What Caused Life's Major Evolutionary Transitions?

[@KL-xx5nw]

As a high school student, I love Biology even more after watching this video. Amazing!

[@SamFey]

Consider Intelligent design before a mindless evolution.

[@Tooblekep]

@@SamFey I did, it didn’t make sense.

[@jacquesfrancois4151]

This video makes me appreciate how amazing life is

[@maximilian8959]

This is all a hoax, God created us in His own image.

[@aquilinodominguez932]

Oh boi here it comes the magic sky daddy fanbase.

[@mf-cq2zl]

We all know who created life....the great god of Yog-Sothoth bitch!

[@wrath642]

Oh boi here it comes the edgelord internet genius fanbase. He was being sarcastic

[@zm_azathoth8797]

@@maximilian8959 no Cthulhu did it

[@mikepublic111]

I'm bookmarking this video for the next time a creationist says "you can't observe evolution". Great job.

[@jarenbure1415]

Mike Public go get em

[@Kerm448]

Ha, you can lead a theist to a youtube video, but you can't make them watch it... they wont! :-D They believe by way of faith, gotta kill the faith virus first.

[@jarenbure1415]

Brett Balsam lol

[@jarenbure1415]

***** you literally know nothing about evolution

[@jarenbure1415]

***** the video explained evolution perfectly but you were too stupid to comprehend it

[@AshishBihani]

I am amazed at how you have covered such a complex topic with clarity and simplicity! Thank you!

[@SangoProductions213]

This works even through to social evolution. A computer scientist can't survive on their own, but in a community of cooperation, his works are supremely helpful.

[@ranidubasilu2834]

now think about countries , then religions, and then meeting alien colonies and the whole world acting like a one living thing.

[@SamFey]

And think about how atheists and evolutionists reject intelligent design.

[@hairymcnipples]

​​@@SamFeythe main way would be by noticing that nature doesn't, in fact, bear the hallmarks of design. It's wild that ID types think that somehow it's extremely obvious that evolution can't happen and that the whole universe must be intelligently designed, and yet the literal millions of us who devote our entire working lives to studying the universe itself have absolutely overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the universe is old, evolution happens, etc. All of my lecturers and the other academic staff. Every one of my fellow students that I got to know. Every one of my colleagues that I have known well, and according to surveys the vast majority of all biologists, have come to the conclusion that life evolves. We believe we see it out in the world. We believe we have made it happen in the lab. We believe we have an absolutely convincing (although highly incomplete, because fossilization is rare) record of it left to us by natural processes. And yet you no doubt think that intelligent design is obvious. So how have we all missed it? I promise you, biologists absolutely do not see what you claim is obvious. Do you think we're all lying? To what end? How is this huge conspiracy - surely the largest in human history - holding up? Or do you think we're all wrong? Well how is it, then, that we don't see what you see? Why is it that intelligent design proponents can't actually present any evidence that we find convincing, when it's apparently so obvious? Could it possibly be that... Intelligent design isn't a good theory? That in fact a mammalian eye design with a big blind spot in the middle, in a world that has eyes without this issue no less, is not in fact "intelligent design"? Could it be that crossing the food and drink tube and the air tube - something that kills many people every year - is such a poor design that, if it *were* a design, the designer would be prosecuted for gross negligence? We live in a universe so poorly designed for our kind of life that only on this one, singular planet out of countless billions upon trillions of others, and at that only near the surface, can it survive more than a few seconds at most. A universe designed for us would probably not limit us to an incalculably small portion of it; there would probably be a slightly larger area in which we don't immediately die agonisingly. Beyond that, though, it's hard to express just how well supported evolution is as an explanation for the diversity of life. We know it better than gravity. It's the singular underpinning idea behind biology and medicine. One other thing I would love to see explained. Oil exploration. Oil and gas makes up one of the largest economic sectors on earth, so exploration is, predictably, Big Business. Worth a lot of money. Oil exploration takes place on a billions-of-years-old earth, by which I mean, the strategies and technologies used are based on that knowledge. They use radiometric dating and an understanding of the form of the earth hundreds of millions of years ago. They use their knowledge of the evolutionary status of life on earth. But according to you, those things are wrong and don't work. Where's the ID-using oil company? If all these ideas are wrong, and intelligent design is true, why aren't you, or anyone else, using the principles of intelligent design to dominate this enormous and lucrative business? Not only would that person become incredibly wealthy, they would have conclusively proven that, if nothing else, the conventional models are wrong. It would truly be evidence that no one could overlook. Even if believers are too pious and godly to do something so venal, why has no one at all taken advantage of this? The ideas of intelligent design aren't hidden away. And yet, this work keeps being done on the same basis as ever, with the assumption that life evolved, that the earth is ancient, and that radiometric dating is accurate. Is god just a liar, who made the world dishonestly? Did he manufacture evidence of an old world and evolution, and systematically destroy evidence of intelligent design? The problem isn't just a lack of evidence for ID and the presence of evidence for evolution and an old earth that is convincing to scientists, there's also the problem that the ideas you object to are used successfully in non-scientific contexts and the once you advance aren't. Most of our technologically advanced industries are based on our mainstream understanding of science. Where are the industries, or even the single ventures, based on intelligent design? Forget about direct evidence, why doesn't it *work?*

[@hairymcnipples]

​@@SamFey​@SamFey the main way would be by noticing that nature doesn't, in fact, bear the hallmarks of design. It's wild that ID types think that somehow it's extremely obvious that evolution can't happen and that the whole universe must be intelligently designed, and yet the literal millions of us who devote our entire working lives to studying the universe itself have absolutely overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the universe is old, evolution happens, etc. All of my lecturers and other academic class. Every one of my fellow students that I got to know. Every one of my colleagues that I have known well, and according to surveys the vast majority of all biologists, have come to the conclusion that life evolves. We believe we see it out in the world. We believe we have made it happen in the lab. We believe we have an absolutely convincing (although highly incomplete, because fossilization is rare) record of it left to us by natural processes. And yet you no doubt think that intelligent design is obvious. So how have we all missed it? I promise you, biologists absolutely do not see what you claim is obvious. Do you think we're all lying? To what end? How is this huge conspiracy - surely the largest in human history - holding up? Or do you think we're all wrong? Well how is it, then, that we don't see what you see? Why is it that intelligent design proponents can't actually present any evidence that we find convincing, when it's apparently so obvious? Could it possibly be that... Intelligent design isn't a good theory? That in fact a mammalian eye design with a big blind spot in the middle, in a world that has eyes without this issue no less, is not in fact "intelligent design"? Could it be that crossing the food and drink tube and the air tube - something that kills many people every year - is such a poor design that, if it *were* a design, the designer would be prosecuted for gross negligence? We live in a universe so poorly designed for our kind of life that only on this one, singular planet out of countless billions upon trillions of others, and at that only near the surface, can it survive more than a few seconds at most. A universe designed for us would probably not limit us to an incalculably small portion of it; there would probably be a slightly larger area in which we don't immediately die agonisingly. Beyond that, though, it's hard to express just how well supported evolution is as an explanation for the diversity of life. We know it better than gravity. It's the singular underpinning idea behind biology and medicine. One other thing I would love to see explained. Oil exploration. Oil and gas makes up one of the largest economic sectors on earth, so exploration is, predictably, Big Business. Worth a lot of money. Oil exploration takes place on a billions-of-years-old earth, by which I mean, the strategies and technologies used are based on that knowledge. They use radiometric dating and an understanding of the form of the earth hundreds of millions of years ago. They use their knowledge of the evolutionary status of life on earth. But according to you, those things are wrong and don't work. Where's the ID-using oil company? If all these ideas are wrong, and intelligent design is true, why aren't you, or anyone else, using the principles of intelligent design to dominate this enormous and lucrative business? Not only would that person become incredibly wealthy, they would have conclusively proven that, if nothing else, the conventional models are wrong. It would truly be evidence that no one could overlook. Even if believers are too pious and godly to do something so venal, why has no one at all taken advantage of this? The ideas of intelligent design aren't hidden away. And yet, this work keeps being done on the same basis as ever, with the assumption that life evolved, that the earth is ancient, and that radiometric dating is accurate. Is god just a liar, who made the world dishonestly? Did he manufacture evidence of an old world and evolution, and systematically destroy evidence of intelligent design? The problem isn't just a lack of evidence for ID and the presence of evidence for evolution and an old earth that is convincing to scientists, there's also the problem that the ideas you object to are used successfully in non-scientific contexts and the once you advance aren't. Most of our technologically advanced industries are based on our mainstream understanding of science. Where are the industries, or even the singular ventures, based on intelligent design? Forget about direct evidence, why doesn't it *work?*

[@Benderrr111]

This is one of your best videos so far..if not the best!

[@eragon78]

+Bender Bending Rodriguez, I thought so too. Quite a few papers to help give the video strong credibility, as well as a simple, yet detailed explanation about the topic. I hope to see this channel become much bigger to help educate a larger audience.

[@SamFey]

It's full to the brim with gross extrapolations, guess work and storytelling.

[@Benderrr111]

@@SamFey We are talking about events that happened billions of years ago; there is bound to be some guesswork and extrapolations.

[@SamFey]

@@Benderrr111 So you admit that it's not repeatable scientific method based then. How refreshing.

[@Benderrr111]

@@SamFey get a life nerd

[@demonstructie]

Top notch, really well done video both in terms of subject matter and the way it's explained as well as animation and voice over. Always look forward to your videos.

[@JeremiahDeasey]

Wonderfully illustrated and explained. Thank you.

[@StatedClearly]

Haha, you forgot to say "FIRST!". Where's your KZbin etiquette?

[@guydht1]

Don't forget the notification squad! #Im_better_than_you_coz_Im_early

[@jamesrobertson6293]

“Illustrated”, you’d think with all the tech advances in today’s “science”, we’d have real life pictures to explain this. But no... we are still looking at picture books and cartoons. It’s laughable really.

[@Magst3r1]

@@jamesrobertson6293 Dude, you can pictures on google

[@AlvinLee007]

Content heavy yet audience-friendly. (Although I suspect Joe Hanson from It's Okay To Be Smart would probably fume at your use of the phrase "stay curious".) Even so, subscribed. =p

[@StatedClearly]

+Alvin Lee haha, nah, we're friends and I started saying it first ;)

[@Zinkx.]

linsey Lindsey Doe has also been saying it on her channel for yonks

[@StatedClearly]

Many are asking if the formation of human society counts as a major evolutionary transition. Technically the answer is no, but human organizations are very life-like, seem to have "minds" of their own, and do evolve/adapt to survive. Their mechanisms of evolution, however, are fundamentally different than those of true superorganisms. Our ability to cooperate and even sacrifice for the good of our groups seems to be the result of what's called Kin Selection. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection True superorganisms, as defined in biology, evolve via descent with modification, acted upon by selection. Human groups, in contrast, evolve through cultural (memetic) shifts, and through mergers and splits. Humans form loose cooperative groups that most of us are free to leave if needed. A major evolutionary transition is only complete when an entire cooperative group begins reproducing as a whole (which human societies don't do), and when individuals completely lose the ability to survive/reproduce on their own. For an example of animals that have undergone such a transition, see the video by Inés Dawson on bees: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGmWoqyCjaamhJY Show less REPLY

[@Ungtartog]

Whether or not Humans have graduated to Super Organismal status or not... it seems pretty clear to me that this is a driving pattern in evolution and the direction we are headed sooner or later. We see the repetition of these formations: Homogenous Colony, Colony with specialization, Nucleation, Super Organism ... and this refrain repeats with scale. The former Super Organism becomes the building block for the next Homogenous Colony of ascending order. Nucleation refers basically just to a specialization wherein a small component regulates the rest of the organism.. we can be talking about cell nucleus, a central nervous system, or a government. To my mind, the thing that is crucial to the super organismal state, is not mutual codependence... but a shared, perceptible sensation of self within the constituent elements. This is all pretty new... Darwin's work was all about how one became many. This theory of "layers" is about how the many became one. Both of these things are important and critical evolutionary drives... we all have heard about "natural selection" and Darwin's theories... but this one about the layers... what is the name for that? See what I mean? I would bet there are many biologists studying it that call it different things... but it does not yet have the cohered status and title that Darwin's thoughts have, even though it is just as fundamental. When I first started thinking about these things, it was very hard to find anyone that knew what I was talking about... it was news to most. It is only in the last few years this has started to become more mainstream. There are many HUGE implications to this theory... and you can explore some of my fringy, whacky notions in my rambling, poorly produced offerings on my channel... I know some of it is "out there", but I think there are at least a few nuggets of merit buried in there. The pertinent videos I made are titled "Collective Cognition, Unified Theory of Consciousness, and Thinking and Driving" ... you will have to be patient with digressions if you want to get to the good stuff.

[@Nepycros]

This makes sense. Living organisms are subject to resource restriction, and behaviors that evolve can and are influenced by factors that affect how easily we can survive to reproduction. Even if we naively extrapolate human behavior as being derivative or emergent (whichever term fits best) of multicellular or even cellular behavior, that would only be because we are also acting physical entities with resource restriction and a set of behaviors that impacts our survival/reproductive chances. It makes more sense to recognize that living organisms, or at least population trends, will tend toward behaviors that improve survival chances. And because resource restriction is a universal selecting pressure, it will have common elements in all "levels" of life, resulting in a sort of mimicry in how cooperation takes place, though specific circumstances and nuance is necessary to distinguish these levels of behavior.

[@hez987654321]

If a group of 5 pairs of human reproducing partners decided to devise a pattern of how their decedents would reproduce with each other (within the original group) over time they could essentially make a new evolutionary transition.

[@grahamyodude]

The entire biosphere is changing into a super organism. Once we have completely sustainable and renewable energy our priorities will be clear which is to sustain the diversity of animal and plant life we see because other animals are part of the super organism as well

[@anshul9856]

@Jo Hannes, if you were left in the woods, you would surely survive with enough knowledge and good instincts. Humans can survive outside society, most don't want to I guess.

[@Ansonidak]

Outstandingly educational.. It boggles my mind to consider the number of people who vehemently deny evolution.

[@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236]

As a former evolutionist of ten plus years, it boggles my mind that anyone supports evolutionism.

[@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236]

And this isn’t educational, it’s teaching only one side, the evolutionism side.

[@cliftongaither6642]

​@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236yeah, with facts supporting it. what facts do you have to support creationism? ill wait.

[@ScrimmyBingus42]

​@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol236I'd like to see ANY solid arguments for creationism that don't come from the Bible.

[@johnny1498]

Wow, this video was incredibly insightful. Answered several questions which I had not heard in any other videos on the topic (I've watched many lol). Amazing stuff, keep it up!

[@MendicantBias1]

Noticed how micro-organisms look a lot like spaghetti? He created us in His Noodly Image! #FSM

[@StatedClearly]

+Mendicant Bias you'd love the RNA world video.

[@redeamed19]

Ramen

[@johnarbuckle2619]

Mendicant Bias R'AMEN brother !!!!!

[@amosref1]

Mendicant Bias 42 likes. incredible

[@iusedwasi2990]

flayingspaghetimonster =fsm ?

[@pesiap29]

Thank you so much for these incredible videos. Every other place I searched for information about evolution , in some form or another are misleading in a major way. Thank you for doing something so great. You are the best.

[@arthur78]

Fantastic video as usual. Keep up the great work!

[@Crixxtachi868]

this might be your most brilliant video so far. I'm going to share this widely.

[@shantanukulkarni007]

this channel deserve to get million subs and go viral on Yt. All your vids are "stated clearly". best of luck

[@sciuresci1403]

we became so specialized in our roles in society that we can't live without each other anymore.

[@Agamemnon9]

No human survives on its own.

[@noahm4601]

interesting, but this was indirectly mentioned at the end of the video

[@SBroproductions]

Oh shit. 5th level achieved?

[@khenricx]

not yet, even if we're specialized in our jobs, I think we would be able to survive alone anyway.

[@mariouribe4083]

The next time you're spreading Nutella on freshly toasted bread while drinking milk, ask yourself. .. where the fuck did all this come from?

[@Vasileski88]

The next step is the Borg Collective. Resistance is futile.

[@alconvin2334]

Maybe Borg Spheres will be the next level?

[@-.Oz.-]

That is actually the logical next evolutionary step, for humans to first start merging with computers, and then become one being. The first part's already happening with neural implants and mechanical prosthesis. At least that's what some scientists hypothesise. motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-dominant-life-form-in-the-cosmos-is-probably-superintelligent-robots

[@BH-fy8do]

no osman,

[@theOrkinMan1]

@Mark Dwight resistance may be futile....but if WE all join together, it will be one hell of a battle.

[@Shady-Shane]

resistance is voltage/current (^^,)

[@MauroDraco]

Very well made, great synthesis and animation on a broad and kind of hard topic to explain! I’d have used in in my high school classes if I had stumbled on your video earlier. Thank you for this wonderful workin Biology!

[@ankitchiplunkar]

Electrons+ protons --> Atoms --> Chemicals --> Proteins --> Genomes (viroids) --> Eukaryotes --> Multi-cell organisms Every step is a major evolutionary transition

[@CadetGriffin]

? --> Big Bang --> Theory of Everything --> Forces --> Bosons --> Quarks --> Hadrons --> Atoms --> Chemicals --> Proteins --> Viroids --> Viruses --> Bacteria --> Eukaryotes --> Complex life

[@DW-vl2wi]

Elements should be where chemicals are. Other than that, no complaints from me. Well that and Genomes come before proteins.

[@amiralozse1781]

makes me think of the great Carl Sagan "If you want to create an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe!" every time I think about these deep and amazing wonders of our world I get shivers down my spine. thanks to science I can grasp at least the tiniest bit of these wonders.

[@khaled-ik1ez]

@@CadetGriffin bullshit, A guy in the sky once decided to do a play, he created a mythical couple and their antagonist, this couple were humans and they ;) ;) and this is why we are here idiots !

[@irrelevant_noob]

ankit chiplunkar Every step is a major _complexity_ transition, not an evolutionary one, though... :-B

[@ThePrytanis]

Is it worth arguing that abiogenesis was the first major transition? From chemistry to self replicating structures, possibly a simplified RNA?

[@johnarbuckle2619]

Patrick Kelley Yes

[@StatedClearly]

Yes but details about it aren't yet clear enough to be listed as a transition we really understand. Stu skips it in his paper for this reason.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

+Stated Clearly It would be a welcomed supplement if you covered the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the forming of proto-cell components, basically the current model of explenation of how we went from no life to the point where this fantastic video here takes over! And I just want to add, you definetly live up to your "name" - this truly was stated clearly! 👍👍👍

[@StatedClearly]

We have an entire series on the origin of life. Have you seen it?

[@tofu_golem]

That's outside the scope of evolution.

[@Nabooshlove7]

we are our own ecosystems

[@strikerkhan90]

Mind = Blown

[@Qleaner303]

symbiosis :)

[@Nabooshlove7]

Turn on and tune out!

[@jjayjakub]

spaghetti monster forever and ever

[@BH-fy8do]

yes , incredible life

[@ututut77]

this was mind blowing. especially the fact that mitochondria are a separate organism 🤯

[@sarahlatimer3760]

Wow. Great stuff! Especially love the citing of journal publications. Thanks for this.

[@FrederickTheGrt]

As a grammar school child on a fishing boat, I love science even more after watching this.

[@ashwinbhat123]

Never thought about it this way. A unique perspective!

[@dragongirl7978]

What? No more? I want more! Thank you for this. All of it was fascinating and I love your non- confrontational explanatory approach. 😊

[@khenricx]

So could we consider an ant colony or our human society as a 5th level of life ?

[@Laezar1]

Ant colony have are like bees they have a queen and therefore evolve as one organism. But human society in a way is a layer of life, especially considering our laws actually have an influence on evolution. For exemple abortion law have a very direct effect on human revolution, and if at some points societies become separated for long periods of time (in the current world it'll probably not happen, but imagine we find a way to colonize other planets then that might happen), well if one society allow abortion they'll probably end up with much healthier offspring on the long run than a society that doesn't allow it. Because foetus with birth deffect might get aborted more often. That's just an exemple but there are other interactions our law have with our biology that can have an effect as long as population don't travel too much.

[@alainpannetier2543]

Social insect colonies fit the bill. But human societies don't. Yet. Yes in social insects, you have specialisation/cooperation *and* you have reproduction of the colonies (when queens found new colonies). As for superior mamal societies, we are locked into a single biotop and have not been able to spawn autonomous civilisations on other planets. Yet.

[@alainpannetier2543]

Sander Suverkropp >> Only if there was no such interaction, we would form a fifth level of life. Cross breeding between mankind instances is irrelevant. There are some cell exchanges between metazoa (e.g sexual reproduction). There are some exchanges of individuals between insect societies (e.g again when drones and queen come from different colonies). Do not confuse societies instances isolation and individual genotypes. Individuals can and will specialise (e.g in "tissue" speciation) possibly under the influence from external contribution. Future mankind instances would probably be the result of parthenogenesis (in Greek colony/metropole acceptation) but "cell exchange" influence on "tissue" speciation would fade away after some time. IMOHO of course. :-)

[@t54mbetorres28]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*****

[@t54mbetorres28]

Rufyu

[@JavierCanteros]

Absolutely outstanding video!! So clear and well explained. Many Congratulations! I only missed -maybe for another video- some guesses about life's next major evolutionary transition like the singularity proposed by Ray Kurzweil.

[@ERRexFut]

Another awesome video! I'm very glad I subscribed to you guys. Please keep doing what you do.

[@superegorio]

Possibly the best channel on youtube. Thank you for your work!

[@brod2man]

Slowly building the super weapons against Creationism. Good work

[@Porglit]

Except he didn't even attempts to combat irreducibly complexity, which is the chief objection.

[@EaglesQuestions]

The chief objection for some; everyone has their favorites. I use to be a creationist, and while I did cite irreducible complexity, I more often just pointed to how it's impossible to get life from non-life. However, both objections have been addressed, for those not afraid to google. Biology has advanced quite a lot since the old I.C. examples (the human eye, the bacterial flagellum, etc.) were first used as objections, and has since explained their earlier forms.

[@Porglit]

Many have been answered, while many more have popped up. It's not simply "we don't know how this works" kind of examples, either, but "based on the evolution model, it would literally be impossible." When small changes would be disadvantageous, yet be necessary for the transformation into a new species, evolution says it should never happen. Woodpeckers are a great example. The shape of the beak makes it worse at anything else besides poking holes in trees, and you can't make even a single hole unless you have a long pointy beak. What more, you also have to have much stronger neck muscles, which would be wasted energy unless you already have a long beak. What more, even if you had both of those, you'd need a spongy organ around your brain to absorb the impact of your head slamming into the tree. All single parts are negatives traits for a bird unless you have all of them perfectly together. Evolution says that should not exist, rather than simply saying we don't know how it happened. There are countless such examples. I would suggest taking a look at Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe for a few more with much greater detail. He's a biochemist and I'm a random dude on the internet, so maybe you'll take him more seriously.

[@EaglesQuestions]

That a woodpecker shouldn't exist is not what evolution says; it's what creationism SAYS that evolution says. I suggest googling "evolution of X" before listing such examples. Just because a creationist source says it's impossible, or that it hasn't been explained, yet, doesn't mean that it hasn't. Traits aren't added whole, one by one, like lego blocks. Traits exist and evolve together, often starting smaller and becoming stronger over thousands of generations, gaining the creature new hunting strategies as they change. In the case of the woodpecker, a long beak and tongue are already used by other bird species for many different things, like to reach grubs and insects that have burrowed just under the rotting bark, without need of drilling. Or to reach into the soil to pull out ground-dwelling pray. Or to more easily reach seeds growing in a thick patch of brush. Haven't you ever noticed that woodpeckers still also LOVE sunflower seeds and dried cherries? You can buy bags of seed formulated specifically to attract woodpeckers. In evolution, animals change diet all the time, as they become able. The slow, gradual strengthening of these features would give a bird's descendants more and more ability to chip away at surface bark and rotten, flaking wood, and dry soil. Even that would allow it to reach more of its pray than it's slightly shorter-beaked cousins. What Creationism says shouldn't exist, though, is Ring Species. Divide a population in half, and separate them for long enough, and it results in so much genetic drift that the groups become incompatible with each other and eventually, can no longer breed. New species arising without separate, special creation.

[@Porglit]

Haha well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess... Ring Species not being able to exist isn't what creationism says; it's what evolutionism SAYS creationism says. But I don't see this conversation benefiting either of us too much. You apparently have your mind pretty darn set on the matter, as do I. Anonymous internet banter won't change that, I don't think. I wish you the best of luck, and merry Christmas.

[@jehuhej]

Thank you for presenting a complex notion in such a beautiful and clear way.

[@blackmesa232323]

This is a really good video, holy shit.

[@wesst86]

I paused the video at 4:30 and wrote about 200 words of notes/thoughts about the centrality of the system at its various evolutionary stages. My notes questioned the role of the centralised organisation and discussed it in the context of the viroid-genome-cell-animal hierarchy. I concluded that centralisation exists, but only where a major transition in the system occurred. I noted that there most be cooperation at each stage in order to make the evolutionary transition. I then click play, and at 4:32: "What was the cause? Cooperation". Great video - thank you! :)

[@danminer5343]

The story of evolution is fiction because mutations destroy proteins. Proteins are irreducibly complex and must be specific and complete to function.

[@poppyorangeflower]

"What was the cause of these major evolutionary transition?" "Cooperation" Errrr... wouldn't you say that environmental stresses are the cause? And that cooperation was the outcome that survived most splendidly under said trigger?

[@transhuman3708]

We need a major evolutionary transition NOW.

[@IxousLouis]

Wow this is incredible. Life is truly wonderful

[@Actanonverba01]

Great work! I like the fact that references are explicitly given.

[@travelers8607]

Nice video and explanation, thank you for this.

[@Augustum19999]

Oh my these videos are stunning, you explained everything so precisely, I am in love with your videos!!!!

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

This also contradicts claims that cells must be intelligently designed. A designer could have built the first cells with different equipment allowing them to grow larger without the need for endosymbiosis. Instead, cells remain tiny and isolated for billions of years. A designer could have just engineered whatever he wanted from the very beginning.

[@ayushsharma9270]

uncleanunicorn true

[@matheusribeiro8523]

Wait, what if that designer/creator wanted to craft things in this exact way? You are assuming their values and intents to be what we would likely have in designing, but we can't know if they share that with us.

[@adamatlas1113]

The Designer already engineered whatever He wanted from the very beginning... And it only took two letters: BE!

[@adamatlas1113]

Actually, the existence of God is beyond time.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I believe he/she did. I also believe that the Universe tells a story for us to read. It's a story that doesn't need anything beyond human faculty to read. I read chapter one as the seed makes a tree and the new tree a new seed, the millionth tree is a continuation of the first seed and all that came before. We see the replication of design schemes repeated at all levels, we see waves driven by currents turning in a Vortex and pulled by the tides in the molten lava of the Earth, in the oceans, on the land, the air, the Sun and above, in our bodies, in our cells in the atom and below. Our cells Create their own current by separating electrons from protons to create a pressure gradient. Our cells seem to intuitively understand how the universe works better than we do though they are a small part of us individually.

[@mikstratok]

awesome animations, provides sources, ideas are presented clearly and straightforwardly . How didn't i know this channel existed before? it is awesome

[@natcamargo5344]

This is so nice!!!

[@erickperaza7266]

really liked this video, it's the first one I've watched from this channel and now im gonna go watch all of them

[@TheRealSyncRow]

That swearing protist xD

[@leezhao]

I think this is, by far, the best popular science channel on youtube!

[@plantman5126]

Conclusion: Voltron is our next major transition!

[@Haloheld]

ya - information is the next level (DNA) and ya i think we do great with our information network.

[@TheDude50447]

wasnt that the evil robot in this movie? the one with scarlett johanssen?

[@kenwalter3892]

One of the best channels there is!!! Well done

[@Luper1billion]

"cooperation" is so on point there, thanks for the video. every human in the world should watch this

[@balsakovacevic]

Simply beautiful.

[@lilitheden748]

John Perry, thank you so much for these fantastic videos. They are “stated clearly “, just as you say they are. I so glad I found them . Now, I have some visual tutoring material to show my teen niece, that is short and to the point, easy to comprehend, and most importantly doesn’t bore her to death. Science is becoming so important in our youths life that we cannot stand by and let them ignore it.

[@chevalierdeloccident5949]

Just wow. And the fact this has been witnessed.

[@JohnnyErnestoCampino]

Awesome video. I've always been accepting of evolutionary theory but I must admit things like this were always lingering questions for me, thanks for clearing it up.

[@trallfraz]

How about a recent evolutionary time period. There are over 10,000 years of man (and 5,000 years of recorded history), and within all that time man still hasn't turned into something else. In fact, nobody has seen another monkey turn into a man. It's hilarious that evolution just stopped for the last 10,000 years, isn't it?? C'mon. man!! Think!!!

[@Master-O-None]

Great video!

[@Q_20]

This channel deserve more attention

[@BFDT-4]

So, the layers represented so far are: Free-floating genes (RNA, DNA, and some proteins, but no cell wall) Bacteria of several kinds with cell walls Eukaryotes - symbiotic bacteria living within a cell wall Colonies of bacteria/eukaryotes Superorganisms Would not there be another layer, cooperating superorganisms? And by extension, those that cooperate doing better than those in constant mutually harmful competition?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Every particle has a boundary, cell wall, outer surface, valence... And every wall/boundary is contained within many boundaries. Everything is an individual vortex that produces waves that vibrate the boundary condition and via vibration are added to the harmony of the Universe which exists within a single boundary that contains all others. It's a water balloon filled with water balloons that each create their own vibration as part of a single sound. We are oceans within oceans. Of course I could be wrong but we must choose a belief and this is the belief I chose. I think it's a good one.

[@hairymcnipples]

​@@imaginaryuniverse632wait, what "vibration"?

[@amayamusicyt]

I´ve learned about mitochondria-cell collaboration, but thanks to you showing the protoctist- algae video I understand it all.Thanks, keep the work up !!

[@john_hunter_]

I am the ultimate Voltron.

[@robertsevening7191]

This is one of the best, most informative videos I've ever seen. Subscribed.

[@AZOffRoadster]

I expected our microbiome to be included in this.

[@StatedClearly]

+AZOffRoadster some gut microbes are getting close but they are still free to change hosts. They also are not passed from mother to child. Aphids though, have undergone what looks like a major transition with one of their gut microbes. Its passed in the egg and neither species can live without the other.

[@AZOffRoadster]

"They also are not passed from mother to child." I believe that is not true. You're microbiome exists both internal and external, and I've heard some good arguments put forth that there is evidence of differing health between vaginal birth vs c-section with the latter (less exposed at birth) having weaker immune systems (or something like that). . We digress... but... A person cannot exist without a microbiome... right?

[@StatedClearly]

+AZOffRoadster you can die without a microbiome to help fight off invasion from pathogens but we have not found a specific species you absolutely need and there is not a specific species passed from mother to child. A major transition is a permanent merger, we have not reached that level with our gut flora. Again, in aphids, it has happened. The bacteria merges with the egg cells in a similar way our mitochondria are passed from mother to child.

[@Draxis32]

Excellent channel. You provide great information, very well explained without much of the technicalities of the evolutionary processes. A great balance of knowledge and information.

[@DrReginaldFinleySr]

Beautiful. Thank you!

[@fCauneau]

Gi ! So many thanks for such a high-level synthesis of complex and up to date concepts !!

[@fadlinugraha347]

This makes so much sense since variance is involved greatly in reproduction process. Unlike that Adam and Eve bullshit.

[@survival_man7746]

Niceeee that video is so amazing, never seen any other videos explain those fenomenon in such beauty. 👏👏 Should be presented in each school of biology in the world

[@ugh5271]

HUMANS! *MERGE!*

[@edwinrodriguez3184]

This is an excellent and well explained video, and it has helped me a lot as another point of view of my current dissertation project. Great job!

[@macatholomew]

Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.

[@MOGIISIMO]

I highly recommend Nick Lane's book "The Vital Question" as an interesting approach to the transition between archea and bacteria to eucariots. Even with all the loose ends the theory still has, it looks promising, to say the least

[@AakashKalaria]

Notification squad! anyone?

[@Karlwasright]

most comprehensive evolutionary video I've seen. wonderful.

[@antybrand]

So awesome!!!!! One of the bests videos!! Thnx a lot!!

[@ryuudraco8417]

The channel lived up to its name. This was easy to understand, thank you!

[@BFDT-4]

Cooperation = Survival. Competition = Death of one or both competitors!

[@fooper1325]

BFDT your so right!

[@alainpannetier2543]

Great video again. I knew about the last two major transitions but I had never envisioned RNA/DNA fragments as a cooperation model. Another piece in the puzzle. Thx again. BTW, my 9 years old son enjoys your videos so much. I mean, nearly as much as minecraft. That's something to say.

[@RadioactivFly]

THE MITOCHONDRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL

[@kk2swag122]

My guy be spreading the facts.

[@hairymcnipples]

Only the ones that have 'em Prokaryotes (which massively outnumber we eukaryotes) don't, ever (because they don't have organelles). Even some eukaryotic microorganisms don't have mitochondria! Although admittedly not many because mitochondria is useful.

[@ando4440]

Wow this was a wonderful video . I had some of these questions in my mind ,you explained it and animated your explanations wonderfully.

[@dragonskunkstudio7582]

Researches discover that Protist tend to swear a lot. :P

[@MycelialCords]

Great video. So happy you included resources, appreciate it. Can't wait to see more!

[@shaferai]

I would argue that there's one level higher than an organism, and that's society. Social animal like us and bees are far stronger together and we would be helpless without one another. Even the dog's coevolution with us can be seen as a breakthrough.

[@lenn939]

Read the stickied comment.

[@cyrielcastillo4263]

thanks for this video I really got my answers to my question its has brief and concise explanation of what I need :)

[@yepperdeedooda]

It's so much easier to just believe that God did everything and not need to think or learn these complicated truths.

[@yepperdeedooda]

***** You've convinced me.

[@coreymartin1103]

Ксения Ковалевская i cant tell if your saying this jokingly or are being actually serious

[@yepperdeedooda]

corey martin I'm serious. It's easier to believe in an invisible man that'll let me live in paradise for an eternity than learn all this complicating stuff.

[@coreymartin1103]

Ксения Ковалевская ok will firstly this stuff isnt really that complicated but why would you rather live a life of lie just because something is too "complicated" sorry but things are complicated but just because they are doesnt mean you should neglect the truth and believe in something that is fake but its just simplified it really makes no sense

[@warpatato]

Yet here you are commenting in a digital website from your electronic phone/computer at the comfort of your modern home, all product of generations of dedicated men and women who "learned all of these complicated stuff" (as you would like to put it). If you were in charge of the science program of humanity, humanity will be still living in the caves.

[@yaiirable]

I like the fact you reference specific academic papers and researchers.

[@drummerjoe69ful]

Thank God For Science.

[@yeahoh2222]

W a I t a s e c ond

[@TheChezmatt]

Thank you for doing these videos! I'm a programer trying to help out a biochemist friend, it's been years since Bio and watching these helped me understand the code I need to write and what it needs to do and why!

[@StatedClearly]

+TheChezmatt, really? I'd love to hear more of that story!

[@Coastfog]

I'll never understand how people could prefer conjectured religious fantasy accounts over the multitude of fascinating, independently verifiable puzzle pieces that form the theory of evolution.

[@ZealousWins]

Me neither. It's also strange how they seem to so desperately hold on to beliefs even though they are proven wrong, like Creation.

[@oceanbreeze3172]

It's a little bit funny. See, there's a common understanding that everything that exists has awe-inspiring complexity that's difficult to understand. So, the idea is that there's a God which comprehends all of this incredible complexity. Somehow, the acts as a shortcut to not actually marvel at the aforementioned beautiful complexity for us to understand in the way that we imagine such a role model would, because by this logic it's better to simply refer to someone who does have the answers instead of getting those answers which are not only vast and complex, but are true.

[@tyh3424]

Wow! Really well put together! Great job!

[@johnarbuckle2619]

YAY

[@stuzaza]

i love this presentation, Stated Clearly is a work of art and a pleasure to be witness too. Thank you for what u guys have created, kudos galore

[@Satyadevbandi]

who the hell dislikes this??

[@sajad105]

The best video I have seen on KZbin!

[@NiX_aKi]

👍❤️

[@christopher8220]

Utterly fascinating, and well articulated. Thanks for posting this vid!

[@shamanahaboolist]

This doesn't explain anything. Just states that it happens and that we can observe things a bit like it in labs. If mitochondria can live without cells and cells without mitochondria then do that exact experiment and show the two working independently and tgen together... otherwise you don't have evidence of mitochondria co-operating with eukaryotes at all... The fact remains that no cell's proteins on can function without atp and no dna can reproduce without ribosomes using that atp to make more dna. So unless you can model a working cell that doesn't use atp you don't have any evidence of these hypothetical transitions which actually make life as we know it.

[@EdwinLuciano]

You're not using the word "evidence" correctly in the scientific sense of the word IMO. You are also setting up strawmen. For example, the scientific consensus is _not_ that mitochondria can survive without cells. In fact, it's clear that they cannot. Margulis demonstrated that mitochondria were _once_ (billions of years ago) independant of eukaryotic cells and the evidence for that is that they have they have their own DNA. That is what evidence is. In a court of law, an eyewitness' testimony is evidence. That doesn't mean that the testimony is 100 percent accurate and we know that it's not. But it's not meaningless information. The fact that mitochondria have their own DNA is not meaningless information. It's an important fact we can use in hypotheses and theories to explain things.

[@shamanahaboolist]

Edwin Luciano Evidence is evidence whether in science or a court. Evidence should lead towards fulfiiling a burden of proof. The problem with claiming that the scenarios as observed and tested lend evidence to support the theory that co-operation is the root cause of major evolutionary jumps is that they don't offer evidence of that at all. They offer evidence of co-operation within systems already designed for the capacity of co-operation. I am not proposing any strawmen. I am calling out the bait and switch which is being used where evidence for one thing is being proposed as evidence for something very different in actuality.

[@EdwinLuciano]

***** "Evidence should lead towards fulfiiling a burden of proof. " If you are looking for proof, you are looking in the wrong domain. There is no proof that you cannot tell where a quantum particle is and at the same time know its momentum. There is only evidence. The evidence can be good, bad, or inconclusive. You can reject the evidence for this quirky fact of nature but you cannot say that it's not evidence. It is. Now if you want facts that cannot be falsified, perhaps religion is the better choice. Religious people know everything with absolute certainty and they are never wrong about anything.

[@shamanahaboolist]

Edwin Luciano Now you are using strawmen. I never said anything about absolutes. I said evidence's purpose is to fulfill a burden of proof. The evidence that quantum particles have superpositions in space time has evidence fulfilling burden of proof to the standard of beyond all reasonable doubt, demonstrated in experiments and engineering based on the theory in 1000's of cases. The evidence for co-operation as a root cause of evolutionary jumps is absent for the reasons I have highlighted and fulfilling no burden of proof. Seems like you're just brainwashed by the atheists/anti-religious zealots. I suggest you go learn about evidence and proof and how to add structure to your judgement. Court and criminal investigation is a great place to start.

[@Hugh.Manatee]

These videos are aimed at an audience that has only a basic understanding of biology. I'm not sure if your expectations for the scientific rigour of this video are realistic. If you're really interested in the evidence for endosymbiosis (that is what you were asking, right?), I can recommend this article form the Royal Society, which is a comprehensive introductionwith links to the actual papers: rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1678/20140330

[@batarasiagian9635]

Exhilarating and challenging, yet explained simply. Many thanks.

[@psychogat3]

at the end he says bees and ants went through a further transformation that humans haven't went through. I don't think that is true. humans are for sure part of a larger organism. it started as tribes then tribes started to cooperate and eventually we grew into countries. even now there is a strong movement of globalism pushing to unite all countries into one unit.

[@DrawCuriosity]

We made a video about it on my channel - but the truth is in terms of complexity and different elements coming together to form a new level, bees, ants and wasps have achieves something that us humans haven't from a biological perspective. Now, humans have achieved amazing things, but we don't become biologically sterile throughout our lives in order to help some queen-human have tons of babies on our behalf. :)

[@psychogat3]

could being homosexual be a type of biological sterility starting to form in humans? i know that's probably a very controversial thing but the biological implications of homosexuality seem really interesting i wish there was more information about it out there.

[@genessab]

Matt no, because many organisms who don't have the society we have perform homosexuality as well.

[@joshuaglover6707]

Not exactly. We are still individuals, but individuals in superorganisms act as a collective, most of them might even be sterile or sacrifice their lives for the benefit of the colony, with no individual behaviours or instincts including self-preservation. We only resemble a supercolony because of the complexity of our modern economy... but after all, isn't the foundation of said economy the pursuit of personal individual gain? We are a collection of independent individuals who work together for our own individual benefit, superorganisms are a collective where each individual is a small part of a greater whole, and each individual will readily take actions that benefit the colony regardless of the cost to themselves.

[@fatma20011]

Amazing !!! helped me understand ETI and our professor recommended this video for the class!!