Mutation Bias: Are Mutations Truly Random?

[@kventinho]

Genetics PhD here. I am just so blown away by this video. I didn't even think I personally could have condensed this concept so succinctly and so clearly as you did. The DNA toy is such an amazing teaching aid that I've never seen before (and uni professors SHOULD consider using this for lectures) and the way you perfectly tied the stochasticity and probability of mutational events to statistics classical example (rolling dice) is actually pretty cool. I never really thought of them this way before but it's definitely apt!

[@StatedClearly]

I think that's the nicest comment I have ever received. Thank you!

[@igorjee]

As another biologist, I couldn't agree more.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

You never disappoint, gold content as usual.​@@StatedClearly

[@lucelxebinog]

You are a bot. This video is 11:00 minutes of crap. And then he word drops mutation bias. Faster to read the abstract

[@kventinho]

@lucelxebinog how the hell am I a bot?? Maybe YOU are a bot. What made you disagree so much? Are you sure you even understand the gist of the video? 💀

[@Frostyflytrap]

Phenomenal Stated Clearly video! I just learned that mutation hot spots/cold spots exist, and the use of physical models for demonstration was very intuitive and mind blowing!

[@calebr7199]

I love that frog eating those leaf bugs animation, such a good short visual example of predator selection

[@matterhorn731]

*Chameleon:* "Good sir! I am no frog! I am an amniote, same as you!"

[@calebr7199]

​@@matterhorn731 Oh, it was a chameleon! lol. I was so focused on the bugs I thought it was a frog!

[@koppite9600]

@@calebr7199 Depends on the vision on the predator. Camouflage may work on us but not on other eyes

[@Pottyde]

Yeah, so cool. The chameleon forgot to evolve better detection though... Pesky not-so-random chances.

[@Lardzor]

@1:38 " but it can't be swapped out, with say, an elephant or a tesseract." - Citation needed.

[@ayybe7894]

You CAN substitute any specific base pair with an elephant.... once.

[@blzrdphoto]

No Citation Needed when it’s been “Stated Clearly”!

[@stm7810]

Timelord DNA be like:

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence ' :)

[@ChernobylFamily]

Oh wow! It's a great honor to see our tech in your video! Thank you and all the best!

[@StatedClearly]

Thank you! I was just about to send you an email to let you know the video is up!

[@ChernobylFamily]

We'll write you tomorrow. We see some interesting ideas on collaboration in the scope of genetics and so.

[@PasseScience]

One of the most fascinating mutation mechanisms skeptics of evolution should consider is the process of copying and specializing entire genetic sequences. For example, when it comes to developing sensitivity to green light in addition to another wavelength we already perceive, evolution doesn’t need to start from scratch. A random duplication of the existing gene, followed by the independent evolution of both the original and the copy, can easily lead to a new, improved color sensitivity with an additional color. This "copy and specialize" process is an incredibly powerful tool in evolution, allowing complex adaptations to arise in just a few steps-what might otherwise seem almost impossibly unlikely.

[@koppite9600]

How does it know to keep it that way? Is it intelligent?

[@ayybe7894]

@@koppite9600 No, that's what natural selection is. Genes are just instructions for making cells, and get passed on. If there's a mutation that gives a beneficial edge, then that organism is more likely to survive and reproduce, and that mutation spreads. Rarely would any one mutation be enough to give a huge edge to any specific animal, so realistically a mutation just needs to not be very harmful, and then a bunch of smaller mutations can build up and accumulate to something that IS a huge advantage over time and many generations. This video showed the example of a slightly green bug evolving into a leaf over many, MANY generations, making tiny incremental steps towards being a leaf-bug by virtue of just getting eaten less.

[@ragg232]

​@@koppite9600It "knows" because of the nature of the molecules that make it up. (And by extension the atoms that make up those molecules) Fundamentally those molecules stick to other molecules of the same type. Similar to how a magnet will stick to another with one or more of the compatible poles facing each other. In fact, on the atomic level, they're held together by electro magnetism.

[@valkyrie283]

One of my skepticism about evolution goes back to the beginning. For sure current forces don’t have to start from scratch, but way back at some point they did. Now, I say skepticism because that’s just it, I’m skeptical. I think evolution is entirely possible, but I’m just skeptical of a lot of the theories based on the current evidence we have, and a lot of times I’m put off by the dogmatic adherence to one theory or another I run into a lot when evolution comes up in conversation.

[@emptyshirt]

@@koppite9600 If cells evolved any way of marking important genes as priority targets for repair or duplication that could be advantageous. Since cells routinely mark genes for promotion and supression useful genes are already easy targets. Any method of prioritizing gene preservation would improve fitness of lineages where the important genes are favoritely repaired, or copied. Priortizing the wrong genes would be disadventageous, so prioritization would tend to drift towards positive prioritization. That is how the "knowing" could evolve.

[@thejesuschrist]

This was explained exceptionally well. Great work!

[@StatedClearly]

Thanks, Jesus!

[@celltoself]

An excellent, informed summary of a complex topic carefully communicated. Thank you!

[@danielduvana]

This was a really good explanation of mutation bias! I’ve heard about this a bunch and knew the basic idea that it’s random but uneven distribution - however I had no idea about how different parts of the genome could be differently prone to mutation. Loved the demonstration you did

[@atptourfan]

These are the best videos out there on evolution theory.

[@FailSpace2]

This is seriously one of the best videos i’ve seen from this channel. the physical magnetic model simulating cruciforms is really helpful, along with the animations. Thanks a ton for educating us on the awesomeness of evolution!

[@Jaggerbush]

Ive waited a year for this!!!! I've never unsubbed - just waited for something other than a short. 🎉🎉🎉

[@AustinThomasPhD]

"Mutation is stochastic" is probably a more accurate statement than calling it truly random sensu stricto. It follows some general (though highly complex) patterns overall, but individual mutation events in individual gametes or somatic cells can't be predicted with high certainty.

[@HeadCodeMonkey82]

You have a very effective teaching style. It made me realise my mental model of mutations was simply "radiation", I never imagined that the cell machinery itself could cause them. And thank you for the dice explanation for biased randomness, I expect to make a lot of use of that when explaining things myself.

[@WillPeterson]

Bro, these models and analogies are so clutch! Thank you for explaining so clearly

[@peterbrockway5990]

Wonderful video. 2:50 "Random does not mean however that all mutation types are equally likely." As noted at 9:33 mathematicians have a notion of a _uniform_ distribution where all possible values are equally likely to occur. A given random distribution may or may not be uniform: it's a different concept. Back in the olden days English used to have things called _adverbs_ and we might say, with more clarity, that heritable mutation occurs _randomly_ without committing to any specific claim about the distribution of the changes except that the organism did nothing to alter that distribution.

[@bazoo513]

Random events don't necessarily appear with linear distribution of probability. So, using the word "random" for mutations is perfectly appropriate. (Edit: Duh! I did it again - commenting in the middle of watching the video. You said this two seconds after I hit "Send".) BTW, your wooden model of DNA is ingenious and _extremely_ illustrative. Great work - stated clearly indeed!.

[@denki2558]

It also shocks me when I have to remind internet peeps that random doesn't only mean uniform random. Happened twice this week on different forums.

[@kf1000]

It makes sense that the dna itself would select toward having certain critical parts be more protected against mutation while other parts be open to mutations.

[@Dr.ChrisThompson]

Your videos are truly outstanding, and this is just another top notch contribution. I really appreciate how much effort you put into each one of these. And I always learn new things in each of your videos. Please keep up the fantastic work!

[@eliasednie]

I think epigenetics allows for more elastic gene expression than "make-or-break" mutations. Something something fractal genes might be more forgiving of a tweak here or there, depending on environmental pressures.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

yes, got to be something more than blind chance going on here..

[@johnathancorgan3994]

Nicely done. Very minor nit: at 11:40 the cytosine structure is missing a hydrogen, and the uracil has an extra bond between the carbon and nitrogen.

[@StatedClearly]

Ha, you're right! We need you on the review team.

[@StatedClearly]

FYI, I added a correction in the video description crediting you. Thanks!

[@user-sb3wh3dd4v]

Excellent explanation! Great graphics. Good ( not boring ) narration! Liked and subbed!

[@fastechx]

Great video! What do you use to create these? I want to create science videos too like yours in different language.

[@technoterror1129]

I’ve been watching KZbin for years, you are the best KZbinr I’ve seen when it comes to educational content like this

[@ismailcalsr2226]

so happy you're back!! love your videos

[@nathanmartin2277]

This is a great video. I thought this was going to be about selection bias. We don't observe a lot of mutation to HOX genes (because mutation to those genes terminate the embryo). This was so much more interesting!

[@kellydalstok8900]

During the late 1970s and early 1980s I used to work with a vintage Burroughs machine that had to be programmed with the same kind of punch tape for every different task. Depending on the task this could take quite a while. Luckily they didn’t randomly mutate, but they could tear.

[@Pansapiens2048]

Thank you for your work ! Stated Clearly est pour moi la meilleure chaîne de vulgarisation scientifique qui parle d'évolution. C'est très bien expliqué et magnifiquement illustré.

[@DrZedDrZedDrZed]

Fantastic video, thank you for continuing to put out fanastic educational resources for so many years! Please don't stop!

[@Trucmuch]

This is a great video and so useful. When you see how the word "theory" is often twisted by people who want to deny science, it is important to clarify what "not random" actually means. To be honest, I think it's a poor choice of word (if not clickbaity) from the authors of those papers.

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

To call evolving by blind chance a 'theory' is being fairly generous I would say.

[@sorry6726]

Finally one of my favourite channel posted a video. I downloaded your videos in the past and showed them to some students and core creationists. And it was positive for them to take science in a better position than before.

[@ericsilva6787]

This was incredibly well explained!

[@bazoo513]

3:56 - Not directly relevant, and it appears that this actually was from a Soviet computer, but I used punched paper tape on, among others, Hewlett-Packard HP-2000 and Data General Nova 1220, both American computers. Before that, punched paper tape was routinely (and globally) used in telex machines ("teletypewriters"), successors to telegraph and predecessors of fax and other more modern means of communication.

[@jaspersnoeks801]

epigenetic changes can also have an effect on mutation rate, this effect may be small but over millions of years of evolution this should not be underestimated.

[@torinmccabe]

One of my favorite misunderstanding of randomness is creationists who say certain DNA sequences are so unlikely as to be be impossible / God did it. They often rely on the false premise that you have to generate the entire sequence all at once rather rather than the actual process of small changes being built up over time.

[@Angelmou]

Another misunderstanding of most creationists is that they confuse the term randomness very often with "lack of meaning/sense of life" feelings in many cases as they approach the topic not with reason. An example I like to give is where you explain that the interlocking of complexity of water droplets to hundreds of snowcrystals follows specific nucleation mechanism for certain crystallization - it does not randomly snow at a hot summer day without even a cloud in the sky. Deniers of science of crystallization (or gain of complexity in nature) either demand snowpixies for snow to exist or they complain about when we talk about that we observe some snowflakes to immediately cease to exist again when they hit a hot tin roof or fall into a chimney to evaporate how "meaningless" or "void of sense" it would feel. They can't then debate even the stochastics behind. Like they do not want to face for emotional reasons why humans are just 1 mammal species among others. This means that some day humanity most likely shares the same fate like 99% of species of the past incl. many mammal species before (like the wolly mammoth) and just ceases to exist. So without a further plan or goal of an assumed planer "behind the curtain". Which causes there the major anxieties.

[@JohnSmith-ik8nt]

Which you still don't have evidence of it's beginning, while God exists and he told us how to live

[@Angelmou]

@@JohnSmith-ik8nt We have several research bases how DNA mechanism came to be with RNA reductasis like Uracil to thymine (5 methyl uracil). Deities are envisioned as thoughtorgan & especially thoughtprocesslacking thinkers. Like some people envision squared circles, as well. Since when are men-made guesses about vaporous minds without bodies (and specific organs) specifically male in their gender btw.? So a "he" did not tell anything to anyone. We have menmade texts, which are claiming to speak in the authority of the concept of at least 1 god (1 thoughtorganlacking thinker) mostly due to false advertisement for those texts. In reality the menmade texts even have the audacityto claim the numbers of those asserted vaporous noncorperal entities, beside their gender and whatnot.

[@rizdekd3912]

@@JohnSmith-ik8nt At least people think God exists and told us 'how' to live. So...we still don't have evidence of 'its' beginning.

[@FinalMorningstar]

mutations have never been shown to create new limbs, or parts, just adaptations on the existing ones.

[@jasiekthejester7764]

It's a soothing sight to lonely eyes seeing a new video on your channel! Hope it's just a warmup! 😍

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

sensational explanation. so glad to see this channel keep evolving (pun intended) and refining their craft. thank you so much

[@chrisray1567]

This channel is so underrated. It deserves to have millions of subscribers.

[@whlewis9164]

So glad I found this channel. You are killing it, my friend. ❤

[@ytunnuyt]

Brilliantly made video, keep on the good work

[@arashputata]

and that's why kids, a biologist must be good at probability and statistics! The concept of probability distribution is the key!!

[@possamei]

Really clear explanations with some intuitive vsualizations and analogies! Thank you for making this, it was really informative.

[@maartendj2724]

I was gonna say that random is not necessarily "anything can happen", but you explain this at the end. Great DNA model!

[@stefaniac781]

I thought that "mutations are random" meant that the environment does not "induce" those mutations, but just selects them.

[@jaschabull2365]

This takes me back to my days as a college student just learning physical anthropology and general biology. Pretty neat to hear!

[@kitsujitsu]

Great video. I love your way of explaining things

[@BoneAppleTea]

These videos are great! Very detailed and easily understood. Schools should use these in biology

[@Siskovski]

Tesseract in the DNA?! That would be something Zeus would have had

[@rhayat10]

We could ask: Are the mutation hot spots/cold spots distributed randomly? That is to say, could there be selective pressure to keep certain regions relatively mutation-free, while encouraging mutations in other regions?

[@StatedClearly]

The paper I talk about at the end claims they found that highly used genes are better protected in plants than less used genes or non-coding regions. I have a video about this on the stated casually channel. Link is in the video description.

[@LimeyLassen]

I doubt mutations are encouraged because beneficial mutations are rare.

[@DouwedeJong]

Thanks for making this video. It is very informative and I learned something today.

[@anirban7493]

Ah finally a Ctated cleaarly video after so long💙

[@tophers3756]

I don't think this could be explained any better to the average person. That includes me.

[@macrozone]

The best channel that isn‘t in your Filter Bubble

[@capivara6094]

Babe wake up, new Stated Clearly video dropped

[@johningham1880]

If, as I suspect, this is an optimal strategy, then I would imagine it was only a matter of time before evolution started tuning its own hyperparameters.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Good. But not once did he say the phrase that has been around for decades: saying mutations are random means they are "random with respect to fitness".

[@nuriorhan6038]

As stated in the video, mutations are not only random but they are also anomalies during the copying process. And expecting to get from these anomalies perfectly designed features to survive (i.e. leaf like wings) is totally insane. And the only trigger for these "on purpose" mutations to come out is to just wait for many many generations!

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

Beautiful demonstration! 7:00

[@matswessling6600]

eh. "random" just means that the property descibed gas a stochastic variance, it doesnt say anything of the distribution of this variance. Specifically it does not imply that the distribution is such that all variants are equally probable.

[@joenathan2135]

eh. You should watch the actual video.

[@matswessling6600]

@ i did.

[@dongeonmaster8547]

Great video. I love this series.

[@WorthlessWinner]

They're still random with respect to fitness effects

[@welcomewonder1604]

Hmmm. Not an expert, but I think I read a while back that the mutation cold spots have been selected for, such that they tend to protect the more fundamental cell/organism functionality. So I think in terms of deleterious mutations, mutation bias actually does influence the danger posed by mutation to the fitness of an organism.

[@StatedClearly]

Mostly.. see my video on the Arabidopsis paper. I do think Monroe is correct to say that this catch phrase is misleading. Over time, it seems that natural selection can put essential genes in cold spots. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4C9ZH2BqbSIZ80

[@etion1999]

Great video. Very clear explanation

[@zoomzoom1889]

Excellent video, very insightful

[@quantumcat7673]

Thank you for that interesting piece of science. There is a way in which organisms can use stochasticity for its own survival. There are in the cell nucleus systems that fix dna errors (you did not elaborate on that sadly). However, in stress situations the cell will not fix certain part of the genome to generate mutations that could be beneficial for the organism, hence the organism adapt. Ref: Dr. Denis Noble

[@StatedClearly]

Denis is conflating SOS responses in bacteria with adaptive immunity in mammals. In real life, evolution does not work the way Denis claims. That said, their is a phenomenon reported in plants where essential genes get more resources from the cell to lower their mutation rates. The paper on this was shown multiple times in this animation and there are links to videos about it in the video description.

[@talkpopgen]

Excellent and timely video! Mutation bias ~is~ such an important component of evolution, but boy is it easy to sensationalize into obscurity.

[@StatedClearly]

Yes, this is exactly why we made this video! I wrote Tiffany trying to get her view on how big a deal mutation bias really is (vs the hype), since she's one of the leading experts on it. She had the same frustration with the media hype that I had. So much so that she funded the animation!

[@bigmac8574]

Very good video. Thank you sir.

[@anthonyvachon2337]

Hey Jon, where can I find the magnetic model of DNA that you briefly showed in this video? Thanks!

[@StatedClearly]

I made it, so there's only one.

[@StatedClearly]

I'll make a video showing how to make them. It's a bit more time consuming than I'd like.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

There must be something floating around in the creatard world. I just received a claim by a creatard that mutations are not perfectly random and therefore falsifies evolution. I explained this exact concept more than once. Pearls before swine.

[@stowcreek1999]

Awesome video!

[@Paulus_Brent]

Random means that the process is so complicated that we will never be able to follow the chain of causes and effects, and that we must describe it in terms of statistical probability functions. It doesn't mean anything more than that.

[@danieltomitch7048]

What a GOD TIER video, I'm in love with it!

[@blzrdphoto]

This video blew my mind. It never occurred to me that DNA could “accidentally” stick to itself. I am very interested in that magnetic DNA model. I bet my kids would love it.

[@StatedClearly]

I made it in my basement. I'll have to find a company that wants to mass-produce them.

[@blzrdphoto]

@ until then I might have to break out the hot glue. Sounds like a fun project.

[@ayybe7894]

@@StatedClearly a "neat toy / demonstration that is time consuming to manually create" seems like the perfect thing to try and 3d print. I am sure at least several viewers would appreciate a printable 3d model on thingverse!

[@abrahamziga159]

I would like to buy a magnetic DNA model for me and my childrens​@@StatedClearly

[@indeecjo]

As a person with no biology background. I love watching your videos.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

It's such a breeze of air to watch something scientifically accurate away from all the toxic and misguided creationist contents.

[@MtsBrg-ob6gf]

10:29 isn‘t there some controvercy if the effects of natural selection could be overstated and that genetic drift, sexual selection etc. play a bigger part? I sometimes get the impression that there are some logical fallacies at play (at least in layman‘s interpretation). „Something exists in nature therefore it must have an adaptive value.“ Couldn‘t it just mean, that it ‚stochasticly‘ evolved and hasn‘t been maladaptive (yet)? Thanks in advance for reading and possibly replying…

[@StatedClearly]

Natural selection is the sculpture - the thing that takes the noise generated by mutation and recombination, and filters out that which helps in survival. But yes, random or unselected change (drift) happens all the time. Drift alone does not, however, generate complex adaptations. For that, you need variation plus selection.

[@MtsBrg-ob6gf]

@ thanks for the reply!!!!! Understood (I think)… I guess I tend to get frustrated when some behaviours get coined as ‚complex adaption‘. I get under the impression that there is motivated reasoning at play. (for example: some people argue that ADHD [ok, not a behaviour, sorry for the inconsistency] has evolved because it must be adaptive/have an advantage. I would argue against that. BUT NOT to say it‘s maladaptive or pathological, it is just different) I hope I‘m not being misunderstood…. One could also bring out Darwin’s nightmare: the peacock with his absurd feathers

[@kristijan8518]

This argument comes down to how you define random. Some physicists claim that random doesn't exist, just lack of information.

[@mrapistevist]

Good video. Good example.

[@Hansulf]

The kind of videos KZbin needs.

[@sygarte1]

Good job, Jon

[@StatedClearly]

Thanks, Sy. We should catch up sometime. Retry that video we wanted to do a while back.

[@lisa.learner]

Wow, your teaching style really helped me understand “random.” I think a lot of my understanding had to do with the visuals, too: your DNA model made of magnets, its tendencies, and the frog and bug interaction over time. I wonder if I could ask your help on how to communicate the idea of how to use pronouns. My understanding of grammar was inculcated by picky parents when I could barely reach up to the dinner table, and now I’m old an stuck in my ways, I have a hard time putting myself into the perspective of the newbie. To paraphrase a sentence that I heard: “Thanks to Tiffany Taylor, *_her_* and James Horton both contributed.” For proper grammar, it should read “_*SHE*_ and James both contributed”-“She” being the subject of the sentence. Is there a short but polite way to explain to others the difference between using “her” and “she?” I’m hoping you have some teacher guru insight to share. On this or other topics. I will be back to watch more videos. Thank you!

[@judewarner1536]

The breaking strength of a uniform wire, fibre or tape is proportional to its length, as well as it's fundamental tensile strength. The computer tape, in the example, has the predicted breaking position, based intuitively on the highest concentration of holes, further away from the right, and the stretching force is biased by the dominant hand. The breaking point is, thereby, shifted away from the dominant side and towards the shorter distance from the "fixed point", the left hand. Had the weak spot been centrally placed the tape would likely have split exactly on one of the two sets of maximum perforation. Nevertheless, a good physical allegory.

[@PasseScience]

We are back!

[@bobaldo2339]

Thanks for the informative video. The title is, I believe, a bit unfortunate, as it could be click bait for people who don't believe in evolution (or that the world is round, etc.)

[@ragg232]

You can't please everyone

[@ragg232]

@@bobaldo2339 You could explain this as being similar to flowing water. As water tends to flow downhill due to gravity, mutations tend to "flow" towards specific kinds. Hope this helps.

[@Snakeyes244]

This was excellent! Thanks

[@lorenzreiher1407]

If i heard "mutations aren't random" i would assume that to mean that it's more likely for say a beetle to mutate red skin rather than blue skin, or for something in its eyes to mutate than in the legs. It seems that the color one is sort of true, given that there are more cases of albinism than xanthism. But i mean in cases where the expression is encoded in the same way of the gene, so it would take the same "route" and effort to express red skin as it would blue skin, but obviously most animals would need quite a different and much more complex and therefore unlikely series of mutations to produce blue pigments than to produce white or yellow pigments.

[@bjd1980]

I want a tutorial or materials list of your model!!!!

[@blakeweigel6475]

Is this the same person narrating as the old evolution videos?

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

Not random... Sporadic, chaotic yes. Mutations do not occur randomly across the genome. We should just drop that term.

[@Willcaballero]

Totally gonna start dropping the word 'stochastic' into my everyday vernacular. ;)

[@PedroQueiroz22]

The video is incredibly well done. However, there is a big problem with the content. Describing mutations as stochastic is a category error. The reason is that stochasticity is not an inherent property of any physical system and definitely is not a biological concept. Instead, it is a mathematical term we use to describe in our models a variable that can assume any value. Even entirely deterministic processes can be modelled as stochastic variables when they are subjectively unpredictable. In fact, population geneticists often model selection coefficients as stochastic variables. Thus, I believe the video misrepresents the effects of mutation biases, an important part of the theory of arrival bias, that genuinely represents a new type of evolutionary causation.

[@StatedClearly]

In January on the stated clearly channel I will have Grey Monroe on who agrees with you. I will read him your comment.

[@PedroQueiroz22]

That's great. Looking foward to it. ​@@StatedClearly

[@YarPirates-vy7iv]

How did you find out about my elephant tesseract genome project?

[@Lardzor]

Does mutation bias include 'non-viable' mutations? I assume many mutations will result in a fertilized egg that dies early in it's developmental process. These mutations occurred, but are not likely to be observed in any study.

[@StatedClearly]

Mutation bias doesn't stop non-viable mutations from happening. Mutation bias isn't a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. That said, some researchers are claiming (and this is still being debated) that natural selection can exploit biases. They say selection favors the protection of essential genes over non-essential regions of DNA, which reduces birth defects: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4C9ZH2BqbSIZ80 These studies are done on sperm, eggs, pollen, and seeds instead of offspring. This lets them catch fatal mutations in their data before natural selection can purge them. Some purging still happens, though, in the early stages of gamete production.

[@Lardzor]

@@StatedClearly Interesting. That implies that natural selection has insulated mission critical portions of DNA from excessive mutation, either by burying them inside the DNA ball, or by using sequences more resilient to breaking. It makes sense that this research would use gametes so that non-viable mutations would be included. Thanks for the response.

[@spindash64]

​@@StatedClearlyI wonder if the "error handling" of the DNA repair system could also be biased to prefer accidental duplication over accidental deletion, on the principle that it's better to have too much of a good thing than it is to have zero of something essential

[@rer9287]

random simply means the is either not enough information to know the outcome or there isn't enough care to know. When someone posits an exception to this, they are committing and argument from ignorance fallacy.

[@FilterYT]

You are awesome! Thanks

[@SteveLomas-k6k]

Interesting, so a more accurate title would have been 'Origin of Species by Blind Luck' but I think his editor nixed that :)

[@infinitemonkey917]

Any thoughts on the warnings about synthetic mirror life?

[@etmax1]

Why should paper tape be Soviet? They weren't the only ones to use punch tape. The ASR 33 was a teleprinter with keyboard and punch tape attachment from the 60's for example

[@StatedClearly]

The paper tape is Soviet because it's from a Soviet computer. I bought it on eBay from a Ukrainian and the computer I show is footage from Chernobyl.

[@styleisaweapon]

Just started watching. In the world of artificial evolution, crossover is the most important factor. A system with only mutation isnt any better than hill climbing.

[@charlesmarshall7045]

Good video.

[@technofeeling2462]

But even if there is an bias that only means that the complexity is reduced right? From many combinations to less if i understood it right. But you couldt imagine a mutation process where no reduction of complexity happens but the complexity is equal to the reduced complexity in this video. In that case you would not find a reduction in complexity and would not come to the conclusions in the video but you would end up with the same complexity. So in my opinion its only a matter of perspective. I hope you understand what i am trying to say(as a laymen)