 100,000 years ago.

[@critterfreek83]

A mere tens of millions of years works for our purposes too. The adorable little critter known as the mountain beaver for instance, belongs to a lineage which has pretty much looked the same for about 40-something million years. Hell, aardvarks belong to a family which is even younger than the mountain beaver's, and they've been used as examples of living fossils too.

[@thegamingpigeon3216]

Well, looking at earths history, I can tell you one thing: they may be well adapted, but eventually there's gonna come a change they aren't adapted for

[@af146983]

I came here looking for interesting insight on how living fossils in reality changed drastically since past ages instead I get a lecture about semantics.

[@truthteller50]

Well, since those animals didn't change (thus living fossils) it would be hard to get that insight.

[@Pibydd]

I thought living fossils was a term used for things that were only known from the fossil record but suddenly living examples were found. Like Coelocanths.

[@chironOwlglass]

As someone who is trans and has been on HRT for 2.5 years, I am here to tell you, you can experience enormous changes and have the people who see you every day not even notice. When you see things all the time, the changes are too small to notice. And that's only within a few years! Imagine that concept but applied to how insanely long life has been around on this planet.

[@aigai83]

this has to be one of the best channel ever on youtube

[@eons]

Oh now you. (BdeP)

[@Byron3189]

please do a video on the Hadean Eon?

[@mudgetheexpendable]

Chalicotheres! Ever since I read Julian May's Pliocene Exile series, I've been obsessed with chalicotheres. Gimme some facts, O Wise and All-Knowing Eons.

[@alexmcnamee6165]

I believe many people would love to see an “in depth lengthier video” on human evolution based on the evidence throughout the fossil record to this point. Early life of all sorts is great, but I want more insight on all of US on this planet.

[@lancegalera]

do something about the life BEFORE dinosaurs

[@ScionStorm1]

Mark Galera Didn't they just do 2 EPS on the Carboniferous?

[@juzoli]

The whole point of the concept of living fossil, is that they are not "just" millions of years old, but hundreds of millions. At last from the age of dinosaurs.

[@RicCdelP]

I would have liked to hear more about the genetic changes in the tuatara...

[@a.lampman2165]

I thought living fossils were things we only knew from the fossil record and assumed had gone extinct, which we subsequently discovered hadn't gone extinct because we found a living specimen/relative. :/

[@AshArAis]

I had only heard the term living fossil in relation to animals thought to have been extinct (only found as fossils) but then rediscovered looking similar - like the coelocanth. Much fewer animals in that bracket.

[@CrescentGuard]

Honestly, I still like the term to describe creatures that resemble their ancient ancestors, it's just a shame that people just love to take things literally.

[@vegapunk6985]

What makes the tuatara mutate so fast and did the rate change?

[@Sssaaatttuuurrrnnn]

Aww, thank you Blake. I like your face too. Reminds me a little of Alan Tudyk.

[@Alexaflohr]

I thought this would be quibbling about how fossils, by definition, are dead. I'm glad that was not the case.

[@LordChesalot]

Legacy species might be a bit better as often these species have archaic features while this video pointed out being modern genetically altered/ evolved species

[@PaulaJBean]

Excellent presentation, you have my upvote. Maybe also make a video about trilobytes, a video about how fish got to land, and how find of teeth are so important for paleontology?

[@random6033]

why does nobody mention... spiders, scorpions, mites, centipedes, crabs, isopods, ants, etc., they look really similar to their ancestors that lived hundreds of millions years ago

[@soupy4099]

Could you do a video on predinosaur life?

[@zaca3256]

The music at the end is really pretty.

[@gyohza]

4:29 "you, 'cuz I like your face", *150 points*

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

"Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes (Turn and face the strain) Ch-ch-Changes Oh, look out you rock 'n rollers Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes (Turn and face the strain) Ch-ch-Changes Pretty soon now you're gonna get a little older Time may change me..."

[@stefantherainbowphoenix]

"One by one, the classic examples-horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, cycads, and more-have turned out to be very different from the fossils that they apparently resemble, either at a genetic level or through subtle physical changes. Their recognizable nature is a red herring-these creatures simply did not exist in their current form millions of years ago." - Ed Yong

[@mr.dr.genius2169]

The pictures at 3:25 look real,but you said that the tuatara is the only one.What's going on?

[@FelipeKana1]

What??? How? They've got hands on enough DNA from jurassic tuatara to make comparisons? Why this ain't the news? This is huge!