What Is The Gene's Eye View of Evolution? Stated Clearly

The Gene's Eye View of evolution, sometimes called the "Selfish Gene Concept" or the "Genetical Theory", is a foundational concept in biological evolution. Here you will learn why taking a gene's eye view of life can be so important when trying to solve complex mysteries in evolutionary biology.
THREE CONCEPTS OF A GENE
The gene's eye view of evolution requires adopting an older definition of the word "gene" than is commonly used today. For details, see Jon Perry's "Stated Casually" video: Is this REALLY a gene? • Is this REALLY a gene?
PARLIAMENT OF GENES
The second animation in this series, "The Parliament of Genes", is still being produced. It is based on this paper: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
To see progress and give your input, join us on / statedclearly
Arabic Subtitles by Ammar Abu-Shukur and proofed by Mustafa Farqad
#genetics #evolution #selfishgene #biology #richardDawkins

[@StatedClearly]

While I wanted to keep the bee section simple, some people are wishing I added more detail. Here's more: Workers are all female, they can lay eggs but it's rare (and for reasons I won't go into, workers can only have sons). Usually it's just the queen that lays eggs. Some of the sisters are raised to become queens when the hive is large enough to split or if the current queen is slowing down. In the animation, the sister with the large abdomen is a future queen. Future queens have to be raised on a special diet from the start to display this phenotype (adult workers can not transform into effective queens). Interestingly, queen stingers are far more smooth even though they also carry the suicidal stinger genes. Barb growth is slowed by their special diet. This smooth stinger helps them kill rival queens, allows them to sting mammals without getting stuck, and is highly mobile, allowing them to use it as a tool for precision egg placement when laying. Aside from queens, the males (which are called drones) will also get to directly pass on their genes if they mate with queens from other hives. They don't have stingers but do carry suicidal stinger genes. Though workers don't normally lay eggs, any loss of a worker is a reproductive loss, as it's one less worker to help the reproductive family members spread their genes. That said, the loss of a worker is not nearly as big a loss as losing a queen or future queen. I left that detail out for simplicity but it actually does change the math, making the suicidal genes even more favorable then they would otherwise be. I left these details out of the video because they are largely a distraction if we are just trying to follow the suicidal genes. These genes spread because they work at perpetuating themselves better than non-suicidal genes could, given the selection pressures normally put on bees.

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

How did the very first life form? What caused that very first life to form? How did it form and what components or chemicals formed that life? How did that first organism reproduce? What sustained the survival of that first organism? What experiments and/or tests can you use to undeniably verify evolution as a scientific theory? I'd like to know your answers, specifically, if that's not too much to ask.

[@danopticon]

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 - Your questions fall mostly under what’s known as the study of *_abiogenesis_* and an accessible outline of what we agree upon - including what we’re certain of, what we’re uncertain of, which hypotheses have been discarded and why, and which hypotheses are most promising and why - can be found here: www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

[@juhliousu5491]

@@danopticon hey thanks for the very informative link...

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

Did anyone watch the scientific video links I provided?

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

@@danopticon Did you watch the links I provided?

[@boglenight1551]

Sometimes a chicken is just an egg’s way of making another egg

[@abdimojo8794]

🤔🤯🤯

[@mjolninja9358]

I severely disagree, sometimes a chicken are friends we made along the way

[@boglenight1551]

Mjol ninja Ah but you see, it was I, Chicken, the entire time! Muahaha

[@christopherbarber5283]

Ok varga

[@danopticon]

No, my dudes: the chicken was in your heart, the whole time…!

[@nofaithrequired859]

I'm an old man with LOTS of study & knowledge of Evolution: this is one of the best explanations I have ever seen.

[@Alg3rian]

that music segment was beautiful!

[@CoronadeDeus]

whats the name of that song

[@hungvu262]

would love to know the name

[@siyandavilakazi781]

This channel deserves more eyes

[@thedarkwolf2525]

It'll probably have like around a million by the end of 2021. Set a reminder and check if you want

[@mjolninja9358]

I lost 1 eye

[@CaBarry374]

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii This many? (I helped)

[@Basieeee]

It needs more eyes :) more interaction = more eyes :)

[@siyandavilakazi781]

@@mjolninja9358 I guess your one eye will do

[@mepravi]

Understanding evolution is like a spiritual realisation. Much better than that

[@4.0.4]

Don't cut yourself on the edge of that fedora.

[@fragileomniscience7647]

@@4.0.4 Unlike spiritual dogcrap, evolution is based on evidence, epistemology and logic. What's your point you clown?

[@4.0.4]

@@fragileomniscience7647 you don't have to be a fedora tipping atheist to be agnostic. Theism and spirituality are not trying to solve the same problem the scientific method is. That feeling that "you have it all figured out now" usually is a sign of (late) adolescence.

[@SkywalkerSamadhi]

Because it’s true.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Well given that Dawkins version of evolution is the Primer mover God of memes, it literally is a spiritual "realization", aka hogwash. Dawkins just replaced the word god with the word meme

[@shamimhussain396]

I loved the analogy with musical notes. As a Computer Science student, I like to think of genes as a set of simple machine instructions, from which complex programs can be constructed.

[@aleksandersuur9475]

And 19th century people liked to think of everything as analogs of steam engines or clockworks, with dubious results. Don't forget to keep in mind all the ways in which biology is totally unlike computers or any other sort of machinery.

[@salahelhaddad4872]

Aa a computer science student, could you tell me please how likely is it to generate a functional code through random mutations ? Say you have a big ass code and it performs certain functions like DNA ,,,, is introducing random changes in that code likely to increase it's quality or corrupt it's function ? And let's assume you have all the time in the world ,,,,,, and if you say it would eventually produce a productive mutation , how long do you think it would take these random mutations to yield a productive result ?

[@aleksandersuur9475]

@@salahelhaddad4872 That totally works, provided your "code" was generated by an genetic algorithm to begin with. Many computer learning algorithms work somewhat like that and it's the simplest way to train neural networks. It obviously doesn't work on any traditional piece of code, you can't just do random plaintext manipulations and get something that even compiles, never mind works because it's engineered logic and there is only one way it can work correctly. Here's my personal contribution, the "code" in question being mutated is the network that steers the cars, not the application that displays and runs the entire thing kzbin.info/www/bejne/jorNmp96fdV-l6c

[@salahelhaddad4872]

@@aleksandersuur9475 Okay so I have watched your video , but I still don't understand how it relates to the ability of random mutations to generate functional proteins or new genes . I don't know what does (a code being generated by a genetic algorithm ) mean either Obviously I do think of that process with the normal (plain piece of code) as you describe it , and yeah duh that's exactly what I am asking , because I know just introducing random mutations here and there will mess the code up entirely So like can you shed more light on that area? I'm a doctor btw and I did study DNA and bio chemistry in a kind of extensive way, obviously diseases and medicine is what I studied the most but you can go ahead and talk in details without worrying of me not being aware of what DNA is or stuff like that Or u can just shoot me a video then we can discuss later

[@hareecionelson5875]

@@salahelhaddad4872 a few lines of computer code with the ability to self-replicate will not emerge on its own: code requires a computer and a programmer to at least write something to begin with Chemistry does not have this limitation: RNA molecules can theoretically form just from chemical reactions, like any other non-living material like rocks, or metal oxides, or sodium cholride. The difference between RNA and other chemistry is that some molecules do possess the ability to self replicate and act as their own enzymes to catalyse (speed up) reactions. to prove to you that RNA can theoretically emerge naturally, we know that RNA bonds are synthesised by RNA polymerase, an enzyme. An enzyme only speeds up the rate of reaction by lowering the activation energy to get it started. Therefore the implication is that the reaction can still occur in the right chemical environment, without enzymes. This is the thing that has not been reproduced, but that might simply be because the average reaction time is so long that it exceeds the time span of human civilisations

[@zamangomane6861]

The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins is a great book to read when trying to understand such concepts.

[@TurinTuramber]

Read the selfish gene during lockdown. Game changer for me.

[@foreverbooked2964]

Sameee

[@matthewgartell6380]

Been meaning to pal. Will order it tonight.

[@budd2nd]

I’m reading it now.

[@unaisunu1770]

How? Can u highlight some important parts?

[@TurinTuramber]

@@unaisunu1770 I recommend getting it on audiobook and have the great man tell you himself. Essentially, selfish gene theory could change the way the view the world and your existence there in. Spoilers: There is no ghost in the machine so stop looking. The distinction between living and non living is, for the most part trivial. You should begin to question the very notion of you the individual because your perception of your own reality is simply a clumsy and crude model generated by your brain. Your 'free will' is your brain dangling a carrot in front of you and simultaneously whipping your behind with a stick. Your consciousness is a merely a survival tool, your body was never really yours and is instead an unimaginably complex cathedral built by tiny Xerox machines. The fact that organic chemistry is 'sticky', combine this with Darwinian evolution and large numbers - hey presto! The secret of life.

[@Mark73]

Terry Pratchett put it best: "Evolution is great for a species, but it can be a real bitch for the individuals."

[@bencressman6110]

Terry Pratchett put everything best

[@marcob9124]

I have not seen people evolve, but devolution and decay seems to be everywhere....

[@marcob9124]

@Aaditya kshetri A) If I take it as just a humorous comment then it may stay. B) If I take it in terms of language game it may mean that one outcome of devolution is that humans "be" (became) individuals. C) I tend to think you mean that devolution does happen to certain individuals. But this would also mean that you deny genetics and experience of reality (science) and the basics of the theory of evolution also. So what then in fact are you talking about? It will be A. You are kidding.

[@Go4Noctis]

​@@marcob9124 Devolution from what to what? If you are talking culturally then I would say you have definitly evolved. Maybe not to your liking but thats another story.

[@marcob9124]

@@Go4Noctis can you give a real example for your subjektive opinion? Devolution is the result of Degeneration. This is a real reality. Evolution is fiction. Biological systems dont get better.

[@KeithAdam]

Regarding the bees, you forgot to mention the most crucial part which makes them so unique. In most species a sibling shares 1/2 relatedness value. However, bee sister’s specifically share a 3/4 value. Hence, it makes sense for them to work for the queen to produce more offspring, so they can hopefully be more sisters. This was in Chapter 8 of the selfish gene if I recall correctly.

[@KeithAdam]

Great video btw

[@smokey04200420]

Nice. This video touches on the 3 key points that I find most people do not understand about the theory of evolution. I don’t know why, but these 3 statements seem so hard for people to understand about the process of evolution. 0:48 “Genes are the smallest things able to evolve.” Emphasis on “genes are able to evolve.” Always think of evolution as genes mutating. before there were organisms, there were genes that evolved. 2:26 “Things that are better at reproducing are more likely to reproduce.” More specifically, before there were organisms, genes that were better at replicating (reproducing), were more likely to replicate. 4:07 “Now, genes do not have minds or ambitions. They do not compete, quote, on purpose. But, if selection pressures stay the same, long claw genes will completely eliminate short claw genes. This is an automatic consequence of natural selection.” People usually imagine evolution as a force that has a certain goal to make organisms more suitable to their environment. It’s humancentric to think that evolution is a conscious entity that wants to make organisms better suitable for survival in their environment. That because humans use artificial selection to make organisms that are better suitable for our desired purposes. It’s hard for most people to let go of this humancentric view of the world.

[@JohnnyArtPavlou]

Yes, but it also seems to be in the languaging around evolution. Without saying that things are designed… When you hear people talk about these forces… Mutation or natural selection, or whatever they talk about the necessity for adaptation, based on prevailing or changing circumstances… And they say it in such a way that they seem to be talking about design when we are discussing the mechanisms of evolution. Having said that I would love to have it be discovered that somehow consciousness itself is an epigenetic force that influences the developmental direction of a given organism. But just forget, I said that, even though I like the idea, I mean, I know there’s some scientists or pseudoscientists out there who believe that consciousness is the background of everything. I’m just a guy.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

But everything you said is wrong in reality. Nice fiction though.

[@Ninjaeule97]

The fact that we live in a time where you can get such amazing explanation for almost free (As long as you have an device and an internet connection) is truly marvelous. The library of Alexandria might have burned down, but what we have today is almost indistinguishable from magic.

[@DexterHeto]

stumbled across your channel and i'm in awe by how you break down such complex subjects, thank you so much for educating us

[@prithviprakash1110]

Thank you for this incredible video. You really do put out some of the best content on KZbin. I always share these videos with my friends and family.

[@davidasbury4860]

Thank you for hiring and crediting two people to work on the music. Has a person who makes a living from music education I've developed a reflexive cringe when music shows up as an analogy in another field as the analogy is so often clumsy or misrepresentative. I was delighted by how well the musical analogy was made in this video.

[@StatedClearly]

Evelyn is a great musician!

[@Aphelia.]

I really like the calm, soothing narration and nice animations. I wish there were more videos from this channel.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

That was excellent. I'm impressed that you didn't confuse the selfish gene with a gene for selfishness like so many people have. Even people who understand science pretty well do this.

[@michaelhumphreys9671]

I have been using Mr. Perry's videos for years to help teach evolution in my HS Biology classes. They are just getting better and better. Thank you so much for them!

[@gowtham7231]

Your video helped me understand the real meaning of the book, which I was unable to grasp when I read the book a few years before. Keep up the good work.

[@ERRexFut]

This channel is great! Very informative and comprehensive.

[@rimah694]

I cannot express how much I love this channel and its creator!

[@RohitPant04]

The music segment was artistic. Well done with the explaination too!

[@Seraphsblade]

This is a great and understandable explanation of a concept that more people need to understand. AMAZING WORK thank you.

[@Paulkjoss]

Making my way through The Selfish Gene 🧬 at the moment - amazing book - and awesome video, thank you 🙏 We know so much, but we know so little!

[@brisk9280]

This channel is phenomenal. Thank you for providing this information for free.

[@mafarmerga]

Great video. I read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene as a Freshman in 1977. It changed my life. I am now a Ph.D. Cell Biologist and I see that in every example I can think of Dawkins was correct.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Oh yeah? Where did genes come from?

[@mafarmerga]

@@ExistenceUniversity "Where did genes come from?" Genes are strands of DNA that code for mRNA which codes for useful strings of amino acids (polypeptides) that have cellular functions. Life is simply complex biochemistry capable of Darwinian evolution. Life is an emergent property of the universe, it does not require a magic sky man to exist.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

@@mafarmerga I did not ask what are genes, I asked where they came from, which your answer gets part marks for but you need to comprehend the question. Where did genes come from? You answer genes are portions of DNA or RNA (and therefore also in mRNA, etc). Ok so we have two diverging questions now: 1) Was there DNA without genes, 2) (Whether you answer yes or no to the above question) Where did DNA/RNA come from? Also don't strawman me, I am an atheist with a university degree which includes advanced biology courses and can prove that God cannot exist. So save me the dramatics of the ad hominem strawmanning.

[@mafarmerga]

@@ExistenceUniversity The nucleotides for RNA can all form abiotically. Recent data from the japanese spacecraft that sampled an asteroid confirms this. Nucleotide can self assemble into linear chains, and small chains (e.g. tRNA) can pair with amino acids. The reciprocal base pairing of RNA with tRNA can result in the linkage of adjacent amino acids, forming short polypeptides. Ribosomes can facilitate this today, but are not necessary for this to occur. Those random sequences of self-assembled RNA can also act as enzymes themselves (look up ribozymes) so selection could act on ribozyme sequences directly, or indirectly via the formation of useful polypeptides. Either way you end up with a useful string of nucleotides that can be both replicated, passed on to progeny and undergo Darwinian evolution. In other words... A GENE. So you question is badly phrased, "1) Was there DNA without genes," There WERE genes without DNA. Want proof that RNA genes can exist? Look up the genome of coronaviruses or influenza viruses. They have genes, but no DNA. So THAT is where genes come from. They are self-assembling strings of nucleotides that are selected for.

[@mafarmerga]

@@ExistenceUniversity You might be interested in a 2017 paper on this subject: "Abiotic synthesis of purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets" by Nam et al.

[@jonc5152]

Animations and script are _absurdly_ fantastic

[@christopherbarber5283]

Dude. How does this not have a million views? This is exceptional work my guy

[@Brummly84]

Wonderful work Mr. Perry! This channels stays true to its name.

[@RickKasten]

This was the first video I've ever watched of yours, but your explanation of "gene's eye view" was phenomenal! It can be a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, but you did a great job! Thank you!

[@WillPeterson]

Very well presented! Thanks so much!

[@roidroid]

This was such a compelling explanation of both the inevitability of - & insights from - evolution, that i'm tempted to show it to my creationist parents.

[@fireschwein6288]

Dew it!

[@erwinzer0]

Love the intonation and the narration :-)

[@Rod1712]

For this channel I can say that KZbin is worth it 👌❤

[@SaeedNeamati]

You are a master in presenting concepts

[@anujjodha]

The part with the music analogy is just great.

[@jsull81]

Great job! This was really well done And that music was awesom too! I thought it was from some sad anime or something, lol

[@BoneAppleTea]

Always love these animations

[@KRYPTOS_K5]

Well done. Undoubtedly. There are however answers without questions and (my) questions without answers. You Welcome. Cassandra Darwiniana

[@scottheffley6596]

Brilliant- another thoughtfully worded and beautifully illustrated presentation! Thank you for creating entertaining videos that simply and logically explain significant concepts.

[@dangthatscool1]

Y'all do great work. Keep it up!

[@CarlosGarcia-vw1zl]

Simple and beautiful!

[@quierounpocodeesto]

Beautifully explained!!

[@hugosotelo4829]

As usual, this is simply exquisite. I just wish more people were seeing it

[@worldwidequickbooks]

amazing how this is thought thrugh and discovered; still love the channel!!

[@evelynedemers]

Thank you dear ! Awesome work ! 😎😀🐝

[@Basieeee]

This channel is fascinating!

[@CathLenaMusic]

I’d never heard the gene story like this before. This is amazing. We are all amazing

[@patldennis]

I had learned about transposons as an undergraduate in microbiology, so this concept seemed trivially true when i heard of it.

Este canal é excelente! Parabéns!

[@prithviprakash1110]

At 10:18 you mention that there's an animation for the "Parliament of Genes" which you have done. I'm unable to find a video with a title like that on your channel. Could you please send me the link?

[@SamSam-ir7ux]

He is in the process of making it. He will update the description after he released it.

[@MisterYoupinet]

Hey. I'm little sad because I think we don't have enough video about science stuff in french. If I do a translation of one or some of your video, would you mind to put them?

[@sabouraram5628]

The most clear explanation

[@michaeljohn7398]

Well said, very logical. Cheers from Michael. Australia.

[@X1Y0Z0]

Excellent presentation

[@dym3nsions396]

this is an amazing video. thank you

[@bazoo513]

Stated quite clearly, indeed. It is important to realize there are no different "kinds" of selection - phenomena like group selection and kin selection are just statistical consequences of the underlying mechanism, that is, the fact that there exist biochemical entities influencing the organism's traits that are subject to mutations.

[@bruhmoment3731]

Soooooo clearly explained. Thank you!

[@MahanRad]

If there were many more 'like' buttons, I would have hit them too.

[@heathenthatheretic5960]

Loved this. It made me view Gene's in a totally different way!

[@ThePSGgaming]

A video that actually portrays this book accurately, finally

[@andrewsuryali8540]

I'm kinda disappointed you didn't try to show the escape pod leaving the house robot.

[@StatedClearly]

I thought about showing it, but my better angels decided to leave it to everyone's imagination.

[@JesusChrist-qi8yo]

@@StatedClearly keeping this child-friendly I see

[@kellydalstok8900]

Watch the Woody Allen film “Everything You Allways Wanted To Know About Sex ...” for footage of escape pods awaiting their evacuation. Maybe the clip can be found on YT. I found it for you: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHjKimt6aNmgmtU

[@skywalkersounds7020]

Today I learn that Genetical is a word! I had no idea. Great video! 😃

[@benevolent6705]

Genetic, is, too. I hate english.

[@codyrobinson1982]

Thanks for teaching me

[@Olisha.S]

That musical segment was wonderful, is there a name to the music?

[@mahmoudshreteh5000]

Thanks alot for the wonderful informations ❤❤❤

[@Noone-of-your-Business]

12 minutes chock full of basic knowledge that should be widely accepted as common sense. And yet, millions of creationists lack the capacity of understanding a very simple concept if it means complex consequences.

[@donnycooksey2032]

Remember, these Creationists don’t just lack the ability to understand evolution they just don’t want to so they can hold on to their preferred delusions.

[@csanadballa8561]

Was the music written for this video specifically, or can you tell me to the title of it please?

[@StatedClearly]

She wrote it for this

[@Crocy]

It's so cool that the way our world works can make us see inanimate processes as sentient 🐣

[@purpleslog]

Did the “Parliament of genes” video ever get made? I can’t find it.

[@marcolorful]

woah this was something! great video

[@updated9918]

شكرا كثيرا على الترجمة العربية.

[@aeebeecee3737]

Totally love this video.

[@rimah694]

btw, Jon, in the description you wrote: "revolutionary biology". You might wanna fix that.

[@StatedClearly]

Thanks! Done.

[@arjitb7904]

Beautiful.

[@guthrie_the_wizard]

Great stuff!!!!

[@mikeCavalle]

wow! what a distinctive voice.

[@Cather0n]

I´m not sure about that music analogy, it should be added that in arts there is no such thing as correct and incorrect (unless following a specific format). I do appreciate what you are trying to get to but that would seem to favor only a melodic arrangement prevalent in classic and more "standardized" music whilst there are many genres that seek that disruption as part of the artistic expression. Anywho, that´s just my two cents on it. I really liked Evelyne´s piece regardless, and your animation was very illustrative!

[@StatedClearly]

What you have noticed about music is actually also true in genetics. There is no such thing as an objectively "wrong" gene. It depends on selection pressures. In the case of music, the listener's mind is what does the selection. In genetics, it is the environment that selects.

[@Cather0n]

@@StatedClearly I get that, what I meant is that the framing of a dissonance in music as a "problem" could be misunderstood for a message like that. Maybe I´m digging into it too much, I do appreciate the answer on the comparison with genes (I think it´s a message a lot of people are not understanding nowadays). Anyway, cool video and thanks for the clarification!

[@paulsch2569]

great video

[@jasongose2975]

Well done.

[@kevinlobo2695]

6:05 You see this is not a mistake, this is how jazz evolved

[@JobvanderZwan]

One could probably force a not-terrible analogy between stuff like Coltrane's Giant Steps and evolutionary arms races

[@SciBugs]

We should do a kin selection theory video! The bees are such a good example but they're so complicated. Sisters should be 75% related to each other and theoretically are more related to each other than their mother (based on their weird sex determination where males come from unfertilized eggs) but in truth queen bees can mate multiple times when starting a new colony so they may be less related than our initial predictions.

[@canbalcioglu4229]

Is it correct to say: "the long barb of the bee's stinger is selected against?".. I'm confused about the terminology between 'selected for' and 'selected against' 🥺 your kind help will be highly appreciated. thank you for the amazing work👌

[@hareecionelson5875]

The video suggests that if we think of evolution from the individual perspective, we would expect barbed stingers to be 'selected against' (nature removes them from the population), because they reduce the chance of survival of the individual However, in the selfish gene perspective, we expect the barbed stinger to be 'selected for' (it is better to have a barbed stinger) because one bee's death could mean the survival and reproduction of thousands of suicide stinger genes. replication for the sake of replication, not for the sake of happy bees.

[@PurpleRhymesWithOrange]

Having children is hereditary. If your parents didn't have any it is unlikely you will.

[@flameone4705]

if your parents didn't have any you wouldn't exist lol

[@milad.nikzad]

@@flameone4705 r/woooosh

[@artificialconsciousness2789]

"... in each generation more individuals are often born into a specific environment than can ever possibly grow up and successfully have children of their own." Please could you state this a bit clearer so I fathom what Darwin observed. When you say 'individuals' do you mean more individual mutations? or do you mean more mutations that are individuals because they are locate in a specific area? Also, what does '... than can ever possibly grow up to have children of their own' have to 'more individuals'? Thanks for your help. Love your vids.

[@Doping1234]

In principle he fused two ideas: I:There exists variations of traits within populations that can be passed to the next generation (body size, beak shape, ect.). That was known since...well since humans existed. II: Maltheus theory on population dynamics (populations increase exponentially until they outstrip available resources which leads to population decline and back to start). Both ideas combined necessitate that traits advantageous to survive/reproduce would tend to become more numerous in the population while 'worse' traits tend to disappear - there you got natural selection. Extrapolating the idea over long time groups of individuals may find themselves isolated in environments that favor somewhat different traits, so other traits become numerous which at some point leads to speciation. If you want a deep dive into the history of evolutionary theory and ecology i can highly recommend David Quammens book, e.g. the song of the dodo.

[@wacwonnoff8575]

@@Doping1234 Thank you so much for your considerate and thorough response. However, I feel you misunderstand my query. The statement I quoted could in no way encapsulate the concept you convey. And if it does then I would really appreciate understanding how. Otherwise it's simply not clearly stated. I'm not trying to be clever or pedantic, it's simply a case that communication must be efficient and effective.

[@Doping1234]

@@wacwonnoff8575 Individual = One individual organism. Organisms may have mutations (more generally they have alleles, i.e. versions of genes) that influence their survival/reproductive fitness in the specific environment they live in. The rest is a description of the Malthusian crunch, that populations outgrow their resources which leads to decline.

[@wacwonnoff8575]

​@@Doping1234 I think ArtFish is trying to point out that the statement "... in each generation more individuals are often born into a specific environment than can ever possibly grow up and successfully have children of their own." does NOT convey what you are articulating. It may be jargon for all I know but I thought the whole point of this channel is to state things clearly.

[@lifewriter7455]

Fantastic Documentary. So this means that a human being is not in charge of its own life, it's the genes that make the decisions... And again; human sivilization is not a global transnational political and cultural community, but a giant swimming pool of egocentric genes. Absolutely Fabulous! 😎👍

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Exactly why this is proof that it's self-contradictory

[@buckrogers5331]

Very nice update on Dawkins work. I'm always of the mind there's a feedback or learning mechanism for the genes to evolve. Is epigenetics the answer to that? Could you do a Stated Clearly animation on that? Thanks in advance!

[@StatedClearly]

Heritable epigenetic changes (shifts in chromosome packing) can change selection pressures on DNA sequences, so... sort of. That said, heritable epigenetic changes are considered "genes" by some population geneticists. They often define a "gene" as stretch of chromosomal material. That would include the protein packaging surrounding DNA.

[@toddwinquist6528]

Note that in Dawkins preface to the Selfish Gene’s anniversary edition he writes that he could have called his book the cooperative gene. Cooperation is as important in evolution as competition (likely more important). The smallest organisms (monerans) require associations between hundreds of genes to even exist (even viruses are gene associations). These associations are how we now define and determine all the varied species. Important to remember as well, philosophically, as cut-throat capitalism (pure free-market economy) is often supported by the “objective truth” of the struggle for existence.

[@jdmj707]

Bro this got me mad at my genes for not caring that I’m here, like wth man I have feelings you know

[@StatedClearly]

Here's the video on gene definitions: Is this REALLY a gene? kzbin.info/www/bejne/momXk3eOmdeNr5Y

[@aravindswamy1636]

Every time I was waiting for your videos ... It's kinda interesting

[@VojtaMaur]

"Genes are the smallest things able to evolve" This sentence is actually not true since prions for example are much smaller and they also undergo natural selection...

[@vandana9174]

How many books have you read about evolution and Darwin till now.

[@ciroandreapecoraro3974]

Pls list them

[@nitishthakur4489]

Start with The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

[@garret1930]

I've read two, "The origin of Species" by Darwin, and "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins

[@TurinTuramber]

Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker are a good place to start.

[@niranjanpunnokkil5646]

The Greatest Show On Earth, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's tale. All by RD.

[@mr.teacher5602]

Fascinating

[@konn81]

nice video! i understand the example with the bees for which a colony is basically comprised of clones with the same genes. But for a human/mammal why does this hold? E.g., in the example of the wildogs, based on this gene centric definition shouldnt the uncle be competitive to the nieces because they dont have identical genes?

[@StatedClearly]

With wild dogs, their is succession. The breeding pair will eventually be replaced by what were subordinate individuals. The new breeding pair will have help from the entire group. I linked to a paper about this in video description.

[@TazPessle]

Never a lie at the end when they say "and that was [topic] stated clearly"

[@christopheb9221]

dont forget evolution is not a forward march toward perfection. mutations can not have any effect or even a slight negative effect but because of other circumstances is pasted on.

[@WorthlessWinner]

3:30 a lot of simpler organisms are like genes, bacteria and viruses not consciously choosing what they do

[@boglenight1551]

Ketone-Kun Well behaviour is deterministic anyway, so in a way, we all play by the rules of the game

[@WorthlessWinner]

@@boglenight1551 - i was initially gonna object, but you're right, we're just a more complicated piece of clockwork than viruses and bacteria

[@boglenight1551]

Ketone-Kun Exactly! And if you think about it, the idea of an multi-cellular organism is based on the idea of ignoring individual cells, but we’re much more like a community of cells with such high integration and levels of organisation and interaction that they function as a whole. Consider eusocial insects, like an ant colony, it functions as a whole, why do we consider ants individuals but our cells as parts of an individual?

[@MarkMetEenC]

@@boglenight1551 Because we've got one conciousness. Our brains feel as though they are one being, and so they're gonna act like they're one being damnit!

[@boglenight1551]

Marc Yeah but our consciousness could at least acknowledge that it’s neurone bound, when was the last time you felt like you live in a meat suit?

[@desmodus_rotunduss]

wow, I am amazed